[lago-devel] Lago Ansible Inventory Script

[Yaniv Kaul]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri at redhat.com> wrote:

> +1 from me as well.
> We are also thinking on moving existing bash deploy scripts we're using
> with ovirt-system-tests (running on Lago) with existing Ansible playbooks
> to install ovirt instead,
> though not sure its the same purpose as yours.
>

A bit more into the future - I don't think there's an immediate benefit to
this right now - all provisioning is stable and should not have a lot of
changes that we foresee.
I do agree that once we have Ansible playbooks for installation
(hosted-engine specifically), we may want to think of moving to use it - in
order to exercise it.

In addition, we may (some day) want to think of using it for the storage
provisioning (although again right now it's good and solid).

I'd like to add more services, and FreeIPA and Foreman+Katello are right on
the list there - they should be probably be installed via Ansible already.

Lastly, we need Gluster, which obviously should use gdeploy. My
(incomplete) patch[1] does use it.
Y.

[1] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/57283/

>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Eric Helms <ehelms at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Barak Korren <bkorren at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15 June 2016 at 15:41, Eric Helms <ehelms at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Barak Korren <bkorren at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> See [1] for official reference. Instead of writing a static
>>> inventory
>>> >> >> script of hostnames, IPs and groupings Ansible allows writing a
>>> script
>>> >> >> to
>>> >> >> be run that produces that information dynamically.
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Ah ok. I failed to realise that was in the Ansible context.
>>> >>
>>> >> +1 from me as well.
>>> >> Could we also assign server roles/Ansible variable from the Lago YAML?
>>> >> Would we want to?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > You could/can and that would depend on how we write the inventory
>>> script.
>>> > Currently my script will parse out group assignments from the
>>> metadata. This
>>> > would probably be clearer seeing the source code and an example. Would
>>> > opening an issue with be best? Or a pull request with an example
>>> output to
>>> > then decide where the script should live?
>>> >
>>>
>>> I'd say start with an issue.
>>> WRT to where will that live, would an output format plugin for 'Lago
>>> status' be a reasonable place for this?
>>>
>>>
>> Created https://github.com/lago-project/lago/issues/281 with some sample
>> output, template info and the source code at the bottom for perusal.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Barak Korren
>>> bkorren at redhat.com
>>> RHEV-CI Team
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lago-devel mailing list
>> lago-devel at ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/lago-devel
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Eyal Edri
> Associate Manager
> RHEV DevOps
> EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
> Red Hat Israel
>
> phone: +972-9-7692018
> irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
>
> _______________________________________________
> lago-devel mailing list
> lago-devel at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/lago-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/lago-devel/attachments/20160616/a78a5423/attachment-0001.html>