Draft of new configuration files for Fusion HCI provider client solution #8823
Conversation
Signed-off-by: suchita-g <[email protected]>
suchita-g
requested review from
fbalak,
ebenahar,
ebondare and
DanielOsypenko
Signed-off-by: suchita-g <[email protected]>
suchita-g
force-pushed
the
fusion_hci_configs
branch
from
e775a45 to
23b2174
Compare
pull-request-size
bot
added
size/M
suchita-g
force-pushed
the
fusion_hci_configs
branch
from
bd44822 to
35037c2
Compare
…w.yaml This is renamed with client Signed-off-by: suchita-g <[email protected]>
suchita-g
force-pushed
the
fusion_hci_configs
branch
from
35037c2 to
32a2be0
Compare
| allow_lower_instance_requirements: false | ||
| local_storage: true | ||
| ENV_DATA: | ||
| platform: 'baremetal' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we use baremetal as platform? The deployment automation will differ from what we have for baremetal afaiu. Maybe we should introduce a new platform for fusion hci.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The base platform/hardware where we can use to deploy this setup can be
- vsphere
- IBM BM instances
- baremetal
So for deployment we need either of above and that specific configuration then HCP/HCI specific configuration we need to update in above draft. I am using the baremetal hardware on which this setup is deployed so just added this 2 configuration
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I still think that this attribute should be different because based on this is selected installation class and platform specific checks. This will be different from standard baremetal deployment but we can keep it for now and change it when needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Filip has a point.
If set to baremetal here it could cause certain conditions in ocs-ci to be met.
Here is an example
ocs-ci/ocs_ci/ocs/platform_nodes.py
Line 84 in 1e93e43
conf/deployment/fusion_hci_pc/client_bm_upi_1az_rhcos_nvme_3m_3w.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
suchita-g
force-pushed
the
fusion_hci_configs
branch
from
e3f8a8f to
59b7f1c
Compare
Signed-off-by: suchita-g <[email protected]>
suchita-g
force-pushed
the
fusion_hci_configs
branch
from
59b7f1c to
8aea262
Compare
Signed-off-by: suchita-g <[email protected]>
| allow_lower_instance_requirements: false | ||
| local_storage: true | ||
| ENV_DATA: | ||
| platform: 'baremetal' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I still think that this attribute should be different because based on this is selected installation class and platform specific checks. This will be different from standard baremetal deployment but we can keep it for now and change it when needed.
| cluster_namespace: "openshift-storage-client" | ||
| deployment_type: 'upi' | ||
| worker_replicas: 3 | ||
| master_replicas: 3 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we indeed have 3 masters? I remember it was mentioned that the node types differ on Fusion HCI from regular 3+3 deployment
| allow_lower_instance_requirements: false | ||
| local_storage: true | ||
| ENV_DATA: | ||
| platform: 'baremetal' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same comment regarding BM
suchita-g
force-pushed
the
fusion_hci_configs
branch
from
03d802c to
3b36c69
Compare
suchita-g
force-pushed
the
fusion_hci_configs
branch
from
3b36c69 to
f3d76a3
Compare
Signed-off-by: suchita-g <[email protected]>
suchita-g
force-pushed
the
fusion_hci_configs
branch
from
f3d76a3 to
0c01df3
Compare
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ebenahar, ebondare, fbalak, suchita-g The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
No description provided.