June 2023 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

OpenStack informations
by Imene Hessas 06 Jun '23

06 Jun '23

Greetings , As a curious person and a cloud enthusiast , I started recently documenting myself about OpenStack, learned about its components , methods of deployments .. etc And now am in front of an essential question : is there a lightweight version of Openstack ? Since I noticed that it requires significant hardware resources, including compute, storage, and networking infrastructure, to run efficiently. I'll be waiting patiently for your response ! Thank you.

2 1

[nova] Nova Spec review day next Tuesday 6 June
by Sylvain Bauza 06 Jun '23

06 Jun '23

Hey Nova community, As a reminder, you can find the Nova agenda for the 2023.2 Bobcat release here https://releases.openstack.org/bobcat/schedule.html As you can see, we plan to do a round of reviews for all the open specifications in the openstack/nova-specs repository by next Tuesday June 6th. If you're a developer wanting to propose a new feature in Nova and you have been said to provide a spec, or if you know that you need to create a spec, or if you already have an open spec, please make sure to upload/update your file before next Tuesday so we'll look at it. Also, if you can look again on your spec during the day, it would be nice as we could try to discuss your spec during this day. Thanks, -Sylvain

2 1

Nested template
by Antony P 06 Jun '23

06 Jun '23

Dear team, I have 2 template test1.yaml test2.yaml how to run this 2 templates as single template. what is steps i have to follow *--Warm Regards* *Antony P* *Jr. DevOps Engineer* antony(a)edgebricks.com Mob No: +919498079898 www.edgebricks.com

5 4

[devstack] Recent change breaks cloning with GIT_DEPTH setting
by Nell Jerram 06 Jun '23

06 Jun '23

FYI, devstack commit b0bd5b92 doesn't work with a GIT_DEPTH=1 setting. That commit basically changed from git clone ... --branch <BRANCH> to git clone ... git checkout <BRANCH> So it's easy for the desired <BRANCH> to be unavailable if GIT_DEPTH is limited. Best wishes - Nell

2 2

[neutron][ovn] The implementation status of DVR for port forwarding in OpenStack.
by 韩光宇 06 Jun '23

06 Jun '23

Hello I previously learned that distributed SNAT has not been implemented in ML2/OVS yet, and traffic for floating IP port forwarding still goes through the network node. Therefore, I tried using ML2/OVN. However, I found that the traffic for floating IP port forwarding still goes through the network node. Does anyone know if this is normal or if OVN has implemented DVR for port forwarding? Or is it because there is an issue with my configuration? I deploy a master ubuntu env by kolla, and I had set dvr of ovn. ``` # in /etc/kolla/globals.yml neutron_plugin_agent: "ovn" neutron_ovn_distributed_fip: "yes" ``` I would like to know if OVN currently implements DVR for port forwarding. If not, what can I do to distribute the traffic load for port forwarding of OpenStack? In my use case, I need to create a large number of port forwarding rules, which puts a lot of pressure on the network node. I will appreciate any help or advice. Best regards, Han Guangyu

2 1

[puppet] puppet module improvements
by Benedikt Trefzer 05 Jun '23

05 Jun '23

Hi all I use the openstack puppet modules to deploy openstack. I'd like to suggest some improvements to the modules and like to know what the community thinks about: 1.) use proper types for parameters Parameter validation is done with 'validate_legacy...' instead of defining the class/resource parameter with a proper type all over the code. I cannot imaging of any advantage not using proper type definitions. Instead using typed parameters would be more efficient an code readability would increase. 2.) params.pp This is the legacy way to define parameter defaults for different OS's. In the modern puppet world a module specific hiera structure is used, which eliminates the need of params.pp class (with inheritance and include). The usage of hiera improves readability and flexibility (every parameter can be overwritten on request, eg. change of packages names etc.) This also eliminate the restriction that the modules can only be used by certain OS'es (osfamily 'RedHat' or 'Debian'). 3.) Eliminate "if OS=='bla' {" statements in code These statements make the code very inflexible. It cannot be overruled if necessary (eg. if I use custom packages to install and do not need the code provided in the if statement). Instead a parameter should be used with a default provided in hiera. Since there is lot of code to change I do not expect this to be done in a single commit (per module) but in steps probably in more than one release cycle. But defining this as best practice for openstack puppet modules and start using above in new commits would bring the code forward. Finally: These are suggestions open for discussion. In no way I like to critic the current state of the puppet modules (which is quite good, but a bit legacy) or the people working on the modules. This is just a feedback/suggestion from an operator using the modules on a daily basis. Regards Benedikt Trefzer

4 4

[tc] Technical Committee next weekly meeting on June 6, 2023
by Nikolla, Kristi 05 Jun '23

05 Jun '23

Hi all, This is a reminder that the next weekly Technical Committee meeting is to be held on Tuesday, Jun 6, 2023 at 1800 UTC on Zoom. Meeting link and agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Next_Meeting Please find below the current agenda for the meeting. * Roll call * Follow up on past action items ** knikolla Book timeslots for PTG in Vancouver ** knikolla Prepare PTG agenda for Vancouver ** knikolla To fix link redirect to release from docs ** knikolla Finish TC Tracker 2023.2 * Open Infra Summit and PTG in Vancouver, next week * Gate health check * Broken docs due to inconsistent release naming * Open Discussion and Reviews ** https://review.opendev.org/q/projects:openstack/governance+is:open Thank you, Kristi Nikolla

1 0

[ceph-users] Quuncy release - radosGW integration with Keystone
by fsbiz＠yahoo.com 05 Jun '23

05 Jun '23

Hi folks, My ceph cluster with Quincy and Rocky9 is up and running.But I'm having issues with radosGW authenticating with keystone. Was wondering if I'm missed anything in the configuration. From the debug logs below, it appears that radosgw is still trying to authenticate withSwift instead of Keystone.Any pointers will be appreciated. thanks, Fred Here is my configuration. # ceph config dump | grep rgw client advanced debug_rgw 20/20 client advanced rgw_keystone_accepted_roles admin,user * client advanced rgw_keystone_admin_domain Default * client advanced rgw_keystone_admin_password <secret> * client advanced rgw_keystone_admin_project service * client advanced rgw_keystone_admin_user ceph-ks-svc * client advanced rgw_keystone_api_version 3 client advanced rgw_keystone_implicit_tenants false * client advanced rgw_keystone_token_cache_size 0 client basic rgw_keystone_url <Identity URL> * client advanced rgw_s3_auth_use_keystone true client advanced rgw_swift_account_in_url true client basic rgw_thread_pool_size 512 client.rgw.s_rgw.dev-ipp1-u1-control01.ojmddc basic rgw_frontends beast port=7480 * client.rgw.s_rgw.dev-ipp1-u1-control02.adnjrx basic rgw_frontends beast port=7480 Here's the debug log. If I interpret it correctly, it is trying to do a swift authentication and failing.Am I missing any configuration for Keystone based authentication ? Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: beast: 0x7fddeb8e7710:10.117.53.10 - - [03/Jun/2023:18:47:03.060 +0000] "GET/swift/v1/AUTH_c668ed224e434c88a9e0fce125056112?format=json HTTP/1.1" 401 119 -"openstacksdk/0.52.0 keystoneauth1/4.0.0 python-requests/2.22.0 CPython/3.8.10"- latency=0.000000000s Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: HTTP_ACCEPT=*/*Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: HTTP_ACCEPT_ENCODING=gzip,deflateJun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: HTTP_CONNECTION=closeJun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02.radosgw[2802861]:HTTP_HOST=dev-ipp1-u1-object-storeJun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02radosgw[2802861]: HTTP_USER_AGENT=openstacksdk/0.52.0keystoneauth1/4.0.0 python-requests/2.22.0 CPython/3.8.10Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: HTTP_VERSION=1.1 Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]:HTTP_X_AUTH_TOKEN=gAAAAABke4qn779UQ_XMz0EDL3P3TgjBQsGG6p-MNhviJxLZTuMTnTDmpT5Yfi9UpgO_T3LOOsPjQAw6zoMUIaC22wPeryp5x-UumB3XwXOWp-qSXLbuN3b9oj_Qg5kCZWA0waWNRHzQ1mwtlEmmpTgvTXbU5V1ym6hEBOn6Q3RWhn34Hj3cF9oJun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR=10.117.148.3Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: QUERY_STRING=format=jsonJun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02.radosgw[2802861]: REMOTE_ADDR=10.117.53.10 Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02.radosgw[2802861]: REQUEST_METHOD=GETJun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02.radosgw[2802861]:REQUEST_URI=/swift/v1/AUTH_c668ed224e434c88a9e0fce125056112?format=jsonJun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]:SCRIPT_URI=/swift/v1/AUTH_c668ed224e434c88a9e0fce125056112 Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: SERVER_PORT=7480Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: ====== starting new requestreq=0x7fddeb8e7710 ===== Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s initializing for trans_id = tx000003991cfc5c1791f95-00647b8aa7-30c56-default Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s rgw api priority: s3=8 s3website=7Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s host=dev-ipp1-u1-object-store Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s subdomain= domain= in_hosted_domain=0 in_hosted_domain_s3website=0 Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s final domain/bucket subdomain= domain= in_hosted_domain=0in_hosted_domain_s3website=0 s->info.domain=s->info.request_uri=/swift/v1/AUTH_c668ed224e434c88a9e0fce125056112 Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s name: format val: jsonJun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s ver=v1 first= req= Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s handler=29RGWHandler_REST_Service_SWIFT Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s getting op 0 Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s get_system_obj_state: rctx=0x7fddeb8e6790obj=default.rgw.log:script.prerequest. state=0x55f743b97720 s->prefetch_data=0 Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s cache get: name=default.rgw.log++script.prerequest. : hit (negative entry) Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s swift:list_buckets scheduling with throttler client=3 cost=1Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s swift:list_buckets op=29RGWListBuckets_ObjStore_SWIFTJun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s swift:list_buckets verifying requester Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s swift:list_buckets rgw::auth::swift::DefaultStrategy: tryingrgw::auth::swift::TempURLEngine Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s swift:list_buckets rgw::auth::swift::TempURLEngine denied with reason=-13 Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s swift:list_buckets rgw::auth::swift::DefaultStrategy: tryingrgw::auth::swift::SignedTokenEngine Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s swift:list_buckets rgw::auth::swift::SignedTokenEngine denied with reason=-1 Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s swift:list_buckets rgw::auth::swift::DefaultStrategy: tryingrgw::auth::swift::SwiftAnonymousEngine Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s swift:list_buckets rgw::auth::swift::SwiftAnonymousEngine denied withreason=-1 Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s swift:list_buckets Failed the auth strategy, reason=-1 Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: failed to authorize requestJun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s op->ERRORHANDLER: err_no=-1 new_err_no=-1Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s get_system_obj_state: rctx=0x7fddeb8e6790obj=default.rgw.log:script.postrequest. state=0x55f743b97960 s->prefetch_data=0 Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s cache get: name=default.rgw.log++script.postrequest. : hit (negative entry) Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s swift:list_buckets op status=0 Jun 03 11:47:03 dev-ipp1-u1-control02 radosgw[2802861]: req 41483251800463850450.000000000s swift:list_buckets http status=401

1 0

[publiccloud-sig] Reminder - next meeting June 7th - 0700 UTC
by Felix Kronlage-Dammers 05 Jun '23

05 Jun '23

Hi everyone, on Wednesday the next meeting of the public cloud sig is going to happen. We meet on IRC in #openstack-operators at 0700 UTC. A preliminary agenda can be found in the pad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/publiccloud-sig-meeting See also here for all other details: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/PublicCloudSIG read you on Wednesday! felix -- Felix Kronlage-Dammers Product Owner IaaS & Operations Sovereign Cloud Stack Sovereign Cloud Stack — standardized, built and operated by many Ein Projekt der Open Source Business Alliance - Bundesverband für digitale Souveränität e.V. Tel.: +49-30-206539-205 | Matrix: @fkronlage:matrix.org | fkr(a)osb-alliance.com

1 0

swift container retention
by Geert Geurts 05 Jun '23

05 Jun '23

Hallo, I've gotten the assignment to implement a backup solution using openstack swift containers. What we want is that the files of customers are kept in the customers own container and for those files to retain their versions on updates of the file. So far so good, this is all possible, and extensively documented online. Now, the second part is more complicated it appears where I thougth this would be a quite common usage example of object storage. I cannot find how I can automagically delete versions of files that are older then X days. There is the X-delete-after header, but this header needs to be added for each transaction. What I want is for all objects in a container to get deleted after X days without having to add a header once the object is uploaded. Does anyone have suggestions on how I could implement this requirement? Please find below a grafical repesentation of what I want Versioning disabled Automated add headers delete-after Versioning enabled Usage on the account of LF Usage on the account of client │ │ │ │ │ │ ▼ ▼ ┌────────────────────────┐ ┌────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ │ │ Versions-container │ │ Current-container │ │ │ │ │ ├────────────────────────┤ ├────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ │ │File1 v123456 │ │ File1 │ │File1 v567899 │ │ File2 │ │ │ │ File3 │ │File3 v234567 │ │ ... │ │ │ │ FileN │ └────────────────────────┘ └─────────────┬──────────┘ ▲ │ │ │ └────────────────────────────────────────┘ Modifications cause current to be moved to Versioned-container Best regards, Geert

2 1