October 2024 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[tc][all][monasca ] Retiring the Monasca project
by Ghanshyam Mann 16 Feb '25

16 Feb '25

Hello everyone, As you might know, the Monasca project is not active and was marked 'inactive' since 2024.1 cycle[1]. In this cycle also, this project is leaderless[2] and no maintainer stepped up to maintain it. As discussed in the Leaderless project etherpad[2], the next step is to retire the project. I'm sending this email to propose the Monasca retirement and based on the response, I will proceed next. [1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/emerging-technology-and-inact… [2] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/2024.2-leaderless#L72 -gmann

6 17

[ironic]About the OS supported by Diskimage-builder
by Junya Noguchi (Fujitsu) 03 Feb '25

03 Feb '25

To whom it may concern. My name is Junya Noguchi. I have some questions about the supported OS for Diskimage-builder operation. Please respond. References https://docs.openstack.org/ironic-python-agent-builder/latest/admin/dib.html Does it mean that the OS that says "work but receive only limited testing and support" works but is not supported? References https://docs.openstack.org/diskimage-builder/latest/ This document describes RHEL and other operating systems that are not supported in the previous question. Are these operating systems supported? Also, are there any plans to support more operating systems in the future? Best regards, Junya Noguchi

5 7

[glance][ops] proposal to remove the glance-scrubber
by Brian Rosmaita 20 Jan '25

20 Jan '25

Hello Glance users, The Glance project team wants to determine whether anyone is using the glance-scrubber utility [0]. If not, we are thinking of deprecating it this cycle to be removed in the appropriate future cycle. If you have not previously heard of the glance-scrubber, that's most likely because it's only useful for particular deployment configurations of which yours is not one. See the doc [0] for details if you are curious. Our suspicion is that the glance-scrubber may have outlived its usefulness for modern OpenStack configurations. (The last time I remember it being discussed at a PTG was during the snowstorm in Dublin, which I believe was the Rocky development cycle). On the other hand, the team also has some ideas for improving the scrubber, but there's no point doing that if it's not actually being used in the first place. So if removal of the glance-scrubber would negatively affect you, please respond to this email so we can get some data points. Thanks! [0] https://docs.openstack.org/glance/latest/cli/glancescrubber.html

2 2

[i18n][infra][horizon] Zanata translation job failures after Python 3.8 deprecation
by Ian Y. Choi 19 Jan '25

19 Jan '25

Hi all, During last week's PTG, the I18n SIG identified Zanata translation job failures for Horizon (and likely related plugins). The root cause appears to be Python 3.8 deprecation on Horizon [1]. Failed jobs have been observed on Zuul [2], and translation proposals were made on Gerrit [3]. Since translation sync on Horizon stable branches is functioning correctly, the error message seems to be related to Python 3.8 deprecation: ERROR: Cannot install -r doc/requirements.txt (line 3) due to conflicting package version dependencies. To address this, I'd like to raise two points: 1/ To resolve the issue, would you support updating translation sync jobs with Bionic-based Zuul jobs by either upgrading to Jammy or modifying the Bionic image to support Python >3.8? 2/ At least me from I18n SIG acknowledges that recognizing these translation job errors was delayed. Moving forward, would it be beneficial to implement periodic (e.g., monthly) reporting on translation job successes and failures? Thank you, /Ian [1] https://docs.openstack.org/releasenotes/horizon/2024.2.html#upgrade-notes [2] https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=propose-translation-up… [3] https://review.opendev.org/q/owner:proposal-bot+project:openstack/horizon+b…

2 2

[cinder][kubernetes] pvc stuck in reserved state
by Eugen Block 10 Jan '25

10 Jan '25

Hi, we have a couple of k8s clusters in our openstack environment (Victoria) and are facing some problems when pods get moved to different worker nodes. The PVCs get stuck in "reserved" state, and they only get attached after resetting the volumes to "available" state. First I thought it was due to the missing multiattach volume type which seems to work fine in our customer's cluster. I also found the "duplicate connector" error messages in the nova-compute.log: > Unable to update attachment.(Invalid volume: duplicate connectors > detected on volume But after adding the multiattach volume type and retyping the affected volumes, the PVCs still get stuck in "reserved" state while I don't see any error messages on the hypervisors anymore. So it seems that something has changed/improved, but now I don't have a trace where to look next. Could this be a cinder-csi driver issue or something? Our cinder backend is ceph (Pacific). Not sure which information could help so please ask for anything I can provide. Any pointers are highly appreciated! Thanks! Eugen

1 2

ERROR openstack [-] Resource OS::TripleO::Network::Ports::ControlPlaneVipPort maps to type OS::Neutron::Port and the Neutron service is not available when using ephemeral Heat.| Openstack tripleo wallaby version
by Swogat Pradhan 24 Dec '24

24 Dec '24

Hi, I am currently trying to deploy openstack wallaby using tripleo arch. I created the network jinja templates, ran the following commands also: #openstack overcloud network provision --stack overcloud --output networks-deployed-environment.yaml custom_network_data.yaml # openstack overcloud network vip provision --stack overcloud --output vip-deployed-environment.yaml custom_vip_data.yaml # openstack overcloud node provision --stack overcloud --overcloud-ssh-key /home/stack/sshkey/id_rsa overcloud-baremetal-deploy.yaml and used the environment files in the openstack overcloud deploy command: (undercloud) [stack@hkg2director ~]$ cat deploy.sh #!/bin/bash THT=/usr/share/openstack-tripleo-heat-templates/ CNF=/home/stack/ openstack overcloud deploy --templates $THT \ -r $CNF/templates/roles_data.yaml \ -n $CNF/workplace/custom_network_data.yaml \ -e ~/containers-prepare-parameter.yaml \ -e $CNF/templates/node-info.yaml \ -e $CNF/templates/scheduler-hints.yaml \ -e $CNF/workplace/networks-deployed-environment.yaml \ -e $CNF/workplace/vip-deployed-environment.yaml \ -e $CNF/workplace/overcloud-baremetal-deployed.yaml \ -e $CNF/workplace/custom-net-bond-with-vlans.yaml Now when i run the ./deploy.sh script i encounter an error stating: ERROR openstack [-] Resource OS::TripleO::Network::Ports::ControlPlaneVipPort maps to type OS::Neutron::Port and the Neutron service is not available when using ephemeral Heat. The generated environments from 'openstack overcloud baremetal provision' and 'openstack overcloud network provision' must be included with the deployment command.: tripleoclient.exceptions.InvalidConfiguration: Resource OS::TripleO::Network::Ports::ControlPlaneVipPort maps to type OS::Neutron::Port and the Neutron service is not available when using ephemeral Heat. The generated environments from 'openstack overcloud baremetal provision' and 'openstack overcloud network provision' must be included with the deployment command. 2022-04-19 13:47:16.582 735924 INFO osc_lib.shell [-] END return value: 1 Can someone tell me where the mistake is? With regards, Swogat Pradhan

4 4

[all][tc][ptl][qa] Migrating upstream CI/CD jobs to Ubuntu Noble (24.04)
by Ghanshyam Mann 10 Dec '24

10 Dec '24

Hello Everyone, As per the 2025.2 cycle testing runtime, we need to run upstream CI/CD jobs on Ubuntu Noble (24.04) [1]. For better tracking and speeding up this work, it is the community-wide goal for this cycle[2]. This is the etherpad which has the migration plan and will be used for the tracking: - https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/migrate-to-noble I have prepared the change(WIP) for base jobs migration on Noble (openstack tox jobs, devstack, and tempest) which will migrate most of the projects jobs. Tempest change[3] include dependency on openstack tox, devstack base jobs changes so testing project gate using the the tempest change will test the complete set. Refer to the etherpad for the complete migration plan/steps. * Deadline: Nov 29th 2024 (R18) is the deadline to test/fix the projects jobs and to merge the base jobs running on Noble (openstck tox, devstack, and tempest). [1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/runtimes/2025.1.html [2] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/selected/migrate-ci-jobs-to-ubunt… [3] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/932156 -gmann

2 8

[kolla-ansible][nova] Refresh cell cache in nova scheduler
by Satish Patel 04 Dec '24

04 Dec '24

Folks, What is wrong here, I do have the following hostname resolvable from all the nodes even if they are in the /etc/hosts file, Why is the following task saying UNREACHABLE and from where its trying to reach ? PLAY [Refresh nova scheduler cell cache] ***************************************************************************************************************************************************** TASK [nova : Refresh cell cache in nova scheduler] ******************************************************************************************************************************************* fatal: [os2-bos-ctrl01]: UNREACHABLE! => {"changed": false, "msg": "Data could not be sent to remote host \"os2-bos-ctrl01\". Make sure this host can be reached over ssh: ", "unreachable": true} fatal: [os2-bos-ctrl02]: UNREACHABLE! => {"changed": false, "msg": "Data could not be sent to remote host \"os2-bos-ctrl02\". Make sure this host can be reached over ssh: ", "unreachable": true} fatal: [os2-bos-ctrl03]: UNREACHABLE! => {"changed": false, "msg": "Data could not be sent to remote host \"os2-bos-ctrl03\". Make sure this host can be reached over ssh: ", "unreachable": true}

4 5

[cinder] What is the "official" name for Cinder in the service catalog?
by Stephen Finucane 29 Nov '24

29 Nov '24

o/ I've proposed a series of patches to "clean up" the service catalog that DevStack creates in a deployment. Currently, DevStack creates two endpoints for Cinder: one called 'cinderv3' of type 'volumev3' and another called 'cinder' of type 'block-storage'. For example: { "services": [ { "name": "cinderv3", "description": "Cinder Volume Service V3", "id": "65460706a9864e71926f13042f526aeb", "type": "volumev3", "enabled": true, "links": { "self": "http://10.0.108.50/identity/v3/services/65460706a9864e71926f13042f526aeb" } }, { "name": "cinder", "description": "Cinder Volume Service", "id": "cd406a0e296d47dca1e481e992851bb2", "type": "block-storage", "enabled": true, "links": { "self": "http://10.0.108.50/identity/v3/services/cd406a0e296d47dca1e481e992851bb2" } }, // ... ], "links": { "next": null, "self": "http://10.0.108.50/identity/v3/services", "previous": null } } They both ultimately point to the same API, the Cinder v3 API, meaning one of these endpoints is redundant. My assumption was 'block-storage' was the correct one, since that's the official service type [1], and that 'cinder' was the appropriate name since it mirrors what we use for other services (nova, neutron, keystone, glance, ...). However, tkajinam raised the point [2] that the Install Guide currently recommends use of the 'volumev3' type and that projects like Nova and Glance have an '[cinder] catalog_info' that defaults to 'volumev3'. If so, is 'block-storage' really the official service type, or is it 'volumev3'. If it is, should we be changing the Install Guide and the various config option defaults? Cheers, Stephen [1] https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/service-types-authority/

6 18

[all][dev][ops][tc] Bridging the gap between community and contributing orgs
by Jeremy Stanley 26 Nov '24

26 Nov '24

The tl;dr on this is that I'm opening a broad community discussion on how we can, collectively through improved communication, better bring together our established contributors with casual and prospective contributors who struggle to find successful patterns of contribution, so that we might all support each other in order to benefit OpenStack as a whole. Read on for details... OpenStack's TC has requested that foundation staff, when in conversation with representatives of member organizations, encourage participation in the project and collect feedback on any related challenges those organizations encounter in their attempts to do so. In order to better understand the feedback and brainstorm achievable recommendations for the broader community[*], Community Managers on the foundation staff started to work with a small focus group of established contributors with a solid understanding of what successful patterns of contribution look like. It also came to light that established contributors experience many of the same sorts of challenges, even more so if they don't have the luxury of focusing full-time upstream, and so success often comes down to knowing how to effectively navigate those challenges. The community's goal with this exercise is to improve everyone's experience, and your help is needed to do that! The most common themes reported by those struggling to contribute are not related to tooling or workflow confusion, but instead seem to come down to basic communication challenges. Ideas so far to address these gaps include: * Review bandwidth - Ensure contributors and companies understand the importance and benefits of code review - Incentivize and credit meaningful "+1" reviews more - Understand that the volume of changes and limited reviewer bandwidth often means proposals aren't reviewed quickly (or at all), and their proponents may need some additional tenacity and engagement with the team to get their work noticed - Utilize "review dashboards" as a way to find stale changes which have fallen through the cracks * Review strategy and etiquette - Be clear about the meaning of votes on changes, especially negative ones, and set explicit timelines for things like "procedural -2" or WIP blocks when their approval needs to be delayed - Focus on comments and requests that affect whether or not the change can be merged after the fixes are submitted, rather than requesting trivial adjustments to an unsuitable change which has more fundamental problems - Reciprocate with reviews of changes from new reviewers you see leaving insubstantial reviews, demonstrating to them what deeper and more meaningful reviewing looks like * Mentoring newcomers - Established contributors with sufficient bandwidth can help mentoring newcomers, potential core reviewers and new leaders - Mentoring can happen as part of internship programs as well as by helping newcomers determined to become active contributors; both ways should be embraced and utilized What challenges are you facing? And, how would you improve them? Two weeks from now, we'll have a forum session at the OpenInfra Summit Asia in Suwon[**] where our community can refine these possible approaches and integrate others, as well as bring attention to them and promote their application. I've also proposed a similar forum session for OpenInfra Days North America in Indianapolis a month after that, where we can hopefully continue this conversation. The goal for this multi-stage effort is to improve the contribution experience for established participants, casual contributors and newcomers alike. While it's easy to jump to blaming in these situations, it will be far more productive if we can focus on the challenges and experiences that we would each like to remove or improve for ourselves and others in our community. As we find ways together to improve our efficiency, we can reduce the load on all contributors and lower the barriers for people to join and participate. [*] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/r.2205024e55689bccb82c20c960853cb5 [**] https://2024.openinfraasia.org/a/schedule#view=calendar&title=Bridging%20th… -- Jeremy Stanley

2 5