Supporting Ansible as another tool for ovirt infra mgmt

[Nadav Goldin]

I think another point for consideration is the Puppet+Foreman support,
foreman doesn't support puppet 4 yet[1], but f23 runs only with puppet >4
agents, if that doesn't get fixed soon and we can't upgrade puppet to 4, we
will hit a big problem when we need to migrate more slaves to f23.

[1] http://projects.theforeman.org/issues/8447


On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Barak Korren <bkorren at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 3 April 2016 at 10:21, Eyal Edri <eedri at redhat.com> wrote:
> > I'd like to ask the team what do you think on $subject, in terms of pros
> &
> > cons.
> >
> > As you all know we have been using puppet to manage our production infra
> > (user access, server configuration,etc... ).
> >
> > Recently we started looking into migrating our mailman instance into new
> > hyper-kitty instance to run on the oVirt DC in PHX.
> > It seems that there is no true puppet classes available to install/manage
> > mailman3 but there is an Ansible playbook used / written by fedora to
> deploy
> > their instance.
> > So the question is should we start using/supporting Ansible as another
> tool
> > to manage our infra and leverage existing playbooks out there to reduce
> work
> > on migration of new services?
> > I'm not suggesting to migrate all puppet code into Ansible, but to allow
> > using Ansible when it make sense.
> >
> > Here is what I had in mind with regards to pro/cons:
> > Pros
> >
> > Saving time writing puppet classes for services (if Ansible playbook
> exists)
> > Bringing in new infra members which are interested in Ansbile (maybe
> publish
> > the team in the relevant communities)
> >
> >
> > Cons:
> >
> > Another tool to support/maintain
> > No real support to manage in foreman as we do for puppet (for sure not in
> > our old version)
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd love to hear your thoughts about it.
> >
>
> As I've already stated elsewhere Ansible is interesting for a number
> of reasons, but a dual-tool scenario will not be welcome IMO.
>
> There is also a lage question of the possibility of replacing Puppet
> with Ansible. Puppet is a continues configuration-management system
> that monitors servers for configuration drift and repairs it
> (deploying missing components in the process), to do that it supports
> a declarative language and a master/slave-agent architecture.
> The common Ansible usage scenario OTOH seems to be AFAIK a
> developer/op launching a deployment task from his laptop. For that
> Ansible supports a more imperative syntax and an SSH-based agent-less
> architecture.
>
> IMO, for long-running on-premise infrastructure (Not ad-hoc in "the
> cloud") which is what oVirt has and what what it targets, the drift
> monitoring approach is more suitable.
>
> Now, I've hared that that Ansible could also be deployed with agents
> and a central server (Tower? Foreman? something else?), but I'm not
> sure how mature that deployment scenario is right now, nor wither
> existing Ansible code fits that scenario.
>
>
> --
> Barak Korren
> bkorren at redhat.com
> RHEV-CI Team
> _______________________________________________
> Infra mailing list
> Infra at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/infra/attachments/20160403/7455f87a/attachment.html>