February 2023 - openstack-discuss

[openstack-ansible] Recommended branch for a production environment?
by Roger Rivera 05 Sep '23

05 Sep '23

Hello, We have deployed Openstack-Ansible in a test environment and we were wondering what the recommended repository branch is to deploy in a production environment that will be integrated with a separate Ceph cluster. 1. We are thinking about pinning to the stable/zed. Is that recommended over the master branch? 2. Are bugs ironed out on both master and stable/zed with the same cadence? 3. Additionally, is Debian 11 a better alternative than Ubuntu 22 for target hosts? We noticed Ubuntu 22.04 support was added recently, whereas Debian 11 has been supported for quite some time now which leads us to believe its stability/integration could be more mature at this point? Any suggestions will be appreciated. Thank you, -- *Roger *

3 7

[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

[cloudkitty] question to the scope_key in cloudkitty
by Noah Elias Feldt 28 Jul '23

28 Jul '23

Hello! I am currently trying to get CloudKitty to work with the Prometheus Collector and PyScripts. I noticed that the scope_key for Prometheus can only be changed once in the global configuration file. This was a problem for me because we need different scope_keys for different metrics. Many of the metrics still need the scope key "tenant_id" and some others "project_id". I have found in the documentation of CloudKitty no way to change this for each metric, so I have internally changed something in the source code and added the function to set the scope_key for each metric individually. I just wanted to ask if you would be interested if I submit the small change upstream? Thank you. Regards Noah Feldt

3 3

[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

Kubernetes Conformance 1.24 + 1.25
by Kendall Nelson 05 Jun '23

05 Jun '23

Hello All! First of all, I want to say a huge thanks to Guilherme Steinmuller for all his help ensuring that OpenStack Magnum remains Kubernetes Certified [1]! We are certified for v1.24! However, in digging into the set of conformance tests this round, it appears that we will not be able to get 1.25 certified with the current Magnum. This means that in May when we have to re-cert (every 3 months they reach an EOL because that's k8s release cadence) we will not be able to maintain this which is the other part of why I wanted to write this email - to raise awareness and ask for help digging into what needs to happen to make sure we can retain this. Tangentially related, Guilherme has posted a patch with documentation for how to run the conformance tests for yourself and it could use some reviews [2]. And one last thing, I have begun conversation with the opendev folks about what it might take to setup jobs to run the conformance tests periodically so that we don't have to manually run them when it's time to recert. I am planning on submitting a forum topic for this for those interested :) Long live LOKI! - Kendall Nelson [1] https://github.com/cncf/k8s-conformance/pull/2446 [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/magnum/+/849156

5 10

[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

[magnum] Propose deprecation of Docker Swarm, CoreOS, fedora-ironic
by Jake Yip 28 Apr '23

28 Apr '23

Hi, Due to limited resources, Magnum team has decided to put most effort into supporting the most popular use case - Kubernetes on Fedora CoreOS. In light of that, we are seeking maintainers for the less well maintained drivers / COE - Docker Swarm, CoreOS and fedora-ironic drivers. The reasons are as follows: - Docker Swarm - It uses Fedora Atomic which has been EOL [1] - CoreOS - It is EOL [2] - fedora-ironic - Not tested, unsure if it is still working If anyone wants to take up maintenance of any of the above, we will be glad. Please let us know either through the ML or at the Magnum meetings. If there are no suitable maintainers, we will start the deprecation of these before end of Antelope. Regards, Jake [1]: https://projectatomic.io/blog/2019/11/fedora-atomic-host-nearing-eol/ [2]: https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/cloud-computing/openshift/what-was-c… -- Jake Yip Magnum Team

2 3