July 2023 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[ptl][tc] OpenStack packages PyPi additional external maintainers audit & cleanup
by Ghanshyam Mann 17 May '24

17 May '24

Hi PTLs, As you might know or have seen for your project package on PyPi, OpenStack deliverables on PyPi have additional maintainers, For example, https://pypi.org/project/murano/, https://pypi.org/project/glance/ We should keep only 'openstackci' as a maintainer in PyPi so that releases of OpenStack deliverables can be managed in a single place. Otherwise, we might face the two sets of maintainers' places and packages might get released in PyPi by additional maintainers without the OpenStack project team knowing about it. One such case is in Horizon repo 'xstatic-font-awesome' where a new maintainer is added by an existing additional maintainer and this package was released without the Horizon team knowing about the changes and release. - https://github.com/openstack/xstatic-font-awesome/pull/2 To avoid the 'xstatic-font-awesome' case for other packages, TC discussed it in their weekly meetings[1] and agreed to audit all the OpenStack packages and then clean up the additional maintainers in PyPi (keep only 'openstackci' as maintainers). To help in this task, TC requests project PTL to perform the audit for their project's repo and add comments in the below etherpad. - https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack-pypi-maintainers-cleanup Thanks to knikolla to automate the listing of the OpenStack packages with additional maintainers in PyPi which you can find the result in output.txt at the bottom of this link. I have added the project list of who needs to check their repo in etherpad. - https://gist.github.com/knikolla/7303a65a5ddaa2be553fc6e54619a7a1 Please complete the audit for your project before March 15 so that TC can discuss the next step in vPTG. [1] https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2023/tc.2023-01-11-16.00.log.html#… -gmann

18 27

[Watcher] How use Watcher to scheduler Openstack resource without cpu_usage
by Nguyễn Hữu Khôi 06 Mar '24

06 Mar '24

Hello guys. I want to use watcher to scheduler openstack resources but some openstack versions are missing cpu_usage metric. How do we use Watcher without it? Thank you. Nguyen Huu Khoi

3 5

[neutron][vpnaas][ovn] Pushing VPNaaS support through OVN
by Mohammed Naser 12 Feb '24

12 Feb '24

Hi all! One of the biggest show stoppers for us for OVN is VPNaaS but I think it’s time that we’d like to be involved in getting it over the line, I want to thank Bodo who has shown a lot of patience in getting the code necessary, and it seems that the code works for them in production as well. I’d like to ask if possible for folks to review these two outstanding changes: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron-tempest-plugin/+/847007 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron-vpnaas/+/765353 I know Slawek had some concerns, so hoping that raising via the email list if Bodo can address those and over the next bit of time we can get this landed in, since it even has actual proper testing both in CI and with user feedback. Thanks! Mohammed

6 8

[designate] Proposal to deprecate the agent framework and agent based backends
by Michael Johnson 09 Jan '24

09 Jan '24

TLDR: The Designate team would like to deprecate the backend agent framework and the agent based backends due to lack of development and design issues with the current implementation. The following backends would be deprecated: Bind9 (Agent), Denominator, Microsoft DNS (Agent), Djbdns (Agent), Gdnsd (Agent), and Knot2 (Agent). Designate includes many backend DNS server drivers[1], many of which are "native" (also known as xfr type backends) backend implementations. In addition to the "native" backends, Designate has an agent backend[2] that supports other backends via an agent process. To quote the agent backend documentation[2]: This backend uses an extension[3] of the DNS protocol itself to send management requests to the remote agent processes, where the requests will be actioned. The rpc traffic between designate and the agent is both unauthenticated and unencrypted. Do not run this traffic over unsecured networks. Here are the reasons we are proposing to deprecate the agent framework now: 1. The agent protocol used by Designate is using an "unassigned"[4][5] DNS opcode (14) that is causing problems with the dnspython library >= 2.3.0 which is now validating the opcode when building DNS messages. It is a bad practice to use "unassigned" values as they may be officially assigned at any time, likely with an incompatible message format. 2. The agent backends are not tested in the OpenStack jobs[1]. 3. Many of the agent backends have been marked as "Experimental" since 2016 with no additional contributions beyond general repository code maintenance. 4. The protocol between the Designate worker process and the agent process is unauthenticated and unencrypted. 5. We do not know of a development resource to rewrite the agent framework protocol to address issue #1 and #4 above. 6. The introduction of catalog zones[6] may eliminate the need for some of the agent based backend drivers. By marking the agent framework and agent based backends "deprecated" in the Antelope cycle, we would remove the code no earlier than the "C" release of OpenStack (per the OpenStack deprecation policy[7]). In the meantime, issue #1 has been worked around by overriding the dnspython opcode validation[7] as needed in the Designate code (similar to a monkey patch). This is not a sustainable long term solution. The following backend agent based drivers would be marked "deprecated" in addition to the agent framework itself: Bind9 (Agent) Denominator Microsoft DNS (Agent) Djbdns (Agent) Gdnsd (Agent) Knot2 (Agent) We plan to propose patches for the deprecation over the next week, but will not merge them until at least January 24th to allow time for comment from the community. If you have concerns about this deprecation plan or are interested in rewriting the agent framework protocol to address the above issues, please reply to this announcement. Michael [1] https://docs.openstack.org/designate/latest/admin/support-matrix.html [2] https://docs.openstack.org/designate/latest/admin/backends/agent.html [3] https://github.com/openstack/designate/blob/master/designate/backend/privat… [4] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6895.html#section-2.2 [5] https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#dns-pa… [6] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-08.txt [7] https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/deprecation.html [8] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/designate/+/870678

3 13

[OPENSTACK][rabbitmq] using quorum queues
by Nguyễn Hữu Khôi 17 Oct '23

17 Oct '23

Hello guys. IS there any guy who uses the quorum queue for openstack? Could you give some feedback to compare with classic queue? Thank you. Nguyen Huu Khoi

9 19

[ptl][tc][winstackers] Final call for Winstackers PTL and maintainers
by James Page 11 Sep '23

11 Sep '23

Hi All As announced by Lucian last November (see [0]) Cloudbase Solutions are no longer in a position to maintain support for running OpenStack on Windows and have also ceased operation of their 3rd party CI for the windows support across a number of OpenStack projects. This situation has resulted in the Winstackers project becoming PTL-less for the 2023.2 cycle with no volunteers responding to the TC's call to fill this role and take this feature in OpenStack forward (see [1]). This is the final call for any maintainers to step forward if this feature is important to them in OpenStack. The last user survey in 2022 indicated that 2% of respondents were running on Hyper-V so this might be important enough to warrant a commitment from someone operating OpenStack on Windows to maintain these features going forward. Here is a reminder from Lucian's original email on the full list of projects which are impacted in some way: * nova hyper-v driver - in-tree plus out-of-tree compute-hyperv driver * os-win - common Windows library for Openstack * neutron hyperv ml2 plugin and agent * ovs on Windows and neutron ovs agent support * cinder drivers - SMB and Windows iSCSI * os-brick Windows connectors - iSCSI, FC, SMB, RBD * ceilometer Windows poller * manila Windows driver * glance Windows support * freerdp gateway The lack of 3rd party CI for testing all of this really needs to be addressed as well. If no maintainers are forthcoming between now and the next PTG in June the TC will need to officially retire the project and start the process of removing support for Windows across the various projects that support this operating system in some way - either directly or through the use of os-win. For clarity this call refers to the use of the Hyper-V virtualisation driver and associated Windows server components to provide WIndows based OpenStack Hypervisors and does not relate to the ability to run Windows images as guests on OpenStack. Regards James [0] https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-November/03104… [1] https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2023-March/032888.h…

5 9

[openstack-ansible] Recommended branch for a production environment?
by Roger Rivera 05 Sep '23

05 Sep '23

Hello, We have deployed Openstack-Ansible in a test environment and we were wondering what the recommended repository branch is to deploy in a production environment that will be integrated with a separate Ceph cluster. 1. We are thinking about pinning to the stable/zed. Is that recommended over the master branch? 2. Are bugs ironed out on both master and stable/zed with the same cadence? 3. Additionally, is Debian 11 a better alternative than Ubuntu 22 for target hosts? We noticed Ubuntu 22.04 support was added recently, whereas Debian 11 has been supported for quite some time now which leads us to believe its stability/integration could be more mature at this point? Any suggestions will be appreciated. Thank you, -- *Roger *

3 7

[Rally]
by Aayushi Gautam 31 Aug '23

31 Aug '23

Hello, I am Aayushi , an intern with Redhat working on ESI ( Elastic secure Infracstructure) group. We were trying to use Rally to test the performance of our codebase. I have created a Plugin and task . And getting an error. The same bug is also asked on the bug page of Rally, but it was not answered. I have attached the code of the plugin and task and the error message. Looking forward to hearing from you.

2 5

[ptls][tc] OpenStack User Survey Updates
by Allison Price 29 Aug '23

29 Aug '23

Hi Everyone, Like Helena mentioned last week, we are closing the 2023 OpenStack User Survey in a few weeks and will then open the 2024 OpenStack User Survey. At this time, we want to offer the project teams and TC the opportunity to update your project specific questions that appear at the end of the survey. As a reminder, for the project-specific questions, these appear if a survey taker selects your project in their deployment and TC questions appear to all survey takers. If you and your team would like to update the question, please let me know by Friday, August 18. I know that this is a holiday time for many, so if any team needs some extra time, just let me know. I am also able to share the existing questions with any team that needs a refresher on what is currently in the survey. In the meantime, please continue to promote openstack.org/usersurvey to anyone (and everyone!) you know who is running OpenStack or planning to in the future. We want to get as much feedback as we possibly can. Cheers, Allison

7 24

TripleO deployment over IPV6
by Kushagr Gupta 26 Aug '23

26 Aug '23

Hi Team, We were trying to perform IPV6-based deployment of TripleO. We are following the link: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_openstack_platform/16… As per our environment, we set the "ipv6_address_mode" to "dhcpv6-stateful" and tried undercloud deployment. It was successful. But when we try node introspection, openstack is not providing an IP that will be used for PXE booting the system. We have enabled PXE booting on the IPV6 network. On Dell machines, we get the following error: "PXE-E16: No offer received." For your reference, the undercloud file which we used is attached. We also tried to find the communication happening on the br-ctlplane interface when the machine tries to boot over IPV6 PXE boot. I am attaching those tcpdump records as well. We are unable to find the MAC address of our machines. *Questions:* 1. Is it even possible to perform tripleO deployment with IPV6? 2. Do we need to do some extra settings, so that our baremetal machines can be PXE booted? Thanks and Regards

3 9