types/libvirt: remove per-machine-pool configuration

[staebler]

None of the options, other than Image, that were in the Libvirt MachinePool were being used.
They have been removed. The Image has been pulled up to the Libvirt Platform, as there was no
way to use a different image for different machines pools.

For consistency with the AWS and OpenStack platforms, the Libvirt MachinePool has been retained,
event though it is empty. The DefaultMachinePlatform has been retained in the Libvirt Platform
as well.

The code in the Master Machines and Worker Machines assets that determines the configuration
to use for the machines has been adjusted for Libvirt to rectify the machine-pool-specific
configuration against the default machine-pool configuration. This is not strictly necessary
as, again, the Libvirt configuration is empty. It keeps the logic consistent with the other
platforms, though.

https://jira.coreos.com/browse/CORS-911

[staebler]

/retest

[staebler]

/test e2e-aws

[staebler]

/test e2e-aws

[wking]

None of the options, other than Image, that were in the Libvirt MachinePool were being used.

But we need to control these. I think it's a libvirt cluster-API provider bug that these settings are not net a part of the libvirt cluster-API machine config.

[staebler]

None of the options, other than Image, that were in the Libvirt MachinePool were being used.

But we need to control these. I think it's a libvirt cluster-API provider bug that these settings are not net a part of the libvirt cluster-API machine config.

@wking I could not find any current or proposed work to implement these features in either JIRA or the openshift/cluster-api-provider-libvirt repo. That leads me to believe that this will not be done prior to an OpenShift 4.0 release. I would rather remove the options from the install config than have to document somewhere that the options will not actually do anything. It is easy enough to add the options back in later if we do end up supporting them.

As an aside, do you know what the use case is for configuring the name of the storage pool and storage volume?

[wking]

As an aside, do you know what the use case is for configuring the name of the storage pool and storage volume?

The installer should be able to use storage pools other than default to avoid squatting on a pool that the user might want to use for something else (just like our bridge name, etc. is configurable). But I'm fine having this tunable at the Platform level, and not at the pool level.

And the installer should be able to use per-machine-pool images to support folks who want to run different RHCOS (or other images entirely) in different pools (like you can with AMIs for AWS pools). The image choice should be a machine-pool setting,

I don't have good motivation for ImageVolume. @crawford added it here; maybe he remembers why?

But I agree with you that we can always add these back once the provider supports them.

[crawford]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: crawford, staebler

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [crawford,staebler]

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

[crawford]

error: unable to read image registry.svc.ci.openshift.org/ci-op-qf5v5j2t/stable@sha256:e77d5723ae22d5d27ba52022df505579bf2f0fe907a720c37c074e72798f8fba: received unexpected HTTP status: 504 Gateway Time-out

Oh god... Never mind. That was during the outage yesterday.

/retest

[wking]

/close

Carried in #1052

[openshift-ci-robot]

@wking: Closed this PR.

Details

In response to this:

/close

Carried in #1052

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.