4.0 KiB
[DRAFT] events propagation
Possible events on a resource:
-
changed configuration management executed on resource, and changes were found, both ansible and puppet is able to know if there were any changes
-
failed, error error - corresponds to problems in infrastructure, and probably cant be remediated in any way failed - process of configuring resource failed Does it make sense to create such separation?
-
ok Resource executed without errors or changes, so successors may skip reloading or whatever
-
created ?? is there such cases when we need to differentiate between updated object and created?
Propagating events when there is no data changed
Control for specifying events:
on .<emmiter_action> .<subsciber_action>
on mariadb.run changed keystone.run on keystone.run changed keystone_config.run on keystone_config.run changed haproxy.reload
+---------------------+ | mariadb.run | +---------------------+ | | changed v +---------------------+ | keystone_config.run | +---------------------+ | | changed v +---------------------+ | haproxy.reload | +---------------------+
. - - .
When data connection between several resources created - events connections should be created as well, resource a connect resource b:
on a.run changed b.reload on a.remove changed b.run
Resolving cycles on a data plane
Resolving rmq cycle with events, lets say we have 4 objects:
- rmq.cluster
- rmq.1, rmq.2, rmq.3
rmq.cluster is a sinc that will use data from all 3 nodes, and those nodes will consume that sinc - so there is a cycle. We can not depend just on data to resolve this cycle.
Order of execution should be like this:
rmq.1.run rmq.2.run rmq.3.run rmq.1.cluster_create rmq.2.cluster_join, rmq.2.cluster_join
Also cluster operation should happen only when rmq.cluster is changed.
on rmq.cluster changed rmq.1.cluster_create on rmq.1.cluster_create changed rmq.2.cluster_join on rmq.1.cluster_create changed rmq.3.cluster_join
+----------------------+ | rmq.1.run | +----------------------+ | | changed v +----------------------+ | rmq.1.cluster_create | -+ +----------------------+ | | | | changed | v | +----------------------+ | | rmq.2.cluster_join | | +----------------------+ | ^ | | changed | changed | | +----------------------+ | | rmq.2.run | | +----------------------+ | +----------------------+ | | rmq.3.run | | +----------------------+ | | | | changed | v | +----------------------+ | | rmq.3.cluster_join | <+ +----------------------+
Resolve cycles on a execution level
We have 5 objects, which forms 2 pathes
- keystone-config -> keystone-service -> haproxy-sevice
- glance-config -> glance-service -> haproxy-service
But also we have keystone endpoint exposed via haproxy, and it is consumed in glance-config, therefore there is a cycle. And proper resolution for this cycle would be to install haproxy after keystone is configured, and after that configure glance, and only after reload haproxy one more time to ensure that glance exposed via haproxy.
+----+
| g |
+----+
|
|
v
+----+
| gc | <+
+----+ |
| |
| |
v |
+----+ |
+> | ha | -+ | +----+ | +----+ | | k | | +----+ | | | | | v | +----+ +- | kc | +----+
During traversal we should check if added node forms a cycle, find a pair of nodes that created this cycle and create a node with incremented action. In the above example this resolution will help if ha.run will be incremented and we will have two actions - ha.run#0 and ha.run#1, and gc.run#0 will lead to ha.run#1.