Description of problem: In the Glnace configuration the 'default_store' parameter is set in the glance_store section. - This parameter should be set in the DEFAULT section. - In the glance_store section the store is set with the 'store' parameter. This changes of sections cause post installation changes harder due to misplaced parameters. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): ruby193-rubygem-staypuft-0.5.12-1.el7ost.noarch How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install Glance with staypuft Actual results: The 'default_store' is set in the wrong section. Expected results: The 'default_store' parameter should not be used at all (not in the DEFAULT section and neither in the glance_store section) and the store is set in the glance_store section in the 'store' parameter. Additional info:
Yogev, does the configuration work as is? or are things broken?
The configuration in question takes place in https://github.com/redhat-openstack/openstack-puppet-modules/blob/master/glance/manifests/backend/rbd.pp Specifically, it looks like 'glance_store/default_store': value => 'rbd'; should be changed to 'glance_store/stores': value => 'glance.store.rbd.Store';
*** Bug 1186881 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
i am suggesting it for A1 as it looks like ROI is very high here. current state is install finish with configuration problems that might prevent backend from working and by config change we can make it right (and consistent with pack stack)
Well, we have to use the $know_stores parameter (glance::api class) to get the default_stores/stores well-configured [1]. By default $know_stores is false [2], you need to add $know_stores = ['glance.store.rbd.Store'] to the glance::api call! So it's not an openstack-puppet-modules bug. [1] - https://github.com/redhat-openstack/openstack-puppet-modules/blob/master/glance/manifests/api.pp#L298-L307 [2] - https://github.com/redhat-openstack/openstack-puppet-modules/blob/master/glance/manifests/api.pp#L213
Jayg already proposed the fix in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192862#c9 as proposed in my last comment. So I think this one should be closed as duplicate of 1192862 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1192862 ***