Centos7 Support

[Eric Friedrich]

We've had a small discussion on one of the Github Issues (https://github.com/Comcast/traffic_control/issues/1414) about Centos7 support. 

What successes or failures have people on this list had with using Centos7 so far (and which version)? 

I think it would be very helpful if we could as a group share which TC systems have been vetted on Centos7. We can avoid duplicating work and get Centos7 supported much quicker. 

--Eric

[Mark Torluemke]

Hi Eric,

Great to have some interest in moving to CentOS 7 -- we're excited to move in that direction as well.

So far, we've been focusing on the kickstart methodology of building the .iso, not any of the applications. In 7.x, the underlying syslinux images changed, and have grown significantly. Because of this, we're pushing towards a 40-45 MB .iso, and doing all installs as a 'network' install. Unfortunately, from what we've seen, the syslinux images cannot detect which network interfaces have link on them (like Anaconda can), so it seems if we want to get a .iso that is smaller than ~400 MB, some code changes will need to be made. Do you have any interesting in working on the .iso generation?

After that part is finalized, we'll need to build the logic into Traffic Ops to generate the 7.x .iso files, and potentially in parallel, develop a set of Ansible playbooks (or something), to take the minimal install, and get it ready for an application.

Also potentially in parallel is getting each application to run successfully on 7.x, and any changes needed to make that happen. 

Does anything else come to mind for the task list?

Thanks,
Mark

[Jay Li]

[Eric Friedrich]

Hi Mark-

  Our installation process differs in that we don't rely on the Generate ISO feature. Our installs are handled by some external SaltStack scripts we have written to take the minimal Centos install and prep/harden it for production before installing an application on it. We use the same generalized install procedure for all of our TC, monitoring and analytics systems even those which aren't listed in Traffic Ops. 

Some things on our plate:

1) Validating application functionality 

2) Qualifying performance as we expect a boost in capacity from the more modern kernel (NAPI, RPS, etc..)

3) Designing seamless upgrade procedure for each of the different systems to minimize downtime (and fully back everything up first)

4) Moving from init.d scrits to systemd service scripts (maybe?)

One major change in Centos7 is the new interface naming. I see this impacting several items, like #1 and #4 above. 

--Eric

[Jan van Doorn]

Do other people rely on the Generate ISO feature? Or should we consider removing that? 

Cheers,

JvD

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "traffic_control-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to traffic_control-d...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to traffic_con...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/traffic_control-discuss/58288fbd-0378-4beb-b3ee-70fca4a85092%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jay Li]

We don't reply on the Generate ISO feature, but we are figuring out these minimal and necessary RPMs (and versions) based on CentOS 7.2 for all Traffic Control applications. 

Thanks

Jay

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to traffic_control-discuss+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to traffic_control-discuss@googlegroups.com.

[Steve Malenfant]

Not sure if that's any useful, but for Centos 7 we the syslinux/grub depending if you need BIOS/UEFI. This is from our Ansible templates.

Standard BIOS "

label linux

  menu label Install {{ inventory_hostname }}

  kernel vmlinuz

  menu default

  append initrd=initrd.img inst.ks={{ private_repo_url }}/files/{{ ks_file }} ip={{ ipv4 }}::{{ ipv4_gw }}:{{ ipv4_netmask }}:{{ inventory_hostname }}:{{ interface }}:none {% if vlan is defined %}vlan={{ interface }}.{{ vlan }}:{{ interface }}{% endif %} {% if bond is defined %}{{ bond }}{% endif %} nameserver={{ nameservers[0] }} biosdevname=1 quiet

UEFI :

menuentry 'Install {{ inventory_hostname }}' --class fedora --class gnu-linux --class gnu --class os {

linuxefi /images/pxeboot/vmlinuz inst.ks={{ private_repo_url }}/files/{{ ks_file }} ip={{ ipv4 }}::{{ ipv4_gw }}:{{ ipv4_netmask }}:{{ inventory_hostname }}:{{ interface }}:none {% if vlan is defined %}vlan={{ interface }}.{{ vlan }}:{{ interface }}{% endif %} {% if bond is defined %}{{ bond }}{% endif %} nameserver={{ nameservers[0] }} biosdevname=1 quiet

initrdefi /images/pxeboot/initrd.img

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to traffic_control-d...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to traffic_con...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/traffic_control-discuss/58288fbd-0378-4beb-b3ee-70fca4a85092%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "traffic_control-discuss" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to traffic_control-d...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to traffic_con...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/traffic_control-discuss/885c7b4d-73a4-4633-bb3f-154072841f9e%40googlegroups.com.

[David Neuman]

I wanted to revive this thread.  For the next release of Traffic Control (1.8? 2.1?), do we all agree that our components should support both CentOS6.5 and CentOS7.x?  If so, how do we feel about dividing and conquering validation of components?  I can create issues in Github for each component, if that makes it easier.  The components that I think we need to validate are: 

• Traffic Ops
• Mysql and Postgres (or should this just be Postgres?)
• ORT (I believe Steve Malenfant is already looking into this)
• Traffic Server (I believe John Rushford and Jeff Elsloo are already working on this)
• Traffic Router
• Traffic Monitor
• Traffic Stats

Thoughts?  Anything else I am missing?

Thanks,
Dave

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 6:25:41 AM UTC-6, Eric Friedrich wrote:

[Steve Malenfant]

David,

Great idea. Most important for us right now was Traffic Server and ORT. So we can use Edge/Mid with Centos 7.

I can surely help validate as we go.

Steve

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "traffic_control-discuss" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to traffic_control-discuss+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to traffic_control-discuss@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/traffic_control-discuss/6cc2d859-6220-4e5d-aa62-cb650edcb025%40googlegroups.com.