March 2020 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

oslo.cache 2.1.0 breaks oslo_cache.memcache_pool
by Radosław Piliszek 06 Mar '20

06 Mar '20

Please be informed that oslo.cache 2.1.0 breaks oslo_cache.memcache_pool Kolla-Ansible gate is already RED and a quick codesearch revealed other deployment methods might be in trouble soon as well. This does not affect devstack/tempest as they use dogpile.cache.memcached instead. The error is TypeError: __init__() got an unexpected keyword argument 'dead_retry' For details see: https://bugs.launchpad.net/oslo.cache/+bug/1866008 -yoctozepto

3 7

Re: [CINDER] Distributed storage alternatives
by Burak Hoban 06 Mar '20

06 Mar '20

Hi guys, We use Dell EMC VxFlex OS, which in its current version allows for free use and commercial (in version 3.5 a licence is needed, but its perpetual). It's similar to Ceph but more geared towards scale and performance etc (it use to be called ScaleIO). Other than that, I know of a couple sites using SAN storage, but a lot of people just seem to use Ceph. Cheers, Burak ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:20:29 +0100 From: Ignazio Cassano <ignaziocassano(a)gmail.com> To: Alfredo De Luca <alfredo.deluca(a)gmail.com> Cc: openstack-discuss <openstack-discuss(a)lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [CINDER] Distributed storage alternatives Message-ID: <CAB7j8cXLQWh5fx-E9AveUEa6OncDwCL6BOGc-Pm2TX4FKwnUKg(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hello Alfredo, I think best opensource solution is ceph. As far as commercial solutions are concerned we are working with network appliance (netapp) and emc unity. Regards Ignazio Il Gio 13 Feb 2020, 13:48 Alfredo De Luca <alfredo.deluca(a)gmail.com> ha scritto: > Hi all. > we 'd like to explore storage back end alternatives to CEPH for > Openstack > > I am aware of GlusterFS but what would you recommend for distributed > storage like Ceph and specifically for block device provisioning? > Of course must be: > > 1. *Reliable* > 2. *Fast* > 3. *Capable of good performance over WAN given a good network back > end* > > Both open source and commercial technologies and ideas are welcome. > > Cheers > > -- > *Alfredo* > > _____________________________________________________________________ The information transmitted in this message and its attachments (if any) is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. The message may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail and associated material from any computer. The intended recipient of this e-mail may only use, reproduce, disclose or distribute the information contained in this e-mail and any attached files, with the permission of the sender. This message has been scanned for viruses. _____________________________________________________________________

3 3

CPU Topology confusion
by Satish Patel 05 Mar '20

05 Mar '20

Folks, We are running openstack with KVM and i have noticed kvm presenting wrong CPU Tolopoly to VM and because of that we are seeing bad performance to our application. This is openstack compute: # lstopo-no-graphics --no-io Machine (64GB total) NUMANode L#0 (P#0 32GB) + Package L#0 + L3 L#0 (25MB) L2 L#0 (256KB) + L1d L#0 (32KB) + L1i L#0 (32KB) + Core L#0 PU L#0 (P#0) PU L#1 (P#20) L2 L#1 (256KB) + L1d L#1 (32KB) + L1i L#1 (32KB) + Core L#1 PU L#2 (P#1) PU L#3 (P#21) This is VM running on above compute # lstopo-no-graphics --no-io Machine (59GB total) NUMANode L#0 (P#0 29GB) + Package L#0 + L3 L#0 (16MB) L2 L#0 (4096KB) + Core L#0 L1d L#0 (32KB) + L1i L#0 (32KB) + PU L#0 (P#0) L1d L#1 (32KB) + L1i L#1 (32KB) + PU L#1 (P#1) L2 L#1 (4096KB) + Core L#1 L1d L#2 (32KB) + L1i L#2 (32KB) + PU L#2 (P#2) L1d L#3 (32KB) + L1i L#3 (32KB) + PU L#3 (P#3) if you noticed P#0 and P#1 has own (32KB) cache per thread that is wrong presentation if you compare with physical CPU. This is a screenshot of AWS vs Openstack CPU Topology and looking at openstack its presentation is little odd, is that normal? https://imgur.com/a/2sPwJVC I am running CentOS7.6 with kvm 2.12 version.

3 8

OSC future (formerly [glance] Different checksum between CLI and curl)
by Albert Braden 05 Mar '20

05 Mar '20

As an openstack operator I was pretty ecstatic to hear that the assortment of clients would be replaced by a single client. I would be disappointed to find that a component would not integrate and would continue to use a separate client. This would be a step backward IMO. The discussion about microversions goes over my head, but I would hope to see the developers get together and solve the issue and continue working toward integration. -----Original Message----- From: Radosław Piliszek <radoslaw.piliszek(a)gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 9:07 AM To: openstack-discuss <openstack-discuss(a)lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [glance] Different checksum between CLI and curl Folks, sorry to interrupt but I think we have diverged a bit too much from the subject. Only last Gaetan message is on topic here. Please switch to new subject to discuss OSC future. -yoctozepto pon., 2 mar 2020 o 18:03 Tim Bell <tim.bell(a)cern.ch> napisał(a): > > > > On 2 Mar 2020, at 16:49, Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 4:29 PM Luigi Toscano <ltoscano(a)redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On Monday, 2 March 2020 10:54:03 CET Mark Goddard wrote: >> > On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 06:28, Abhishek Kekane <akekane(a)redhat.com> wrote: >> > > Hi Gaëtan, >> > > >> > > Glance team doesn't recommend to use OSC anymore. >> > > I will recommend you to check the same behaviour using >> > > python-glanceclient. >> > >> > That's not cool - everyone has switched to OSC. It's also the first >> > time I've heard of it. >> > >> > > From the end user perspective, we’ve had positive feedback on the convergence to OSC from our cloud consumers. > > There has been great progress with Manila to get shares included (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__review.opendev.org_-23… ) and it would be a pity if we’re asking our end users to understand all of the different project names and inconsistent options/arguments/syntax. > > We had hoped for a project goal to get everyone aligned on OSC but there was not consensus on this, I’d still encourage it to simplify the experience for OpenStack cloud consumers. > > Tim > >

16 25

[osc][sdk] Merging OpenStack SDK and OpenStack Client teams
by Monty Taylor 05 Mar '20

05 Mar '20

Hey everybody, I’d like to propose merging the SDK and OSC teams. We already share an IRC channel, and already share a purpose in life. In OSC we have a current goal of swapping out client implementation for SDK, and we’re Already ensuring that SDK does what it needs to do to facilitate that goal. We also already share PTG space, and have requested a shared set of time at the upcoming Denver PTG. So really the separation is historical not practical, and these days having additional layers of governance is not super useful. I propose that we do a simple merge of the teams. This means the current SDK cores will become cores on OSC, and as most of the OSC cores are already SDK cores, it means the SDK team gains amotoki - which is always a positive. Dean hasn’t had time to spend on OSC quite a bit, sadly, and while we remain hopeful that this will change, we’re slowly coming to terms with the possibility that it might not. With that in mind, I’ll serve as the PTL for the new combined team until the next election. Monty

9 9

[trove][charm] RabbitMQ Connection Error
by tolga＠etom.cloud 05 Mar '20

05 Mar '20

2 1

[ansible-sig][kolla][openstack-ansible][osc][sdk][tripleo] OpenStack modules broken in Ansible 2.8.9
by Mark Goddard 05 Mar '20

05 Mar '20

Hi, The 2.8.9 release of Ansible has a regression [1] which breaks the OpenStack modules. I've proposed a simple fix, hopefully it will be included in a 2.8.10 release soon but in the meantime you may need to blacklist 2.8.9. [1] https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/68042 [2] https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/68043 Cheers, Mark

3 2

[sdk] Additions and subtractions from core team
by Monty Taylor 05 Mar '20

05 Mar '20

Heya, With the previous email about merging OSC and SDK teams, I’d also like to propose the following changes to the SDK core team (keeping in mind that likely means the core team of both OSC and SDK real soon now) Adds: Akihiro Motoki - The only OSC core not in sdk-core. amotoki should really be a core in all projects anyway Sean McGinnis - Sean has been reviewing things as a stable branch maint in both SDK and OSC, and as such has shown a good tendency to help things along when needed and to not approve things when he doesn’t know what’s up. Subtractions: All of these people are awesome, but they’re all long gone: Brian Curtin Clint Byrum Everett Toews Jamie Lennox Jesse Noller Ricardo Carillo Cruz Richard Theis Rosario Di Somma Sam Yaple Terry Howe Monty

5 5

[training-labs] Current training lab for Rocky not working on Windows
by Mike Manning 05 Mar '20

05 Mar '20

Hello, I've attempted to install the training-labs for the Rocky release onto my Windows 10 laptop on VirtualBox 6.0, but it is not working properly. The windows batch files are not functioning properly, and at least one reason is that the shell scripts that the batch files are copying are using "ifup" and "ifdown" which are not supported in Ubuntu 18.04. This one issue seems to imply that the scripts and batch files may need some review. Also, after install the ifupdown package on the system, the batch files and shell scripts still get hung up often on the existence of a file named "done" that never gets created. Can someone help me with this installation of the training-labs software in preparation for the COA exam? Mike Manning mike243512(a)gmail.com

1 0

[neutron][drivers team] Meeting 06.03.2020 cancelled
by Slawek Kaplonski 05 Mar '20

05 Mar '20

Hi Neutrinos, Due to lack of agenda lets cancel tomorrow’s drivers meeting. Lets meet as usually next week on Friday 13.03.2020. But, as You have now one hour of “free” time tomorrow (:D) I would like to ask You to take a look and help triaging one new RFE: https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1865889 I’m not the best expert in routed networks, so I would really like if Miguel, Brian and others could take a look at this :) Thx in advance. — Slawek Kaplonski Senior software engineer Red Hat

1 0