-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 475
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add the OpenStack UPI enhancement proposal #23
Merged
openshift-merge-robot
merged 1 commit into
openshift:master
from
tomassedovic:openstack-upi
Dec 11, 2019
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,325 @@ | ||
--- | ||
title: openstack-upi | ||
authors: | ||
- "@tomassedovic" | ||
reviewers: | ||
- "@mandre" | ||
- "@luis5tb" | ||
- "@wking" | ||
- "@cuppett" | ||
- "@iamemilio" | ||
approvers: | ||
- "@sdodson" | ||
- "@crawford" | ||
creation-date: 2019-09-10 | ||
last-updated: 2019-12-10 | ||
status: implementable | ||
--- | ||
|
||
# OpenStack UPI | ||
|
||
## Release Signoff Checklist | ||
|
||
- [x] Enhancement is `implementable` | ||
- [x] Design details are appropriately documented from clear requirements | ||
- [x] Test plan is defined | ||
- [x] Graduation criteria | ||
- [x] User-facing documentation is created in [openshift/docs] | ||
|
||
## Summary | ||
|
||
The initial OpenStack support for OpenShift 4 was around the | ||
installer-provisioned (IPI) workflow. While this is the most | ||
convenient approach for the end-users of OpenStack, there are | ||
situations where it falls short. The goal of IPI is to create the | ||
infrastructure elements (network, VMs) needed for installing | ||
OpenShift. In order to reuse pre-existing pieces of infrastructure | ||
instead, users have to either adapt the [bare metal][baremetal-upi] | ||
flow or translate concepts from the AWS documentation. | ||
|
||
Similar to AWS and GCP, we want to provide documentation and tooling | ||
for OpenStack specifically -- using what OpenStack users are familiar | ||
with, and highlighting considerations specific to that platform. | ||
|
||
## Motivation | ||
|
||
In addition to the general use cases supported by UPI (e.g. control | ||
over the creation of the resources of the cloud provider, custom | ||
Ignition configuration), there are additional reasons for having an | ||
OpenStack-specific UPI. | ||
|
||
First, unlike for completely hosted solutions such as AWS or GCP there | ||
is no single OpenStack. | ||
|
||
Some deployments are public clouds akin to AWS while others are only | ||
available within a single organisation, possibly disconnected from the | ||
internet. Moreover, the actual services and configuration can vary | ||
greatly between deployments. | ||
|
||
The OpenStack UPI should be able to support scenarios such as these: | ||
|
||
* Lack of Swift Object Storage (which we use for serving the bootstrap | ||
Ignition config as well as the registry storage) | ||
* No floating IP addresses (e.g. in deployments with provider | ||
networks) | ||
* Disconnected from the internet | ||
* Desire to integrate all traffic with a load balancer or DNS that | ||
already exists within the organisation running the OpenStack | ||
|
||
### Goals | ||
|
||
The goal of user-provisioned is to give users more freedom compared to | ||
installer-provisioned installation. | ||
|
||
However, this enhancement is deemed complete once the Installer codebase and | ||
documentation defines manual steps for achieving the equivalent of a regular | ||
IPI installation. Further adaptations can and should be added at a later stage, | ||
on the basis of this work. | ||
|
||
* OpenStack UPI documentation available under: | ||
https://github.com/openshift/installer/blob/master/docs/user/openstack/install_upi.md | ||
* Ansible playbooks for automating the OpenStack resource creation | ||
available under: | ||
https://github.com/openshift/installer/tree/master/upi/openstack | ||
* CI job executing these playbooks running wherever the AWS and GCP | ||
jobs run | ||
* Optional documentation and playbook sections for Kuryr | ||
|
||
### Non-Goals | ||
|
||
It is not a goal to detail install steps and provide tooling for each and every | ||
possible hardware and configuration permutation. | ||
|
||
In particular, it is not the goal of the initial implementation to support: | ||
* Octavia as load balancer | ||
* Designate as DNS | ||
* custom storage integration | ||
|
||
## Proposal | ||
|
||
This is where we get down to the nitty gritty of what the proposal | ||
actually is. | ||
|
||
* Write the Ansible playbook that automate the OpenStack resource | ||
creation (networks, subnets, ports, servers, etc.) | ||
* Add the Ansible dependencies to the OpenStack CI image | ||
* Write the UPI document, linking the Ansible templates | ||
* Create an UPI job in the [Release repository][openshift-release] | ||
* Add Kuryr documentation and playbooks as an optional SDN alternative | ||
|
||
### User Stories | ||
|
||
#### Deployment without Swift | ||
|
||
In OpenStack systems without Swift and the `tempurl` support, the IPI | ||
deployment will fail when it tries to upload the bootstrap ignition | ||
file to the object store. We can use UPI to generate the Ignition | ||
configs separately, uploading them to a different location and | ||
configuring the servers that way. | ||
|
||
The person following the UPI process could upload the bootstrap | ||
ignition into any other location and specify that URL when booting up | ||
the bootstrap node: | ||
|
||
1. Create `install-config.yaml`, `manifests` and `ignition-configs` | ||
1. Upload the bootstrap Ignition config file to a location accessible | ||
by the OpenStack servers you are going to create | ||
* This can be an internal object storage service, a local HTTP server, etc. | ||
1. Run the UPI Ansible playbooks that create the networking, security | ||
groups and create OpenStack servers following the UPI documentation | ||
1. After all the servers boot up, feel free to remove the Ignition | ||
configs | ||
|
||
|
||
#### Deployment without Floating IP addresses | ||
|
||
If the OpenStack cloud uses [provider networks][provider-networks] any | ||
server (VM) created is already accessible via its fixed IP address and | ||
tenant networks, subnets and floating IP addresses might not even be | ||
available. | ||
|
||
The IPI installation would fail trying to create these. | ||
|
||
A UPI process would get around this by simply not creating these and | ||
relying on the fact that everything is networked already: | ||
|
||
1. Create `install-config.yaml`, `manifests` and `ignition-configs` | ||
1. Modify the Ansible playbooks to not create tenant networks, subnets | ||
or floating IP addresses | ||
1. Upload the boostrap Ignition file to Swift or any other HTTP | ||
storage available to the servers | ||
1. Run the modified Ansible playbooks | ||
|
||
|
||
### Implementation Details/Notes/Constraints | ||
|
||
#### Scope | ||
|
||
The UPI implementation covered here will mirror the existing OpenStack | ||
IPI deployment (with and without Kuryr). The initial goal is to | ||
approach feature parity with IPI. | ||
|
||
It will point out places where the OpenShift administrator can specify | ||
their custom configuration, but any specific steps, customisation or | ||
automation not supported by IPI are out of scope for this effort. | ||
|
||
For the initial implementation, the only network topology being tested | ||
will be a typical vxlan-based tenant network setup. In other words, | ||
OpenStack end-users will create their own Neutron networks and subnets | ||
and provide external access via Neutron routers and Floating IP | ||
addresses. | ||
|
||
Any other topologies (explicit spine and leaf, flat provider networks, | ||
etc.) will not be described or tested initially. | ||
|
||
#### Automation | ||
|
||
The automation for the OpenStack resource creation (networks, subnets | ||
, ports, servers, security group etc.) will be provided via Ansible | ||
playbooks. | ||
|
||
The AWS UPI uses CloudFormation. While OpenStack has a similar project | ||
(called Heat), a lot of existing OpenStack deployments do not run it. | ||
It needs to be set up by the OpenStack operators and if it's not | ||
available, there's nothing the end-user can do about it. | ||
|
||
Ansible is a tool system administrators already tend to be familiar | ||
with and it does not depend on any projects or code running inside of | ||
OpenStack itself. | ||
|
||
#### Kuryr | ||
|
||
Just like in OpenStack IPI, Kuryr is an SDN that can be optionally | ||
used to improve the networking performance of pod to pod traffic. | ||
|
||
It is something the OpenShift deployer needs to opt into, but it is in | ||
scope for this enhancement. | ||
|
||
We will provide Ansible templates to create the extra resources Kuryr | ||
requires, document the steps necessary to enable it as well as the | ||
extra dependencies and quota requirements. | ||
|
||
### Risks and Mitigations | ||
|
||
The UPI work will mirror the IPI process closely, just with | ||
documentation and Ansible instead of fully-automated process done by | ||
the installer. As such, we do not anticipate any specific risks or | ||
mitigations connected to the UPI process itself. | ||
|
||
Running it in the CI does pose additional risks, however. | ||
|
||
The OpenStack cloud which hosts the CI has a limited capacity | ||
available to us. Adding additional jobs can run over that capacity and | ||
might require increasing the quota (which is something the OpenStack | ||
team was granted in the past, but we cannot take it for granted). | ||
|
||
This will be exacerbated by the potential addition of Kuryr CI (IPI | ||
and UPI) as Kuryr creates vastly more networks, subnets as well as a | ||
number of load balancers. | ||
|
||
In addition, any future work that aims to extend the UPI by e.g. | ||
integrating with OpenStack configurations or projects might require | ||
additional quota or features that the current OpenStack CI provider | ||
does not provide. | ||
|
||
## Design Details | ||
|
||
### Test Plan | ||
|
||
In general, the testing strategy should follow the existing UPI | ||
platforms (e.g. AWS, GCP): | ||
|
||
- There will be a new e2e job exercising the UPI Ansible templates | ||
- This proposal does not expect making changes to the existing | ||
codebase so there is no expectation of unit tests. If we do end up | ||
making changes, we will add unit tests as appropriate. | ||
|
||
### Graduation Criteria | ||
|
||
The UPI process in general is well-understood and the OpenStack | ||
platform is not proposing to do anything special. As such, we propose | ||
to `GA` when CI end to end jobs exist and feedback is positive from | ||
the CI, QE and people trying it. | ||
|
||
More specifically: | ||
|
||
- The UPI document is published in an OpenShift repository | ||
- The OpenStack developers have successfully deployed an UPI OpenShift | ||
following the document | ||
- The UPI document and Ansible playbooks exist | ||
- They have both been validated by more than one developer | ||
- The deployment has been verified on more than one OpenStack cloud | ||
- The CI jobs exist and are being exercised regularly | ||
- The end to end jobs are stable and passing with the required rate | ||
(same as the IPI jobs) | ||
- The UPI deployment process has been followed by people outside of | ||
the development team | ||
|
||
We intend to target General Availability in the 4.4 release. | ||
|
||
### Upgrade Strategy | ||
|
||
Upgrades that will not require changes to the underlying topology of | ||
the OpenStack resources should rely on standard OpenShift upgrade | ||
mechanisms. | ||
|
||
If a new OpenShift release does require changes to the OpenStack | ||
resources (e.g. a new Neutron subnet, additional ports, etc.) these | ||
changes will have to be added into the UPI document and OpenShift | ||
errata. | ||
|
||
We will attempt to provide adequate upgrade testing in the CI | ||
(focusing form the one-before-last to the latest upgrade), but this | ||
might be limited by the availability of the CI resources. | ||
|
||
## Implementation History | ||
|
||
Major milestones in the life cycle of a proposal should be tracked in | ||
`Implementation History`. | ||
|
||
## Drawbacks | ||
|
||
Implementing this feature requires development and testing resources | ||
that could otherwise be utilised elsewhere. In addition, it increases | ||
the support surface of the OpenShift and OpenStack integration. | ||
|
||
## Alternatives | ||
|
||
### Don't Do It | ||
|
||
People whose use-cases are not covered by OpenStack IPI can follow the | ||
Bare Metal UPI document. The drawback of this approach is the extra | ||
work on part of the person deploying OpenShift. | ||
|
||
They will need to figure the OpenStack-specific parts on their own and | ||
there will be no automation in place to help them out. | ||
|
||
### Extend the OpenStack IPI support | ||
|
||
We could identify the most common use cases that drive OpenStack users | ||
towards UPI and add them to the IPI installer. | ||
|
||
This would likely increase the amount of configuration options we need | ||
to support (going against the IPI spirit of using only the absolute | ||
minimum configuration necessary). | ||
|
||
In addition, this approach can be taken in addition to the UPI work -- | ||
by providing the UPI documentation and scripts we can look for common | ||
usage patterns and consider including them in the IPI installer on a | ||
case by case basis. | ||
|
||
|
||
## Infrastructure Needed | ||
|
||
The OpenStack developers have all the infrastructure they need right | ||
now. The same OpenStack clouds used for the IPI development can be | ||
used for UPI as well. | ||
|
||
Depending on the CI resource usage, they might need to add additional | ||
quota. In addition, any subsequent integrations of additional | ||
projects, storage solutions etc. will require infrastructure that | ||
supports them -- both for dev and CI. | ||
|
||
[baremetal-upi]: https://github.com/openshift/installer/blob/master/docs/user/metal/install_upi.md | ||
[openshift-release]: https://github.com/openshift/release/ | ||
[provider-networks]: https://docs.openstack.org/networking-ovn/queens/admin/refarch/provider-networks.html |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The contents of installer/upi are not shipped in any artifacts today. You'll notice that th AWS templates are actually copied and pasted into documentation. ex: https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.2/installing/installing_aws_user_infra/installing-aws-user-infra.html#installation-cloudformation-vpc_installing-aws-user-infra
Are we going to be doing the same or does there need to be some new artifact which contains these files?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The idea is to ship the playbooks as documentation (having them in the installer repo will come handy for testing them in the CI). That's in our backlog. Should I amend the RFE to mention that intention?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, that's fine. I'd just suggest keeping that in mind when developing them as it will be somewhat limiting in how you structure things.