Let's Consider Having Three Separated Environments in Infra

Hello All. This is a follow up to the meeting minutes. Just to record my thoughts to consider during the actual design. To make it straight. I think we need to target creation of 3 (yes, three) independent and completely similar setups with as less shared parts as possible. If we choose to go with reliability on service level than we do need 3 because: 1. If we mess up with one environment (e,g, storage will be completely dead there) we will have 2 left working that gives us a reliability still because one of them can fail. So it will move us out of crunch mode into the regular work mode. 2. All consensus based algorithms generally require at least 2N+1 instances unless they utilize some special mode. The lowest is N=1 that is 3 and it would make sense to distribute them into different environments. I know the concern for having even 2 envs was that we will spend more effort to maintain them. But I think the opposite is true. Having 3 is actually less effort to maintain if we make them similar because of: 1. We can do gradual canary update, Same as with failure. You can test update on 1 instance leaving 2 left running that still provides reliability. So upgrade is no longer time constrained and safe. 2. If environments are similar then once we establish the correct playbook for one we can just apply it for second and later for third. So this overhead is not tripled in fact and if automated than it is no additional effort at all. 3. We are more open to test and play with one. We can even destroy it recreate from scratch, etc. Indirectly this will reduce our effort. I think the only real problem with it is the initial step when we should design an ideal hardware and network layout for that. But once it is done it will be easier to go with 3 environments. Also it may be possible to design the plan the way that we start with just one and later convert it into three. Anton. -- Anton Marchukov Senior Software Engineer - RHEV CI - Red Hat