May 2024 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[all][packaging][release][qa] pep-517 and pip 23
by smooney＠redhat.com 06 May '24

06 May '24

hi folks, TL;DR ----- this is a long email so the tl;dr is we should add pyproject.toml ``` [build-system] requires = ["pbr>=5.7.0", "setuptools>=36.6.0", "wheel"] build-backend = "pbr.build" ``` to all openstack projects to supprot pip 23.1+ Long version ------------ As some of you may know the ptg happend last week an done of hte topic raised there was a know limitation in devstack where GLOBAL_VENV=True does not work on centos/fedora derived distros. while i generally dont use centos/fedora derived distros for my daily work i have been using devstack for over 10 years at this point so when im told it broken i ocationlly will go fix it. In this case the issue is not with devstack (it often isnt) and is actully in our collective reliance on a deprecated functionality and how we package openstack today. Back story, for better or worse when openstack was created the landscape of python packaging was significantly different then it is today. To help corodinate our dependcies the openstack comunity went all in on requirements.txt and developed upper-constraits to manage our requirements and developed PBR (python build Reasonableness). both of those approches have served us well and likely will continue to do so for some time. Since then pyproject.toml has started to gain popularity and pep-517 (A build-system independent format for source trees) has been adotpted but so far openstack as a comunity has not embraced those changes. (although pbr already supprot pep-517 :) ). Until now this has not been a problem however with recent release of pip things are now breaking. Problem Context: - openstack does not provide pyporject.toml files - openstack project configure setuptools to use pbr via setup.py - setuptools support generating scripts form entry points(console_scripts) which we use for project binaries( nova- compute, neutron-server, ...) - openstack api services use a pbr extension know as wsgi_scripts which adds a similar functionality for generating wsgi application mains file - devstack due to coming changes in distro to block "sudo pip install" now installs openstack in a single by default on debian distros. on centos/fedora distros it currently almost functional (but not). - devstack installs in editable mode because that is how most developers use devstack for developemnt What changed: - pip 20.2 deprecated support for falling back to calling setup.py when pyproject.toml is not present - https://pip.pypa.io/en/stable/news/#v20-2 - https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/8368 - at this point when pyproject.yaml is not called pip calls setup.py install [-e] <path to repo or package name> - setup.py invokes pbr to generate wsgi_scripts and other files - in pip 23.1 the fallback was removed https://pip.pypa.io/en/stable/news/#v23-1 - pip now builds a temp local wheel instead of calling setup.py install when pyproject.toml is not found - in editable mode (-e) the default way the wheel is built does not invoke pbr properly to generate the wsgi files - as a result the wsgi files are not installed to the venv bin dir and this causes devstack to fail to start keystone (or any other wsgi api) The fix, there are a few ways to approch this: - clamp pip (https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/devstack/+/898845) this is a terible idea and it breaks debian - clamping pip below 23.1 works on centos for now however OVS on debian already requires pep 517 for installing - as such when that version of ovs (or other projects start enforcing that) hits centos it will break - add a minimal pyproject.toml to all openstack project - example for keystone https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/keystone/+/899519 - this example jsut adds the minium pyproject.toml to enable pbr to be used as the build system - it does not remove supprot for setup.py but it will not be used by default going forward whit new version of pip - all config is still in setup.cfg - add pyproject.toml support but remove setup.py support https://review.opendev.org/c/opendev/bindep/+/816741 - this goes one step futrue and actuly nulls out setup.py - we could take this approach if we want to but its not required. The reason for this email is to get agreement on how to support pip 23.1+ My proposal would be to add pyproject.toml with the minimal config required to enable pip 23.2 but not drop the setup.py support in this cycle. i would suggest that we can deprecate installing via setup.py in caracal if that is desirable but not make that change until the next slurp to give time to projects and packages to catch up. if there are no objections to that i would like to ask what is the preferd way to create and submit the patches for the minimal pyproject.toml ``` [build-system] requires = ["pbr>=5.7.0", "setuptools>=36.6.0", "wheel"] build-backend = "pbr.build" ``` i can propose patches to the main project deployed by devstack by default. i.e. nova/neutron ectra but it might be better if someone form the core teams of each project could take on that task and chasing the reviews. if someone has a script to generate a patch for a set of repos that just add the above pyporject.toml then we can use that to keep a consistent topic/commit message across all patches. my proposal for testing this is two fold. in ci we can test the patches are functional by using a DNM patch to devstack to force enable the gloal venv on centos and depend on the set of patches, i will modify https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/devstack/+/898845 to do that locally we can test that the patch is functional by doing the following substituting keystone for the relevant project. ``` git clone https://opendev.org/openstack/keystone cd keystone python3 -m venv .venv . .venv/bin/activate python3 -m pip install -U pip python3 -m pip install -e . ls .venv/bin/keystone* ``` the ls will not contain the wsgi script with the addition of the pyproject.toml it should. on debian sid i can reproduce the same issue the problem we are seeing on centos 9 now will start impacting other distos eventually so its good to fix this now. if i start proposing this to glance/nova/neutron/cinder/swift/horizon/placement (to get a default devstack working) can i get cores to review? can cores form each project nominate peopel to review or volenteer to do this work. i have created https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/pep-517-and-pip-23 to track this work i have some other work that i think we can do in parallel like addign pyporject.toml support to the pti requirements if we go this way but that i think we can discuss on a governacne patch to updated it. anyway this is a lot to digest so feedback is welcome. if someone else would like to drive this that is also welcome (i.e. tc/release team) regards sean.

10 27

[openstack][neutron] neutron api server deployment
by hai wu 06 May '24

06 May '24

Hi, Is it the case that there are basically 2 ways to deploy a neutron api server? One way is to deploy it via wsgi/apache, which requires deploying another neutron-rpc-server process along with it; Another way is to deploy it as standalone (without the help of wsgi/apache), with 'rpc_worker' parameter configured, so that rpc worker would run alongside with api worker process. If so, what are the pros and cons for them? Did not find much Openstack neutron documentation on this topic thus far. - Hai

1 0

[neutron] Bug deputy report for week of April 29th
by Brian Haley 06 May '24

06 May '24

Hi, I was Neutron bug deputy last week. Below is a short summary about the reported bugs. -Brian Critical bugs ------------- * None High bugs --------- * https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2064778 - The ML2/OVN OVSDB maintenance job fails to handle properly user defined flavor routers gateway ports - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/918151 Medium bugs ----------- * https://bugs.launchpad.net/python-neutronclient/+bug/2064286 - BGPVPN client is post to the wrong endpoint - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-neutronclient/+/917835 Low bugs -------- * None Misc bugs --------- * None Wishlist bugs ------------- * https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2064120 - [RFE] BGP Dynamic Routing for IPv4 AND IPv6 routes not possible with just one dragent (really make use of MP-BGP or support multiple BGP speakers / sessions per dragent) * https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2064708 - Neutron documentation using real IP addresses and AS numbers instead of example values - marked low-hanging fruit

1 0

[nova][cinder] Openstack with FC SAN storage with HA
by Satish Patel 06 May '24

06 May '24

Folks, I have a question, Does openstack support FC SAN storage? I have deployed openstack with ceph but first time got this requirement that a customer has SAN storage because they were using VMware but now move to openstack. How does openstack talk to FC SAN and what about VM migration etc? Do I need to mount the LUN disk on each computer and point nova to the LUN disk? Or I have to create some kind of shared file system on top of the LUN and expose that to nova/cinder. Can someone explain the entire workflow?

5 8

Help with neutron openstack
by Lohit S 06 May '24

06 May '24

Hi team, I am new to OpenStack. I would like to contribute to the OpenStack Neutron project. However, when I read the OpenStack contribution documentation, I find it difficult to begin. Could anyone please help me get started? I have doubts about how to set up a development environment and if there are any places other than chat available for discussion. Thanks, Lohit S [image: Mailsuite] Sent with Mailsuite · Unsubscribe <https://mailtrack.io/en/privacy/opt-out/unsubscribe/4594fa86f0682220cd357ab…> 05/04/24, 07:00:00 PM

2 2

[kolla][OpenstackAnsible] 2024.1 Caracal cycle-trailing release deadline
by Elõd Illés 06 May '24

06 May '24

Hello teams with trailing projects, The 2024.1 Caracal cycle-trailing release deadline is in 1 month [1], and all projects following the cycle-trailing release model must release their 2024.1 Caracal deliverables by June 6th, 2024. The following trailing projects haven't been released yet for 2024.1 Caracal. OSA team's deliverables: - openstack-ansible-roles - openstack-ansible Kolla team's deliverables: - kayobe - kolla - kolla-ansible - ansible-collection-kolla This is just a friendly reminder to allow you to release these projects in time. Do not hesitate to ping us if you have any questions or concerns. [1] https://releases.openstack.org/dalmatian/schedule.html#d-cycle-trail Thanks, Előd irc: elodilles @ #openstack-release

1 0

[tc][all] OpenStack Technical Committee Weekly Summary and Meeting Agenda
by Goutham Pacha Ravi 06 May '24

06 May '24

Hello Stackers, Next week marks Milestone-1 of the 2024.2 (Dalmatian) release cycle [1]. So as we march on, there have been a number of governance changes that I'd like to brief you about: - The Freezer team now opted to have a distributed project leadership - Thank you for stepping up, noonedeadpunk and khyr0n! - The TC appointed a PTL for the Skyline project - Thank you for stepping up, wu_wenxiang! - The TC has decided that projects can be identified as inactive at any point during a release cycle. When this happens, we would prevent releases for the cycle from such projects. - The "openstack-helm" team has spun up a new repository: "openstack/openstack-helm-plugin," and the "openstack-ansible" team has introduced "openstack/ansible-role-frrouting." === Weekly Meeting === Last week's TC meeting was held on IRC on April 30th, 2024. The meeting was logged to eavesdrop [2]. For the past few release cycles, the OpenStack Technical Committee has been hosting a video meeting call as the first weekly meeting in each month. Last week, we discussed the platform we have been using for these video meetings. Some members expressed concerns about the recording capabilities of Jitsi/Meetpad [3] versus Zoom, while others were open to trying MeetPad again. Ultimately, it was agreed to stick with Zoom for the next meeting. When we host these meetings, we do have a simultaneous IRC conversation - i.e., every discussion is reflected on IRC for those who cannot or do not want to participate in the video meeting. We also upload the recording of the video meeting to the OpenStack TC's YouTube channel [4] for the sake of transparency and for posterity. I'm interested to know what the community thinks about this activity in the TC. Any feedback is most welcome! The discussion then moved to the TC Activities Tracker [5], where gate stability and Python 3.12 compatibility were among the topics discussed. Concerns were raised about the lack of volunteers to make DevStack run on Ubuntu 24.04, and it was noted that some projects still have issues with Python 3.12 compatibility [6]. Project teams must prioritize addressing Python 3.12 compatibility issues before the "E" (2025.1) release cycle - the sooner, the better. If you'd like to contribute your time and effort to testing DevStack with Ubuntu 24.04, please let us know, either here or on OFTC's #openstack-qa channel. This issue was also discussed at the Infra meeting [7]. During the open discussion, the topic of cleanup in global-requirements.txt was raised, particularly regarding the removal of old constraints (excludes) [8] causing issues in some projects. Patches were pushed to address these issues [8]. However, there were concerns that we were losing documentation of known bad versions of these requirements. The effort to fix this up quickly snowballed, and the requirements cleanup has now been reverted [9]. Project teams are encouraged to actively vet their requirements files and raise the minimum versions periodically. Tomorrow's meeting is our monthly Video+IRC meeting, and the call details and agenda are at [10]. We look forward to seeing you there. You're welcome to add new agenda items to weekly meetings. === Goal Proposals === I'd like to request a community review of the following OpenStack community goals and updates: - Migrate eventlet usages to asyncio (https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/902585) - Add timeline to remove enforce_scope in RBAC goal (https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/915179) === Governance Proposals === Merged: Transition Freezer project to DPL | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/914911 Add frrouting route under OpenStack-Ansible governance | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/910019 Appoint Wenxiang Wu as PTL of Skyline | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/915108 Add openstack-helm-plugin git repository | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916009 Clarify the timeline for project to move to Inactive state | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/908880 Move distributed-project-leadership model into doc | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916822 Abandoned: Add the Woodpecker charm to OpenStack charms | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/869752 (Reason: stale) Add Cinder Huawei charm | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/867588 (Reason: stale) Move docs tools into TC governance | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/914950 (Reason: disagreement) Appoint Jens Harbott as Skyline PTL | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/914248 (Reason: withdrawal) The following governance proposals are actively being discussed, so please share your view! - Add option to move leaderless project to Inactive status | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/914726 - Add DPL model & liaison reset policy | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916833 - Update to include docs and miscellaneous repos for AC status | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/915021 - Move openstack/kuryr and openstack/kuryr-libnetwork to Zun | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/917517 - 2023 User Survey TC Question Analysis | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/900516 The following governance proposals need attention: - Appoint Felipe Reyes as OpenStack Charms PTL | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/914254 (Needs attention from the author) [1] https://releases.openstack.org/dalmatian/schedule.html [2] https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2024/tc.2024-04-30-18.00.log.html [3] https://meetpad.opendev.org [4] https://www.youtube.com/@openstack-tc [5] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2024.2-tracker [6] https://zuul.openstack.org/builds?job_name=openstack-tox-py312&skip=0 [7] https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/infra/2024/infra.2024-04-30-19.00.log… [8] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/916006 [9] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/917869 [10] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Next_Meeting

1 0

CAD applications on OpenStack
by Arne Wiebalck 05 May '24

05 May '24

Dear all, We're looking into integrating the use case of CAD applications, such as CATIA V5/6 or CATIA 3DEXPERIENCE, into our OpenStack deployment, with the goals of increased resource sharing and to reduce the park of individual workstations we have for this at the moment. If anyone has experience running such applications on top of OpenStack (on individual VMs with GPU access, on bare metal servers with concurrent sessions, maybe even containerised ...) and would like to share what they have done, it'd be great if you got in touch with me. Thanks! Arne -- Arne Wiebalck CERN IT

1 0

[magnum-cluster-api] CREATE_IN_PROGRESS never ending
by pahrialtkj＠gmail.com 03 May '24

03 May '24

Hi all, I created a k8s cluster using magnum-cluster-api in openstack bobcat , I used kind for the capi (kind on top of lxc), magnum has been successfully installed along with the cluster-api, but when I create a k8s cluster it is always in the CREATE_IN_PROGRESS status and never completes, if you look at the loadbalancer and the master/worker server has been successfully provisioned, if in the show cluster it looks: status_reason | CAPI Cluster status: Provisioned: Cluster kube-r6jnx is Provisioned. CAPI OpenstackCluster status reason: And when I check the capi-system capi-controller-manager, it always say : http: TLS handshake error from 10.244.0.1:9005: EOF full log https://sprunge.us/DgnUOE Regards, Pahrial

2 6

[magnum-cluster-api] Is it support octavia loadbalancer with ovn driver ?
by pahrialtkj＠gmail.com 03 May '24

03 May '24

Does magnum-cluster-api support with octavia loadbalancer by using ovn driver ?, previously I used amphora driver

4 5