fuel-dev team mailing list archive

[Vladimir Kuklin <vkuklin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew, Dmitry N,

Firstly, 3.10-lt kernel is an LTS kernel supported by Linux Foundation,
this is not a piece of some short-term supported code. Moreover, this
kernel has a support of much more hardware as it is not so ancient as
2.6.32 kernel is. We've already experienced issues with hardware
unsupported by 2.6.32 kernel. This makes our users pretty unhappy, that
they cannot use their newer hardware, even though it is supported by 3.10
and Ubuntu 3.x kernels. Thus, changing bootstrap kernel allows users to use
their newer hardware without breaking things as user is still able to
choose the kernel for main OS installation. Thus we faced the fact that we
need either to provide bootstrap with the newest LTS kernel or create
several bootstrap images, which looks much more complicated. We chose the
compromise. This is obviously a mistake, that we did not dicsuss this in
this ML. So, if you have any objections and you think that we should revert
this change, please, provide you arguments. In my opinion, changing only
the bootstrap image kernel is not a big deal.




On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Dmitriy Novakovskiy <
dnovakovskiy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> +1 to Andrew's points. I've also been dealing with a bulk of vendors' pain
> - plugins (Cinder, Neutron) not working properly due to our CentOS being
> not actually CentOS (kernel+qemu versions).
>
> ---
> Regards,
> Dmitriy
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Andrew Woodward <xarses@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> Right now master node has 2.6 kernel, bootstrap has 3.10 and target node
>>> has an option in settings with 2.6 kernel as default.
>>
>>
>> WHAT? Why is the bootstrap 3.10 already? I already spoke to the issues
>> that some users have had about this. This should have been discussed on the
>> ML before making a change like this.
>>
>> First off, I'm sorry but making the 3.10 the default kernel for our
>> "CentOS 6.x" installs inherently makes it NOT CentOS, it becomes Fedora 18.
>> If we are going to do this, then we might as well switch from CentOS base
>> to a proper Fedora base. At the same time, making 3.10 the default kernel
>> impacts vendor support. Vendors that might have supported CentOS 6.x now
>> wont. I've already been in on a conversation with with a user, and
>> separately two vendors that are having a hard time using our "CentOS"
>> because we don't have a stock kernel. This removes support-ability from the
>> list of reasons to use CentOS, which is one of the core reasons I've seen
>> organizations select it.
>>
>> Second, what is the goal here?
>>
>> * if we are trying reduce issues from master -> bootstrap -> target node?
>> switching kernel around? If this is the case then we really should just
>> change master and bootstrap to Ubuntu (which I've been considering raising
>> anyways).
>>
>> * If we are trying to reduce the OVS issues (or other old kernel issues),
>> then the current workup is correct, the user should have to explicitly
>> choose a kernel that wasn't part of the base distribution, this is
>> important as is must be their choice and not default to enter into a mode
>> that reduces their support.
>>
>> * If we are trying to get CentOS to a more modern kernel, then we really
>> just have to wait for CentOS 7 otherwise we are really better off tracking
>> Fedora instead of CentOS
>>
>> Third, this is changing our user story of "No vendor lock-in" to "You're
>> stuck with Mirantis". We really need to take a step back an evaluate where
>> we are going. If we want to maintain our on proprietary distro then we need
>> to stop beating around and do it, and do it well. If we are going to fight
>> vendor lock-in, then we need to be more cautions about what distro packages
>> we are modifying and why. We also need to not replace distro packages but
>> instead maintain a clean distro repos and a MOS repo, this will grant us a
>> clear line of what we are doing and better allow others to participate
>> (like bringing in other distros, vendor compatibility, and others)
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Matthew Mosesohn <mmosesohn@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I propose that since we do kernel-lt 3.10.30 as a default for installs
>>> and bootstrap, we should default to it for Fuel master node as well.
>>> I believe we should keep the 2.6.32 kernel around just in case there
>>> is a regression in using the newer kernel, but maybe we can drop it
>>> after a release cycle or two if there are no major issues.
>>>
>>> The build tiem option I mentioned to you would be to optionally
>>> generate a bootstrap image with the 2.6.32 kernel during ISO build. It
>>> isn't likely we will need to build it, but it should be easy to swap
>>> back if the need arises.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Dmitry Pyzhov <dpyzhov@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Guys,
>>> >
>>> > we have two kernels: default 2.6.32 and kernel-lt 3.10.30. And we have
>>> three
>>> > types of CentOS nodes: master node, bootstrap, target node.
>>> >
>>> > Right now master node has 2.6 kernel, bootstrap has 3.10 and target
>>> node has
>>> > an option in settings with 2.6 kernel as default.
>>> >
>>> > There is a suggestion from our team members to use 3.10 kernel
>>> everywhere
>>> > and add build-time option for 2.6.
>>> >
>>> > Any concerns?
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
>>> > Post to     : fuel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
>>> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
>>> Post to     : fuel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andrew
>> Mirantis
>> Ceph community
>>
>> --
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
>> Post to     : fuel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
> Post to     : fuel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>


-- 
Yours Faithfully,
Vladimir Kuklin,
Fuel Library Tech Lead,
Mirantis, Inc.
+7 (495) 640-49-04
+7 (926) 702-39-68
Skype kuklinvv
45bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str.
Moscow, Russia,
www.mirantis.com <http://www.mirantis.ru/>
www.mirantis.ru
vkuklin@xxxxxxxxxxxx