August 2019 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

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

[Syntribos] Does anyone still use this?
by Gage Hugo 07 May '20

07 May '20

The Security SIG has recently been looking into updating several sites/documentation and one part we discussed the last couple meetings was the security tools listings[0]. One of the projects listed there, Syntribos, doesn't appear to have much activity[1] outside of zuul/python/docs maintenance and the idea of retiring the project was mentioned. However, there does seem to be an occasional bug-fix submitted, so we are sending this email out to see if anyone is still utilizing Syntribos. If so, please either respond here, reach out to us in the #openstack-security irc channel, or fill out the section in the Security SIG Agenda etherpad[2]. Thanks! [0] https://security.openstack.org/#security-tool-development [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/q/project:openstack/syntribos [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/security-agenda

2 2

[openstack-ansible] dropping suse support
by Mohammed Naser 05 May '20

05 May '20

Hi everyone, I've been trying to avoid writing this email for the longest time ever. It's really painful to have to reach this state, but I think we've hit a point where we can no longer maintain support for SUSE within OpenStack Ansible. Unfortunately, with the recent layoffs, the OSA team has taken a huge hit in terms of contributors which means that there is far less contributors within the project. This means that we have less resources to go around and it forces us to focus on a more functional, reliable and well tested set of scenarios. Over the past few cycles, there has been effort to add SUSE support to OpenStack Ansible, during the time that we had maintainers, it was great and SUSE issues were being fixed promptly. In addition, due to the larger team at the time, we found ourselves having some extra time where we can help unbreak other gates. Jesse used to call this a "labour of love", which I admired at the time and hoped we continue to do as much as we can of. However, the lack of a committed maintainer for OpenSUSE has resulted in constantly failing jobs[1][2] (which were moved to non-voting, wasting CI resources as no one fixed them). In addition, it's causing several gate blocks for a few times with no one really finding the time to clean them up. We are resource constrained at this point and we need the resource to go towards making the small subset of supported features functional (i.e. CentOS/Ubuntu). We struggle with that enough, and there seems to be no deployers that are running SUSE in real life at the moment based on bugs submitted. With that, I propose that we drop SUSE support this cycle. If anyone would like to volunteer to maintain it, we can review that option, but that would require a serious commitment as we've had maintainers step off and it hurts the velocity of the project as no one can merge code anymore. ..Really wish I didn't have to write this email Mohammed [1]: http://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=openstack-ansible-funct… [2]: http://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=openstack-ansible-funct…

6 9

[nova]review guide for the policy default refresh spec
by Ghanshyam Mann 29 Oct '19

29 Oct '19

Hello Everyone, As many of you might know that in Train, we are doing Nova policy changes to adopt the keystone's new defaults and scope type[1]. There are multiple changes required per policy as mentioned in spec. I am writing this review guide for the patch sequence and at the end how each policy will look like. I have prepared the first set of patches. I would like to get the feedback on those so that we can modify the other policy also on the same line. My plan is to start the other policy work after we merge the first set of policy changes. Patch sequence: Example: os-services API policy: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Cover/Improve the test coverage for existing policies: This will be the first patch. We do not have good test coverage of the policy, current tests are not at all useful and do not perform the real checks. Idea is to add the actual tests coverage for each policy as the first patch. new tests try to access the API with all possible context and check for positive and negative cases. - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/669181/ 2. Introduce scope_types: This will add the scope_type for policy. It will be either 'system', 'project' or 'system and project'. In the same patch, along with existing test working as it is, new tests of scope type will be added which will run with [oslo_policy] enforce_scope=True so that we can capture the real scope checks. - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/645427/ 3. Add new default roles: This will add new defaults which can be SYSTEM_ADMIN, SYSTEM_READER, PROJECT_MEMBER_OR_SYSTEM_ADMIN, PROJECT_READER_OR_SYSTEM_READER etc depends on Policy. Test coverage of new defaults, as well as deprecated defaults, are covered in same patch. This patch will add the granularity in policy if needed. Without policy granularity, we cannot add new defaults per rule. - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/648480/ (I need to add more tests for deprecated rules) 4. Pass actual Targets in policy: This is to pass the actual targets in context.can(). Main goal is to remove the defaults targets which is nothing but context'user_id,project_id only. It will be {} if no actual target data needed in check_str. - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/676688/ Patch sequence: Example: Admin Action API policy: 1. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/657698/ 2. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/657823/ 3. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/676682/ 4. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/663095/ There are other patches I have posted in between for common changes or fix or framework etc. [1] https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/train/approved/polic… -gmann

1 2

[metrics] [telemetry] [stein] cpu_util
by Budai Laszlo 18 Oct '19

18 Oct '19

Hello all, the release release announce of ceilometer rocky is deprecating the cpu_util and *.rate metrics "* cpu_util and *.rate meters are deprecated and will be removed in future release in favor of the Gnocchi rate calculation equivalent." so we don't have them in Stein. Can you direct me to some document that describes how to achieve these with Gnocchi rate calculation? Thank you, Laszlo

5 4

[aodh] [heat] Stein: How to create alarms based on rate metrics like CPU utilization?
by Bernd Bausch 17 Oct '19

17 Oct '19

Prior to Stein, Ceilometer issued a metric named /cpu_util/, which I could use to trigger alarms and autoscaling when CPU utilization was too high. cpu_util doesn't exist anymore. Instead, we are asked to use Gnocchi's /rate/ feature. However, when using rates, alarms on a group of resources require more parameters than just one metric: Both an aggregation and a reaggregation method are needed. For example, a group of instances that implement "myapp": gnocchi measures aggregation -m cpu --reaggregation mean --aggregation rate:mean --query server_group=myapp --resource-type instance Actually, this command uses a deprecated API (but from what I can see, Aodh still uses it). The new way is like this: gnocchi aggregates --resource-type instance '(aggregate rate:mean (metric cpu mean))' server_group=myapp If rate:mean is in the archive policy, it also works the other way around: gnocchi aggregates --resource-type instance '(aggregate mean (metric cpu rate:mean))' server_group=myapp Without reaggregation, I get quite unexpected numbers, including negative CPU rates. If you want to understand why, see this discussion with one of the Gnocchi maintainers [1]. *My problem*: Aodh allows me to set an aggregation method, but not a reaggregation method. How can I create alarms based on rates? The problem extends to Heat and autoscaling. Thanks much, Bernd. [1] https://github.com/gnocchixyz/gnocchi/issues/1044

4 3

[all] [tc] [docs] [release] [ptls] Docs as SIG: Ownership of docs.openstack.org
by Alexandra Settle 03 Oct '19

03 Oct '19

Hi all, Quick recap: The documentation team is set to disband as an official project, and make the leap to becoming a SIG (Special Interest Group). This decision is not one we have made lightly, but with the changes of direction since Pike (project documentation belonging with the projects, etc) the need for a centralised documentation team as an official project is no longer integral to producing the software. The transition of the docs team to a SIG has already begun [1] and [2]. The openstackdocstheme, openstack-doc-tools, os-api-ref and whereto have been placed within the remit of the Oslo team and approved. The remaining individuals working on the docs team are sorting through what's left and where it is best placed. In [1], Doug has rightfully pointed out that whilst the documentation team as it stands today is no longer "integral", the docs.openstack.org web site is. An owner is required. The suggestion is for the Release Management team is the "least worst" (thanks, tonyb) place for the website manaagement to land. As Tony points out, this requires learning new tools and processes but the individuals working on the docs team currently have no intention to leave, and are around to help manage this from the SIG. Open to discussion and suggestions, but to summarise the proposal here: docs.openstack.org ownership is to transition to be the responsibility of the Release Management team officially provided there are no strong objections. Thanks, Alex IRC: asettle [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/657142/ [2] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/657141/

5 11

[kolla-ansible] migration
by Ignazio Cassano 02 Oct '19

02 Oct '19

Hello, Anyone have tried to migrate an existing openstack installation to kolla containers? Thanks Ignazio

5 16

[tc][uc][all] Starting goal selection for U series
by Ghanshyam Mann 25 Sep '19

25 Sep '19

Hello everyone, We are in R10 week of Train cycle and not so far from the start of U cycle. It's time to start the discussions about community-wide goals ideas for the U series. We are little late to start this thread for U series which usually happened during Summit Forum. But it is not mandatory to wait for f2f meetup to kick off the goal discussions, we can always start the same via ML or ad-hoc meetings. During Shanghai Summit Forum, we will be having the f2f discussion for U (continue the discussion from ML threads) as well as V cycle goals ideas. 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. Also, you can refer to the backlogs of community-wide goals from this[2] and train cycle goals[3]. If you are interested in proposing a goal, please write down the idea on this etherpad[4] - https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PVG-u-series-goals Accordingly, we will start the separate ML discussion over each goal idea. [1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/index.html [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/community-goals [3] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/BER-t-series-goals [4] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PVG-u-series-goals -gmann

1 1

[nova][glance][entropy][database] update glance metadata for nova instance
by Jordan Ansell 11 Sep '19

11 Sep '19

Hi Openstack Discuss, I have an issue with nova not synchronizing changes between a glance image and it's local image meta information in nova. I have updated a glance image with the property "hw_rng_model=virtio", and that successfully passes that to new instances created using the updated image. However existing instances do not receive this new property. I have located the image metadata within the nova database, in the **instance_system_metadata** table, and can see it's not updated for the existing instances, and only adding the relevant rows for instances that are created when that property is present. The key being "image_hw_rng_model" and "virtio" being the value. Is there a way to tell nova to update the table for existing instances, and synchronizing the two databases? Or is this the kind of thing that would need to be done *shudder* manually...? If so, are there any experts out there who can point me to some documentation on doing this correctly before I go butcher a couple of dummy nova database? Regards, Jordan

3 4