July 2020 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

Re: [Openstack-mentoring] Neutron subnet with DHCP relay - continued
by Amy Marrich 11 Aug '20

11 Aug '20

Hey Tom, Adding the OpenStack discuss list as I think you got several replies from there as well. Thanks, Amy (spotz) On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 5:37 PM Thomas King <thomas.king(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Good day, > > I'm bringing up a thread from June about DHCP relay with neutron networks > in Ironic, specifically using unicast relay. The Triple-O docs do not have > the plain config/neutron config to show how a regular Ironic setup would > use DHCP relay. > > The Neutron segments docs state that I must have a unique physical network > name. If my Ironic controller has a single provisioning network with a > single physical network name, doesn't this prevent my use of multiple > segments? > > Further, the segments docs state this: "The operator must ensure that > every compute host that is supposed to participate in a router provider > network has direct connectivity to one of its segments." (section 3 at > https://docs.openstack.org/neutron/pike/admin/config-routed-networks.html#p… - > current docs state the same thing) > This defeats the purpose of using DHCP relay, though, where the Ironic > controller does *not* have direct connectivity to the remote segment. > > Here is a rough drawing - what is wrong with my thinking here? > Remote server: 10.146.30.32/27 VLAN 2116<-----> Router with DHCP relay > <------> Ironic controller, provisioning network: 10.146.29.192/26 VLAN > 2115 > > Thank you, > Tom King > _______________________________________________ > openstack-mentoring mailing list > openstack-mentoring(a)lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-mentoring >

3 12

[puppet][congress] Retiring puppet-congress
by Takashi Kajinami 10 Aug '20

10 Aug '20

Hello, As you know, Congress project has been retired already[1], so we will retire its puppet module, puppet-congress in openstack puppet project as well. [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-April/014292.ht… Because congress was directly retired instead of getting migrated to x namespace, we'll follow the same way about puppet-congress retirement and won't create x/puppet-congress. Thank you for the contribution made for the project ! Please let us know if you have any concerns about this retirement. Thank you, Takashi Kajinami

2 1

[horizon] Victoria virtual mid-cycle poll
by Ivan Kolodyazhny 06 Aug '20

06 Aug '20

Hi team, As discussed at Horizon's Virtual PTG [1], we'll have a virtual mid-cycle meeting around Victoria-2 milestone. We'll discuss Horizon current cycle development priorities and the future of Horizon with modern JS frameworks. Please indicate your availability to meet for the first session, which will be held during the week of July 27-31: https://doodle.com/poll/3neps94amcreaw8q Please respond before 12:00 UTC on Tuesday 4 August. [1] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/horizon-v-ptg Regards, Ivan Kolodyazhny, http://blog.e0ne.info/

1 3

[horizon] patternfly?
by Mohammed Naser 06 Aug '20

06 Aug '20

Hi everyone, I was wondering if anyone in the community has explored the idea of implementing PatternFly inside Horizon. It seems like it shares a lot of the similar ideas that we use and we could really benefit from using a common library that already exists with a lot of good UX thought behind it. I know it's based on React which is a bit of a leap from where Horizon is today. However, I'd be curious if the Horizon team is interested in figuring out a plan to make a migration to something like this happen. Personally, I think I would be able to provide resources to have someone do this work. However, if this seems like a huge stretch and architecture change where it actually makes more sense to stand this up from scratch (and implement an architecture where the dashboard talks directly to the APIs?), perhaps we should explore that. I also would like to hear more from our extended community too, as I think we really need to improve our user interface experience. Thanks, Mohammed -- Mohammed Naser VEXXHOST, Inc.

11 31

[TC] [PTG] Victoria vPTG Summary of Conversations and Action Items
by Kendall Nelson 06 Aug '20

06 Aug '20

Hello Everyone! I hope you all had a productive and enjoyable PTG! While it’s still reasonably fresh, I wanted to take a moment to summarize discussions and actions that came out of TC discussions. If there is a particular action item you are interested in taking, please reply on this thread! For the long version, check out the etherpad from the PTG[1]. Tuesday ====== Ussuri Retrospective ---------------------------- As usual we accomplished a lot. Some of the things we accomplished were around enumerating operating systems per release (again), removing python2 support, and adding the ideas repository. Towards the end of the release, we had a lot of discussions around what to do with leaderless projects, the role of PTLs, and what to do with projects that were missing PTL candidates for the next release. We discussed office hours, their history and reason for existence, and clarified how we can strengthen communication amongst ourselves, the projects, and the larger community. TC Onboarding -------------------- It was brought up that those elected most recently (and even new members the election before) felt like there wasn’t enough onboarding into the TC. Through discussion about what we can do to better support returning members is to better document the daily, weekly and monthly tasks TC members are supposed to be doing. Kendall Nelson proposed a patch to start adding more detail to a guide for TC members already[2]. It was also proposed that we have a sort of mentorship or shadow program for people interested in joining the TC or new TC members by more experienced TC members. The discussion about the shadow/mentorship program is to be continued. TC/UC Merge ------------------ Thierry gave an update on the merge of the committees. The simplified version is that the current proposal is that UC members are picked from TC members, the UC operates within the TC, and that we are already setup for this given the number of TC members that have AUC status. None of this requires a by-laws change. One next step that has already begun is the merging of the openstack-users ML into openstack-discuss ML. Other next steps are to decide when to do the actual transition (disbanding the separate UC, probably at the next election?) and when to setup AUC’s to be defined as extra-ATC’s to be included in the electorate for elections. For more detail, check out the openstack-discuss ML thread[3]. Wednesday ========= Help Wanted List ----------------------- We settled on a format for the job postings and have several on the list. We talked about how often we want to look through, update or add to it. The proposal is to do this yearly. We need to continue pushing on the board to dedicate contributors at their companies to work on these items, and get them to understand that it's an investment that will take longer than a year in a lot of cases; interns are great, but not enough. TC Position on Foundation Member Community Contributions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The discussion started with a state of things today - the expectations of platinum members, the benefits the members get being on the board and why they should donate contributor resources for these benefits, etc. A variety of proposals were made: either enforce or remove the minimum contribution level, give gold members the chance to have increased visibility (perhaps giving them some of the platinum member advantages) if they supplement their monetary contributions with contributor contributions, etc. The #ACTION that was decided was for Mohammed to take these ideas to the board and see what they think. OpenStack User-facing APIs -------------------------------------- Users are confused about the state of the user facing API’s; they’ve been told to use the OpenStackClient(OSC) but upon use, they discover that there are features missing that exist in the python-*clients. Partial implementation in the OSC is worse than if the service only used their specific CLI. Members of the OpenStackSDK joined discussions and explained that many of the barriers that projects used to have behind implementing certain commands have been resolved. The proposal is to create a pop up team and that they start with fully migrating Nova, documenting the process and collecting any other unresolved blocking issues with the hope that one day we can set the migration of the remaining projects as a community goal. Supplementally, a new idea was proposed- enforcing new functionality to services is only added to the SDK (and optionally the OSC) and not the project’s specific CLI to stop increasing the disparity between the two. The #ACTION here is to start the pop up team, if you are interested, please reply! Additionally, if you disagree with this kind of enforcement, please contact the TC as soon as possible and explain your concerns. PTL Role in OpenStack today & Leaderless Projects --------------------------------------------------------------------- This was a veeeeeeeerrrry long conversation that went in circles a few times. The very short version is that we, the TC, are willing to let project teams decide for themselves if they want to have a more deconstructed kind of PTL role by breaking it into someone responsible for releases and someone responsible for security issues. This new format also comes with setting the expectation that for things like project updates and signing up for PTG time, if someone on the team doesn’t actively take that on, the default assumption is that the project won’t participate. The #ACTION we need someone to take on is to write a resolution about how this will work and how it can be done. Ideally, this would be done before the next technical election, so that teams can choose it at that point. If you are interested in taking on the writing of this resolution, please speak up! Cross Project Work ------------------------- -Pop Up Teams- The two teams we have right now are Encryption and Secure Consistent Policy Groups. Both are making slow progress and will continue. -Reducing Community Goals Per Cycle- Historically we have had two goals per cycle, but for smaller teams this can be a HUGE lift. The #ACTION is to clearly outline the documentation for the goal proposal and selection process to clarify that selecting only one goal is fine. No one has claimed this action item yet. -Victoria Goal Finalization- Currently, we have three proposals and one accepted goal. If we are going to select a second goal, it needs to be done ASAP as Victoria development has already begun. All TC members should review the last proposal requesting selection[4]. -Wallaby Cycle Goal Discussion Kick Off- Firstly, there is a #ACTION that one or two TC members are needed to guide the W goal selection. If you are interested, please reply to this thread! There were a few proposed goals for VIctoria that didn’t make it that could be the starting point for W discussions, in particular, the rootwrap goal which would be good for operators. The OpenStackCLI might be another goal to propose for Wallaby. Detecting Unmaintained Projects Early --------------------------------------------------- The TC liaisons program had been created a few releases ago, but the initial load on TC members was large. We discussed bringing this program back and making the project health checks happen twice a release, either the start or end of the release and once in the middle. TC liaisons will look at previously proposed releases, release activity of the team, the state of tempest plugins, if regular meetings are happening, if there are patches in progress and how busy the project’s IRC channel is to make a determination. Since more than one liaison will be assigned to each project, those liaisons can divvy up the work how they see fit. The other aspect that still needs to be decided is where the health checks will be recorded- in a wiki? In a meeting and meeting logs? That decision is still to be continued. The current #ACTION currently unassigned is that we need to assign liaisons for the Victoria cycle and decide when to do the first health check. Friday ===== Reducing Systems and Friction to Drive Change ---------------------------------------------------------------- This was another conversation that went in circles a bit before realizing that we should make a list of the more specific problems we want to address and then brainstorm solutions for them. The list we created (including things already being worked) are as follows: - TC separate from UC (solution in progress) - Stable releases being approved by a separate team (solution in progress) - Making repository creation faster (especially for established project teams) - Create a process blueprint for project team mergers - Requirements Team being one person - Stable Team - Consolidate the agent experience - Figure out how to improve project <--> openstack client/sdk interaction. If you feel compelled to pick one of these things up and start proposing solutions or add to the list, please do! Monitoring in OpenStack (Ceilometer + Telemetry + Gnocchi State) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This conversation is also ongoing, but essentially we talked about the state of things right now- largely they are not well maintained and there is added complexity with Ceilometers being partially dependent on Gnocchi. There are a couple of ideas to look into like using oslo.metrics for the interface between all the tools or using Ceilometer without Gnocchi if we can clean up those dependencies. No specific action items here, just please share your thoughts if you have them. Ideas Repo Next Steps ------------------------------- Out of the Ussuri retrospective, it was brought up that we probably needed to talk a little more about what we wanted for this repo. Essentially we just want it to be a place to collect ideas into without worrying about the how. It should be a place to document ideas we have had (old and new) and keep all the discussion in one place as opposed to historic email threads, meetings logs, other IRC logs, etc. We decided it would be good to periodically go through this repo, likely as a forum session at a summit to see if there is any updating that could happen or promotion of ideas to community goals, etc. ‘tc:approved-release’ Tag --------------------------------- This topic was proposed by the Manila team from a discussion they had earlier in the week. We talked about the history of the tag and how usage of tags has evolved. At this point, the proposal is to remove the tag as anything in the releases repo is essentially tc-approved. Ghanshyam has volunteered to document this and do the removal. The board also needs to be notified of this and to look at projects.yaml in the governance repo as the source of truth for TC approved projects. The unassigned #ACTION item is to review remaining tags and see if there are others that need to be modified/removed/added to drive common behavior across OpenSack components. Board Proposals ---------------------- This was a pretty quick summary of all discussions we had that had any impact on the board and largely decided who would mention them. Session Feedback ------------------------ This was also a pretty quick topic compared to many of the others, we talked about how things went across all our discussions (largely we called the PTG a success) logistically. We tried to make good use of the raising hands feature which mostly worked, but it lacks context and its possible that the conversation has moved on by the time it’s your turn (if you even remember what you want to say). OpenStack 2.0: k8s Native ----------------------------------- This topic was brought up at the end of our time so we didn’t have time to discuss it really. Basically Mohammed wanted to start the conversation about adding k8s as a base service[5] and what we would do if a project proposed required k8s. Adding services that work with k8s could open a door to new innovation in OpenStack. Obviously this topic will need to be discussed further as we barely got started before we had to wrap things up. So. The tldr; Here are the #ACTION items we need owners for: - Start the User Facing API Pop Up Team - Write a resolution about how the deconstructed PTL roles will work - Update Goal Selection docs to explain that one or more goals is fine; it doesn’t have to be more than one - Two volunteers to start the W goal selection process - Assign two TC liaisons per project - Review Tags to make sure they are still good for driving common behavior across all openstack projects Here are the things EVERYONE needs to do: - Review last goal proposal so that we can decide to accept or reject it for the V release[4] - Add systems that are barriers to progress in openstack to the Reducing Systems and Friction list - Continue conversations you find important Thanks everyone for your hard work and great conversations :) Enjoy the attached (photoshopped) team photo :) -Kendall (diablo_rojo) [1] TC PTG Etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-victoria-ptg [2] TC Guide Patch: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/732983/ [3] UC TC Merge Thread: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-May/014736.html [4] Proposed V Goal: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/731213/ [5] Base Service Description: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/base-services.html

3 2

[kolla] Proposing Michał Nasiadka for kayobe-core
by Mark Goddard 05 Aug '20

05 Aug '20

Hi, I'd like to propose adding Michał Nasiadka to the kayobe-core group. Michał is a valued member of the Kolla core team, and has been providing some good patches and reviews for Kayobe too. Kayobians, please respond with +1/-1. Cheers, Mark

4 4

[Glance] Proposing Dan Smith for glance core
by Abhishek Kekane 04 Aug '20

04 Aug '20

Hi All, I'd like to propose adding Dan Smith to the glance core group. Dan Smith has contributed to stabilize image import workflow as well as multiple stores of glance. He is also contributing in tempest and nova to set up CI/tempest jobs around image import and multiple stores. Being involved on the mailing-list and IRC channels, Dan is always helpful to the community and here to help. Please respond with +1/-1 until 03rd August, 2020 1400 UTC. Cheers, Abhishek

5 5

[ironic] let's talk about grenade
by Iury Gregory 03 Aug '20

03 Aug '20

Hello everyone, I'm still on the fight to move our ironic-grenade-dsvm-multinode-multitenant to zuulv3 [1], you can find some of my findings on the etherpad [2] under `Move to Zuul v3 Jobs (Iurygregory)`. If you are interested in helping out we are going to schedule a meeting to discuss about this, please use the doodle in [3]. I will close the doodle on Wed July 29. Thanks! [1] https://review.opendev.org/705030 [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/IronicWhiteBoard [3] https://doodle.com/poll/m69b5zwnsbgcysct -- *Att[]'sIury Gregory Melo Ferreira * *MSc in Computer Science at UFCG* *Part of the puppet-manager-core team in OpenStack* *Software Engineer at Red Hat Czech* *Social*: https://www.linkedin.com/in/iurygregory *E-mail: iurygregory(a)gmail.com <iurygregory(a)gmail.com>*

1 2

Re: [openstack-community] Octavia :; Unable to create load balancer
by Monika Samal 03 Aug '20

03 Aug '20

Hey Fabian, Can you please elaborate more about keystone settings, where in need to make changes etc.. I am new to openstack finding it difficult to resolve kind of atuck ________________________________ From: Fabian Zimmermann <dev.faz(a)gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 1:22 AM To: Monika Samal <monika.samal(a)outlook.com> Cc: Michael Johnson <johnsomor(a)gmail.com>; Amy Marrich <amy(a)demarco.com>; openstack-discuss <openstack-discuss(a)lists.openstack.org>; community(a)lists.openstack.org <community(a)lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-community] Octavia :; Unable to create load balancer Hi, check your keystone auth settings. If i remember correctly there are two different sections to which require valid keystone settings. Fabian Monika Samal <monika.samal(a)outlook.com<mailto:monika.samal@outlook.com>> schrieb am Do., 30. Juli 2020, 21:43: Hello Michael and Amy, As suggested I checked and found below error on Octavia-api logs, but not sure how to resolve and proceed further with this. [cid:a29109eb-08ac-4f9a-92d4-2befba2cc90e] Regards, Moni ________________________________ From: Michael Johnson <johnsomor(a)gmail.com<mailto:johnsomor@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 9:41 PM To: Amy Marrich <amy(a)demarco.com<mailto:amy@demarco.com>> Cc: Monika Samal <monika.samal(a)outlook.com<mailto:monika.samal@outlook.com>>; openstack-discuss <openstack-discuss(a)lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org>>; community(a)lists.openstack.org<mailto:community@lists.openstack.org> <community(a)lists.openstack.org<mailto:community@lists.openstack.org>> Subject: Re: [openstack-community] Octavia :; Unable to create load balancer Thank you for forwarding this Amy. Hi Moni, Can you check the Octavia API process log and the horizon log files to see what is causing the "Internal Server Error"? This sounds like a configuration file problem as Amy mentioned. There should be log messages in one of those two locations that will point to the problem. Michael On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 6:10 AM Amy Marrich <amy(a)demarco.com<mailto:amy@demarco.com>> wrote: > > Adding the discuss list where you might get more help, but also double check your config file for any extra spaces or typos. > > Thanks, > > Amy (spotz) > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 6:30 AM Monika Samal <monika.samal(a)outlook.com<mailto:monika.samal@outlook.com>> wrote: >> >> Hello All, >> >> I have been following https://docs.openstack.org/kolla-ansible/latest/reference/networking/octavi… to deploy Octavia. I was successful in deployin Octavia but when I go to horizon dashboard and create loadbalancer am getting error "9876/v2.0/lbaas/loadbalancers, Internal Server Error". I have checked worker log at /var/log/kola-ansible/Octavia-worker.log and found oslo messaging was refusing connection I fixed it but still getting same error. Kindly help >> >> Regards, >> Moni >> _______________________________________________ >> Community mailing list >> Community(a)lists.openstack.org<mailto:Community@lists.openstack.org> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community

3 8

[nova] If any spec freeze exception now?
by Rambo 03 Aug '20

03 Aug '20

Hi,all:         I have a spec which is support volume backed server rebuild[0].This spec was accepted in Stein, but some of the work did not finish, so repropose it for Victoria.And this spec is depend on the cinder reimage api [1], now the reimage api is almost all completed. So I sincerely wish this spec will approved in Victoria. If this spec is approved, I will achieve it at once. Ref: [0]:https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/volume-backed-server-rebuild [1]:https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/add-volume-re-image-api Best Regards Rambo

3 2