March 2020 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

Re: [openstack-dev] Are we ready to put stable/ocata into extended maintenance mode?
by Alex Schultz 03 Mar '21

03 Mar '21

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:30 PM Alex Schultz <aschultz(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Matt Riedemann <mriedemos(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > The release page says Ocata is planned to go into extended maintenance mode > > on Aug 27 [1]. There really isn't much to this except it means we don't do > > releases for Ocata anymore [2]. There is a caveat that project teams that do > > not wish to maintain stable/ocata after this point can immediately end of > > life the branch for their project [3]. We can still run CI using tags, e.g. > > if keystone goes ocata-eol, devstack on stable/ocata can still continue to > > install from stable/ocata for nova and the ocata-eol tag for keystone. > > Having said that, if there is no undue burden on the project team keeping > > the lights on for stable/ocata, I would recommend not tagging the > > stable/ocata branch end of life at this point. > > > > So, questions that need answering are: > > > > 1. Should we cut a final release for projects with stable/ocata branches > > before going into extended maintenance mode? I tend to think "yes" to flush > > the queue of backports. In fact, [3] doesn't mention it, but the resolution > > said we'd tag the branch [4] to indicate it has entered the EM phase. > > > > 2. Are there any projects that would want to skip EM and go directly to EOL > > (yes this feels like a Monopoly question)? > > > > I believe TripleO would like to EOL instead of EM for Ocata as > indicated by the thead > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-September/134671.ht… > Bringing this backup to see what we need to do to get the stable/ocata branches ended for the TripleO projects. I'm bringing this up because we have https://review.openstack.org/#/c/647009/ which is for the upcoming rename but CI is broken and we have no interest in continue to keep the stable/ocata branches alive (or fix ci for them). Thanks, -Alex > Thanks, > -Alex > > > [1] https://releases.openstack.org/ > > [2] > > https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html#maintena… > > [3] > > https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html#extended… > > [4] > > https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20180301-stable-branch-eol.… > > > > -- > > > > Thanks, > > > > Matt > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

5 11

[tc][uc][all] Starting community-wide goals ideas for V series
by Ghanshyam Mann 15 Jun '20

15 Jun '20

Hello everyone, We are in R14 week of Ussuri cycle which means It's time to start the discussions about community-wide goals ideas for the V series. Community-wide goals are important in term of solving and improving a technical area across OpenStack as a whole. It has lot more benefits to be considered from users as well from a developers perspective. See [1] for more details about community-wide goals and process. We have the Zuulv3 migration goal already accepted and pre-selected for v cycle. If you are interested in proposing a goal, please write down the idea on this etherpad[2] - https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-v-series-goals Accordingly, we will start the separate ML discussion over each goal idea. Also, you can refer to the backlogs of community-wide goals from this[3] and ussuri cycle goals[4]. NOTE: TC has defined the goal process schedule[5] to streamlined the process and ready with goals for projects to plan/implement at the start of the cycle. I am hoping to start that schedule for W cycle goals. [1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/index.html [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-v-series-goals [3] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/community-goals [4] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PVG-u-series-goals [5] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/#goal-selection-schedule -gmann

10 22

[tripleo][operators] Removal of mistral from the TripleO Undercloud
by Kevin Carter 27 May '20

27 May '20

Hello stackers, In the pursuit to remove Mistral from the TripleO undercloud, we've discovered an old capability that we need to figure out how best to handle. Currently, we provide the ability for an end-user (operator / deployer) to pass in "N" Mistral workflows as part of a given deployment plan which is processed by python-tripleoclient at runtime [0][1]. From what we have documented, and what we can find within the code-base, we're not using this feature by default. That said, we do not remove something if it is valuable in the field without an adequate replacement. The ability to run arbitrary Mistral workflows at deployment time was first created in 2017 [2] and while present all this time, its documented [3] and intra-code-base uses are still limited to samples [4]. As it stands now, we're on track to making Mistral inert this cycle and if our progress holds over the next couple of weeks the capability to run arbitrary Mistral workflows will be the only thing left within our codebase that relies on Mistral running on the Undercloud. So the question is what do we do with functionality. Do we remove this ability out right, do we convert the example workflow [5] into a stand-alone Ansible playbook and change the workflow runner to an arbitrary playbook runner, or do we simply leave everything as-is and deprecate it to be removed within the next two releases? Although it would be perfectly acceptable to keep Mistral around a little while longer, it would also be a bummer if this one capability was the only reason we were not able to remove Mistral from the Undercloud. Any and all feedback from operators, deployers, developers, former developers, etc would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. [0] https://opendev.org/openstack/python-tripleoclient/src/commit/af719b795bc9b… [1] https://opendev.org/openstack/python-tripleoclient/src/commit/af719b795bc9b… [2] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/457874 [3] https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/tripleo-specs/specs/pike/tripleo-deri… [4] https://opendev.org/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/src/commit/48da6a13936… [5] https://opendev.org/openstack/tripleo-common/src/commit/cc4f9c57b708259e9e9… Kevin Carter IRC: kecarter

5 9

[swift] Rolling upgrade, any version relationships?
by Mark Kirkwood 25 May '20

25 May '20

Hi, we are looking at upgrading our 2.7.0 Swift cluster. In the past I've modeled this on a dev system by upgrading storage nodes one by one (using 2.17 as the target version). This seemed to work well - I deliberately left the cluster half upgraded for an extended period to test for any cross version weirdness (didn't see any). However I'm wanting to check that I have not missed something important. So my questions are: - If upgrading from 2.7.0 is it safe to just grab the latest version (e.g 2.23)? - If not is there a preferred version to jump to first? - Is it ok for the upgrade to take extended time (e.g weeks) and therefore be running with some new and some old storage nodes for that time? regards Mark

3 5

[swift] Erasure code hardware offloading
by Mark Kirkwood 22 May '20

22 May '20

Hi, Can Swift make use of an Erasure Code offload card (e.g https://community.mellanox.com/s/article/understanding-erasure-coding-offlo… regards Mark

2 1

[swift] Adding disks - one by one or all lightly weighted?
by Mark Kirkwood 15 May '20

15 May '20

Hi, We are wanting to increase the number of disks in each of our storage nodes - from 4 to 12. I'm wondering whether it is better to: 1/ Add 1st new disk (with a reduced weight)...increase the weight until full, then repeat for next disk etc 2/ Add 'em all with a (much i.e 1/8 of that in 1/ ) reduced weight...increase the weights until done Thoughts? regards Mark

2 2

[oslo][nova][vmware] Replacement for suds library
by Stephen Finucane 14 May '20

14 May '20

The suds-jurko library used by oslo.vmware is emitting the following warnings in nova tests. /nova/.tox/py36/lib/python3.6/site-packages/suds/resolver.py:89: DeprecationWarning: invalid escape sequence \% self.splitp = re.compile('({.+})*[^\%s]+' % ps[0]) /nova/.tox/py36/lib/python3.6/site-packages/suds/wsdl.py:619: DeprecationWarning: invalid escape sequence \s body.parts = re.split('[\s,]', parts) These warnings are going to be errors in Python 3.10 [1]. We have over 18 months before we need to worry about this [2], but I'd like to see some movement on this well before then. It seems the suds-jurko fork is dead [3] and movement on yet another fork, suds-community, is slow [4]. How difficult would it be to switch over to something that does seem maintained like zeep [5] and, assuming it's doable, is anyone from VMWare/SAP able to do this work? Stephen [1] https://docs.python.org/3.9/whatsnew/3.9.html#you-should-check-for-deprecat… [2] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0596/ [3] https://bitbucket.org/jurko/suds/src/default/ [4] https://github.com/suds-community/suds/pull/32 [5] https://python-zeep.readthedocs.io/en/master/

5 6

[Tempest][Restack]Call for help on 2020:06 Certificaion
by prakash RAMCHANDRAN 08 May '20

08 May '20

Hi all, Appreciate all your inputs in mail and one-on-one conversations I had with few of you. Like to set proper expectations before we deal with extending our goals. First we must deliver on continuity of Refstack, while we evaluate the value it adds to end users through survey. I. Every Release - There is a new criterion for Certification - Do we have one for 2020.06? - Who has volunteered or would like to volunteer for this effort? II. Can we have previous WG Chair or anyone can brief us (by call or by email ) as what the process was and how it was managed. |||. Who were last release OSF Reviewers? Can they volunteer for 2020:06 release definition for Refstack - https://opendev.org/openstack/refstack/ VI. Given the circumstances (CoViD-19) will it be possible to deliver Refstack in June /July 2020? (Need some estimates from TC or others who managed this in past years) V. Is Zun - ?, Magnum -? Are both OCI and/or CNI compliant? - Can they be tested using Tempest and add those two or any other container projects to refstack core? For Survey (suggest any specifics Questions to ask- may be few questions to - Customer / Vendors/ new feedback Q1-Value of Certification , Q2. How Often customers ask for it in RFP or sales cycle?, Q3. What additional Tests, process, frequency etc will add value for them?Q4. Do you think we should continue the efforts of Refstack?) Let me know through email and have added this to TC meeting for Thursday April 2.https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Next_Meeting ThanksPrakash Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

2 1

[Syntribos] Does anyone still use this?
by Gage Hugo 08 May '20

08 May '20

The Security SIG has recently been looking into updating several sites/documentation and one part we discussed the last couple meetings was the security tools listings[0]. One of the projects listed there, Syntribos, doesn't appear to have much activity[1] outside of zuul/python/docs maintenance and the idea of retiring the project was mentioned. However, there does seem to be an occasional bug-fix submitted, so we are sending this email out to see if anyone is still utilizing Syntribos. If so, please either respond here, reach out to us in the #openstack-security irc channel, or fill out the section in the Security SIG Agenda etherpad[2]. Thanks! [0] https://security.openstack.org/#security-tool-development [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/q/project:openstack/syntribos [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/security-agenda

2 2

[openstack-ansible] dropping suse support
by Mohammed Naser 05 May '20

05 May '20

Hi everyone, I've been trying to avoid writing this email for the longest time ever. It's really painful to have to reach this state, but I think we've hit a point where we can no longer maintain support for SUSE within OpenStack Ansible. Unfortunately, with the recent layoffs, the OSA team has taken a huge hit in terms of contributors which means that there is far less contributors within the project. This means that we have less resources to go around and it forces us to focus on a more functional, reliable and well tested set of scenarios. Over the past few cycles, there has been effort to add SUSE support to OpenStack Ansible, during the time that we had maintainers, it was great and SUSE issues were being fixed promptly. In addition, due to the larger team at the time, we found ourselves having some extra time where we can help unbreak other gates. Jesse used to call this a "labour of love", which I admired at the time and hoped we continue to do as much as we can of. However, the lack of a committed maintainer for OpenSUSE has resulted in constantly failing jobs[1][2] (which were moved to non-voting, wasting CI resources as no one fixed them). In addition, it's causing several gate blocks for a few times with no one really finding the time to clean them up. We are resource constrained at this point and we need the resource to go towards making the small subset of supported features functional (i.e. CentOS/Ubuntu). We struggle with that enough, and there seems to be no deployers that are running SUSE in real life at the moment based on bugs submitted. With that, I propose that we drop SUSE support this cycle. If anyone would like to volunteer to maintain it, we can review that option, but that would require a serious commitment as we've had maintainers step off and it hurts the velocity of the project as no one can merge code anymore. ..Really wish I didn't have to write this email Mohammed [1]: http://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=openstack-ansible-funct… [2]: http://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=openstack-ansible-funct…

6 9