October 2020 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[Kolla Ansible] RabbitMQ Interface Configuration
by Sven Kieske 16 Oct '20

16 Oct '20

Hi, I got a question regarding a change which was made, quite some time ago in kolla-ansible. The change in question is: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/584427/ specifically the following diff, the file was moved to a new format and name, but the possibility to configure the used interface for rabbitmq/erlang was removed. May I ask if this was maybe by accident, or what the reason for the removal of these parameters was? I'm asking because I'm currently deploying Openstack and am in the process of hardening the configuration. It stood out to me, that the beam vm from rabbitmq listens on all interfaces[1], so I wanted to change that. If there is another way to change this via kolla-ansible, it would be very kind to let me know. Notice, I do not try to configure "ERL_EPMD_ADDRESS" (which we already do), but to control the TCP Port 25672, which, as far as I understood the rabbitmq docs, is controlled via the erlang/beam vm "inet_dist_use_interface" parameter, which was removed in this changeset. But I might be totally wrong, I find the RabbitMQ docs a little hard to parse at times. This is currently a deployment with 3 rabbitmq nodes, if that matters. Thank you very much for your time in advance! See here the relevant diff, for convenience: commit b163cb02d1486f8844ac52e619de7b62321e42b0 Author: Paul Bourke <paul.bourke(a)oracle.com> Date: Fri Jul 20 16:35:25 2018 +0100 Update rabbitmq to use new conf & clustering Depends-On: I75e00312b36e1678b90a42cf58d24652323eff27 Change-Id: Ia716fabffca41eff816e59bbf9f4cab79ee8b72f diff --git a/ansible/roles/rabbitmq/templates/rabbitmq.config.j2 b/ansible/roles/rabbitmq/templates/rabbitmq.config. j2 deleted file mode 100644 index 960f9fb8a..000000000 --- a/ansible/roles/rabbitmq/templates/rabbitmq.config.j2 +++ /dev/null @@ -1,24 +0,0 @@ -[ - {kernel, [ - {inet_dist_use_interface, {% raw %}{{% endraw %}{{ api_interface_address | regex_replace('\.', ',') }}}}, - {inet_dist_listen_min, {{ role_rabbitmq_cluster_port }}}, - {inet_dist_listen_max, {{ role_rabbitmq_cluster_port }}} [1]: ss -tulpn | awk '$5 ~ /0.0.0.0:|\[::\]:/ && /beam/' tcp LISTEN 0 128 0.0.0.0:25672 0.0.0.0:* users:(("beam.smp",pid=194345,fd=63)) -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Regards Sven Kieske Systementwickler Mittwald CM Service GmbH & Co. KG Königsberger Straße 4-6 32339 Espelkamp Tel.: 05772 / 293-900 Fax: 05772 / 293-333 https://www.mittwald.de Geschäftsführer: Robert Meyer, Florian Jürgens St.Nr.: 331/5721/1033, USt-IdNr.: DE814773217, HRA 6640, AG Bad Oeynhausen Komplementärin: Robert Meyer Verwaltungs GmbH, HRB 13260, AG Bad Oeynhausen Informationen zur Datenverarbeitung im Rahmen unserer Geschäftstätigkeit gemäß Art. 13-14 DSGVO sind unter www.mittwald.de/ds abrufbar.

2 3

[ceilometer] How to install old version of gnocchi
by fisheater chang 16 Oct '20

16 Oct '20

I use Ubuntu 18.04 to install https://docs.openstack.org/ceilometer/stein/install/install-base-ubuntu.html (ceilometer) When I run service gnocchi-api restart, I get Failed to restart gnocchi-api.service: Unit gnocchi-api.service not found. I can't find any solution to address this issue. Someone said the new version doesn't include the gnocchi-api, so I am trying to install the previous version, but I don't know where I can find the old version of gnocchi-api https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47520779/service-gnocchi-api-not-found Can anyone help? Thanks

2 1

[Kolla] container images for Victoria?
by Tony Liu 16 Oct '20

16 Oct '20

Hi, I see the announcement of Victoria release. What's the plan to release Kolla container images for Victoria? Kolla Ussuri installs packages from [1]. For Victoria, [2] is available. But in [2], I don't find OpenvSwitch and OVN packages. Are they going to be provided later, or there is any new changes? [1] http://mirror.iad.rax.opendev.org/centos/8/cloud/x86_64/openstack-ussuri/ [2] http://mirror.iad.rax.opendev.org/centos/8/cloud/x86_64/openstack-victoria/ Thanks! Tony

4 6

[nova] Wallaby
by Balázs Gibizer 16 Oct '20

16 Oct '20

Hi, Thanks you all for your contribution to the Victoria release. Now nova master is fully open for Wallaby. The runway etherpad[1] is also available if you already have features or improvements ready for review. If you need discussion around your features then please add a topic to the PTG etherpad [2]. I will do some reorganization of the topics on [2] during next week to move the related items closer and assign some tentative timeslots for topics. Cheers, gibi [1] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-runways-wallaby [2] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-wallaby-ptg

1 0

[Openstack][Cinder]
by dangerzone ar 16 Oct '20

16 Oct '20

Hi Team, May I know if anyone has deployed Huawei oceanstor SAN storage during overcloud deployment? (i) Do you need a specific driver to define or download in order to deploy it? (ii) Can I deploy separately SAN storage after overcloud deployment, I mean after a month of openstack deployment i want to add SAN storage to my infrastructure. Is it possible? (iii) Please advise me how to deploy Huawei oceanstor SAN storage. Please advise further. Thank you

2 3

[TripleO]Train overcloud deployment
by dangerzone ar 16 Oct '20

16 Oct '20

Hi, Has Anyone have deploy openstack train using tripleO? mind to share what template that you are using for overcloud deployment? Openstack guideline does not provide updated steps based on train..some of the template shown in openstack portal is no longer available in train thus I'm not sure which template that should I focus and add onto overcloud deployment. I would appreciate it if someone could share what template that you add onto overcloud deployment, thus I can focus as so many templates define. I plan to have few dpdk computes and 3 controllers. Thank you for your attention and help.

1 0

[requirements][oslo] Explicit requirement to setuptools.
by Sebastien Boyron 15 Oct '20

15 Oct '20

Hey all, Almost all openstack projects are using pbr and setuptools. A great majority are directly importing setuptools in the code (setup.py) while not explicitly requiring it in the requirements. In these cases , setuptools is only installed thanks to pbr dependency. Example 1: Having a look on nova code : http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=setuptools&i=nope&files=&repos=openstack… We can see that setuptools is importer in setup.py to requires pbr whereas neither in *requirements.txt nor in *constraints.txt Example 2: This is exactly the same for neutron : http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=setuptools&i=nope&files=&repos=openstack… I discovered this while making some cleaning on rpm-packaging spec files. Spec files should reflect the content of explicits requirements of the related project. Until now there is no issue on that, but to make it proper, setuptools has been removed from all the projects rpm dependencies and relies only on pbr rpm dependency except if there is an explicit requirement on it in the project. If tomorrow, unlikely, pbr evolves and no longer requires setuptools, many things can fail: - All explicits imports in python code should break. - RPM generation should break too since it won't be present as a BuildRequirement. - RPM installation of old versions will pull the latest pbr version which will not require anymore and can break the execution. - RPM build can be held by distribute if there is not setuptools buildRequired anymore. As the python PEP20 claims "Explicit is better than implicit." and it should be our mantra on Openstack, especially with this kind of nasty case. https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/ I think we should explicitly require setuptools if, and only if, we need to make an explicit import on it. This will help to have the right requirements into the RPMs while still staying simple and logical; keeping project requirements and RPM requirements in phase. I am opening the discussion and pointing to this right now, but I think we should wait for the Wallaby release before doing anything on that point to insert this modification into the regular development cycle. On a release point of view all the changes related to this proposal will be released through the classic release process and they will be landed with other projects changes, in other words it will not require a range of specific releases for projects. *SEBASTIEN BOYRON* Red Hat

8 12

[diskimage-builder][ironic-python-agent-builder][ci][focal][ironic] ipa-builder CI jobs can't migrate to ubuntu focal nodeset
by Riccardo Pittau 15 Oct '20

15 Oct '20

Hello fellow openstackers! At the moment it's not possible to migrate the ironic-python-agent-builder src jobs from bionic to focal nodeset because of diskimage-builder limitations. We're stuck with ubuntu bionic and we're pinning those jobs to the bionic nodeset for the time being: https://review.opendev.org/756291 One of the community goals for victoria is to move the base nodeset of the CI jobs from ubuntu bionic to focal. In general, doing this for most of the ironic projects has not been trivial, but still doable, and it has been accomplished almost entirely. The biggest challenge comes from the src jobs in ironic-python-agent-builder where, for some of them, we build ironic-python-agent ramdisks using rpm-based distributions (mainly centos) with diskimage-builder on ubuntu bionic. This is possible using utilities (e.g. yumdownloader) included in packages still present in the ubuntu repositories, such as yum-utils and rpm. Starting from Ubuntu focal, the yum-utils package has been removed from the repositories because of lack of support of Python 2.x and there's no plan to provide such support, at least to my knowledge. The alternative provided by dnf is not usable as there's also no plan to compile and provide a package of dnf for deb-based distributions. For the reasons mentioned above, currently the ironic project team can't complete the migration of the CI jobs from bionic to focal and there's no ETA on when this can be accomplished. Considering all the things in the preamble, two possibilities are available: - change the mechanics in diskimage-builder; this process would completely change the way DIB builds rpm-based distros; this approach delegates the work almost entirely to the DIB team. - instead of migrating to focal, migrate to centos-8 nodeset; that would mean having devstack+ironic working on centos-8, which poses an interesting challenge and would consume no little resources from the ironic team. Opinions and advice are very welcome! Thanks, Riccardo

8 15

[manila] No IRC Meetings on 22nd Oct, 29th Oct 2020
by Goutham Pacha Ravi 15 Oct '20

15 Oct '20

Hello Zorillas, As mentioned in the meeting today, we'll not be running our weekly IRC meetings on 22nd Oct and 29th Oct 2020 because of the Summit and the PTG. I hope to see you all at these events. For your convenience, here's a list of events we'd love to have you attend: Forum & Summit ============= OpenStack storage for Containers Monday, October 19, 1:15pm - 2:00pm UTC https://www.openstack.org/summit/2020/summit-schedule/events/24763/openstac… Operational Concerns for Openstack Manila Tuesday, October 20, 1:15pm - 2:00pm UTC https://www.openstack.org/summit/2020/summit-schedule/events/24762/operatio… Connecting ecosystems: How Cinder CSI, Ember CSI and Manila CSI leverage OpenStack bits in Kubernetes Tuesday, October 20, 5:15pm - 5:45pm UTC https://www.openstack.org/summit/2020/summit-schedule/events/24634/connecti… PTG ==== Will share the final schedule over email next week. Topics/Plans: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/wallaby-ptg-manila-planning Schedule: http://ptg.openstack.org/ptg.html Dates and Times: - Oct 26th 2020, Mon: 1500-1700 UTC - Oct 27th 2020, Tue: 1400-1700 UTC - Oct 28th 2020, Wed: 1400-1700 UTC - Oct 30th 2020, Fri: 1400-1600 UTC (Happy Hour: 1600-1700 UTC) Thanks, Goutham

1 0

High level benchmarking - Openstack Tenant/Provider networking.
by Laurent Dumont 15 Oct '20

15 Oct '20

Hey everyone, We are currently working on some baseline user network benchmarking in our Openstack deployments. We are facing some strange issues where the actual real-life performance of VM are not what we expect. We have some large variations in terms of performance between hardware generations that we would like to confirm the nature of. While we are looking at deploying OPFNV / smaller tools to give us some data regarding our performance, are there any community resources that might list benchmarks previously done by other Openstack users? Our deployments specs are pretty standard some I'm surprised I couldn't find some baseline benchmarks online. Something like : 4vCPU VM 72 CPU Hypervisor Linux Bridge with iptables for security-groups implementation 1500 MTU / 9000 MTU with 10G ports You can expect : x PPS / x BW for VM to VM on vxlan x PPS / x BW for VM to VM on vlan Thanks!

1 0