September 2024 - openstack-discuss

[barbican][oslo][nova][glance][cinder] cursive library status
by Brian Rosmaita 27 May '26

27 May '26

Hello Barbican team, Apologies for not including barbican in the previous thread on this topic: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-December/019430… The situation is that cursive is used by Nova, Glance, and Cinder and we'd like to move it out of the 'x' namespace into openstack governance. The question is then what team would oversee it. It seems like a good fit for Oslo, and the Oslo team seems OK with that, but since barbican-core is currently included in cursive-core, it make sense to give the Barbican team first dibs. From the consuming teams' side, I don't think we have a preference as long as it's clear who we need to bother about approvals if a bugfix is posted for review. Thus my ask is that the Barbican team indicate whether they'd like to move cursive to the 'openstack' namespace under their governance, or whether they'd prefer Oslo to oversee the library. Thank you! brian

6 6

[stackalytics] no "neutron" module for Commits
by Ihar Hrachyshka 07 May '26

07 May '26

Hi, I noticed that "neutron" is not an option in the Module list when Commits are selected, and no neutron commits are registered since ~Oct 2023. On the other hand, other Neutron program repos (e.g. neutron-lib and neutron-tempest-plugin) are available in the list and do register commits. Also, when Reviews are selected, neutron module is back as an option, and review stats are correctly updated. I checked governance yaml and it doesn't strike me as incorrect: https://opendev.org/openstack/governance/src/commit/5f93b99a3c90b452f6c7368… Any ideas what may have happened? Thanks, Ihar

5 10

[all][dev][ops][tc] Bridging the gap between community and contributing orgs
by Jeremy Stanley 17 Apr '26

17 Apr '26

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 17

[openstack][kolla-ansible]about group node config overwrite
by Nguyễn Hữu Khôi 30 Oct '25

30 Oct '25

Hello Koller. I want to ask if we can overwrite config for a group of nodes. For example, compute01 >> compute10 will have the same nova configuration compute11 >> compute20 will have the same nova configuration. It will be very nice if we support this way. Thank you. Regards Nguyen Huu Khoi

4 7

Problems with the Placement service
by Ron Gage 25 Jun '25

25 Jun '25

5 7

Fwd: DPDK+OVS with OpenStack
by Mark Wittling 24 Apr '25

24 Apr '25

Looking for someone who knows OpenStack with OpenVSwitch, and in addition to that, DPDK with OpenStack and OVS.I am using OpenStack Queens, with OpenVSwitch. The architecture I am using is documented here: https://docs.openstack.org/neutron/queens/admin/deploy-ovs-provider.htmlThe OVS I am using on the Compute Node, is compiled with DPDK, and I have enabled the datapath to netdev (DPDK) on br-prv (provider network bridge), and br-tun (tunneling bridge). But these two bridges, br-tun and br-prv, are patched into another OpenStack bridge, called br-int. I wasn’t actually sure about whether to tinker with this bridge, and wondered what datapath it was using.Then, I realized there is a parameter in the openvswitch_agent.ini file, which I will list here: # OVS datapath to use. 'system' is the default value and corresponds to the # kernel datapath. To enable the userspace datapath set this value to 'netdev'. # (string value) # Possible values: # system - <No description provided> # netdev - <No description provided> #datapath_type = system datapath_type = netdev So in tinkering with this, what I realized, is that when you set this datapath_type to system or netdev, it will adjust the br-int bridge to that datapath type.So here is my question. How can I launch a non-DPDK VM, if all of the bridges are using the netdev datapath type?Here is another question. What if one of the flavors don’t have the largepages property set on them? I assumed OpenStack would revert to a system datapath and not use DPDK for those VM interfaces. Well, I found out in testing, that is not the case. If you set all your bridges up for netdev, and you don’t set the property on the Flavor of the VM (largepages), the VM will launch, but it simply won’t work.Is there no way, on a specific Compute Host, to support both DPDK (netdev datapaths) and non-DPDK (system datapaths)?Either on a VM interface level (VM has one interface that is netdev DPDK and another that is system datapath non-DPDK)?Or on a VM by VM basis (VM 1 has 1 or more netdev datapath interfaces and VM 2 has 1 or more system datapath interfaces)?Am I right here? Once you set up a Compute Host for DPDK, it’s DPDK or nothing on that Compute Host? (edited)

3 2

How to config DPDK compute in OVN
by dangerzone ar 23 Apr '25

23 Apr '25

Hi....as far I understand ovs does support dpdk compute to be deployed. I'm referring to the guideline ' *https://docs.openstack.org/networking-ovn/queens/admin/dpdk.html <https://docs.openstack.org/networking-ovn/queens/admin/dpdk.html>* ' ... It's too brief.. May I know how to config dpdk compute in OVN networking openstack? Hope someone could help what is the config to be done.... Currently compute is run without dpdk over openstack train ovn based. Please need some info on how I can proceed. Thank you

2 1

[oslo] python-consul2 is unmaintained
by Takashi Kajinami 21 Apr '25

21 Apr '25

Hello, I recently noticed that python-consul2 library[1], which is used by the consul coordination driver in tooz, hasn't been updated for 3+ years. Looking at issues in the project, there is an indication that the library is not compatible with ACL API in consul >= 1.11[2]. There is another fork created[3] and this includes fixes to support new API endpoints. Although the driver in tooz does not directly use the feature, I think it's better to discuss our plan to mitigate risks caused by the unmaintained library. As far as I can think of, there are three options now 1. Deprecate consul driver and remove it 2. Keep using python-consul2 now. At least basic functionality is proven to work by our functional tests (Note that the tests do not cover all configuration patterns) 3. Replace python-consul2 by py-consul Before we start the overall discussions I'd like to ask a few questions to the wider audience, as our inputs. - Is anyone using the consul coordination driver now ? - Does anyone have experience with python-consul2 and/or py-consul ? Note that this discussion affects the http messaging driver[4] currently proposed, because it also requires client library to communicate with Consul. Actually I noticed the situation when I noticed that the requirement check job is failing because the library is not part of global requirements list... Thank you, Takashi Kajinami [1] https://github.com/poppyred/python-consul2 [2] https://github.com/poppyred/python-consul2/issues/42 [3] https://github.com/criteo-forks/py-consul [4] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/oslo.messaging/+/912499 -- Takashi Kajinami irc: tkajinam github: https://github.com/kajinamit launchpad: https://launchpad.net/~kajinamit

2 3

[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

[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