November 2023 - openstack-discuss

[cinder][glance][nova][telemetry][monasca][oslo][vmware] Can we deprecate(and remove) VMWare support ?
by Takashi Kajinami 07 Mar '24

07 Mar '24

Hi all, As you might know, some of the OpenStack projects currently support usage of VMWare component. However recently the VMware virt driver in nova was marked experimental in 2023.2 release [1] and it has been discussed that the driver will be removed in 2023.2 release[2], after deprecation is backported to 2023.1. (Please someone from nova team correct me if I'm wrong) So my current question is; Does it make sense to deprecate all of the features to support VMWare component ? My understanding is that these features were added to be used along with VMWare virt driver in nova, but once the virt driver is removed this use case is voided. I'll list up the features within the discussion scope below. nova: VMWare virt driver (this is already experimental by [1]) cinder: VMware Storage Driver (vmdk) glance: VMWare Datastore (I proposed deprecating this in [3][4]) ceilometer: VMWare virt driver (this was deprecated by [5]) os-brick: VmdkConnector monasca-agent: vcenter collector (*1) oslo.vmware: the whole project NOTE: These features are found based on dependency on oslo.vmware but there can be a few not listed here. Outside of OpenStack's governance, there are two projects dependent on oslo.vmware, networking-vsphere and vmware-nsx but both of these look inactive. Because of SLURP, we have to complete deprecation during in 2024.1 release so that we can drop the feature right after 2024.1. If we fail then we have to maintain these features until 2025.1 (the features already deprecated can be removed earlier, though). So I'd like to get feedback and decision before deadline for 2024.1 Thank you, Takashi (*1) Monasca is now inactive so I doubt anyone would work on this topic before it is retired. [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/863911 [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/897017 [3] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance_store/+/893696 [4] https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack… [5] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ceilometer/+/894540

6 21

[Watcher] How use Watcher to scheduler Openstack resource without cpu_usage
by Nguyễn Hữu Khôi 06 Mar '24

06 Mar '24

Hello guys. I want to use watcher to scheduler openstack resources but some openstack versions are missing cpu_usage metric. How do we use Watcher without it? Thank you. Nguyen Huu Khoi

3 5

[openstack][skyline] Some works with skyline
by Nguyễn Hữu Khôi 25 Feb '24

25 Feb '24

Hello guys. I am working on Skyline. I can integrate my monitor tab on it. I will try to do something about it. If it works properly, I can contribute. It is a very nice project. I hope it will grow and grow in the future. Thanks Skyline Team. [image: image.png] Nguyen Huu Khoi

3 7

[neutron][vpnaas][ovn] Pushing VPNaaS support through OVN
by Mohammed Naser 12 Feb '24

12 Feb '24

Hi all! One of the biggest show stoppers for us for OVN is VPNaaS but I think it’s time that we’d like to be involved in getting it over the line, I want to thank Bodo who has shown a lot of patience in getting the code necessary, and it seems that the code works for them in production as well. I’d like to ask if possible for folks to review these two outstanding changes: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron-tempest-plugin/+/847007 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron-vpnaas/+/765353 I know Slawek had some concerns, so hoping that raising via the email list if Bodo can address those and over the next bit of time we can get this landed in, since it even has actual proper testing both in CI and with user feedback. Thanks! Mohammed

6 8

about magnum capi for production
by Nguyễn Hữu Khôi 07 Feb '24

07 Feb '24

Hello guys. Could you share with me some experience about using Magnum CAPI in production? https://github.com/vexxhost/magnum-cluster-api Thank you so much. Nguyen Huu Khoi

6 44

[all] SQLAlchemy 2.x support in Bobcat
by Thomas Goirand 02 Feb '24

02 Feb '24

Hi, As you may know, and to my great frustration, I'm not the maintainer of SQLAlchemy in Debian, even though OpenStack is the biggest consumer of it. The current maintainer insists that he wants to upload SQLA 2.x in Unstable, potentially breaking all of OpenStack. At the present moment, if I understand correctly, we're not there yet, and Bobcat doesn't have such a support. It would be ok for me, *IF* there are patches available on master, that I could backport to Bobcat and maintain in the debian/patches folder of each project. However, the biggest current annoyance, is that I have no idea where we are at. Are we close to such a support? Is there a list of patches to apply on top of Bobcat that is maintained somewhere? Please enlighten me... :) Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

5 10

[murano][heat][mistral][tc] Maintenance of yaql library
by Takashi Kajinami 21 Jan '24

21 Jan '24

Hello, The yaql library is currently maintained under murano's governance and is used by not only murano but a few other projects such as heat and mistral. In heat the library is essential since we introduced yaql function support. Looking at gerrit groups, I noticed the yaql library is maintained by a very small core group[1] and release group[2], but I'm afraid most of the people in these groups are no longer active in the community. Because heat is dependent on the library, I'm wondering if some of the heat cores can be added to these two groups so that we (at least I) can help maintaining the library. I've checked the changes merged into murano repo for these two years but iiuc all of these changes are gate fix. Also a dummy change[3] indicates that its CI is currently broken. If the murano project is no longer active then I'm also willing to take over yaql and bring it to heat's governance (of cause only if it's acceptable). I'll add the current PTL as cc, but please let me know if anyone has any opinion or concern. # I'll add mistral tag because the project is also dependent on yaql. # Also tc is added because this discussion is related to project governance. Thank you Takashi Kajinami [1] https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/cba4f6fd54c3cc0d5706fc50b5ebd758860… [2] https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/d5e894b34e5ab5a9fc2938a0d4e7bc76fd2… [3] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/murano/+/901888

3 7

[nova][release][tooz] Hold your rechecks
by Sylvain Bauza 10 Jan '24

10 Jan '24

Hey folks, FWIW, our grenade check on SLURP upgrades is 100% failing now [1] due to a behavioural change in the tooz library [2] that's pulled by Cinder and which was released [3] and delivered to upper-contraints yesterday [4] There are different possibilities in order to unblock the gate, but until one of them is agreed and merged, please avoid wasting our CI resources by asking to recheck for something which will fail. Thanks, -Sylvain (who will send an email once the job is back up) [1] https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=grenade-skip-level-alw… [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tooz/+/891355 [3] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/899966 [4] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/901131

4 6

[designate] Proposal to deprecate the agent framework and agent based backends
by Michael Johnson 09 Jan '24

09 Jan '24

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 13

[TC][Monasca] Proposal to mark Monasca as an inactive project
by Sławek Kapłoński 04 Jan '24

04 Jan '24

Hi, I just proposed patch [1] to mark Monasca as inactive project. It was discussed during last TC meeting on 03.10.2023. Reasons for that are described in the commit message of the [1] but I will also put all of it here: previous cycle there wasn't almost any contributions to that project and most active contributors in last 180 days were Elod Illes and Dr. Jens Harbott who were fixing some Zuul configuration issues only. Here are detailed statistics about Monasca projects: Validating Gerrit... * There are 7 ready for review patches generated within 180 days * There are 2 not reviewed patches generated within 180 days * There are 5 merged patches generated within 180 days * Unreviewed patch rate for patches generated within 180 days is 28.0 % * Merged patch rate for patches generated within 180 days is 71.0 % * Here's top 10 owner for patches generated within 180 days (Name/Account_ID: Percentage): - Dr. Jens Harbott : 42.86% - Joel Capitao : 28.57% - Elod Illes : 28.57% Validate Zuul... Set buildsets fetch size to 500 * Repo: openstack/monasca-log-api gate job builds success rate: 82% * Repo: openstack/monasca-statsd gate job builds success rate: 95% * Repo: openstack/monasca-tempest-plugin gate job builds success rate: 81% * Repo: openstack/monasca-common gate job builds success rate: 84% * Repo: openstack/monasca-kibana-plugin gate job builds success rate: 83% * Repo: openstack/monasca-ceilometer gate job builds success rate: 100% * Repo: openstack/monasca-events-api gate job builds success rate: 83% * Repo: openstack/monasca-ui gate job builds success rate: 88% * Repo: openstack/monasca-specs gate job builds success rate: 100% * Repo: openstack/monasca-grafana-datasource gate job builds success rate: 100% * Repo: openstack/monasca-persister gate job builds success rate: 98% * Repo: openstack/monasca-notification gate job builds success rate: 93% * Repo: openstack/monasca-thresh gate job builds success rate: 100% * Repo: openstack/monasca-api gate job builds success rate: 76% * Repo: openstack/monasca-agent gate job builds success rate: 98% * Repo: openstack/python-monascaclient gate job builds success rate: 100% * Repo: openstack/monasca-transform gate job builds success rate: 100% What's next? According to the "Emerging and inactive projects" document [2] if there will be no volunteers who will step up and want to maintain this project before Milestone-2 of the 2024.1 cycle (week of Jan 08 2024) there will be no new release of Monasca in the 2024.1 cycle and TC will discuss if project should be retired. So if You are interested in keeping Monasca alive and active, please reach out to the TC to discuss that ASAP. Thx in advance. [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/897520 [2] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/emerging-technology-and-inact… -- Slawek Kaplonski Principal Software Engineer Red Hat

8 14