[Users] [vdsm] [ATTENTION] vdsm-bootstrap/host deployment (pre-3.2)

[Dan Kenigsberg]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 09:45:17AM -0500, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 08:59:10AM -0500, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > Hello All,
> > > 
> > > Preparing to ovirt-engine 3.2 the entire "vdsm-bootstrap" bootstrap
> > > was re-written from scratch into more pluggable and flexible
> > > implementation, available at git master and nightly snapshots.
> > > 
> > > As far as packaging is concerned there are now two more
> > > dependencies to ovirt-engine:
> > > 
> > >  * otopi -- oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
> > >  * ovirt-host-deploy -- oVirt host deploy tool
> > > 
> > > These packages replace the legacy vdsm-bootstrap package that was
> > > distributed with vdsm.
> > 
> > Hurray!
> > 
> > I suspect that a `git-rm vds_bootstrap/*` is pending?
> 
> No... we need it as compatibility with older engines...
> We keep minimum changes there for legacy, until end-of-life.

Is there an EoL statement for oVirt-3.1?
We can make sure that oVirt-3.2's vdsm installs properly with
ovirt-3.1's vdsm-bootstrap, or even require that Engine must be upgraded
to ovirt-3.2 before upgrading any of the hosts. Is it too harsh to our
vast install base?  users at ovirt.org, please chime in!

> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Git repositories are available at at[1][2].
> > > Documentation is available at Git repositories - README*.
> > > Builds are available at usual place[3].
> > > Bugzilla components will be available shortly.
> > 
> > Are there requests to add the components to Fedora (18, EPEL6)?
> > I think we should add these requests as blockers for Bug 881006 -
> > Tracker: oVirt 3.2 release.
> 
> Yes, I am on this one.
> 
> > 
> > > Change log is attached.
> > > 
> > > There is no change in the way the engine is performing the host
> > > deployment process in term of user experience, other than event log
> > > messages during deployment were improved.
> > > 
> > > The log of the deployment is fetched from host and stored at engine
> > > machine at /var/log/ovirt-engine/host-deploy, on host it is at
> > > /tmp/ovirt-host-deploy*.log and deleted when fetched to engine.
> > > 
> > > Among other features, the ovir-host-deploy package can be installed
> > > manually on host and executed to prepare host for installation, in
> > > future we may be able to add host to engine without performing the
> > > deployment process, for now it will be usable for integration
> > > tests.
> > > 
> > > The internals are completely different, instead of having 3
> > > different
> > > bootstrap sequences:
> > >  1. host install
> > >  2. ovirt-node install
> > >  3. ovirt-node approve
> > > 
> > > We now have single sequence which is common to host and node
> > > installation or re-installation, end result is much simpler
> > > implementation.
> > > 
> > > Please report any issues even minor issues, so we can stabilize it
> > > for
> > > 3.2 release.
> > > 
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Alon Bar-Lev.
> > > 
> > > [1] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=otopi.git;a=tree
> > > [2] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-host-deploy.git;a=tree
> > > [3] http://www.ovirt.org/releases/nightly/rpm/Fedora/17/noarch/
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Change Log
> > > 
> > >  * offline packager feature.
> > > 
> > >  * tuned is installed with virtual-host profile.
> > 
> > I never understood why this is an installer step, and not part of
> > vdsmd
> > start up
> 
> There may be several method to tune a machine.
> Why VDSM should depend on specific one?

Maybe because I tend to install vdsm using `yum`, and would like it to
do The Right Thing to make the host an oVirt node. I suspect that if ovirt-host-deploy
proves to be easy to use, I could follow my `yum install vdsm` with
`ovirt-host-deploy`.

> 
> > 
> > >  * initial implementation based on otpoi.
> > > 
> > >  * implementation is based on legacy vdsm-bootstrap pacakge
> > >  functionality.
> > > 
> > >  * legacy-removed: legacy VDSM (<3.0) config upgrade.
> > > 
> > >  * legacy-removed: change machine width core file
> > >   # echo /var/lib/vdsm/core > /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern
> > 
> > Yeah, qemu-kvm and libvirtd are much more stable than in the old
> > days,
> > but wouldn't we want to keep a means to collect the corpses of dead
> > processes from hypervisors? It has helped us nail down nasty bugs,
> > even
> > in Python.
> 
> It does not mean it should be at /var/lib/vdsm ... :)

I don't get the joke :-(. If you mind the location, we can think of
somewhere else to put the core dumps. Would it be hard to reinstate a
parallel feature in otopi?


> > 
> > 
> > Alon, thanks for your tremendous work on this. I cannot wait to have
> > it
> > up and running in the release.
> 
> Thank you!
> I truly hope that from this point we can only make it better.

Do you mean that we've reached rock bottom? ;-)