November 2021 - openstack-discuss

[all] Dynamic Zuul results table in Gerrit 3
by Radosław Piliszek 05 Aug '22

05 Aug '22

Hello Fellow OpenStack and OpenDev Folks! TL;DR click on [3] and enjoy. I am starting this thread to not hijack the discussion happening on [1]. First of all, I would like to thank gibi (Balazs Gibizer) for hacking a way to get the place to render the table in the first place (pun intended). I have been a long-time-now user of [2]. I have improved and customised it for myself but never really got to share back the changes I made. The new Gerrit obviously broke the whole script so it was of no use to share at that particular state. However, inspired by gibi's work, I decided to finally sit down and fix it to work with Gerrit 3 and here it comes: [3]. Works well on Chrome with Tampermonkey. Not tested others. I hope you will enjoy this little helper (I do). I know the script looks super fugly but it generally boils down to a mix of styles of 3 people and Gerrit having funky UI rendering. Finally, I'd also like to thank hrw (Marcin Juszkiewicz) for linking me to the original Michel's script in 2019. [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-November/019051… [2] https://opendev.org/x/coats/src/commit/444c95738677593dcfed0cfd9667d4c4f0d5… [3] https://gist.github.com/yoctozepto/7ea1271c299d143388b7c1b1802ee75e Kind regards, -yoctozepto

5 7

[all] PyCharm Licenses Renewed till July 2021
by Swapnil Kulkarni 13 Jul '22

13 Jul '22

Hello, Happy to inform you the open source developer license for Pycharm has been renewed for 1 additional year till July 2021. Best Regards, Swapnil Kulkarni coolsvap at gmail dot com

8 13

Nova not updating to new size of an extended in-use / attached cinder volume (Ceph RBD) to guest
by Christian Rohmann 28 Jun '22

28 Jun '22

Hello Openstack-Discuss, after some digging I found out that cinder learned to resize attached (in-use) volumes quite a while ago with the introduction of the initial "extend 'in-use' volume" feature: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/454287/ The support was then extended to also cover Ceph RBD backed volumes with: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/613039/ Since this is only about the cinder part, I was wondering if nova would ever find out and would actively rescan the device / volume and quintessentially present an increased new size to the guest. Apparently this is where a certain volume-extended event comes into play: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/454322/ that is to be emitted by cinder when a volume had been extened. I then went head and tried this with the openstack cli (as Horizon does not seem to support / offer to resize in-use volumes. I run Openstack Train with Ceph RBD as storage. First I ran into an issue with the openstack cli (https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1871759/comments/2 <https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1871759/comments/2>) but using cinder extend $volumeid $newsize I was able to resize in-use volumes just fine. The only thing missing was the propagation to the guest. I played around with SCSI rescans, but that did not work, reboots also failed to do anyting in this regards. Stopping and starting the VM did work, but why having the capability to online-resize an attached volume when not being able to resize the guest volume as well? Apparently there seems to be an old and somewhat similar observation / bug with https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1369465 So I was simply wondering if this is expected to be working? Are there any special settings / options I need to set to enable this feature? Thanks and with kind regards Christian

4 9

[oslo] Propose to EOL stable/queens, stable/rocky on all the oslo scope
by Herve Beraud 25 Jun '22

25 Jun '22

Hi, On our last meeting of the oslo team we discussed the problem with broken stable branches (rocky and older) in oslo's projects [1]. Indeed, almost all these branches are broken. Előd Illés kindly generated a list of periodic-stable errors on Oslo's stable branches [2]. Given the lack of active maintainers on Oslo and given the current status of the CI in those branches, I propose to make them End Of Life. I will wait until the end of month for anyone who would like to maybe step up as maintainer of those branches and who would at least try to fix CI of them. If no one will volunteer for that, I'll EOLing those branches for all the projects under the oslo umbrella. Let us know your thoughts. Thank you for your attention. [1] https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/oslo/2021/oslo.2021-10-04-15.00.log.t… [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-July/023939.html -- Hervé Beraud Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat irc: hberaud https://github.com/4383/ https://twitter.com/4383hberaud

5 5

[TripleO] Core team cleanup
by James Slagle 30 Mar '22

30 Mar '22

Hello, I took a look at our core team, "tripleo-core" in gerrit. We have a few individuals who I feel have moved on from TripleO in their focus. I looked at the reviews from stackalytics.io for the last 180 days[1]. These individuals have less than 6 reviews, which is about 1 review a month: Bob Fournier Dan Sneddon Dmitry Tantsur Jiří Stránský Juan Antonio Osorio Robles Marius Cornea These individuals have publicly expressed that they are moving on from TripleO: Michele Baldessari wes hayutin I'd like to propose we remove these folks from our core team, while thanking them for their contributions. I'll also note that I'd still value +1/-1 from these folks with a lot of significance, and encourage them to review their areas of expertise! If anyone on the list plans to start reviewing in TripleO again, then I also think we can postpone the removal for the time being and re-evaluate later. Please let me know if that's the case. Please reply and let me know any agreements or concerns with this change. Thank you! [1] https://www.stackalytics.io/report/contribution?module=tripleo-group&projec… -- -- James Slagle --

5 6

[all][tc] Relmgt team position on release cadence
by Thierry Carrez 15 Feb '22

15 Feb '22

Hi everyone, The (long) document below reflects the current position of the release management team on a popular question: should the OpenStack release cadence be changed? Please note that we only address the release management / stable branch management facet of the problem. There are other dimensions to take into account (governance, feature deprecation, supported distros...) to get a complete view of the debate. Introduction ------------ The subject of how often OpenStack should be released has been regularly debated in the OpenStack community. OpenStack started with a 3-month release cycle, then switched to 6-month release cycle starting with Diablo. It is often thought of a release management decision, but it is actually a much larger topic: a release cadence is a trade-off between pressure to release more often and pressure to release less often, coming in from a lot of different stakeholders. In OpenStack, it is ultimately a Technical Committee decision. But that decision is informed by the position of a number of stakeholders. This document gives historical context and describes the current release management team position. The current trade-off --------------------- The main pressure to release more often is to make features available to users faster. Developers get a faster feedback loop, hardware vendors ensure software is compatible with their latest products, and users get exciting new features. "Release early, release often" is a best practice in our industry -- we should generally aim at releasing as often as possible. But that is counterbalanced by pressure to release less often. From a development perspective, each release cycle comes with some process overhead. On the integrators side, a new release means packaging and validation work. On the users side, it means pressure to upgrade. To justify that cost, there needs to be enough user-visible benefit (like new features) in a given release. For the last 10 years for OpenStack, that balance has been around six months. Six months let us accumulate enough new development that it was worth upgrading to / integrating the new version, while giving enough time to actually do the work. It also aligned well with Foundation events cadence, allowing to synchronize in-person developer meetings date with start of cycles. What changed ------------ The major recent change affecting this trade-off is that the pace of new development in OpenStack slowed down. The rhythm of changes was divided by 3 between 2015 and 2021, reflecting that OpenStack is now a mature and stable solution, where accessing the latest features is no longer a major driver. That reduces some of the pressure for releasing more often. At the same time, we have more users every day, with larger and larger deployments, and keeping those clusters constantly up to date is an operational challenge. That increases the pressure to release less often. In essence, OpenStack is becoming much more like a LTS distribution than a web browser -- something users like moving slow. Over the past years, project teams also increasingly decoupled individual components from the "coordinated release". More and more components opted for an independent or intermediary-released model, where they can put out releases in the middle of a cycle, making new features available to their users. This increasingly opens up the possibility of a longer "coordinated release" which would still allow development teams to follow "release early, release often" best practices. All that recent evolution means it is (again) time to reconsider if the 6-month cadence is what serves our community best, and in particular if a longer release cadence would not suit us better. The release management team position on the debate -------------------------------------------------- While releasing less often would definitely reduce the load on the release management team, most of the team work being automated, we do not think it should be a major factor in motivating the decision. We should not adjust the cadence too often though, as there is a one-time cost in switching our processes. In terms of impact, we expect that a switch to a longer cycle will encourage more project teams to adopt a "with-intermediary" release model (rather than the traditional "with-rc" single release per cycle), which may lead to abandoning the latter, hence simplifying our processes. Longer cycles might also discourage people to commit to PTL or release liaison work. We'd probably need to manage expectations there, and encourage more frequent switches (or create alternate models). If the decision is made to switch to a longer cycle, the release management team recommends to switch to one year directly. That would avoid changing it again anytime soon, and synchronizing on a calendar year is much simpler to follow and communicate. We also recommend announcing the change well in advance. We currently have an opportunity of making the switch when we reach the end of the release naming alphabet, which would also greatly simplify the communications around the change. Finally, it is worth mentioning the impact on the stable branch work. Releasing less often would likely impact the number of stable branches that we keep on maintaining, so that we do not go too much in the past (and hit unmaintained distributions or long-gone dependencies). We currently maintain releases for 18 months before they switch to extended maintenance, which results in between 3 and 4 releases being maintained at the same time. We'd recommend switching to maintaining one-year releases for 24 months, which would result in between 2 and 3 releases being maintained at the same time. Such a change would lead to longer maintenance for our users while reducing backporting work for our developers. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) On behalf of the OpenStack Release Management team

15 45

[nova][powervm][zvm] Time to mark powervm and zvm drivers as deprecated for removal?
by Stephen Finucane 28 Jan '22

28 Jan '22

I've had a PR open against the pypowervm library for over a fortnight now [1] with no activity. This has prompted me to go looking into the state of the powervm driver and what I've found isn't great. It doesn't seem there has been any feature development on the driver for many years, and the last change I can see that wasn't simply of a case of "I need to do this to get tests to pass" was over three years ago [2]. The CI also doesn't appear to have been touched in years. The situation for zvm isn't any better. The last functional change to that driver was nearly 2 years ago and I wasn't able to spot any CI running (though it's possible I just missed this). This means the powervm and zvm drivers stand out from the other non-libvirt drivers in-tree, each of which are getting at least some activity (albeit out- of-tree for Hyper-V, from what I recall). It also begs the question: are these drivers something we want to keep around? If we do, how are we going to maintain them long term? If not, how aggressive should we be in removing that now dead code? I'll open patches to mark both powervm and zvm as deprecated shortly so that, assuming nothing changes in the interim, we can look to remove it early in the Z cycle. Please respond here or on the reviews if you have concerns. Stephen [1] https://github.com/powervm/pypowervm/pull/17 [2] Change ID I89ad36f19672368a1f795e1f29c5af6368ccfeec

1 1

[ops][nova][victoria] Power State = Suspended?
by DHilsbos＠performair.com 24 Jan '22

24 Jan '22

All; I had something unusual happen this morning; one of my VMs was showing "Suspended" under the Power State in the Horizon dashboard. I've never seen that. What does it mean? Any search that I do points me to a bunch of resources for Status Suspended. Thank you, Dominic L. Hilsbos, MBA Vice President - Information Technology Perform Air International Inc. DHilsbos(a)PerformAir.com www.PerformAir.com

4 8

[nova][dev] Revisiting qemu emulation where guest arch != host arch
by Apsey, Christopher 05 Jan '22

05 Jan '22

All, A few years ago I asked a question[1] about why nova, when given a hw_architecture property from glance for an image, would not end up using the correct qemu-system-xx binary when starting the guest process on a compute node if that compute nodes architecture did not match the proposed guest architecture. As an example, if we had all x86 hosts, but wanted to run an emulated ppc guest, we should be able to do that given that at least one compute node had qemu-system-ppc already installed and libvirt was successfully reporting that as a supported architecture to nova. It seemed like a heavy lift at the time, so it was put on the back burner. I am now in a position to fund a contract developer to make this happen, so the question is: would this be a useful blueprint that would potentially be accepted? Most of the time when people want to run an emulated guest they would just nest it inside of an already running guest of the native architecture, but that severely limits observability and the task of managing any more than a handful of instances in this manner quickly becomes a tangled nightmare of networking, etc. I see real benefit in allowing this scenario to run natively so all of the tooling that exists for fleet management 'just works'. This would also be a significant differentiator for OpenStack as a whole. Thoughts? [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2018-August/015653… Chris Apsey Director | Georgia Cyber Range GEORGIA CYBER CENTER 100 Grace Hopper Lane | Augusta, Georgia | 30901 https://www.gacybercenter.org

2 2

[stable][requirements][zuul] unpinned setuptools dependency on stable
by Balazs Gibizer 16 Dec '21

16 Dec '21

Hi, The latest setuptools (58.0) removed support for "use_2to3" [1] (deprecated since 46.2). Many OpenStack modules defines decorator==3.4.0 as lower constraints[2]. However, decorator 3.4.0 cannot be installed anymore with the latest setuptool as it depends on "use_2to3". On master, this can be solved easily by bumping the dependency to decorator 4.0.0. On stable/xena we can still solve it the same way with a new RC. But on older stable branches such solution might be against the stable policy as it would require a major bump on our dependencies. This issue is not limited to lower-constraints testing it just hit us there first. A similar break could happen in our upper constraints as well on old stable branches. The root of the problem is that we always use the latest setuptools in our CI testing even on old stable branches. Zuul's ensure-tox task[4] installs tox which installs the virtualenv package which bundles the latest setuptools package. This happens without applying any constraints. Then tox is used to install the project's dependencies under lower or upper constraints with the unconstrained setuptools available. During and after yesterday's nova meeting [3] we discussed possible solutions. Option 1: Bump the major version of the decorator dependency on stable. Pros: * easy to implement Cons: * might against the policy / breaks downstream packagers * needs to be done in each affected project[3] separately * not future proof. After a future setuptools release we can see a similar break with another of our dependencies. @Stable Cores: how do you feel about such bump? Option 2: Pin the setuptools version during tox installation Pros: * single solution for all affected projects * future proof against breaks introduced by future setuptools releases Cons: * complex change as it probably requires to extend the base task in zuul itself Option 3: turn off lower-constraints testing Pros: * easy to implement * some of us want to get rid of lower constraints anyhow Cons: * needs per project changes * not future proof against similar break affecting our upper constraints on old stable branches. Option 4: utilize pyproject.toml[6] to specify build-time requirements Unfortunately, I'm not sure if it is possible to restrict the maximum setuptools version with it As a side note I tried applying [tox]requires in tox.ini to restrict setuptools version[7] but It does not seem to take effect in our case[8]. @Stable Cores: what do you think what could be the way forward? Cheers, gibi [1] https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/history.html#v58-0-2 [2] https://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=decorator%3D%3D3.4.0&i=nope&literal=nop… [3] https://meetings.opendev.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.20… [4] https://opendev.org/zuul/zuul-jobs/src/branch/master/roles/ensure-tox/tasks… [5] https://tox.readthedocs.io/en/latest/config.html#conf-requires [6] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0518/ [7] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/810293/1/tox.ini [8] https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/f78a0300c8734e7c8475309af1d2e1a4…

11 28