May 2025 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[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

[all][dev][ops][tc] Bridging the gap between community and contributing orgs
by Jeremy Stanley 24 Oct '25

24 Oct '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 12

[openstack][octavia]Resize a Load Balancer
by Nguyễn Hữu Khôi 22 Oct '25

22 Oct '25

Hello. I see that patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/octavia/+/890215 Could I ask why we cannot merge it? Nguyen Huu Khoi

3 5

[Octavia][Load Balancer][2023.1] Amphora Fails Health Check – “No Route to Host” & Timeout Errors
by Thamanna Farhath 15 Oct '25

15 Oct '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."

3 2

[openstack][nova]qemu system wont release memory
by Nguyễn Hữu Khôi 29 Sep '25

29 Sep '25

Hello. I have an OpenStack instance that was using 14GB out of 16GB of memory. Later, when it was using only 4GB, I checked the QEMU process on the compute node, and it was still consuming 14GB, this means memory isn't released when usage decreases. Do we have solutions for this? I use Ubuntu 24.04 instances. Nguyen Huu Khoi

2 4

[Neutron][operators] LinuxBridge to OVN Outreach
by Daniel Failing 29 Sep '25

29 Sep '25

Hi all, Following on the good session we had last time discussing migrating out of LinuxBridge between operators, it was proposed to meet again in June. To find a good time slot, please respond to the following survey: https://newdle.cern.ch/newdle/TtbH8Dbv For reference, the notes from last meeting: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/neutron-lb-ovn-migration Best, Daniel Failing CERN Cloud Infrastructure

2 3

[openstack-magnum ui] Cannot choose an external network ID when creating a cluster template
by Nguyễn Hữu Khôi 27 Aug '25

27 Aug '25

Hello, When I create a cluster template, I cannot choose an external network ID, it disappears from horizon. My env: Ubuntu 22.04 Openstack 2024.2 Thank you. Regards Nguyen Huu Khoi

3 2

[blazar] Blazar-dashboard contains non-free files (ie: minified Javascripts)
by Thomas Goirand 22 Aug '25

22 Aug '25

Hi, I've been trying to package Blazar, all is already in Debian, but I can't get blazar-dashboard in, because upstream source contains non-free files. Namely: https://github.com/openstack/blazar-dashboard/blob/master/blazar_dashboard/… is a minifed version of a much more complex package: https://github.com/apexcharts/apexcharts.js/tree/v3.31.0 Reminder: minified Javascripts are considered by most distributions (this includes Red Hat, Ubuntu, and in my case Debian) as non-free files that cannot be shipped in the distribution without the underlying source code, and packages must build from the not minified version. Could the Blazar team work on un-vendoring apexcharts.min.js, possibly removing it completely, or replacing it with a source-full version? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

4 6

[nova] Information Sharing for Arm CCA Feature (Following 4/8 PTG)
by taketani.ryo＠fujitsu.com 15 Jul '25

15 Jul '25

Thank you for the productive discussion about Arm CCA feature [1] at the PTG on April 8th. > The use case for Arm CCA looks ok. But it is a bit early. It is wise to wait at least libvirt / qemu release to have a "stable" code. > We may want to have a OS distribution version (such as Ubuntu XX.YY) which supports Arm CCA so that users can actually use/test the feature The above information is quoted from the PTG Etherpad [2](L316) summary. I'd like to follow up on these points. I'd like to share relevant information about Arm CCA surrounding components (libvirt, QEMU, OS Distributions(e.g., Ubuntu xx.xx), hardware) as it becomes available, and proceed with the discussion step by step.. I'm starting with this email, but if there's a more appropriate method for sharing this type of information, please let me know. Here's the Arm CCA software components information I can share at this time: * Linux Kernel: The roadmap is outlined on the fifth page of the third attachment in this link [3]. The initial commits I've proposed to OpenStack are focused on RMM 1.0. KVM host support for RMM 1.0 will be available in H2 2025. * QEMU Upstream Status: The development is in-progress, awaiting the Linux Kernel merge * libvirt Upstream Status: The development is in-progress, awaiting the QEMU merge * OS Distribution Support: The road map is not clear now > We may want to have a OS distribution version (such as Ubuntu XX.YY) which supports Arm CCA so that users can actually use/test the feature I have a question regarding the above. For design discussions leading to spec approval, I understand that upstream QEMU/libvirt stable release is necessary. Is a specific OS distribution release (e.g., Ubuntu xx.xx) also required for spec approval? [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/938276 [2] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-2025.2-ptg [3] https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/archives/list/tsc@lists.trustedfirmware.o… Regards, Ryo Taketani

3 11

[skyline] Request to extend core reviewers team
by Vladimir Kozhukalov 10 Jul '25

10 Jul '25

Hi team, The Skyline project seems to be interesting for many users but the review is slow at the moment. Maybe we could call for more volunteers who are able to spend some of their time for review and extend the project core reviewers team. Opinions are welcome. -- Best regards, Kozhukalov Vladimir

3 2