January 2023 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[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

[cinder] cinder-backup volume stuck in creating
by Satish Patel 27 Jul '23

27 Jul '23

Folks, I have configured nova and cinder with ceph storage. VMs running on ceph storage but now when i am trying to create a backup of cinder volume its getting stuck on creating and doing nothing. Logs also do not give any indication of bad. My cinder.conf [DEFAULT] enabled_backends = rbd-1 backup_driver = cinder.backup.drivers.ceph.CephBackupDriver backup_ceph_conf = /etc/ceph/ceph.conf backup_ceph_user = cinder-backup backup_ceph_chunk_size = 134217728 backup_ceph_pool = backups backup_ceph_stripe_unit = 0 backup_ceph_stripe_count = 0 restore_discard_excess_bytes = true osapi_volume_listen = 10.73.0.181 osapi_volume_listen_port = 8776 Output of "openstack volume service list" showing cinder-backup service is up but when i create a backup it's getting stuck in this stage and no activity. I am not seeing anything getting transferred to the ceph backups pool also. Any clue? or method to debug? # openstack volume backup list --all +--------------------------------------+------+-------------+----------+------+ | ID | Name | Description | Status | Size | +--------------------------------------+------+-------------+----------+------+ | bc844d55-8c5a-4bd3-b0e9-7c4c780c95ad | foo1 | | creating | 20 | +--------------------------------------+------+-------------+----------+------+

5 7

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

Experience with VGPUs
by Oliver Weinmann 22 Jun '23

22 Jun '23

Dear All, we are planning to have a POC on VGPUs in our Openstack cluster. Therefore I have a few questions and generally wanted to ask how well VGPUs are supported in Openstack. The docs, in particular: https://docs.openstack.org/nova/zed/admin/virtual-gpu.html explain quite well the general implementation. But I am more interested in general experience with using VGPUs in Openstack. We currently have a small YOGA cluster, planning to upgrade to Zed soon, with a couple of compute nodes. Currently our users use consumer cards like RTX 3050/3060 on their laptops and the idea would be to provide VGPUs to these users. For this I would like to make a very small POC where we first equip one compute node with an Nvidia GPU. Gladly also a few tips on which card would be a good starting point are highly appreciated. I know this heavily depends on the server hardware but this is something I can figure out later. Also do we need additional software licenses to run this? I saw this very nice presentation from CERN on VGPUs: https://indico.cern.ch/event/776411/contributions/3345183/attachments/18516… In the table they are listing Quadro vDWS licenses. I assume we need these in order to use the cards? Also do we need something like Cyborg for this or is VGPU fully implemented in Nova? Best Regards, Oliver

17 36

[designate] Proposal to deprecate the agent framework and agent based backends
by Michael Johnson 14 Jun '23

14 Jun '23

TLDR: The Designate team would like to deprecate the backend agent framework and the agent based backends due to lack of development and design issues with the current implementation. The following backends would be deprecated: Bind9 (Agent), Denominator, Microsoft DNS (Agent), Djbdns (Agent), Gdnsd (Agent), and Knot2 (Agent). Designate includes many backend DNS server drivers[1], many of which are "native" (also known as xfr type backends) backend implementations. In addition to the "native" backends, Designate has an agent backend[2] that supports other backends via an agent process. To quote the agent backend documentation[2]: This backend uses an extension[3] of the DNS protocol itself to send management requests to the remote agent processes, where the requests will be actioned. The rpc traffic between designate and the agent is both unauthenticated and unencrypted. Do not run this traffic over unsecured networks. Here are the reasons we are proposing to deprecate the agent framework now: 1. The agent protocol used by Designate is using an "unassigned"[4][5] DNS opcode (14) that is causing problems with the dnspython library >= 2.3.0 which is now validating the opcode when building DNS messages. It is a bad practice to use "unassigned" values as they may be officially assigned at any time, likely with an incompatible message format. 2. The agent backends are not tested in the OpenStack jobs[1]. 3. Many of the agent backends have been marked as "Experimental" since 2016 with no additional contributions beyond general repository code maintenance. 4. The protocol between the Designate worker process and the agent process is unauthenticated and unencrypted. 5. We do not know of a development resource to rewrite the agent framework protocol to address issue #1 and #4 above. 6. The introduction of catalog zones[6] may eliminate the need for some of the agent based backend drivers. By marking the agent framework and agent based backends "deprecated" in the Antelope cycle, we would remove the code no earlier than the "C" release of OpenStack (per the OpenStack deprecation policy[7]). In the meantime, issue #1 has been worked around by overriding the dnspython opcode validation[7] as needed in the Designate code (similar to a monkey patch). This is not a sustainable long term solution. The following backend agent based drivers would be marked "deprecated" in addition to the agent framework itself: Bind9 (Agent) Denominator Microsoft DNS (Agent) Djbdns (Agent) Gdnsd (Agent) Knot2 (Agent) We plan to propose patches for the deprecation over the next week, but will not merge them until at least January 24th to allow time for comment from the community. If you have concerns about this deprecation plan or are interested in rewriting the agent framework protocol to address the above issues, please reply to this announcement. Michael [1] https://docs.openstack.org/designate/latest/admin/support-matrix.html [2] https://docs.openstack.org/designate/latest/admin/backends/agent.html [3] https://github.com/openstack/designate/blob/master/designate/backend/privat… [4] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6895.html#section-2.2 [5] https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#dns-pa… [6] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-08.txt [7] https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/deprecation.html [8] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/designate/+/870678

3 11

[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

[ptl][tc] OpenStack packages PyPi additional external maintainers audit & cleanup
by Ghanshyam Mann 29 Mar '23

29 Mar '23

Hi PTLs, As you might know or have seen for your project package on PyPi, OpenStack deliverables on PyPi have additional maintainers, For example, https://pypi.org/project/murano/, https://pypi.org/project/glance/ We should keep only 'openstackci' as a maintainer in PyPi so that releases of OpenStack deliverables can be managed in a single place. Otherwise, we might face the two sets of maintainers' places and packages might get released in PyPi by additional maintainers without the OpenStack project team knowing about it. One such case is in Horizon repo 'xstatic-font-awesome' where a new maintainer is added by an existing additional maintainer and this package was released without the Horizon team knowing about the changes and release. - https://github.com/openstack/xstatic-font-awesome/pull/2 To avoid the 'xstatic-font-awesome' case for other packages, TC discussed it in their weekly meetings[1] and agreed to audit all the OpenStack packages and then clean up the additional maintainers in PyPi (keep only 'openstackci' as maintainers). To help in this task, TC requests project PTL to perform the audit for their project's repo and add comments in the below etherpad. - https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack-pypi-maintainers-cleanup Thanks to knikolla to automate the listing of the OpenStack packages with additional maintainers in PyPi which you can find the result in output.txt at the bottom of this link. I have added the project list of who needs to check their repo in etherpad. - https://gist.github.com/knikolla/7303a65a5ddaa2be553fc6e54619a7a1 Please complete the audit for your project before March 15 so that TC can discuss the next step in vPTG. [1] https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2023/tc.2023-01-11-16.00.log.html#… -gmann

7 11

[Openstack] Lack of Balance solution such as Watcher.
by Nguyễn Hữu Khôi 16 Mar '23

16 Mar '23

I am building a private cloud.Everything is ok. But I cannot find a way to balance vm when It have heavy load which cause impact other vm on the compute node. I found solutions such as Watcher and Leveller. But they need to be done manually. Watcher is not good because It need cpu metric such as cpu load in Ceilometer which is removed so we cannot use it. Leveller is good, but It is obsolete. Nguyen Huu Khoi

4 7

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

[security-sig] Polls in preparation to revive our meetings
by Jeremy Stanley 01 Mar '23

01 Mar '23

As discussed at the last PTG, the present meeting time (15:00 UTC on the first Thursday of each month) is inconvenient for some attendees, and that combined with year-end holidays and general busy weeks recently have led to skipping them entirely. In order to start narrowing down the potential meeting schedule, I have two initial polls. The first is to determine what frequency we should meet. If you have an opinion on that, please fill out this poll before Thursday, February 9 (two weeks from today): https://framadate.org/wz7GioqmgyWeILkr The second poll is to hopefully determine what day of the week is optimal for potential attendees. If you have a preference for which day of the week to meet, please complete this one by the same date as the first: https://framadate.org/CyxKgZPT8PWxcCnJ Once I can analyze the results, I'll put together a more specific poll for choosing a time of day as well as possibly choosing which week(s) of the month (if we don't settle on weekly frequency). In the meantime, let's plan to hold February's meeting on Thursday the 2nd at 15:00-16:00 UTC as usual[*] for anyone who is able to attend, and I'll get an agenda together in preparation for that. [*] https://meetings.opendev.org/#OpenStack_Security_SIG_meeting -- Jeremy Stanley

1 1