On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 10:05:22 +0100 Miroslav Suchý <msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 02/05/2015 01:13 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Could we instead call it 'openstack.cloud.fedoraproject.org' or > > 'controller.cloud.fedoraproject.org' or something? Not sure if that > > needs us to rename/reinstall the node, or can just be done in the > > cert... > > It can be just cname + name in cert. Reinstall is quite fast with > ansible, that is no problem. I automated all but one workaround > (there is still usually need one reboot). Sure, true. > > Along those same lines, how about we move the existing host > > playbooks to a group/openstack-controller.yml (currently just > > fed-cloud09, but I'd like to see if we can allocate one machine > > moving forward to be our test for the 'next' openstack) and > > group/openstack-compute.yml (fed-cloud10/11, but some more will be > > installed next week) to make them more generic and ready for more > > nodes? > > Compute node is already in roles/cloud_compute/tasks/main.yml so > migration to groups should be easy (not my priority thou). Sure. Just makes more sense to me. > I see no > benefits in migrating controller playbook to group or roles. It is > only one. I +1 to controller-next instance, because upgrade of > OpenStack is not supported. However those playbook will be quite > different and it does not have sense to have them in one playbook > with "when" directives. Good point. So how about: hosts/fed-cloud09.cloud.fedoraproject.org.yml -> hosts-> openstack-icehouse-controller.yml hosts/fed-cloud* -> groups/openstack-icehouse-compute.yml Of course this is all just somewhat cosmetic. I just wanted to do it before we added more compute nodes. kevin
Attachment:
pgpqi8JLK79ox.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
