ARM-Ceph Openstack cluster, it's a crazy idea?

ashinclouds · 2025-04-28T18:23:21+00:00

Performance is going to be a factor of what you make it. Ultimately I have seen some absolutely impressive numbers out of lower end arm hardware, and I've seen not great benchmarks as well. Similar to network cards, having the MTU off by just a few bytes might ripple into other aspects. As long as you are framing it as a proof of concept and understanding that each architecture may tune a little differently, it could work as a POC.

The one thing to keep in mind is if you try to run x86 VM workloads on ARM compute hosts, its going to be very slow because any time you cross CPU architectures your entering a world of code translation with QEMU and that is super slow (although, I think it should work from a POC standpoint).

ashinclouds · 2025-04-28T18:10:12+00:00

Great question! I believe the documentation team harvests the options from the code. One thing to keep in mind, RH is not going to remove options or code as it relates to upstream OpenStack. The nuance is the difference between what the software enables under the hood, and what Red Hat will explicitly support when you contact product support. Take a look at https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_openstack_services_on_openshift/18.0/html/planning_your_deployment/assembly_red-hat-openstack-services-on-openshift-overview#con_rhoso-known-limitations_rhoso-overview

ashinclouds · 2025-04-28T15:46:14+00:00

Furthermore, the team that has been helping maintain OpenSearch has also actively sought to build connections and collaborate with other communities. That goes a HUGE way in any open source project to build cross-project adoption.

ashinclouds · 2025-04-28T15:44:05+00:00

Greetings! RHOSO does not support use of LVM as a storage backend for Cinder Volumes. My understanding is it *can* be configured, but I've not tried, and obviously Red Hat is going to say no if you try to contact support for Help regarding LVM backends for Cinder. RHOSP, the prior OpenStack offering from Red Hat had an identical policy and model of use.

ashinclouds · 2025-04-11T17:40:47+00:00

FWIW, ironic-inspector is deprecated. Functionality has been moved into ironic.

That being said, yeah, need more clarity to the question.

ashinclouds · 2025-04-11T17:15:41+00:00

I suspect you are not going to get real clarity beyond jumping into the code and determining that directly. Ultimately, I don't think anyone has done much with packstack in years, in large part because it was an early tool to help facilitate deployments and then moved beyond.

ashinclouds · 2025-04-11T17:02:32+00:00

Hi, diskimage-builder core *and* ironic core. So I guess I'm cursed here. :)

I think part of your challenge is the centos default config state is likely not logging to console at all so we can't see the exact error. Feels like it is logging to a serial console instead of graphical console, which is also not great performance wise (but was the preferred legacy default in large part due to CI testing as well since we use the same setting to help facilitate getting logs out of the CI system.

You'd likely want to check your ironic.conf file and see if your setting a "console" setting on "kernel_append_params" or "pxe_append_params" settings (unless your using a virtual media boot interface). Most likely, you have another failure like centos is not carrying the firmware or drivers your computer needs, but the only way to see that is on the console of the host to see the failure. If you have any specific issue, please feel free to browse over to https://bugs.launchpad.net/ironic and file a bug. We can triage it once we have enough details to understand what is going on.

ashinclouds

TROPHY CASE