August 2024 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[octavia] Purging ERROR'ed amphora and load balancers stuck in transitional states
by Paul Browne 11 Apr '25

11 Apr '25

Hello Octavia users, For a while I've been trying to find a systematic way to remove Octavia LBs+Amphora that have become stuck in ERROR or transitional PENDING_* states ; $ openstack loadbalancer amphora list -f value | grep ERROR a2323f14-3aaa-418a-8249-111aaa9c21fe 1fa7bd54-f60c-420c-94f3-d4c02f03d4fe ERROR MASTER 10.8.0.242 192.168.3.247 e5b236ba-e7ee-4ed7-9f58-57ce7a408489 1fa7bd54-f60c-420c-94f3-d4c02f03d4fe ERROR BACKUP 10.8.0.190 192.168.3.247 6b556f28-93c9-49dd-b6ee-4379288e7957 d5e402fe-2c4b-49af-a700-532cb408cee5 ERROR MASTER 10.8.0.39 192.168.3.126 c669db5d-8686-4d5c-9e95-e02030b34301 d5e402fe-2c4b-49af-a700-532cb408cee5 ERROR BACKUP 10.8.0.174 192.168.3.126 $ openstack loadbalancer list -f value | grep -vi active 1fa7bd54-f60c-420c-94f3-d4c02f03d4fe k8s-clusterapi-cluster-default-ci-6386871107-kube-upgrade-kubeapi 3a06571936a0424bb40bc5c672c4ccb1 192.168.3.247 PENDING_UPDATE amphora d5e402fe-2c4b-49af-a700-532cb408cee5 k8s-clusterapi-cluster-default-ci-6386871107-latest-kubeapi 3a06571936a0424bb40bc5c672c4ccb1 192.168.3.126 PENDING_DELETE amphora These resources are marked immutable and so cannot be failed over or deleted; $ openstack loadbalancer amphora failover a2323f14-3aaa-418a-8249-111aaa9c21fe Load Balancer 1fa7bd54-f60c-420c-94f3-d4c02f03d4fe is immutable and cannot be updated. (HTTP 409) (Request-ID: req-6e66c4e8-c3d3-4549-a03c-367017c8c8b3) $ openstack loadbalancer failover 1fa7bd54-f60c-420c-94f3-d4c02f03d4fe Invalid state PENDING_UPDATE of loadbalancer resource 1fa7bd54-f60c-420c-94f3-d4c02f03d4fe (HTTP 409) (Request-ID: req-84b44212-e7a8-4101-a16f-18c774c0577e) The backing Nova instances for these Amphora do seem to exist and be in good working order. Is there any API way to purge these out of Octavia's service state, or would (very careful) DB hackery be required here? Many thanks, Paul Browne ******************* Paul Browne Research Computing Platforms University Information Services Roger Needham Building JJ Thompson Avenue University of Cambridge Cambridge United Kingdom E-Mail: pfb29(a)cam.ac.uk<mailto:pfb29@cam.ac.uk> Tel: 0044-1223-746548 *******************

4 6

[all][dev][ops][tc] Bridging the gap between community and contributing orgs
by Jeremy Stanley 02 Apr '25

02 Apr '25

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 7

[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 19 Jan '25

19 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

[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 23 Dec '24

23 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

[kolla] [openeuler] CI jobs status
by Michał Nasiadka 26 Nov '24

26 Nov '24

Hello Koalas, OpenEuler jobs in master (to be Antelope) are failing for a long time. If no one is interested in maintaining OpenEuler support in Kolla-Ansible - I will propose dropping it’s support on Wednesday Kolla meeting. Best regards, Michal

4 3

[horizon][ceph] object storage container storage policy missing
by Satish Patel 24 Nov '24

24 Nov '24

Folks, Openstack Release: Zed Recently I have integrated ceph RGW service with openstack/keystone and testing with command line tool "openstack container create foo1" and it works but when I go to Horizon UI I am seeing it doesn't have storage policy dropdown list and because of that I am not able to create container or upload file from Horizon GUI https://ibb.co/KhYW6Rd It works with commands like but not horizon. $ openstack container create foo1 +---------------------------------------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+ | account | container | x-trans-id | +---------------------------------------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+ | AUTH_d4d82849885e4126aef402c408ad2c5c | foo1 | tx00000c057454841b13497-0065b558b4-42ff2eb-ahm | +---------------------------------------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+ $ openstack container list +------+ | Name | +------+ | foo1 | +------+

2 2

[ironic] Having issue with deploying ISO image to node
by James Leong 17 Nov '24

17 Nov '24

Hi all, I am trying to play around with ironic, and I am having an issue with deploying an Ubuntu 20.04 ISO image onto my bare metal node. Since I am quite new to bare metal, I am not entirely sure what went wrong as I couldn't find any error messages shown on my log file (ironic-conductor, ironic-api, ironic_neutron_agent, and nova-compute-ironic). This might be my guess; the ironic inspection is hitting timeout, which is causing the deployment to timeout. However, I have no idea why the inspection is failing at timeout. Any help would be appreciated. Best, James

6 7