November 2022 - openstack-discuss

[puppet] Proposing core team clean up
by Takashi Kajinami 23 Aug '23

23 Aug '23

Hello, I went through the current core reviewers and found out that the current list includes some people no longer working in the OpenStack community. I'd like to propose removing the following persons from the core reviewer team as we haven't seen these people making any activity in the community recently. * Pradeep Kilambi - puppet-aodh, puppet-ceilometer, puppet-gnocchi, puppet-panko * Richard Megginson - puppet-keystone * Denis Egorenko - puppet-murano * Serg Melikyan - puppet-murano * Sergey Kolekonov - puppet-neutron * David Moreau Simard - puppet-openstack-integration * Yu xingchao - all modules Also, I confirmed that Wes Hayutin is no longer working for OpenStack and he agreed to retire from the core reviewer position. Thus I'll remove him as well. I'll be open for any feedback for one week to hear any thoughts/feedback about this removal. I'd like to take this moment to thank all people for their past work. We always welcome them back if they resume their work in this project. Thank you, Takashi KAJINAMI

3 4

Re: [all] [oslo.messaging] Interest in collaboration on a NATS driver
by Tobias Urdin 22 Jul '23

22 Jul '23

Hello Kai, Great to hear that you’re interested! I’m currently just testing this as a POC directly in devstack so there is real-world testing (not should it yet I think, needs more development first). Best regards Tobias > On 30 Aug 2022, at 18:32, Kai Bojens <kb(a)kbojens.de> wrote: > > Am 29.08.22 um 15:46 schrieb Tobias Urdin: > >> If anybody, or any company, out there would be interested in collaborating in a project to bring this support and maintain it feel free to >> reach out. I’m hoping somebody will bite but atleast I’ve put it out there for all of you. > > Hi, > I am very much interested to take a closer look at your work and maybe contribute to it. Although I'm working with OpenStack for my employer at the moment, I'd do this in my spare time as I'm not sure that I can convince him to add another staging system with a full OpenStack installation just for developing a RabbitMQ replacement. That's not on our agenda as we are mostly users and not developers of OpenStack. > > As I'm pretty new to the messaging topic and had just heard of NATS and your idea, I'll first would have to dive into NATS and then I would take a closer look at your code and maybe try to create some documentation or tests. So, I can't promise anything but as I said I'm very interested in your approach as I also see the massive load from RabbitMQ. > > This brings me to the most important question: Where do you run and test your code? > > Greetings, > Kai

8 30

[ironic][stable] Proposing EOL of ironic project branches older than Wallaby
by Jay Faulkner 01 Jun '23

01 Jun '23

Hi all, Ironic has a large amount of stable branches still in EM. We need to take action to ensure those branches are either retired or have CI repaired to the point of being usable. Specifically, I'm looking at these branches across all Ironic projects: - stable/queens - stable/rocky - stable/stein - stable/train - stable/ussuri - stable/victoria In lieu of any volunteers to maintain the CI, my recommendation for all the branches listed above is that they be marked EOL. If someone wants to volunteer to maintain CI for those branches, they can propose one of the below paths be taken instead: 1 - Someone volunteers to maintain these branches, and also report the status of CI of these older branches periodically on the Ironic whiteboard and in Ironic meetings. If you feel strongly that one of these branches needs to continue to be in service; volunteering in this way is how to save them. 2 - We seriously reduce CI. Basically removing all tempest tests to ensure that CI remains reliable and able to merge emergency or security fixes when needed. In some cases; this still requires CI fixes as some older inspector branches are failing *installing packages* in unit tests. I would still like, in this case, that someone volunteers to ensure the minimalist CI remains happy. My intention is to let this message serve as notice and a waiting period; and if I've not heard any response here or in Monday's Ironic meeting (in 6 days), I will begin taking action on retiring these branches. This is simply a start; other branches (including bugfix branches) are also in bad shape in CI, but getting these retired will significantly reduce the surface area of projects and branches to evaluate. I know it's painful to drop support for these branches; but we've provided good EM support for these branches for a long time and by pruning them away, we'll be able to save time to dedicate to other items. Thanks, Jay Faulkner

3 5

live resize
by Parsa Aminian 15 Mar '23

15 Mar '23

hello on openstack with ceph backend is it possible to live resize instances ? I want to change flavor without any down time .

5 6

[kolla-ansible] [yoga] [magnum] [k8s] cannot attach persistent volume to pod
by Stuart Whitman 24 Feb '23

24 Feb '23

Hello, When I try to attach a persistent cinder volume to a pod, I get FailedMount and FailedAttachVolume timeout events. I also get these errors in the log of the csi-cinder-controllerplugin-0 pod: E1020 13:38:41.747511 1 reflector.go:126] k8s.io/client-go/informers/factory.go:133: Failed to list *v1beta1.VolumeAttachment: the server could not find the requested resource E1020 13:38:41.748187 1 reflector.go:126] k8s.io/client-go/informers/factory.go:133: Failed to list *v1beta1.CSINode: the server could not find the requested resource I fixed a CrashLoopBackoff error with the csi-snapshotter container in the csi-cinder-controllerplugin-0 pod by providing the label "csi_snapshotter_tag=v4.0.0" when I created the cluster template. I found that suggestion in an issue on the GitHub cloud-provider-openstack project. I'm not finding any help with this error on Google. Thanks, -Stu _____________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments from Group W may contain confidential and/or proprietary information and is intended only for the named recipient to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately of that fact by return e-mail and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments to it.

3 5

[charms] Team Delegation proposal
by Chris MacNaughton 08 Feb '23

08 Feb '23

Hello All, <tl;dr> I would like to propose some new ACLs in Gerrit for the openstack-charms project: - openstack-core-charms - ceph-charms - network-charms - stable-maintenance </tl;dr> With an increasing focus split among the openstack-charmers team, I'm observing that people are focused on more specific subsets of the charms, and would like to propose that new ACLs are created to allow us to recognize that officially. I've chosen the breakdown above as it aligns neatly with where the focus lines are at this point, letting developers work on their specific focus areas. This proposal would not reduce permissions for anybody who is currently a core on the openstack-charms project and, in fact, future subteam core members could aspire to full openstack-charmers core as well. Ideally, this approach will let us escalate developers to "core" developers for the subteam(s) where they have demonstrated the expertise we expect in a core-charmer. It also allows a more gradual escalation to being a core in the openstack-charms project, making it a progression rather than a single destination. As a related addition, I'm appending to this proposal the creation of a stable-maintenance ACL which would allow members to manage backports without a full core-charmer grant. --- Chris MacNaughton

5 7

[cinder][drivers] third-party CI for os-brick changes
by Brian Rosmaita 04 Jan '23

04 Jan '23

To all third-party CI maintainers, As you are aware, cinder third-party CI systems are required to run on all cinder changes. However, the os-brick library used in cinder CI testing is the latest appropriate *released* version of os-brick. Thus, it is possible for changes to be happening in os-brick development that might impact the functionality of your driver. If you aren't testing os-brick changes, you won't find out about these until *after* the next os-brick release, which is bad news all around. Therefore, at last week's cinder midcycle [0], the cinder project team agreed to require that cinder third-party CI systems run on all os-brick changes in addition to all cinder changes. This is a nice-to-have for the current (Zed) development cycle, but will be required in order for a driver to be considered 'supported' in the 2023.1 (Antelope) release [1]. If you have comments or concerns about this policy, please reply on the list to this email or put an item on the agenda [2] for the cinder weekly meeting. [0] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-zed-midcycles [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/tested-3rdParty-drivers#What_changes… [2] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-zed-meetings

2 1

Glance api deployed only on a single controller on multi-controller deployment [kolla]
by A Monster 30 Dec '22

30 Dec '22

I've deployed openstack xena using kolla ansible on a centos 8 stream cluster, using two controller nodes, however I found out after the deployment that glance api is not available in one node, I tried redeploying but I got the same behavior, although the deployment finished without displaying any error. Thank you. Regards

4 4

The CFP for the OpenInfra Summit 2023 is open!
by Erin Disney 25 Dec '22

25 Dec '22

Hi Everyone! The CFP for the 2023 OpenInfra Summit (June 13-15, 2023) is NOW LIVE [1]! Check out the full list of tracks and submit a talk on your topic of expertise [2]. The CFP closes January 10, 2023, at 11:59 p.m. PT We are also now accepting submissions for Forum sessions [3]! What should you submit to the forum vs. the traditional CFP? For the Forum, submit discussion-oriented sessions, including challenges around different software components, working group progress or best practices to tackle common issues. Looking for other resources? Registration [4], sponsorships [5], travel support [6] and visa requests [7] are also all open! Find all the information on the OpenInfra Summit 2023 in one place [8]! Cheers, Erin [1] https://cfp.openinfra.dev/app/vancouver-2023/19/presentations <https://cfp.openinfra.dev/app/vancouver-2023/19/presentationshttps://cfp.op…> [2] https://openinfra.dev/summit/vancouver-2023/summit-tracks/ <https://openinfra.dev/summit/vancouver-2023/summit-tracks/> [3] https://cfp.openinfra.dev/app/vancouver-2023/20/ <https://cfp.openinfra.dev/app/vancouver-2023/20/> [4] http://openinfra.dev/summit/registration <http://openinfra.dev/summit/registration> [5] http://openinfra.dev/summit/vancouver-2023/summit-sponsor/ <http://openinfra.dev/summit/vancouver-2023/summit-sponsor/> [6] https://openinfrafoundation.formstack.com/forms/openinfra_tsp <https://openinfrafoundation.formstack.com/forms/openinfra_tsp> [7] https://openinfrafoundation.formstack.com/forms/visa_yvrsummit2023 <https://openinfrafoundation.formstack.com/forms/visa_yvrsummit2023> [8] https://openinfra.dev/summit/vancouver-2023 <https://openinfra.dev/summit/vancouver-2023>

2 1

[all][TC] Bare rechecks stats week of 25.07
by Slawek Kaplonski 16 Dec '22

16 Dec '22

Hi, Here are fresh data about bare rechecks. +--------------------+---------------+--------------+-------------------+ | Team | Bare rechecks | All Rechecks | Bare rechecks [%] | +--------------------+---------------+--------------+-------------------+ | requirements | 2 | 2 | 100.0 | | keystone | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | | OpenStackSDK | 3 | 3 | 100.0 | | tacker | 3 | 3 | 100.0 | | freezer | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | | rally | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | | OpenStack-Helm | 14 | 15 | 93.33 | | cinder | 6 | 7 | 85.71 | | kolla | 20 | 25 | 80.0 | | neutron | 4 | 5 | 80.0 | | Puppet OpenStack | 10 | 13 | 76.92 | | OpenStack Charms | 3 | 6 | 50.0 | | nova | 11 | 22 | 50.0 | | tripleo | 8 | 19 | 42.11 | | ironic | 1 | 3 | 33.33 | | Quality Assurance | 1 | 3 | 33.33 | | octavia | 0 | 1 | 0.0 | | OpenStackAnsible | 0 | 1 | 0.0 | | designate | 0 | 1 | 0.0 | | Release Management | 0 | 1 | 0.0 | | horizon | 0 | 1 | 0.0 | +--------------------+---------------+--------------+-------------------+ Those data should be more accurate as my script now counts only comments from last 7 days, not all comments from patches updated in last 7 days. Reminder: "bare rechecks" are recheck comments without any reason given. If You need to do recheck for patch due to failed job(s), please first check such failed job and try to identify what was the issue there. Maybe there is already opened bug for that or maybe You can open new one and add it as explanation in the recheck comment. Or maybe it was some infra issue, in such case short explanation in the comment would also be enough. -- Slawek Kaplonski Principal Software Engineer Red Hat

6 10