September 2022 - openstack-discuss

[puppet] Proposing core team clean up
by Takashi Kajinami 23 Aug '23

23 Aug '23

Hello, I went through the current core reviewers and found out that the current list includes some people no longer working in the OpenStack community. I'd like to propose removing the following persons from the core reviewer team as we haven't seen these people making any activity in the community recently. * Pradeep Kilambi - puppet-aodh, puppet-ceilometer, puppet-gnocchi, puppet-panko * Richard Megginson - puppet-keystone * Denis Egorenko - puppet-murano * Serg Melikyan - puppet-murano * Sergey Kolekonov - puppet-neutron * David Moreau Simard - puppet-openstack-integration * Yu xingchao - all modules Also, I confirmed that Wes Hayutin is no longer working for OpenStack and he agreed to retire from the core reviewer position. Thus I'll remove him as well. I'll be open for any feedback for one week to hear any thoughts/feedback about this removal. I'd like to take this moment to thank all people for their past work. We always welcome them back if they resume their work in this project. Thank you, Takashi KAJINAMI

3 4

Re: [all] [oslo.messaging] Interest in collaboration on a NATS driver
by Tobias Urdin 22 Jul '23

22 Jul '23

Hello Kai, Great to hear that you’re interested! I’m currently just testing this as a POC directly in devstack so there is real-world testing (not should it yet I think, needs more development first). Best regards Tobias > On 30 Aug 2022, at 18:32, Kai Bojens <kb(a)kbojens.de> wrote: > > Am 29.08.22 um 15:46 schrieb Tobias Urdin: > >> If anybody, or any company, out there would be interested in collaborating in a project to bring this support and maintain it feel free to >> reach out. I’m hoping somebody will bite but atleast I’ve put it out there for all of you. > > Hi, > I am very much interested to take a closer look at your work and maybe contribute to it. Although I'm working with OpenStack for my employer at the moment, I'd do this in my spare time as I'm not sure that I can convince him to add another staging system with a full OpenStack installation just for developing a RabbitMQ replacement. That's not on our agenda as we are mostly users and not developers of OpenStack. > > As I'm pretty new to the messaging topic and had just heard of NATS and your idea, I'll first would have to dive into NATS and then I would take a closer look at your code and maybe try to create some documentation or tests. So, I can't promise anything but as I said I'm very interested in your approach as I also see the massive load from RabbitMQ. > > This brings me to the most important question: Where do you run and test your code? > > Greetings, > Kai

8 30

live resize
by Parsa Aminian 15 Mar '23

15 Mar '23

hello on openstack with ceph backend is it possible to live resize instances ? I want to change flavor without any down time .

5 6

[charms] Team Delegation proposal
by Chris MacNaughton 09 Feb '23

09 Feb '23

Hello All, <tl;dr> I would like to propose some new ACLs in Gerrit for the openstack-charms project: - openstack-core-charms - ceph-charms - network-charms - stable-maintenance </tl;dr> With an increasing focus split among the openstack-charmers team, I'm observing that people are focused on more specific subsets of the charms, and would like to propose that new ACLs are created to allow us to recognize that officially. I've chosen the breakdown above as it aligns neatly with where the focus lines are at this point, letting developers work on their specific focus areas. This proposal would not reduce permissions for anybody who is currently a core on the openstack-charms project and, in fact, future subteam core members could aspire to full openstack-charmers core as well. Ideally, this approach will let us escalate developers to "core" developers for the subteam(s) where they have demonstrated the expertise we expect in a core-charmer. It also allows a more gradual escalation to being a core in the openstack-charms project, making it a progression rather than a single destination. As a related addition, I'm appending to this proposal the creation of a stable-maintenance ACL which would allow members to manage backports without a full core-charmer grant. --- Chris MacNaughton

5 7

[cinder][drivers] third-party CI for os-brick changes
by Brian Rosmaita 04 Jan '23

04 Jan '23

To all third-party CI maintainers, As you are aware, cinder third-party CI systems are required to run on all cinder changes. However, the os-brick library used in cinder CI testing is the latest appropriate *released* version of os-brick. Thus, it is possible for changes to be happening in os-brick development that might impact the functionality of your driver. If you aren't testing os-brick changes, you won't find out about these until *after* the next os-brick release, which is bad news all around. Therefore, at last week's cinder midcycle [0], the cinder project team agreed to require that cinder third-party CI systems run on all os-brick changes in addition to all cinder changes. This is a nice-to-have for the current (Zed) development cycle, but will be required in order for a driver to be considered 'supported' in the 2023.1 (Antelope) release [1]. If you have comments or concerns about this policy, please reply on the list to this email or put an item on the agenda [2] for the cinder weekly meeting. [0] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-zed-midcycles [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/tested-3rdParty-drivers#What_changes… [2] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-zed-meetings

2 1

Glance api deployed only on a single controller on multi-controller deployment [kolla]
by A Monster 30 Dec '22

30 Dec '22

I've deployed openstack xena using kolla ansible on a centos 8 stream cluster, using two controller nodes, however I found out after the deployment that glance api is not available in one node, I tried redeploying but I got the same behavior, although the deployment finished without displaying any error. Thank you. Regards

4 4

[all][TC] Bare rechecks stats week of 25.07
by Slawek Kaplonski 17 Dec '22

17 Dec '22

Hi, Here are fresh data about bare rechecks. +--------------------+---------------+--------------+-------------------+ | Team | Bare rechecks | All Rechecks | Bare rechecks [%] | +--------------------+---------------+--------------+-------------------+ | requirements | 2 | 2 | 100.0 | | keystone | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | | OpenStackSDK | 3 | 3 | 100.0 | | tacker | 3 | 3 | 100.0 | | freezer | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | | rally | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | | OpenStack-Helm | 14 | 15 | 93.33 | | cinder | 6 | 7 | 85.71 | | kolla | 20 | 25 | 80.0 | | neutron | 4 | 5 | 80.0 | | Puppet OpenStack | 10 | 13 | 76.92 | | OpenStack Charms | 3 | 6 | 50.0 | | nova | 11 | 22 | 50.0 | | tripleo | 8 | 19 | 42.11 | | ironic | 1 | 3 | 33.33 | | Quality Assurance | 1 | 3 | 33.33 | | octavia | 0 | 1 | 0.0 | | OpenStackAnsible | 0 | 1 | 0.0 | | designate | 0 | 1 | 0.0 | | Release Management | 0 | 1 | 0.0 | | horizon | 0 | 1 | 0.0 | +--------------------+---------------+--------------+-------------------+ Those data should be more accurate as my script now counts only comments from last 7 days, not all comments from patches updated in last 7 days. Reminder: "bare rechecks" are recheck comments without any reason given. If You need to do recheck for patch due to failed job(s), please first check such failed job and try to identify what was the issue there. Maybe there is already opened bug for that or maybe You can open new one and add it as explanation in the recheck comment. Or maybe it was some infra issue, in such case short explanation in the comment would also be enough. -- Slawek Kaplonski Principal Software Engineer Red Hat

6 10

[neutron] Switching the ML2 driver in-place from linuxbridge to OVN for an existing Cloud
by Christian Rohmann 26 Nov '22

26 Nov '22

Hello openstack-discuss and neutron experts, I'd like to ask for your input and discussion on the idea of changing the ML2 driver for an existing cloud, read: changing a tire while still riding the bike. I actually like to find out if it's feasible to switch from the trusted Linuxbridge driver to the more modern SDN stack of OVN - in place. With all existing user networks, subnets, security groups and (running) instances in the database already. And while I know there a push of migrating from OVS to OVN and a clear migration path documented (https://docs.openstack.org/neutron/latest/ovn/migration.html), but they are much more similar in their data plane. And to get this out of the way: I am not asking to do be able to do this without downtime, interruptions, migrations or any active orchestration of the process. I just want to know all the possible options apart from setting up a new cloud and asking folks to migrate all of their things over... 1) Are the data models of the user managed resources abstract (enough) from the ML2 used? So would the composition of a router, a network, some subnets, a few security group and a few instances in a project just result in a different instantiation of packet handling components, but be otherwise transparent to the user? 2) What could be possible migration strategies? While it might be a little early to think about the actual migration steps. But just to consider more than a full cloud shutdown following a cold start with modified neutron config then using the OVN ML2. I know there is more than just the network and getting a virtual layer 2 network. There are DHCP, DNS and the metadata service and last but not least the gateway / router and the security groups. But if using VXLAN for OVN (as Linuxbridge uses currently) could the shift from one implementation to the other potentially be done node by node? Or project by project by changing the network agents over to nodes already running OVN? If not, is there any other hot cut-over approach that would avoid having to shutdown all the instances, but only cause them some network downtime (until the next DHCP renew or similar?) Has anybody ever done something similar or heard about this being done anywhere? Thanks for your time and input, Christian

3 5

[designate] How to avoid NXDOMAIN or stale data during cold start of a (new) machine
by Christian Rohmann 23 Nov '22

23 Nov '22

Hello openstack-discuss, I have a designate setup using bind9 as the user-serving DNS server. When starting a machine with either very old or no zones at all, NXDOMAIN or other actually stale data is sent out to clients as designate is not done doing an initial full sync / reconciliation. * What is the "proper" way to tackle this cold-start issue and to keep the bind from serving wrong data? ** Did I miss on any options to handle this startup case? * What is the usual runtime for an initial sync that you observe in case the backend DNS server has no zones at all anymore? Regards Christian

2 7

Zun connector for persistent shared files system Manila
by Vaibhav 13 Nov '22

13 Nov '22

Hi, I am using zun for running containers and managing them. I deployed cinder also persistent storage. and it is working fine. I want to mount my Manila shares to be mounted on containers managed by Zun. I can see a Fuxi project and driver for this but it is discontinued now. With Cinder only one container can use the storage volume at a time. If I want to have a shared file system to be mounted on multiple containers simultaneously, it is not possible with cinder. Is there any alternative to Fuxi. is there any other mechanism to use docker Volume support for NFS as shown in the link below? https://docs.docker.com/storage/volumes/ Please advise and give a suggestion. Regards, Vaibhav

2 4