Ansible request for aixPB: rewrite AIX_filesystem_config.sh into appropriate playbooks

[aixtools]

Please put the name of the software product (and affected platforms if relevant) in the title of this issue

• Missing install
• Bug in ansible playbook
• Request for new playbook addition

Details:
This script is not the 'ansible' way and it's contents deal with issues other than AIX filesystems. And, when it has an issue (cannot perform an action) the main playbook often is not informed - and the playbook user assumes everything was done properly.

So, to finish the migration of the flatfile aix.yml + this script to aixPB version2 rewrite/migrate these commands into the new ansible role-based task execution (and in playbooks rather than scripts).

[Haroon-Khel]

The maxuproc line is now in a separate role as of #2335

[aixtools]

Actually, about a year ago I opened an issue to redo the AIX playbook organization - as I realized trying to fix the old aix.yml and the filesystem script was trying to stack dried spaghetti.

As I did not think it could all be done in one PR, I opened several, to start approaching this.

From my perspective - two things happened.

• Lots of misunderstanding because I did not understand HOW the VendorFiles aspect worked.
• Lots of misunderstanding re: skipping vendorfiles when that bit was already installed.
• Lots of other mini PR's that broke my earlier submissions.

Granted, I had a lot to learn about ansible, but this quick PR to fix one thing only brings back memories of trying to respond to issues and being ignored. Asin, in #1582 I tried to discuss the proper order of roles, division into AIX setup/config requirements (such as maxuproc, ulimits, etc.) - but the discussion never got anywhere. Quick fixes were preferred.

Let me know when you are really interested in a structural approach, and will have time to discuss project needs. Then a proper design can be made and implemented. I tire of chasing random balls.

[aixtools]

As to role aixfs - it is a seperate role, imho, because a default install of AIX had sizes too small. In the Unix playbooks I have not been able to find something similiar, so I would assume that the filesystem definition is part of the VM definition (also possible I do not know the proper Linux command to search for (that compares with AIX chfs.

I believe the existing playbooks need to be scanned for system/platform settings - a role platform might be better (more generic) where all platform related settings are performed.

I consider it a weakness in the current setup that platform settings are spread out over multiple .yml files, some in roles, some not.

[sxa]

Correct - in most of the other UNIX based VMs the file systems are generally already set up in an appropriate manner when we get them from the provider and frequently without separate file systems for /opt /usr /var and /home so the whole disk is allocated to / (Our OUSOSL Linux/ppc64le ones are like that for example)

[aixtools]

Well, I am willing to take on the task of re-working the AIX pb - there have been several starts, but lot's of issues surronding vendor_files - which I still believe should be dropped as a principle (but acceptable for exceptions).

As you imply above - at least I read that into it - there has been a discussion/planning session with providers about what Adopt needs before a platform is ready to go.

IMHO - ISP is responsible for:

• OpenSSL/OpenSSH
• X11
• Language files

Optionally (read preferred)

• source for C compilers.
• latest platform Java (for AIX Java8_64) - or, not at all (if possible).

Likely I am missing something (off the top) - but that is what discussions/requirement documents are for.

[aixtools]

afaik - this was completed, among other things, by #2483