June 2019 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[sigs][publiccloud][publiccloud-wg][publiccloud-sig][billing] Meeting today at 1400 UTC regarding billing initiative
by Tobias Rydberg 13 Jun '19

13 Jun '19

Hi all, This is a reminder for todays meeting for the Public Cloud SIG - 1400 UTC in #openstack-publiccloud. The topic of the day will be continued discussions regarding the billing initiative. More information about that at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/publiccloud-sig-billing-implementation-pro… See you all later today! Cheers, Tobias -- Tobias Rydberg Senior Developer Twitter & IRC: tobberydberg www.citynetwork.eu | www.citycloud.com INNOVATION THROUGH OPEN IT INFRASTRUCTURE ISO 9001, 14001, 27001, 27015 & 27018 CERTIFIED

1 0

[goal][python3] Train unit tests weekly update (goal-13)
by Corey Bryant 13 Jun '19

13 Jun '19

This is the goal-13 weekly update for the "Update Python 3 test runtimes for Train" goal [1]. There are 13 weeks remaining for completion of Train community goals [2]. == What's the Goal? == To ensure (in the Train cycle) that all official OpenStack repositories with Python 3 unit tests are exclusively using the 'openstack-python3-train-jobs' Zuul template or one of its variants (e.g. 'openstack-python3-train-jobs-neutron') to run unit tests, and that tests are passing. This will ensure that all official projects are running py36 and py37 unit tests in Train. For complete details please see [1]. == Ongoing Work == I have initial scripts working to automate patch generation for all supported projects. I plan to get them cleaned up and submitted for review next week, and I plan to start submitting patches next week. For reference my goal-tools scripts are located at: https://github.com/coreycb/goal-tools/commit/6eaf2535af02d5c48ebd9762e280c7…. I'll be off Thurs/Fri this week. Open patches needing reviews: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:python3-train+is:open Failing patches: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:python3-train+status:open+(+label:Ve… == Completed Work == Merged patches: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:python3-train+is:merged == How can you help? == Please take a look at the failing patches and help fix any failing unit tests for your project(s). Python 3.7 unit tests will be self-testing in zuul. If you're interested in helping submit patches, please let me know. == Reference Material == [1] Goal description: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/train/python3-updates.html [2] Train release schedule: https://releases.openstack.org/train/schedule.html (see R-5 for "Train Community Goals Completed") Storyboard: https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/board/<TBD> Porting to Python 3.7: https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.7.html#porting-to-python-3-7 Python Update Process: https://opendev.org/openstack/governance/src/branch/master/resolutions/2018… Train runtimes: https://opendev.org/openstack/governance/src/branch/master/reference/runtim… Thanks, Corey

1 0

[doc][release][requirements] new warning and impending incompatible change in sphinxcontrib-datatemplates
by Doug Hellmann 12 Jun '19

12 Jun '19

The new 0.4.0 release of sphinxcontrib-datatemplates will emit a deprecation warning message when the "datatemplate" directive is used. This may break jobs that run sphinx-build with the -W option enabled. That package includes support for the new form of the directive, which includes a different variation depending on the type of the data source, allowing different options to be used for each directive. See https://doughellmann.com/blog/2019/06/12/sphinxcontrib-datatemplates-0-4-0/ for details about the release and https://sphinxcontribdatatemplates.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html for details about the new syntax. The 1.0.0 release (not yet scheduled) will drop the legacy form of the directive entirely. -- Doug

1 0

[ironic][neutron] Security groups on bare metal instances
by Jason Anderson 12 Jun '19

12 Jun '19

Hi all, We've been scratching our heads for a while, trying to figure out how security groups for bare metal instances are supposed to work. The configuration guide for Networking<https://docs.openstack.org/ironic/latest/install/configure-networking.html>[1] implies that using the 'iptables_hybrid' firewall driver should work. We are using Neutron tenant networks<https://docs.openstack.org/ironic/latest/install/configure-tenant-networks.…>[2] with Ironic. My understanding is that the iptables_hybrid driver creates a new OVS port (with prefix qvo), logically connects that to the integration bridge, and then creates a veth pair inside a new network namespace, and that veth device then gets some iptables rules to handle the security group rules. It is not clear to me how or when that qvo "hybrid" port is even created; I've combed through the Neutron code base for a while looking for clues. We had tried using the "pure" OVS firewall solution, where security group rules are expessed using OpenFlow flows. However, this doesn't work, as there is not OVS port for a bare metal instance (at least, not in our setup.) We are using networking-generic-switch<https://docs.openstack.org/networking-generic-switch/latest/>[3], which provisions ports on a physical switch with a VLAN tag on the provider network. From OVS' perspective, the traffic exits OVS with that VLAN tag and that's that; OVS in this situation is only responsible for handling routing between provider networks and performing NAT for egress and ingress via Floating IP assignments. So, I'm wondering if others have had success getting security groups to work in a bare metal environment, and have any clues we could follow to get this working nicely. I'm beginning to suspect our problems have to do with the fact that we're doing VLAN isolation predominately via configuring physical switches, and as such there isn't a clear point where security groups can be inserted. The problem we are trying to solve is limiting ingress traffic on a Floating IP, so we only allow SSH from a given host, or only allow ports X and Y to be open externally, etc. Thanks in advance, as usual, for any insights! /Jason [1]: https://docs.openstack.org/ironic/latest/install/configure-networking.html [2]: https://docs.openstack.org/ironic/latest/install/configure-tenant-networks.… [3]: https://docs.openstack.org/networking-generic-switch/latest/

3 3

[SIG][WG] Shanghai PTG Changes
by Kendall Nelson 12 Jun '19

12 Jun '19

Hello All, After Denver we were able to take time to reflect on the improvements we can make now that the PTG will occur immediately following the summit for the near future. While Shanghai will have its own set of variables, it's still good to reevaluate how we allocate time for groups and how we structure the week overall. tldr; - No BoFs, try to focus more specific discussions into topics for the Forum and follow up with PTG slot for more general conversations - PTG slots can be as short as 1/4 of a day - More shared space at the Shanghai venue, less dedicated space - New breakdown: 1.5 days of Forum and 3.5 days of PTG - Survey will be out in a few weeks for requesting PTG space For many of you (and myself as FC SIG Chair) there were a lot of different ways to get time to talk about topics. There was the forum, there were BoF sessions you could request, and there was also the option of having PTG sessions. Using the FC SIG as an example, we had two forum sessions (I think?), a BoF, and a half day at the PTG. This was WAY too much time for us. We didn't realize it when we were asking for space all the different ways, but we ended up with a lot of redundant discussions and time in which we didn't do much but just chat (which was great, but not the best use of the time/space since we could have done that in a hallway and not a dedicated room). To account for this duplication, we are going to get rid of the BoF mechanism for asking for space since largely the topics discussed there could be more cleanly divided into feedback focused Forum sessions and PTG team discussion time. The tentative plan is to try to condense as many of the SIG/WGs PTG slots towards the start of the PTG as we can so that they will more or less immediately follow the forum so that you can focus on making action items out of the conversations had and the feedback received at the Forum. We will also offer a smaller granularity of time that you can request at the PTG. Previously, a half day slot was as small as you could request; this time we will be offering 1/4 day slots (we found with more than one SIG/WG that even at a half day they were done in an hour and a half with all that they needed to talk about). The venue itself (similar to Denver) will have a few large rooms for bigger teams to meet, however, most teams will meet in shared space. That being said, we will add to the PTGbot more clearly defined locations in the shared space so its easier to find groups in shared spaces. I regret to inform you that, again, projection will be a very limited commodity. Yeah.. please don't shoot the messenger. Due to using mainly shared space, projection is just something we are not able to offer. The other change I haven't already mentioned is that we are going to have the PTG start a half day early. Instead of only being 3 days like in Denver, we are going to add more time to the PTG and subtract a half day from the Forum. Basically the breakdown will be 1.5 Forum and 3.5 PTG with the Summit overlapping the first two days. I will be sending the PTG survey out to SIG Chairs/ WG Leads in a couple weeks with a few changes. -Kendall Nelson (diablo_rojo)

2 2

Openstack Octavia Configuration
by Ashwinkumar Kandasami 12 Jun '19

12 Jun '19

Hi, I am a graduate student trying to deploy openstack in my own environment. I waana configure openstack octavia with my existing openstack cloud. I done the openstack deployment using RDO project. I tried configure openstack with ovn neutron l2 agent with octavia but i getting alert like we can’t able to use octavia for ovn type neutron agent, then how can i use it?? Sent from Mail for Windows 10

2 1

[Glance] Can Glance be installed on a server other than the controller?
by Jordan Michaels 12 Jun '19

12 Jun '19

For anyone who's interested, this issue turned out to be caused by the system times being different on the separate server. I had set up Chrony according to the docs but never verified it was actually working. While reviewing the logs I noticed the time stamps were different on each server and that is what pointed me in the right direction. Just wanted to post the solution for posterity. Hopefully this helps someone in the future. -Jordan

1 0

Re: [Release-job-failures] Pre-release of openstack/horizon failed
by Sean McGinnis 12 Jun '19

12 Jun '19

This appears to have been a network issue that prevented the installation of one of the requirements. Fungi was able to reenqueue the job and it passed the second time through. Everything looks good now, but if anything unusual is noticed later, please let us know in the #openstack-release channel. Sean On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:48 AM <zuul(a)openstack.org> wrote: > Build failed. > > - release-openstack-python > http://logs.openstack.org/e3/e30d8258f5993736dc8982e280ae43fe1ed22395/pre-r… > : FAILURE in 3m 06s > - announce-release announce-release : SKIPPED > - propose-update-constraints propose-update-constraints : SKIPPED > > _______________________________________________ > Release-job-failures mailing list > Release-job-failures(a)lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/release-job-failures >

2 1

[kolla] meeting tomorrow
by Mark Goddard 12 Jun '19

12 Jun '19

Hi, I'm unable to chair the IRC meeting tomorrow. If someone else can stand in that would be great, otherwise we'll cancel. Thanks, Mark

1 1

[tc][ptls][all] Change to the health check process
by Alexandra Settle 12 Jun '19

12 Jun '19

Hi all, The TC have made the decision to stop health tracking team projects. During discussions at the Train cycle PTG, the OpenStack TC concluded that its experiments in formally tracking problems within individual project teams was not providing enough value for the investment of effort it required. The wiki has subsequently been closed down [0]. The component of it which is still deemed valuable is having specific TC members officially assigned as liaisons to each project team, so in future that will continue but will be documented in the openstack/governance Git repository's project metadata and on the project pages linked from the OpenStack Project Teams page [1]. This was discussed at the most recent TC meeting [2] and it was agreed upon that SIGs are to be included in the liaison roster for team health checks. Please keep your eyes out for changes coming up in the governance repo and PTLS - also please keep your inboxes open for TC members to reach out and introduce themselves as your liaison. In the mean time - if you have any concerns, please do not hesitate to reach out to any one of the TC members. Cheers, Alex [0] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_health_tracker [1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/projects/ [2] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2019/tc.2019-06-06-14.00.log.htm…

1 0