RFC: Ubuntu HA resource-agents supportability
Rafael David Tinoco
rafaeldtinoco at ubuntu.com
Fri Apr 3 14:52:57 UTC 2020
> I added a few comments below but I must admit that I didn't completely
> get what you want.
I'm sorry then, let me try to explain better...
> The list includes so many things, what are you expecting:
> - if they are important overall?
> - if they are important for HA cases?
> - if they should be promoted/demoted in their support level?
The list includes (1) HA packages and (2) HA related packages. This initial package list was informative only and supposed to get feedback about missing HA packages (like haproxy, for example) OR HA packages that should be fully supported (in [main]) instead.
In that sense I got feedback from @freyes and @sabdfl about keepalived being considered as "deprecated": Felipe told me there is a important dependency for openstack, Mark suggested me to check on the snap coming directly from upstream after he started an initial snap (I'll check this for 20.10).
For the other half of the e-mail.. it listed "so many things" because it listed "all resource agents" pacemaker supports (yes, it is a *lot*). And it is even more.. since it supports all "sysv services" and "systemd units" you have installed (but then agents are *generic*, without specialization for particular service, or supporting multiple instances).
In the resource agents list... I used some terms that are mostly used by support organization, specially to get feedback from them about this (I had CC Dan before).
What I had in mind was:
1) FULLY SUPPORTED - Pacemaker Resource Agents that depend on packages in [main]. The resource agents should be *fully supported* like the packages are: they are fully supported by Ubuntu Advantage & have higher importance to us in LP (server team is subscribed to all server seeded pkgs, for example).
2) BEST EFFORT SUPPORT - Pacemaker Resource Agents that depend on packages in [universe]. The resource agents should be supported as *best effort attempt* like the packages in [universe] are: They are supported as "best effort attempt" by Ubuntu Advantage & have less importance to LP (mostly driven by MOTU or specific bugs impacting too many people).
3) COMMUNITY SUPPORT - In this category I placed Pacemaker Resource Agents done by 3rd party for their specific products or solutions. We, as community, could forward any bug opened against these agents to upstream project and sync LP if needed... or even check if "resource-agents" upstream has a fix for it.. but it could be difficult to debug without upstream involvement.
4) UNSUPPORTED - Pacemaker Resource Agents done for products that aren't supported in Ubuntu Linux (Oracle, Sybase, SAP, ...)
5) DEPRECATED - Pacemaker Agents that are deprecated and should not be used.
> - are you asking that for the packages/features themself or only for
> their HA support?
I'm adapting "resource-agents" resource to its core package (or dependency) and not the opposite. Example: If resource agent was made for *squid* and *squid* is in [main], then I should consider the *squid resource agent* as being fully supported.
> (e.g. does LVM being listed mean "is LVM important" or "do we need
> an HA resource agent for LVM")
It only means that for the "HA related packages" I'll probably be helping to solve bugs because they are important to HA. But nothing to do with my original email intent, so you can skip that list.
> To be clear I love and appreciate all the things you already fixed up
> in the HA space for Ubuntu 20.04.
> And I'd want to help going forward, but myself and probably others
> might be lost here.
I hope it was clarified now.
> Could you break these community questions into smaller chunks
> and clearly outline the questions that you ask the people to answer?
> Maybe this is worth an entire discourse sub-category where multiple
> entries would help to split things?
> If you'd like that you could prep it there and test-run with a few
> people to comment there.
> Edit/Improve the topic/questions based on that and then send a mail
> again to the list here with a TL;DR and a list of link-per-topic.
> What do you think?
The *discourse* part was going to be a second phase in my head... to document whatever we have discussed here, but maybe my long e-mail scared people =).
If discourse is the way to go, then I think I prefer finishing up the HA documentation for 20.04 with all my pre-concepts and then do what you suggest: I don't think there will be much feedback either way.
> > # containers
> > docker - docker container resource agent
> Umm, this one is a bit more complex.
> There is runc/containerd which provide the same but are supported.
> You should punt docket down to community support and replace this
> entry here with runc/containerd.
> > Xen - xen unprivileged domains
> Xen is on community support level, so you likely want to move this one
> category up.
Thanks a lot for the careful review!
More information about the ubuntu-devel