February 2020 - openstack-discuss

Restarting neutron-l3-agent service
by Grant Morley 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

Hi all, We are currently seeing an issue where neutron isn't setting up ports correctly on routers. We think we have narrowed it down to the "neutron-l3-agent" on the neutron nodes that is causing the issue. We are wanting to restart the service but was wondering if doing so it would cause any issues with currently running instances? We have 2 neutron nodes in HA mode ( one active and one standby ). Currently the issue is only affecting newly built instances, so we don't want to restart the service in hours if it is going to cause issues with instances that are currently unaffected. We are running on OpenStack Queens and have built the platform using OSA. Many thanks for any help. Regards,

2 1

[all][tc][uc] Uniting the TC and the UC
by Thierry Carrez 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

Hi all, When our current project governance was established in 2012, we defined two separate bodies. The Technical Committee represented developers / code contributors to the open source project(s), while the User Committee represented the operators running the resulting software, as well as users of the APIs. That setup served us well in those early days. The focus on the upstream side was strongly around *development* of code, we did not have that many users, and even less users directly involved in upstream development. A separate User Committee resulted in the formation of an engaged community of users, and ensured that our community in general (and our events in particular) took the needs of operators into account. Fast-forward to 2020: the upstream focus is more on maintenance. We now have a lot of users, and thanks to the efforts of the UC they are increasingly directly involved in the open source project development, with several operators leading upstream project teams directly. There is now limited UC-specific activity, and as such it is struggling to get volunteers to step up for it: nobody nominated themselves for the last round of election. Keeping two separate bodies to represent them maintains the illusion that devs and ops are different breeds, and sometimes discourages operators from running for the TC and more directly influence the shape of the software. If anything, we need more ops representation at the TC, and seeing people like mnaser being elected at (and chairing) the TC was a great experience. I discussed the situation with the current UC members, and we decided it's time to consider having a single "community" and a single body to represent it. That body would tackle the traditional TC tasks (open source project governance and stewardship) but also the UC tasks (user survey, ambassador program...). That body would be elected by contributors, in a large sense that includes the AUC definition. I feel like that would help remove the artificial barriers discouraging users to get more directly involved with software development and maintenance. There are multiple ways to achieve that, in increasing order of complexity and bylaws changes needed: 1- No bylaws change As bylaws changes take a lot of time and energy, the simplest approach would be to merge the TC and UC without changing the bylaws at all. The single body (called TC) would incorporate the AUC criteria by adding all AUC members as extra-ATC. It would tackle all aspects of our community. To respect the letter of the bylaws, the TC would formally designate 5 of its members to be the 'UC' and those would select a 'UC chair'. But all tasks would be handled together. 2- Minimal bylaws change Same, but all mentions of the UC would be removed from the bylaws (affecting sections 4.12, 4.14, and Appendix 10). This would require a simple vote by the Board of Directors, and would avoid some confusion and having to formally designate a subset of the TC to respect the letter of the bylaws. 3- Maximal bylaws change Create a new body ("steering committee" for example) replacing the TC and the UC. This would require changing sections 4.1, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.20, 7.1.b, 7.4, 9.1, 9.2.d, and Appendixes 4 and 10. Section 4.13, 7.1 and 7.4 being heavily protected in the bylaws, they require special votes by each class of Foundation members, probably a multi-year effort. A lot of documentation would also need to be changed in case the TC is renamed. I personally don't think the benefit of the change offsets the large cost of option (3). Given the current vacancy in the UC makeup I would recommend we pursue option 1 immediately (starting at the next TC election in April), and propose minimal bylaws change to the board in parallel (option 2). Thoughts ? -- Thierry Carrez

8 16

Retiring x/devstack-plugin-bdd
by Sean McGinnis 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

Hello all, This is to announce that I plan on going through the process to retire the x/devstack-plugin-bdd repo. https://opendev.org/x/devstack-plugin-bdd/ This project was to allow using the Cinder block device driver in Devstack. Support for the block device driver was removed from Cinder many releases ago and there is no expectation that this devstack plugin could be used in any meaningful way. Sean

4 6

[charms] Peter Matulis -> charms-core
by James Page 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

Hi Team I'd like to proposed Peter Matulis for membership of the charms-core team. Although he's not be focussed on developing the codebase since he started contributing to the OpenStack Charms he's made a number of significant contributions to our documentation as well as regularly providing feedback on updates to README's and the charm deployment guide. I think he would make a valuable addition to the charms-core review team! Cheers James

5 5

[all][crazy][ideas] Call for "ideas" inside the openstack/ideas repo
by Jean-Philippe Evrard 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

Hello everyone, I would like to inform you that the "ideas" repos is now created, and waiting for all your fresh (or non fresh) ideas to change OpenStack! You will be able to find rendered ideas in https://governance.openstack.org/ideas/ . Currently it's lacking a little bit of content... I would love to see this changed soon, to be honest :) Here is a reminder of what the ideas repo is: - It's a place where anyone can propose an idea for changing OpenStack as a whole; - It's a git repository, which allows the versioning (and authoring) of ideas; - It's a way to refer to mailing lists, to know full context, but without having to browse through the history of the multiple mailing lists to find what you are looking for; - It's a repo where everyone can propose ideas to, and there will be no judgement on the ideas for merging them (the only thing asked is that what's written in an idea reflects what has been said on the mailing lists). Thank you for your attention! Your TC chair, Jean-Philippe Evrard (evrardjp)

2 1

[largescale-sig] Meeting summary and next actions
by Thierry Carrez 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

Hi everyone, The Large Scale SIG held a meeting today. You can catch up with the summary and logs of the meeting at: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/large_scale_sig/2020/large_scale_si… amorin reported on progress documenting better configuration defaults for large scale, as can be seen on the etherpad[1]. He will set up a wiki page under our SIG page[2] to continue solidifying that content, as well as proposing a patch to Nova doc to point to that page. [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/large-scale-sig-documentation [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Large_Scale_SIG The story we collected in the scaling stories etherpad[3] proves itself very valuable. We should encourage collecting small bits of information and anecdotes of scaling up, it does not have to be as thorough of a report as the one already collected. [3] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/scaling-stories masahito reported on progress on the oslo.metrics spec[4]. He plans to post a new patchset of that spec very soon. [4] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/704733/ In other topics, oneswig suggested that we also tackle bare metal cluster scaling. This should be considered a part of the "scaling within one cluster" goal, just for specific types of clusters. It would be great to have a session around bare metal cluster scaling at the upcoming OpenDev event[5] (under the "Large scale usage of open infrastructure" track). belmiro and masahito volunteered to be part of the programming committee for that track. the idea would be to make sure it aligns with the goals of this SIG, and that we recruit new members there. For example, we could have a specific session on scaling-stories, where people can informally talk about scaling anecdotes, and then we'd take notes and follow up with them to submit something more detailed. [5] https://www.openstack.org/events/opendev-ptg-2020/ The next meeting will happen on March 11, at 9:00 UTC on #openstack-meeting. Cheers, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)

1 0

[tripleo] missing centos-8 rpms for kolla builds
by Wesley Hayutin 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

Greetings, I know the ceph repo is in progress. TripleO / RDO is not releasing opendaylight Can the RDO team comment on the rest of the missing packages here please? Thank you!! https://review.opendev.org/#/c/699414/9/kolla/image/build.py NOTE(mgoddard): Mark images with missing dependencies as unbuildable for # CentOS 8. 'centos8': { "barbican-api", # Missing uwsgi-plugin-python3 "ceph-base", # Missing Ceph repo "cinder-base", # Missing Ceph repo "collectd", # Missing collectd-ping and # collectd-sensubility packages "elasticsearch", # Missing elasticsearch repo "etcd", # Missing etcd package "fluentd", # Missing td-agent repo "glance-base", # Missing Ceph repo "gnocchi-base", # Missing Ceph repo "hacluster-base", # Missing hacluster repo "ironic-conductor", # Missing shellinabox package "kibana", # Missing elasticsearch repo "manila-share", # Missing Ceph repo "mongodb", # Missing mongodb and mongodb-server packages "monasca-grafana", # Using python2 "nova-compute", # Missing Ceph repo "nova-libvirt", # Missing Ceph repo "nova-spicehtml5proxy", # Missing spicehtml5 package "opendaylight", # Missing opendaylight repo "ovsdpdk", # Not supported on CentOS "sensu-base", # Missing sensu package "tgtd", # Not supported on CentOS 8 }, 'centos8+source': { "barbican-base", # Missing uwsgi-plugin-python3 "bifrost-base", # Bifrost does not support CentOS 8 "cyborg-agent", # opae-sdk does not support CentOS 8 "freezer-base", # Missing package trickle "masakari-monitors", # Missing hacluster repo "zun-compute", # Missing Ceph repo

9 19

OpenStack with vCenter
by Kevin Puusild 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

Hello I'm currently trying to setup DevStack with vCenter (Not ESXi), i found a perfect documentation for this task: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/NovaVMware/DeveloperGuide But the problem here is that when i start *stack.sh *with localrc file shown in documentation the installing process fails. Is this documentation out-dated? Is there some up to date documentation? -- Best Regards. Kevin Puusild

2 1

[scientific-sig] IRC Meeting today - 1100 UTC
by Stig Telfer 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

Hi All - We have a Scientific SIG meeting on IRC at 1100 UTC in channel #openstack-meeting. Everyone is welcome. Today’s agenda is here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Scientific_SIG#IRC_Meeting_February_26th_20… <https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Scientific_SIG#IRC_Meeting_February_26th_20…> Today we’d like to cover SIG participation in a number of upcoming events. The best SIG events are when we get together face-to-face. Cheers, Stig

1 0

[tc] February meeting Agenda
by Jean-Philippe Evrard 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

Hello everyone, Our next meeting is happening next week Thursday (the 5th), and the agenda is, as usual, on the wiki! Here is a primer of the agenda for this month: Follow up on past action items Report on tc/uc merge (ttx): See http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-February/012806… Ensuring the analysis of the survey was updated (jungleboyj) Report on telemetry after Rico's convo with the PTL (ricolin) Report on stable branch policy work: mnaser to push an update to distill what happened on the ML in terms of stable branch policy (mnaser) Report on the community goals for U and V, py2 drop (gmann) Report on release naming (mugsie) Dropping side projects - draft guidelines are available for review https://review.opendev.org/#/c/707421/ See you there! Regards, Jean-Philippe Evrard (evrardjp)

1 0