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

[puppet] Proposing Alan Bishop (abishop) for puppet-manila core
by Takashi Kajinami 18 Mar '22

18 Mar '22

Hi Team, Alan is currently a partial core reviewer in Puppet OpenStack and covers puppet-cinder and puppet-glance. He has made great reviews in these two modules since he joined the team, but in addition, he has been reviewing patches for puppet-manila and providing good feedback for the past two cycle. https://www.stackalytics.io/?user_id=alan-bishop Based on that fact, I'd like to propose extending his coverage and adding Alan to the puppet-manila core reviewers. If you have any feedback please share it in this thread. I'll add him to the group if we don't hear any objections for 1 week. I'd like to take this moment to thank Alan for his great work and help in this project ! Thank you, Takashi KAJINAMI

3 3

Re: L3 agent issues
by Slawek Kaplonski 18 Mar '22

18 Mar '22

Hi, On piątek, 18 marca 2022 09:22:03 CET Wada Akor wrote: > Thanks Slawek > I just had feeling it is a bug or something has to with my hardware HP > proliant gen 7 might affect the performance of the L3 Agent. Bug where? In Neutron? I don't think so as Neutron is not deployment tool. I don't know exactly what tool are You using to deploy OpenStack but if there is any bug, You should look there. > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 7:57 AM Slawek Kaplonski <skaplons(a)redhat.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On czwartek, 17 marca 2022 22:19:22 CET Wada Akor wrote: > > > > > Good to all the openstack community, > > > > > Base on the above subject i was deploying openstack for a proof of > > concept > > > > > (POC) at the university of Jos ,Plateau State Nigeria . > > > > > > > > > > after deploying the neutron on the controller and compute node > > > > > then I ran the command # *openstack network agent list* > > > > > command output # is only 3 agent on the list as follow linuxbridge agent > > > > > ,metadata agent ,DHCP agent no l3 agent on the list > > > > > > > > > > 2) No log file for l3 agent at */var/log/neutron/**neuton*- linuxbridge > > > > > agent ,metadata agent ,DHCP agent on log no l3 agent . > > > > > > > > > > My deployment hardware is HP gen 7 for the POC > > > > > > > > > > please i need the community support > > > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > > > > > Wada k Jeremiah > > > > > > > > > L3 agent isn't something what is deployed automatically. You can deploy it > > on any node - sometimes You may want dedicated networking node with L3 > > agent for example. > > > > Please check our documentation [1] for more details. > > > > [1] https://docs.openstack.org/neutron/latest/install/index.html > > > > -- > > > > Slawek Kaplonski > > > > Principal Software Engineer > > > > Red Hat > > > -- Slawek Kaplonski Principal Software Engineer Red Hat

1 0

L3 agent issues
by Wada Akor 17 Mar '22

17 Mar '22

Good to all the openstack community, Base on the above subject i was deploying openstack for a proof of concept (POC) at the university of Jos ,Plateau State Nigeria . after deploying the neutron on the controller and compute node then I ran the command # *openstack network agent list* command output # is only 3 agent on the list as follow linuxbridge agent ,metadata agent ,DHCP agent no l3 agent on the list 2) No log file for l3 agent at */var/log/neutron/**neuton*- linuxbridge agent ,metadata agent ,DHCP agent on log no l3 agent . My deployment hardware is HP gen 7 for the POC please i need the community support thanks Wada k Jeremiah

3 2

are Gpu's needed to get fast openstack instances with GUI
by A Monster 17 Mar '22

17 Mar '22

I've deployed an openstack cloud using kolla-ansible, but the vm instances which has gui are very slow, do I need GPUs in order to get fast instances ?

2 1

[neutron] Drivers meeting agenda - 18.03.2022.
by Lajos Katona 17 Mar '22

17 Mar '22

Hi Neutron Drivers, The agenda for tomorrow's drivers meeting is at [1]. * Recheck gratuitous ARPs are not sent during master transition: ( https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1952907) ** For this one there are a few wip patches: ** https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/821434 ** https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/821433 ** https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/712474 * [QoS][OvS] implement QoS bandwidth limitation by leveraging ovs meter (#link https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1964342 ) * DHCP agent scheduler filtering ignored when agent service restarted (#link https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1964765 ) [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/NeutronDrivers#Agenda See you at the meeting tomorrow. Lajos Katona (lajoskatona)

1 0

[blazar][release][requirements] blazar-nova and nova requirements
by Pierre Riteau 17 Mar '22

17 Mar '22

Hello release team, blazar-nova is a package including a nova scheduler filter, which must be installed together with nova to be used. The blazar-nova deliverable for Yoga was tagged with 2.4.0 at the time of the final release for non-client libraries. A few days ago, stable/yoga patches were automatically proposed. This is when I discovered that the lower-constraints job was broken because nova bumped some requirements / lower-constraints after we released [1] [2]. Because blazar-nova and nova are installed together, we keep our requirements in sync for testing purposes. Now, I believe it is just the lower-constraints testing that is broken, since nova requirements are still compatible with what blazar-nova requires: nova just requires more recent versions of some packages. I can run "pip install blazar-nova git+ https://opendev.org/openstack/nova.git@master#egg=nova" fine. I fixed the issue on the blazar-nova master branch [3] and proposed a backport to stable/yoga [4], but realised this was probably breaking release policy. Should we leave stable/yoga as released and just drop the lower-constraints job? As an aside, would it be possible to requalify blazar-nova as a cycle-with-rc deliverable for the next release? It is typed as a library but nothing depends on it: if anything, it depends on nova itself. Thanks, Pierre Riteau (priteau) [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/712139 [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/821606 [3] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/blazar-nova/+/831741 [4] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/blazar-nova/+/831832

3 4

[all][tc] Technical Committee next weekly meeting on Mar 17th at 1500 UTC
by Ghanshyam Mann 16 Mar '22

16 Mar '22

Hello Everyone, Technical Committee's next weekly meeting is scheduled for Mar 17th at 1500 UTC. If you would like to add topics for discussion, please add them to the below wiki page by Wednesday, Mar 16th, at 2100 UTC. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Next_Meeting -gmann

1 1

[largescale-sig] Next meeting: Mar 16th, 15utc
by Thierry Carrez 16 Mar '22

16 Mar '22

Hi everyone, The Large Scale SIG will be meeting this Wednesday in #openstack-operators on OFTC IRC, at 15UTC. Note that this means the meeting is one hour later than usual for people based in the US! You can doublecheck how that time translates locally at: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20220316T15 Feel free to add topics to the agenda: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/large-scale-sig-meeting Regards, -- Thierry Carrez

1 1

[heat][rbac] Management of "system resources" with SRBAC enforced
by Takashi Kajinami 16 Mar '22

16 Mar '22

Hello, I've been working on updating policy rules in heat according to the latest guideline for SRBAC implementation. Based on the recent direction change[1], now only project users are allowed to create project-based resources like instances or networks. I'm updating policy rules in heat so that only project users can manage project resources in Heat like stacks or resources. [1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/selected/consistent-and-secure-rb… However this change reveals one potential issue with system resources. In heat there are some resource types like OS::Nova::Flavor or OS::Keystone::User which is allowed for only system users. (I'll call these resources as "system resources" here) Because heat uses user credentials to create resources in backend services, if we require project scope for stack/resource management then we are no longer able to create these system resources as part of stack. (*1) There are some options I can think of at this moment. 1. Deprecate and remove all resources which require system scope Pros - This is most easy solution to be implemented Cons - This one has the biggest user impact 2. Use service credential for resource creation Pros: - This might have smallest user impact Cons: - This requires a relatively big change in heat's architecture, which I've not yet evaluated. - We need to determine the project scope role to be allowed to do system operation. 3. Implement additional project-role in each service to allow creation via stack creation. Pros: - This would avoid user impact. Cons: - requires work in multiple components. - We need to determine the project scope role to be allowed to do system operation. I'm not quite sure which one would be the best. If I can ask for some feedback about these options (or any other new options) from heat's perspective and rbac's perspective then it would be nice. (*1) As of now, nova and neutron no longer allow creating system users to create project resources, so system users are no longer able to create stacks with project resources like instances or networks with default "new" policies. Thank you, Takashi

3 9

[announce][debian] OpenStack Yoga preview Debian packages are ready
by Thomas Goirand 16 Mar '22

16 Mar '22

Hi, Today, my first Yoga VM pings. I haven't done the Tempest/refstack work yet, but it's ongoing. In the mean time, anyone can already try and use the packages as a preview for the Yoga release. They are available through extrepo as usual, or from the osbpo.debian.net repo directly: apt-get install extrepo extrepo enable openstack_yoga apt-get update I'll make a proper announcement once we pass all Refstack tests. Note this is a record-breaking availability, as the RCs were published only at the end of last week. So thanks everyone for this very smooth release. Also to be noted: a few packages are missing, due to unit test failures: magnum, murano, trove, sahara and zaqar. Many of these unit tests fall in the debtcollector that wines about "tenant" not "projects". I'll investigate these later on, but they seem of no real consequence, so I may just skip them. See you in Berlin! Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

1 0

[cinder] festival of XS reviews 18 March 2022
by Brian Rosmaita 16 Mar '22

16 Mar '22

Hello Argonauts, Just in case there's anyone out there who has not used the handy ICS file [0] to have this event on their personal calendars: The most recent edition of the Cinder Festival of XS Reviews will be held on this coming Friday (18 March). who: Everyone! what: The Cinder Festival of XS Reviews when: Friday 18 March 2022 from 1400-1600 UTC where: https://meetpad.opendev.org/cinder-festival-of-reviews etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-festival-of-reviews See you there! brian [0] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/calendars/cinder-festival-of-reviews.ics

1 0

[kolla] Using variable in ceph confs
by Imran Hussain 16 Mar '22

16 Mar '22

Hi All, I'm storing my kolla conf in git and I want to avoid committing secrets. As per the subject I'm using an external ceph. I've created a patchset for this to be possible https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/824566 Jens replied to it pretty fast but beyond saying 'I don't understand why you would want to do this' (paraphrased) gave no feedback. I recently got some feedback from Michal after asking on IRC about it which was very helpful. But this doesn't seem to be going anywhere, any advice on next steps? Even if the feedback is 'no we don't want this' anything would be nice. Thanks, Imran

1 0

[dev] [trove] Bug fixed from master to stable branch and release?
by Hirotaka Wakabayashi 16 Mar '22

16 Mar '22

Hello, I am a Trove contributor. I proposed a cherry-pick and lxkong kindly merged it yesterday! Could someone release the new version as 13.0.1? Because I believe this bug is significant for users for some reasons. 1. I hit this bug :P 2. One relevant Issue from IRC https://meetings.opendev.org/irclogs/%23openstack-trove/%23openstack-trove.… 3. One relevant issue from https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006996 This patch is cherry-picked from master branch and I think this patch has no risk of regression. Thanks in advance, Hirotaka

1 0

[PTG] April 2022 Teams List
by Kendall Nelson 15 Mar '22

15 Mar '22

Hello Everyone! The April 2022 Project Teams List is official! Ansible OpenStack modules Barbican Blazar Cinder CloudKitty Cyborg Designate Diversity & Inclusion WG First Contact SIG Glance Horizon Interop Ironic Keystone Kolla Kuryr Large Scale SIG Manila Neutron Nova/Placement Octavia OpenInfra Edge Computing Group OpenStack Charms OpenStack Technical Committee OpenStack-Ansible OpenStack-Helm QA Release Management SDK Security SIG StarlingX Swift Tacker TripleO If your team was planning to meet and isn’t in this list, please contact ptg(a)openinfra.dev IMMEDIATELY. Otherwise, please don't forget to register[1] because that's how you'll receive event details, passwords, and other relevant information about the PTG. Please let us know if you have any questions! Thanks! -Kendall (diablo_rojo) [1] PTG Registration: https://openinfra-ptg.eventbrite.com

2 2

[openstack][keystone] Stepping down from core
by Gage Hugo 15 Mar '22

15 Mar '22

After some consideration and my focus shifting to other priorities, I cannot reliably devote enough time to keystone so I'll be stepping down from keystone core. I greatly appreciate the experiences I had to learn and grow thanks to everyone's help. Thanks to you all and I'm grateful for the opportunities I've had with the project and openstack as a whole. Hopefully we will get to collaborate again more in the future. Gage Hugo

2 2

[tc][release] Removing TC tags framework - next steps for release notes
by Radosław Piliszek 15 Mar '22

15 Mar '22

Hello Release Team, As you might have heard, the TC is removing the TC tags framework. [1] The first step has already been proposed and is being voted on. [2] The removal of certain parts seems to be affecting the release team tooling, especially with the usage of the stable:follows-policy tag to show a relevant banner. [3] The proposed change purposely avoids breaking the releases repo and awaits a "part 2" which cleans up everything TC-tags-framework-related. Thus, I am asking for your help to remove this dependency on the tags framework. I understand there might be several approaches to this and need your assistance to continue. The simplest approach is to drop the relevant code - assuming it is not actively used for release process purposes. Obviously, for anything else I need your input on what the options are. It is also possible that you would prefer to port this tag to your internal metadata. I am open to ideas and will help enact the changes. [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-October/025554.… [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/822900 [3] https://opendev.org/openstack/releases/src/commit/768a12e233c23999db18c807c… Kind regards, -yoctozepto

3 4

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

15 Mar '22

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

4 7

[infra] gerrit is:mergeable predicate
by Brian Rosmaita 15 Mar '22

15 Mar '22

Hello Infra team, In Gerrit 3.4, the is:mergeable predicate is disabled by default [0]. It was kind of handy to be able to screen out patches that are in merge conflict when looking for reviews. Is there an alternative way of doing this, or would you be averse to restoring the previous behavior? (I promise not to complain about gerrit performance.) cheers, brian [0] https://www.gerritcodereview.com/3.4.html#ismergeable-predicate-is-disabled…

2 3

[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 14 Mar '22

14 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 14 Mar '22

14 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 14 Mar '22

14 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