March 2022 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[neutron] bug deputy report (Mar 7 - 13)
by Akihiro Motoki 15 Mar '22

15 Mar '22

Hi, Here is a bug deputy report last week. It was a quiet week too. = Needs attention - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1964339 [OVN Octavia Provider] OVN provider tests using too old version of OVN it looks like local.conf in ovn-octavia-provider-functional-release is not configured properly, so the bug reported here looks valid. Hopefully ovn-octavia-provider folks can look into it. = Gate Failures - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1963899 Rebuild server - notification about port UP isn't sent to nova properly Confirmed, Unassigned - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1964313 Functional tests fails due to missing namespace Confirmed, Unassigned = Assigned - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1964817 [ovn-octavia-provider] Deleted members remain in ERROR status = RFE - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1964765 DHCP agent scheduler filtering ignored when agent service restarted - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1964342 [QoS][OvS] implement QoS bandwidth limitation by leveraging ovs meter Thanks, Akihiro Motoki (amotoki)

1 0

Re: [release] Independent release jobs are still using old release job templates
by Stephen Finucane 15 Mar '22

15 Mar '22

On Fri, 2022-03-11 at 17:13 +0100, Előd Illés wrote: > Thanks for bringing this up Stephen! I am not aware of such discussions, > though i might missed it only. > > So this is about projects with 'independent release model' and their CI > jobs. I think it's a valid question and we should solve this somehow. > > I could also imagine a new task in our release process / schedule, when the > release team generates the new patches via some new scripts (which is > somewhat identical to your second option). This has the risk though that these > kind of patches just linger around without anyone reviewing / fixing / merging them > (similarly like the .gitreview and TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE patches, which > should be merged as soon as possible, but in lots of projects they just remain > there open forever, causing errors time to time). Considering this, maybe the 2nd > option is better but what you wrote as CON regarding special (ie. semver) > stable branches could be really problematic (I don't know actually, so > we need to ask for opinions from those projects that have such stable branches > in their projects with independent release model). I've thought about this more, and I don't think the issue with the special stable branches is actually a big issue. Firstly, I've no evidence that such things even exist so it's likely a purely theoretical issue at this point. However, assuming these branches _do_ exist, they would have to be created manually. There's no reason that the '.zuul.yaml' file couldn't be modified after this was done to use the job template from the current release (i.e. 'openstack-python3-zed-jobs'), ensuring things would age gracefully. If we have "how to request manual stable branch creation" docs somewhere, then we could simply note this there. I think the unversioned job is definitely the way to go now. I just need another approver for [1] to move forward with it. Stephen [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-zuul-jobs/+/833286 > > Thanks, > > Előd > > On 2022. 03. 11. 13:26, Stephen Finucane wrote: > > tl;dr: How do we get projects using the independent release process to use the > > openstack-python3 zuul job template corresponding to the latest release? I've > > noticed a couple of patches like [1] popping up for oslo-affiliated projects. > > These projects are currently using the python3 zuul job templates corresponding > > to an older release (e.g. Wallaby) and the author is correctly updating them to > > use the most recent release. These initially caught me off-guard since I'm used > > to seeing a bot propose these changes but I've realized that all affected > > projects are using the "independent" release process and therefore don't receive > > a new stable branch nor related bot-proposed commits. This leaves us in a bit of > > a pickle though. There are a lot of projects using this release process, and > > there's effectively zero chance that someone is going to remember to bump the > > jobs every single release. > > > > While some could argue that this is "working as designed", it seems important to > > me that we would be testing these projects against the supported runtimes for > > the release currently under development. As such, how should we try to address > > this? One option I see is to add a new generic 'openstack-python3-jobs' template > > which would always duplicate the jobs used for the current release. I've > > proposed that here [2]. There are some pros and cons to this approach: > > > > * PRO: Minimal effort from everyone. > > * CON: The HEAD of master for each project could be broken and we'd never know > > until some change was proposed to master (note: this is effectively the > > status quo right now, so it's not a big break) > > * CON: If those independent projects had an alternative to stable branches > > (i.e. semver branches), those would eventually break as the runtimes kept > > changing. > > > > The other option is to extend the openstack bot to propose release bump patches > > against these independent projects. This has the inverse pro/con balance: > > > > * PRO: We get a regular "check-up" on the health of the project whenever these > > patches are proposed. > > * PRO: Long-lived stable branches should stay working > > * CON: Lots of busy work for reviewers. > > > > What are everyone's thoughts? I'm in favour of the first approach (generic > > 'openstack-python3-jobs' template) but the bot enhancement would also wfm. If we > > go with the first approach, we'd probably want to script something to "fix" all > > the existing independent projects rather than attempt to find and fix them > > manually. > > > > Cheers, > > Stephen > > > > PS: Apologies if this has been discussed previously. I clearly missed that > > discussion. > > > > [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-api-ref/+/831560 > > [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-zuul-jobs/+/833286 > > > >

1 0

[VICTORIA] Not working SNAT over VXLAN?
by Gaël THEROND 15 Mar '22

15 Mar '22

Hi everyone! I’m facing a weird situation on a tenant of one of our Openstack cluster based on Victoria. On this tenant, the network topology is as follow: One DMZ network (192.168.0.0/24) linked to our public network through a neutron router where there is a VM acting as a bastion/router for the MGMT network. One MGMT network (172.16.31.0/24) where all VMs are linked to. On the DMZ network, there is a linux Debian 11, let’s call it VM-A with a Floating IP from the public pool, this VM is both attached to the DMZ network (ens3 / 192.168.0.12) AND the MGMT network (ens4 / 172.16.31.23). All other VMs, let’s call them VM-X are exclusively attached to the MGMT network (ens4). I’ve setup VM-A with ip_forward kernel module and the following iptables rule: # iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ens3 -J SNAT —to-source 192.168.0.12 My VM-X are on their own setup with a default gateway via VM-A: # ip route add default via 172.31.16.23 The setup seems to be working as if I don’t put the iptables rule and the kernel forwarding I can’t see any packets on my DMZ interface (ens3) on VM-A from VM-X. Ok so now that you get the whole schema, let dive into the issue. So when all rules, modules and gateway are set, I can fully see my VM-X traffic (ICMP ping to a dns server) going from VM-X (ens4) to VM-A (ens4) then forwarded to VM-A (ens3) and finally going to our public IP targeted service. What’s not working however is the response not reaching back to VM-X. I’ve tcpdump the whole traffic from VM-X to VM-A on each point of the platfrom: from inside the VM-X nic, on the tap device, on the qbr bridge, on the qvb veth, on the qvo second side of the veth through the ovs bridges and vice-versa. However the response packets aren’t reaching back further than on the VM-A qvo veth. Once it exit the VM-A the traffic never reaches the VM-X. What’s really suspicious in here is that a direct ping from VM-X (172.16.31.54) to VM-A (172.16.31.23) is coming back correctly, so it looks like if ovs detected that the response on a SNAT case isn’t legit or something similar. Is anyone able to get such setup working? Here are few additional information: Host runs on CentOS 8.5 latest update. Our platform is a Openstack Victoria deployed using kolla-ansible. We are using a OVS based deployment. Our tunnels are VXLAN. All VMs have a fully open secgroup applied and all ports have it (I checked it twice and even on host iptables). If you ever need additional information feel free to let me know !

2 10

[dev][trove] Self-introduction and request to merge PRs
by Hirotaka Wakabayashi 15 Mar '22

15 Mar '22

Hello, I am Hirotaka Wakabayashi from Tokyo. This is my first post to openstack-discuss. My goal in OpenStack Project is to learn the OpenStack Infrastructures anddevelop them together and to enlarge the community in Japan if I could. I am a software engineer. In this 10 years, I have been a backend developer in Yahoo Japan Corporation. I have been using FreeBSD, Fedora-based Linux Distros. I mostly use C/C++ and sometime use python recently. I am a Trove contributor from two years ago and I submitted the following PRs last week, but does anybody kindly merge them? I think they are verysmall code changes and easy to understand, but the #832786 and #833497are very important to make Trove on master branch work correctly. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/trove/+/832786 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/trove-dashboard/+/833497 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/trove/+/833361 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/trove/+/833501 I asked to merge them in #openstack-trove yesterday, but I got no response. So I posted this email here. Any questions are welcome! Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Wakabayashi GPG Key UID: "Hirotaka Wakabayashi <hiwkby(a)yahoo.com>" GPG fingerprint: "3F54 9D91 A73A 1F31 8CA8 8A9F 050F 5312 F0D7 DBCD"

1 0

VM instances too slow
by A Monster 15 Mar '22

15 Mar '22

After deploying openstack using Kolla ansible, the vm instances are too slow I'm using one node as controller and two nodes for compute Nodes have 64GB ram and two intel xeon e5 2660 CPUs.

4 3

Forum Brainstorming & Committee Setup
by Kendall Nelson 15 Mar '22

15 Mar '22

Hello Everyone! As the OpenInfra Summit approaches, so does the Forum! We would love 1 volunteer from the community for the Forum Selection Committee. Ideally, the volunteer would already be serving in some capacity in a governance role for your project. Please reach out to knelson(a)openinfra.dev if you're interested. Volunteers should respond on or before April 8, 2022. In addition to calling for volunteers for the Forum selection committee, this email kicks off the brainstorming period before the CFP tool opens for formal Forum submissions. The categories for brainstorming etherpads have already been setup here[1]. Please add your etherpads and ideas there! The CFP tool will open on March 21st and will close April 8th. For information on the upcoming Summit[2]. For more information on the Forum[3]. Thanks! - Kendall Nelson (diablo_rojo) [1] Forum 2022 Wiki: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Forum/Berlin2022 [2] OpenInfra Summit Site: https://openinfra.dev/summit [3] General Forum Wiki: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Forum

1 0

[charms] Can we update the Python runtimes for the 'openstack-python3-charms-jobs' template?
by Stephen Finucane 14 Mar '22

14 Mar '22

Related to the "Independent release jobs are still using old release job templates" email I just sent [1], I've proposed a change [2] that would modify the 'openstack-python3-charms-jobs' job template so that it mimics the behaviour of the proposed 'openstack-python3-jobs' template. That is, the 'openstack- python3-charms-jobs' release will now be updated at the start of each new release to test against the same runtimes proposed for this new release. However, frickler has noted that the use of older runtimes for the charms jobs may in fact be intentional. Could someone from the charms team please weigh in on [2]. If this is in fact intentional, it would be good to add a note to the job template indicating this fact to prevent people like me breaking it in the future :) Cheers, Stephen [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-March/027676.ht… [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-zuul-jobs/+/833330/1

2 1

Opensearch service reinstallation - opensearch.logs.openstack.org
by Daniel Pawlik 14 Mar '22

14 Mar '22

Hi, We plan to reinstall the Opensearch (opensearch.logs.openstack.org) service on Saturday, 2021-03-12. The service will be unavailable for several hours. If someone has any concerns, please contact me. Regards, Dan

1 1

virt-v2v conversion error
by KK CHN 14 Mar '22

14 Mar '22

Hi , I am performing a migration of Windows 10 VM running on HyperV to OpenStack setup with Ussuri(qemu KVM) on Debian 10 nodes. I got the Windows VM exported disks as disk1.VHDX and disk2.avhdx files from my WIndows cloud Vendor. 1. As my understanding I need to convert these VM disks from HyperV using virt-v2v tool. ( Could someone explain what is the relevance of this step and is it mandatory for importing it to my Ussuri Openstack cloud which uses qemu-kvm hypervisor. 2. As I've read I tried to convert this disk1.VHDX file with the follwoing step #virt-v2v -i disk disk1.VHDX -o local -os /home/cloud this step fails with virt-v2v error : // Files system was mounted read only . even though we sked for it to be mounted read-write. This usually means that file system was not cleanly unmounted. Possible causes include trying to convert a guest which is running. or use Windows hibernation or Fast Restart . Original error message touch: open /8imepyi7: Read only file system ... Can anyone guide what causes this error and Is there a fix or work around available to solve this error in vrit-v2v conversion ? Thanks in advance krish

1 0

nvidia gpu
by Vikarna Tathe 12 Mar '22

12 Mar '22

Hello All, Can somebody help me with the procedure for GPU integration with openstack wallaby, Ubuntu 20.04. Below are the card details: da:00.0 VGA compatible controller: NVIDIA Corporation TU102GL [Quadro RTX 6000/8000] Vikarna

2 2