April 2020 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[stein][neutron] gratuitous arp
by Ignazio Cassano 14 May '21

14 May '21

Hello, I have a problem on stein neutron. When a vm migrate from one node to another I cannot ping it for several minutes. If in the vm I put a script that ping the gateway continously, the live migration works fine and I can ping it. Why this happens ? I read something about gratuitous arp. Please, help me ? Any workaround , please ? Best Regards Ignazio

3 33

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

[ceilometer][octavia] polling meters
by Ionut Biru 14 Jul '20

14 Jul '20

Hello guys, I was trying to add in polling.yaml and pipeline from ceilometer the following: - network.services.lb.active.connections - network.services.lb.health_monitor - network.services.lb.incoming.bytes - network.services.lb.listener - network.services.lb.loadbalancer - network.services.lb.member - network.services.lb.outgoing.bytes - network.services.lb.pool - network.services.lb.total.connections But it doesn't work, I think they are for the old lbs that were supported in neutron. I found https://docs.openstack.org/ceilometer/latest/admin/telemetry-dynamic-pollst… but this is not available in stein or train. I was wondering if there is a way to meter loadbalancers from octavia. I mostly want for start to just meter if a loadbalancer was deployed and has status active. -- Ionut Biru - https://fleio.com

3 17

[tc][election] campaign discussion: how TC can solve the less contributor issue?
by Ghanshyam Mann 23 Jun '20

23 Jun '20

This topic is a very important and critical area to solve in the OpenStack community. I personally feel and keep raising this issue wherever I get the opportunity. To develop or maintain any software, the very first thing we need is to have enough developer resources. Without enough developers (either open or closed source), none of the software can survive. OpenStack current situation on contributors is not the same as it was few years back. Almost every project is facing the less contributor issue as compare to requirements and incoming requests. Few projects already dead or going to be if we do not solve the less contributors issue now. I know, TC is not directly responsible to solve this issue but we should do something or at least find the way who can solve this. What do you think about what role TC can play to solve this? What platform or entity can be used by TC to raise this issue? or any new crazy Idea? -gmann

14 26

[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

[nova][ptg] virtual PTG
by Balázs Gibizer 05 Jun '20

05 Jun '20

Hi, I need to book slots for nova discussions on the official schedule[2] of the virtual PTG[1]. I need two things to do that: 1) What topics we have that needs real-time discussion. Please add those to the etherpad [3] 2) Who wants to join such real-time discussion and what time slots works for you. Please fill the doodle[4] Based on the current etherpad content we need 2-3 slots for nova discussion and a half slot for cross project (current neutron) discussion. Please try to provide your topics and options before the Thursday's nova meeting. Cheers, gibi [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-April/014126.ht… [2] https://ethercalc.openstack.org/126u8ek25noy [3] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-victoria-ptg [4] https://doodle.com/poll/ermn3vxy9v53aayy

1 5

[cinder] [ironic] Any update on Cinder Ceph ISCSI Driver?
by kevinz 02 Jun '20

02 Jun '20

Hi Cinder, We are looking forward to the IRONIC boot from Cinder Ceph Volume. I went through the mailist and found the conversation last year, the main gap for the Ironic boot from Cinder volume(Ceph BACKEND) is lacking Cinder Ceph iscsi driver. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-May/006041.html So I'm sending to ask the current status for this. We are from Linaro, all our machines are under Ironic and we use Ceph as backend storage. Recently we are looking at the Diskless server boot plan from the Ceph cluster. Any info or update or advice, I really appreciate it. Look forward to hearing from you.

3 4

[tripleo] Deprecating Paunch in Ussuri
by Emilien Macchi 28 May '20

28 May '20

Hi folks, In Ussuri we manage to successfully replace Paunch by Ansible (role + modules) to manage the container lifecycle in TripleO. As a reminder, this effort was part of the Simplification work that is being done in TripleO to reduce our number of tools and align it with our deployment framework based on Ansible. https://docs.openstack.org/tripleo-ansible/latest/roles/role-tripleo_contai… Paunch has been turned off for some time now and isn't tested anymore in upstream CI (master only). I would like to propose its deprecation in Ussuri and a removal in Victoria (or later if any valid pushback). https://review.opendev.org/#/c/720598/ Thanks, -- Emilien Macchi

2 3

[all] [kolla] Kolla Builder - next generation
by Radosław Piliszek 28 May '20

28 May '20

Hello fellow OpenStackers and Kollars (or Koalas) in particular, today is the day when I finally sit down to write up my thoughts on Kolla, and I mean *Kolla*, the container image building project for OpenStack and friends, nothing more (nor less). *** Some background on Kolla to get everyone on the same page (or close enough): Kolla builds images for production use. Kolla is upstream for TripleO containers and Kolla-Ansible deployment. These are container images, think OCI and Docker in particular since Kolla actually relies on Dockerfile format to specify build recipes and Docker runs building (TripleO runs buildah on the same recipes). Kolla supports three distributions as bases: CentOS (TripleO does override this for RHEL as well), Debian and Ubuntu. In the interim periods Kolla supports two distribution releases to ease/smooth the transition process for operators (like currently CentOS 7 and 8 in Train, while Ussuri is 8 only). What is more, each distro has two flavours (or 'types' as they are called for now): binary and source. This 'type' applies only to OpenStack software. Binary means that Kolla uses downstream packages (rpm/deb) while source means to use pip and install from official tarballs (or repos if it is master) and PyPI for deps, utilising venv to keep it separate from distro stuff. Finally, there is particular target architecture: x86_64, aarch64 and ppc64le. All of above affect the support matrix which is based on 3 or 4 dimensions (distro, flavour, arch and sometimes distro version). [1] Kolla offers a high level of customisability via various overrides levels. See docs for details [2] Kolla engine offers hierarchical approach to image building, under the assumption that more than one image is often deployed on the same machine so layer sharing is beneficial. Kolla helps collect sources for OpenStack projects to build desired versions of them. All recipes are templated using Jinja2 syntax. Images contain both run-time and, mostly in the case of 'source' flavour, build-time tools and libraries. *** That's it for the background. :-) So where is the problem you might ask? Oh, there are plenty. The general is that Kolla has lots of logic in templates. Thankfully, Kolla has macros for most stuff but still Jinja2 limitations make it hard to document exceptions (no inline comments in arrays anyone?). We lose visibility into real dependency graphs and may be easily reinstalling same stuff, any optimisations are limited and would require parsing of both Jinja2 and Dockerfile syntax. In general the current approach is ugly and becomes unwieldy (e.g. getting warnings about empty continuation lines). There is layering hell: dependency on long &&ed commands which are templated out to avoid useless layers. Support matrix is great for an overview. There is a hidden layer to it though, different combinations may support different features. This is not documented so far and not so easy to follow from sources. This stems from the fact that different extra components have different availability in distros, but this is not easily apparent from sources. Also, there is no way to turn feature on/off. You might do an override, but then again, which to keep, which not to? Which is which? Oh! Finally, the images tend to be heavy due to inclusion of build-time deps. *** That's it for issues (hopefully!) My idea is to reuse Kolla engine where it shines: sources collection, system of plugins, hierarchical building; but replace the part that smells - Jinja2 templating. Giving up on Jinja2 might encompass giving up on Dockerfile syntax, but that is optional and depends on what makes it more amenable to avoid further pitfalls. With giving up on Jinja2, the idea is to generate building recipes fully programmatically from Python. It would be possible to introduce "Features" - sets of packages to install based on the (distro, arch) tuple. This would result in more flexibility - turning them on/off (some could be optional, some not). There could be more than one optimization strategy regarding when packages get installed: you want only standalone blah-blah? Then Kolla won't be installing XYZ and ABC just because ugma-ugma and tickle-tickle require them and you "could save some space" (TM). In the same vein, features could declare which components are build-time and which are run-time and this would make it straightforward to separate the sides. The above effort could well be coordinated with different projects to reuse bindep contents. So far Kolla does not use bindep because it often installs too much and not enough at the same time. Do note it would still be bindep-less for external services. There would still need to exist a general mechanism for providing custom command executions required by some images. For contributors and cores this new approach would bring more sanity as to the scope of proposed changes. Also, it would be possible to get quick insight into feature support and autogenerate docs for that as well. Similarly, current concept of unbuildable images would no longer be required because unbuildability would be dictated by lack of support for a required feature. *** Looking forward to your opinions/thoughts. *** [1] https://docs.openstack.org/kolla/train/support_matrix.html [2] https://docs.openstack.org/kolla/train/admin/image-building.html -yoctozepto

5 9

[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