Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[Provider/Client] deploy Hosted OCP Cluster #9111

Merged
merged 177 commits into from
May 27, 2024
Merged

[Provider/Client] deploy Hosted OCP Cluster #9111

merged 177 commits into from
May 27, 2024

Conversation

DanielOsypenko
Copy link
Contributor

@DanielOsypenko DanielOsypenko commented Jan 4, 2024 •
edited
Loading

PR summary:
Automation for the Hosted cluster deployment on IBM Bare Metal Hosting(Management) clusters.
This PR includes:

  • MetalLB loadbalancer setup. Optionally reserve Ip addersses for vSphere nested virtualization deployments
  • CNV installation and setup to create Hosted clusters
  • hypershift and hcp cli tools setup on jenkins agent
  • helper utilities to operate hosted clusters with hypershift and hcp cli tools
  • multiple simultaneous hosted cluster creation
  • hosted clusters, nodes and pods verification from Hosting(Management) cluster
  • ODF installation on Hosted clusters
  • Storage provisioning on Hosted clusters (Storage Clients)

vSphere is not supported officially, and Hosted cluster creation fails hence no successful testing is done

@DanielOsypenko DanielOsypenko added the DO NOT MERGE Do not merge this change!! label Jan 4, 2024
@pull-request-size pull-request-size bot added the size/L PR that changes 100-499 lines label Jan 4, 2024
@pull-request-size pull-request-size bot added size/XL and removed size/L PR that changes 100-499 lines labels Jan 22, 2024
@nehaberry nehaberry added the provider-client Provider-client solution label Jan 24, 2024
@DanielOsypenko DanielOsypenko marked this pull request as ready for review March 4, 2024 13:16
@DanielOsypenko DanielOsypenko requested a review from a team as a code owner March 4, 2024 13:16
@DanielOsypenko DanielOsypenko requested a review from a team as a code owner March 10, 2024 12:22
dahorak
dahorak reviewed Mar 13, 2024
View reviewed changes
conf/ocsci/ibm_vlan_subnet_1.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
conf/ocsci/provider-client_ibm_cloud_baremetal.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ocs_ci/deployment/cnv.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ocs_ci/deployment/cnv.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ocs_ci/deployment/cnv.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ocs_ci/deployment/helpers/hypershift_base.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ocs_ci/deployment/metallb.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ocs_ci/ocs/constants.py
@@ -1067,6 +1130,7 @@
VSPHERE_PLATFORM = "vsphere"
BAREMETAL_PLATFORM = "baremetal"
IBM_POWER_PLATFORM = "powervs"
IBM_CLOUD_BAREMETAL_PLATFORM = "ibm_cloud_baremetal"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm thinking if we have to separate the baremetal and ibm_cloud_baremetal platforms?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

rename ibm_cloud_baremetal -> ibm_baremetal ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No I meant if we could use the existing BAREMETAL_PLATFORM? Or if there are some incompatible differences?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think there maybe differences between baremetal and IBM baremetal

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The question will be, how big the differences will be? For example in my PR #9451, I'm handling it as generic baremetal platform and the difference between the BM env in Octo lab and the IBM Cloud BM is in the mgmt_provider, which controls if the BM machine is managed via ipmitool or ibmcloud command.

I don't know all the details there about the differences, so maybe it make sense to separate it like this - but if the differences are not too big, I would vote to keep it unified here.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

for node operations the differences are serious @yitzhak12 can confirm

ocs_ci/ocs/constants.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ocs_ci/utility/utils.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@DanielOsypenko
Copy link
Contributor Author

latest test-run:
https://ocs4-jenkins-csb-odf-qe.apps.ocp-c1.prod.psi.redhat.com/job/qe-deploy-ocs-cluster/35372/

@DanielOsypenko DanielOsypenko removed the DO NOT MERGE Do not merge this change!! label Mar 25, 2024
dahorak
dahorak reviewed Mar 26, 2024
View reviewed changes
ocs_ci/deployment/hosted_cluster.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ocs_ci/deployment/hosted_cluster.py Show resolved Hide resolved
ocs_ci/deployment/hosted_cluster.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
conf/ocsci/provider_mode_ibm_cloud_baremetal_kubevirt_clients.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ocs_ci/deployment/hosted_cluster.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
dahorak
dahorak reviewed Mar 27, 2024
View reviewed changes
conf/ocsci/provider_mode_ibm_cloud_baremetal_kubevirt_clients.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
conf/ocsci/provider_mode_ibm_cloud_baremetal_kubevirt_clients.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ocs_ci/deployment/hosted_cluster.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ocs_ci/deployment/metallb.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@DanielOsypenko DanielOsypenko force-pushed the deploy_hosted_cluster branch 2 times, most recently from 59d3612 to 3d4d57d Compare April 10, 2024 12:42
@DanielOsypenko
correct default channel to allow ODF N+1
c4cbd10 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Osypenko <dosypenk@redhat.com>
@DanielOsypenko DanielOsypenko dismissed stale reviews from ebondare and suchita-g via c4cbd10 May 23, 2024 09:55
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the lgtm label May 23, 2024
@DanielOsypenko
add fields to example yaml
451cc67 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Osypenko <dosypenk@redhat.com>
@DanielOsypenko
cosmetic 0.1
a5f2fd1 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Osypenko <dosypenk@redhat.com>
@DanielOsypenko
cosmetic 0.3
5b0883e 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Osypenko <dosypenk@redhat.com>
@DanielOsypenko
rbd sc renamed
f30ee1c 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Osypenko <dosypenk@redhat.com>
@DanielOsypenko
Copy link
Contributor Author

test run, deployment - Passed
https://ocs4-jenkins-csb-odf-qe.apps.ocp-c1.prod.psi.redhat.com/job/qe-deploy-ocs-cluster/37850/console

fbalak
fbalak previously approved these changes May 23, 2024
View reviewed changes
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label May 23, 2024
dahorak
dahorak previously approved these changes May 23, 2024
View reviewed changes
jilju
jilju previously approved these changes May 23, 2024
View reviewed changes
suchita-g
suchita-g previously approved these changes May 23, 2024
View reviewed changes
@suchita-g suchita-g requested a review from ebondare May 23, 2024 14:30
ebondare
ebondare previously approved these changes May 24, 2024
View reviewed changes
@dahorak dahorak dismissed stale reviews from ebondare, suchita-g, jilju, fbalak, and themself via 88023e0 May 27, 2024 07:32
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the lgtm label May 27, 2024
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label May 27, 2024
@openshift-ci OpenShift CI
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented May 27, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dahorak, DanielOsypenko, ebondare, fbalak

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@dahorak dahorak merged commit 7982413 into red-hat-storage:master May 27, 2024
5 of 6 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@dahorak dahorak dahorak approved these changes

@fbalak fbalak fbalak approved these changes

@ebondare ebondare ebondare approved these changes

@jilju jilju jilju left review comments

@suchita-g suchita-g suchita-g left review comments

@amr1ta amr1ta Awaiting requested review from amr1ta

Assignees

@dahorak dahorak

@fbalak fbalak

@jilju jilju

@ebondare ebondare

@amr1ta amr1ta

@suchita-g suchita-g

@DanielOsypenko DanielOsypenko

Labels
lgtm provider-client Provider-client solution size/XXL
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
9 participants
@DanielOsypenko @dahorak @fbalak @jilju @ebondare @amr1ta @suchita-g @openshift-merge-robot @nehaberry