October 2025 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[Octavia][Load Balancer][2023.1] Amphora Fails Health Check – “No Route to Host” & Timeout Errors
by Thamanna Farhath 02 Dec '25

02 Dec '25

Hi OpenStack Community, I am currently facing an issue with the Load Balancer (Octavia) service in my OpenStack deployment and would appreciate your guidance or suggestions on how to troubleshoot and resolve it. Environment Details: OpenStack Version: 2023.1 (Antelope) Operating System: Ubuntu 22.04 Octavia Backend: Amphora Network Type: VXLAN Deployment Tool: Kolla Ansible Issue Summary: After creating a Load Balancer, the Amphora instance is successfully launched. However, approximately 18 minutes later, the Load Balancer transitions to an ERROR state. Error Observed: octavia.common.exceptions.ComputeWaitTimeoutException: Waiting for compute id a222527f-8336-4fb1-8e9e-0e3ac6e8d580 to go active timeout. octavia.amphorae.driver_exceptions.exceptions.AmpConnectionRetry: Could not connect to amphora, exception caught: HTTPSConnectionPool(host='192.168.200.247', port=9443): Max retries exceeded with url: // (Caused by NewConnectionError: Failed to establish a new connection: [Errno 113] No route to host) What I’ve Tried: Created a VXLAN-based internal network: openstack subnet create --network octavia-mgmt-net --subnet-range 192.168.200.0/24 octavia-mgmt-subnet openstack router create octavia-router openstack router add subnet octavia-router octavia-mgmt-subnet openstack router set octavia-router --external-gateway <public-network-id> Manually configured OVS interface: ovs-vsctl add-port br-int octavia-mgmt -- set interface octavia-mgmt type=internal ip addr add 192.168.200.1/24 dev octavia-mgmt ip link set octavia-mgmt up Security groups are open (allowing all ingress and egress). Verified OVS bridge setup – interface appears correctly on br-int. Behavior Noticed: Amphora instance gets created but fails to communicate with the controller after a while,so health checks fails. The controller cannot reach the Amphora management IP (192.168.200.x). Logs show heartbeat/connection issues (No route to host, timeouts). Request for Help: I would appreciate any of the following: Suggestions to verify if the management network is properly routed from controller to Amphora. Best practices for setting up the Octavia management network using VXLAN. Troubleshooting steps for verifying health manager connectivity to Amphora. Disclaimer : The content of this email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and remove the messages from your system. If you are not the named addressee, it is strictly forbidden for you to share, circulate, distribute or copy any part of this e-mail to any third party without the written consent of the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secured or error free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, or may contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email."

4 3

[tc][tripleo] About os-net-config
by Goutham Pacha Ravi 17 Nov '25

17 Nov '25

Hello Stackers, I am writing to seek clarity regarding recent activity on the PyPI project for os-net-config [1]. As you can tell, "OpenStack" is still listed as the author/maintainer of this package. "os-net-config" was retired early last year along with the rest of the TripleO project within OpenStack's governance [2]. It appears that development has continued outside of OpenStack with the project being forked [3]. There have been releases that were uploaded to PyPi since. A human maintainer was added to PyPi this week. There may be some rationale to continue to maintain this code. Since the project was officially retired from OpenStack, we need to ensure that any renewed activity is properly communicated; and the author/maintainers are properly attributed. For one, "OpenStack" can't be the Author/Maintainer of a project that's not officially under OpenStack Governance. There are references to the OpenStack Documentation Website, TC Badges and IRC/bug tracker links that may now be obsolete and must be removed. This could be confusing to past, current and future users of the project, not to mention the security implications and responsibility attribution on code that's used in systems worldwide. Can the current maintainers please engage with us to make the necessary changes? You can do so here, or chat on #openstack-tc on OFTC. Thanks, Goutham Pacha Ravi [1] https://pypi.org/project/os-net-config [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/905145 [3] https://github.com/os-net-config/os-net-config

4 4

Opensearch Service Update
by Daniel Pawlik 14 Nov '25

14 Nov '25

Hello, We would like to notify you that the Opensearch service [1] would be updated to a newer version on 13 November 2025 at 12:00 PM UTC. This procedure might take a while, depending on the cluster size. During that time, the Opensearch service would not be available. If anyone has any doubts, please reply to the email. Dan [1] - https://opensearch.logs.openstack.org/_dashboards/app/home

2 2

[all][dev][ops][tc] Bridging the gap between community and contributing orgs
by Jeremy Stanley 11 Nov '25

11 Nov '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 14

[ops][largescale-sig] Refactoring Ops-related activities - a discussion at the PTG
by Thierry Carrez 10 Nov '25

10 Nov '25

Hi everyone, A quick reminder that we'll have a session at 13:00UTC today in the PTG on how we can regroup the operators-facing activities between our various groups: the Ops meetup group, the Large Scale SIG, the Public Cloud SIG, the Scientific SIG... Join us if you can! -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)

2 2

LXB Removal and OVN migration
by Ricardo Cano 09 Nov '25

09 Nov '25

Hello openstack-discuss, With the removal of the linuxbridge mechanism driver, has anyone successfully completed an in-place migrationfrom LinuxBridge to OVN? I did come across this https://www.jimmdenton.com/migrating-lxb-to-ovn/ and that looks good as a one-shoit while biting the bullet and taking a full outage. However, I was wondering if it was possible to run lxb and ovn side-by-side and cut them over, say one network at a time. This particular deployment was stood up using openstack-ansible back in the rocky days (now running antelope) and it appears that openstack ansible's default was lxb up until Zed. Any suggestions or recommendations on the best path forward? Also, will the dynamic routing agent work with ovn?

4 3

[openstack helm] [Glance] Glance showing OSError: unable to receive chunked part when uploading image
by daniel890723＠gmail.com 08 Nov '25

08 Nov '25

Hello i'm testing using Openstack-helm to install all component but after the installation complete i can't upload the OS image through both openstack CLI or Horizon it stuck at Queueing and when i checking Glance Api log it shows 2024-11-07 07:31:19.362 7 INFO glance.api.v2.image_data [None req-2bd28444-196c-42e9-94ef-18443b58310e b39b42e27f8646acad1303711f1dc8b8 e4ab1a6192b9486da698efa311086c53 - - default default] Unable to create trust: no such option collect_timing in group [keystone_authtoken] Use the existing user token. 2024-11-07 07:31:19.400 7 ERROR glance.api.v2.image_data [None req-2bd28444-196c-42e9-94ef-18443b58310e b39b42e27f8646acad1303711f1dc8b8 e4ab1a6192b9486da698efa311086c53 - - default default] Failed to upload image data due to internal error: OSError: unable to receive chunked part 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi [None req-2bd28444-196c-42e9-94ef-18443b58310e b39b42e27f8646acad1303711f1dc8b8 e4ab1a6192b9486da698efa311086c53 - - default default] Caught error: unable to receive chunked part: OSError: unable to receive chunked part 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi Traceback (most recent call last): 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance/common/wsgi.py", line 1302, in __call__ 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi action_result = self.dispatch(self.controller, action, 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance/common/wsgi.py", line 1345, in dispatch 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi return method(*args, **kwargs) 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance/common/utils.py", line 415, in wrapped 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi return func(self, req, *args, **kwargs) 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance/api/v2/image_data.py", line 299, in upload 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi with excutils.save_and_reraise_exception(): 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/oslo_utils/excutils.py", line 227, in __exit__ 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi self.force_reraise() 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/oslo_utils/excutils.py", line 200, in force_reraise 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi raise self.value 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance/api/v2/image_data.py", line 162, in upload 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi image.set_data(data, size, backend=backend) 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance/notifier.py", line 492, in set_data 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi with excutils.save_and_reraise_exception(): 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/oslo_utils/excutils.py", line 227, in __exit__ 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi self.force_reraise() 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/oslo_utils/excutils.py", line 200, in force_reraise 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi raise self.value 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance/notifier.py", line 443, in set_data 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi self.repo.set_data(data, size, backend=backend, 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance/quota/__init__.py", line 322, in set_data 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi self.image.set_data(data, size=size, backend=backend, 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance/location.py", line 596, in set_data 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi self._upload_to_store(data, verifier, backend, size) 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance/location.py", line 487, in _upload_to_store 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi multihash, loc_meta) = self.store_api.add_with_multihash( 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance_store/multi_backend.py", line 397, in add_with_multihash 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi return store_add_to_backend_with_multihash( 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance_store/multi_backend.py", line 479, in store_add_to_backend_with_multihash 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi (location, size, checksum, multihash, metadata) = store.add( 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance_store/driver.py", line 294, in add_adapter 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi metadata_dict) = store_add_fun(*args, **kwargs) 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance_store/capabilities.py", line 176, in op_checker 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi return store_op_fun(store, *args, **kwargs) 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance_store/_drivers/filesystem.py", line 764, in add 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi raise errors.get(e.errno, e) 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance_store/_drivers/filesystem.py", line 746, in add 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi for buf in utils.chunkreadable(image_file, 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance_store/common/utils.py", line 73, in chunkiter 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi chunk = fp.read(chunk_size) 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance/common/utils.py", line 294, in read 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi result = self.data.read(i) 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance/common/utils.py", line 121, in readfn 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi result = fd.read(*args) 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance/common/format_inspector.py", line 956, in read 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi chunk = self._source.read(size) 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi File "/var/lib/openstack/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glance/common/wsgi.py", line 1045, in read 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi data = uwsgi.chunked_read() 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi OSError: unable to receive chunked part 2024-11-07 07:31:19.426 7 ERROR glance.common.wsgi Ceph Cluster Status: NAME DATADIRHOSTPATH MONCOUNT AGE PHASE MESSAGE HEALTH EXTERNAL FSID ceph /var/lib/rook 3 82m Ready Cluster created successfully HEALTH_OK 5cf8b9bb-13e1-4c31-b47d-9e7d92c3c05d Ceph osd status: ID CLASS WEIGHT REWEIGHT SIZE RAW USE DATA OMAP META AVAIL %USE VAR PGS STATUS TYPE NAME -1 0.35156 - 360 GiB 3.3 GiB 493 MiB 0 B 2.8 GiB 357 GiB 0.91 1.00 - root default -5 0.11719 - 120 GiB 1.1 GiB 164 MiB 0 B 964 MiB 119 GiB 0.92 1.01 - host instance-lu-1 2 hdd 0.11719 1.00000 120 GiB 1.1 GiB 164 MiB 0 B 964 MiB 119 GiB 0.92 1.01 195 up osd.2 -3 0.11719 - 120 GiB 1.1 GiB 164 MiB 0 B 951 MiB 119 GiB 0.91 1.00 - host instance-lu-2 0 hdd 0.11719 1.00000 120 GiB 1.1 GiB 164 MiB 0 B 951 MiB 119 GiB 0.91 1.00 195 up osd.0 -7 0.11719 - 120 GiB 1.1 GiB 164 MiB 0 B 951 MiB 119 GiB 0.91 1.00 - host instance-lu-3 1 hdd 0.11719 1.00000 120 GiB 1.1 GiB 164 MiB 0 B 951 MiB 119 GiB 0.91 1.00 197 up osd.1 TOTAL 360 GiB 3.3 GiB 493 MiB 0 B 2.8 GiB 357 GiB 0.91 MIN/MAX VAR: 1.00/1.01 STDDEV: 0.01 now i'm able to create Empty Volume using horizon(can't create volume using default cirros image ) and i can start an Instance without volume and mount the empty volume in(Ceph also can detect when i use that volume) is there something i need to set when starting glance? because i'm following the Openstack-helm installation document to install openstack with helm

5 8

[watcher] Unmaintained branch cleanup
by Joan Gilabert 06 Nov '25

06 Nov '25

Hi everyone, Watcher currently has two unmaintained branches[1], unmaintained/2024.1 and unmaintained/2023.1. The latter has not had any patch in 2 years [2] so we plan to move it to eol. We will discuss it in the next Watcher IRC meeting, but I'm writing this message early to give everyone a chance to raise any objection. Please respond to this message if you have any objection, if there are none, I will propose a patch to move the branch next Thursday, after the Watcher IRC meeting and share the link here. Regards, Joan [1] https://opendev.org/openstack/watcher/branches [2] https://opendev.org/openstack/watcher/commits/branch/unmaintained/2023.1

2 2

[ops][largescale-sig][scientific-sig] Ops Radio Hour on October 31, 2025 at the PTG
by Ildiko Vancsa 04 Nov '25

04 Nov '25

Hi OpenStack community, I'm reaching out to you with a friendly reminder that the next OpenStack Ops Radio Hour[1] is scheduled to happen on __October 31st, 2025 at 1300UTC,__ which is during the PTG! The call series is a casual setting for operators, engineers, and contributors to come together, share knowledge, and collaborate on the complexities of managing and deploying OpenStack environments. The main topic of the next gathering will be to discuss how to refactor Ops-related activities. See Thierry's email for more details: https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack… If you have further topics you would like to dive into during the call, please add them to this etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack_ops_radiohour A few reminders: - The group on the call agreed to try out Matrix as a chat platform for more synchronous communication outside calls + You can access the Matrix room here: https://matrix.to/#/#openstack-ops:opendev.org<https://matrix.to/#/%23openstack-ops:opendev.org> + Further details are here: https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack… - If you would like to read and catch up on notes from previous calls, you can find them in this etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack_ops_radiohour See you on the call on October 31st! Bets Regards, Ildikó [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations/Meetups

1 1

[ironic][all] Making core teams more accessible
by Jay Faulkner 04 Nov '25

04 Nov '25

I'm going to preface this with a comment that I'm not completely sold on this idea yet, but I think it's worth a larger discussion and might be a seed to help with discussion. I've tagged Ironic as this proposal is for Ironic specifically, but I'm very, very interested in the larger community opinion for this kind of approach so I also tagged all. One of the toughest parts about walking the path to becoming core is how fuzzy the targets are. With Ironic recently having added a two-tier review system, with reviewers and approvers separate, we have an opportunity to allow a much, much bigger tent for the ironic-reviewers group without risking code getting merged without approval by one of our folks with more experience and context in OpenStack and Ironic as a whole. So here's the suggestion -- we come up with a static criteria and period with a clear bar to "if you do this, you are an ironic-reviewer". For instance, we could say (I'm not sure about these numbers): if you do an average of Y (5?) reviews/week and have merged a major Ironic feature or multiple bugfix patches, you would automatically be a reviewer. Obviously, we'd have to keep safeguards to prevent abuse; in our community in the past we had a rule that changes required review from two separate corporate entities -- in this case, I'd suggest a waiting period to prevent quick-merging by someone with a single perspective. Exceptions would be, as in the current system, for emergency CI fixes and documentation improvements. To be clear: the safeguards shouldn't be seen as a lack of trust, but maybe instead as an acknowledgement that structural controls hold value even if there's no reason to assume mistrust. Full proposal: * ironic-approvers (+2 and Workflow +1) continues to operate as usual, with admission being based on technical merit, trust, and review frequency. * ironic-reviewers (+2 only) becomes a data-driven group, where reviewers are added/removed based on individual performance metrics TBD (likely reviews/commits/bugs fixed). -- I'll note that today, there's not really any set of reasonable metrics that would add additional reviewers to this group. * Code changes would either need a review from two separate company-representatives, or to have sat for a short waiting period to ensure other folks had a chance to look at it. * Urgent CI fixes, trivial changes, and documentation updates would still only need one review to land. What do folks think? Would this be a good carrot for existing non-cores to up their review and upstream contribution commitments? - Jay Faulkner G-Research OSS

6 6