Bug 1379768

Summary: [RFE] Reducing the potential number of discovery rules
Product: Red Hat Satellite Reporter: ckyriaki
Component: Discovery PluginAssignee: Lukas Zapletal <lzap>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Katello QA List <katello-qa-list>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: UnspecifiedCC: bkearney, ckyriaki, jcallaha, kabbott, lzap
Target Milestone: UnspecifiedKeywords: FutureFeature
Target Release: Unused   
Hardware: All   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-09-04 19:15:07 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description ckyriaki 2016-09-27 15:38:00 UTC
Description of problem:
When a customer has a large number of networks and environments and releases, the amount of discovery rules will be as large as the number of RHEL releases*number of networks = hostgroup number. This will mean that the amount of discovery rules will be quite large in places with a lot of subnets or a lot of RHEL releases that are deployed in each subnet. 

It would be good if we had a way to specify a list of subnets that could apply for a discovery rule and a parameter parsed from either PXE or discovery iso to satellite that would determine things like rhelversion or environment. That parameter should be parsed in the discovery rule (i.e. hostgroup=<%= environment %>-<%= hardware %>-<%= fdi.rhelvers %>). This could mean a few more PXE menu discovery entries but less discovery rules to manage.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Karl Abbott 2016-09-28 13:26:28 UTC
Rating this as high as this has the chance to really have a negative impact on Satellite deployments at our largest customers.

As Christina points out, any way that we can reduce the number of discovery rules in a complex environment would go a long way towards reducing the amount of resources required to run Satellite effectively in these environments.

Karl

Comment 2 Lukas Zapletal 2016-10-03 13:32:44 UTC
Hello, this is a valid RFE, but if I understand correctly, this should be doable today if you use PXE-less: Discovery accepts fdi.factname1 and fdi.factvalue1 options today. You can use these to send any key/value you want, these are visible via facts method (facts['myfact') in the hostname template and also in provisioning templates.

You can also create a simple extension (it's basically a ZIP file with a shell script) that can read variables from kernel command line and creating custom facts reported via facter, these can be used in the same way as described above. Once you test the workaround extension in your environment, we can merge the script into the upstream tree easily.

Please follow our official docs about how to create ZIP extensions and for fdi kernel command line options.

If this does not work for you, please explain in more detail how would you like things to be implemented. I am not sure if I understand your use case clearly.

Since there is a workaround, I am setting normal priority.

Comment 3 Lukas Zapletal 2017-05-24 08:12:01 UTC
Please give me feedback on discovery custom facts, if you can achieve something with them. Or describe in better way what your expectations are please.

Comment 4 ckyriaki 2017-10-23 11:13:42 UTC
I don't remember the exact details of this bz as I've opened  it for a customer that I'm no longer on site for but I think the general idea is that the networks required for discovery should be able to be dynamically generated with group variables i.e. all subnets under 172.30. can be grouped by one discovery rule as there can be multiple combinations of hostgroup*rhel version and discovered network. If this doesn't make sense then please close the BZ.

Comment 5 Bryan Kearney 2018-09-04 19:02:14 UTC
Thank you for your interest in Satellite 6. We have evaluated this request, and we do not expect this to be implemented in the product in the foreseeable future. We are therefore closing this out as WONTFIX. If you have any concerns about this, please feel free to contact Rich Jerrido or Bryan Kearney. Thank you.

Comment 6 Bryan Kearney 2018-09-04 19:15:07 UTC
Thank you for your interest in Satellite 6. We have evaluated this request, and we do not expect this to be implemented in the product in the foreseeable future. We are therefore closing this out as WONTFIX. If you have any concerns about this, please feel free to contact Rich Jerrido or Bryan Kearney. Thank you.