On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 11:17 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 12:07:47 +0100
Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou(a)pingoured.fr> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 11:06:30AM +1100, Graham Williamson wrote:
> There will likely be some overlap, but do you think we could generate
> a similar table for service rather than host.
> Like which applications remain to be port to ansible (bodhi is done,
> fedocal is done, fedmsg is done, glusterfs is done, but is
> mirrormanager?, fas?, koji?).
Some of these updated. I will be able to finish
this off this afternoon
> Just an idea :)
Yeah, I agree that an application table would be good. ;)
Perhaps we can use https://apps.fedoraproject.org/
's config to
generate this list and then update from there?
Some hosts also we will NOT be migrating. In particular the app
servers. Under our old model we had a pool of app servers that they ran
every app. The new model we are moving to is that each app has it's own
instances. This results in more instances at the end, but it means when
one app is having issues it likely won't affect other apps and we can
much more easily isolate what the problem is without the noise of all
the other apps in the mix. So, we can stick a "N/A" on all the app
A few other notes:
* openid* have been replaced by fedoauth* (already in ansible).
* bvirthost02/03 have nothing on them and are going to be repurposed,
so they can be dropped from the list.
great stuff... thanks for working on it.
infrastructure mailing list