openstack team mailing list archive

[Rafael Durán Castañeda <rafadurancastaneda@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Bearing in mind I'm no really a Chef expert:

On 03/09/2012 04:58 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> Hi Stackers,
>
> Specifically, these are the questions I'd like to discuss and get 
> consensus on:
>
> 1) Do resources that set up non-production environments such as Swift 
> All-in-One belong in the OpenStack Chef upstream cookbooks?
I think this kind of recipes help a lot new stackers and I can't see any 
reason for not include them.
> 2) Should the cookbook be called "swift" instead of "swift-aio", with 
> the idea that the cookbook should be the top-most container of 
> resources involved with a specific project?
I think so
> 3) Is it possible to have a "swift" cookbook and have resources 
> underneath that allow a user to deploy either SAIO *or* into a 
> multi-node production environment? If so, would the best practice be 
> to create recipes for SAIO and recipes for each of the individual 
> Swift servers (proxy, object, etc) that would be used in a production 
> configuration?
I think if you split your cookbooks on small reusable components you can 
combine them so you get a SAIO, proxy, whatever.... with little or not 
extra effort
> 4) Instead of having an SAIO recipe in a swift cookbook, is it more 
> appropriate to make a Chef *role* called swift-aio that would have a 
> run list that contained a number of recipes in the swift cookbook for 
> all the Swift servers plus rsync, loopback, etc?
I think this is good practice. As I said before having small reusable 
components you can combine them getting all what you need, and probably 
the best place for combining them is roles. You can of course include 
smaller cookbooks into bigger ones and get the same result, but I prefer 
role based.

HTH,
Rafael