- openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[release] Release countdown for week R-2
by Thierry Carrez 13 Sep '24

13 Sep '24

Development Focus ----------------- At this point we should have release candidates (RC1 or recent intermediary release) for all the 2024.2 Dalmatian deliverables. Teams should be working on any release-critical bugs that would require another RC or intermediary release before the final release. Actions ------- Early in the week, the release team will be proposing stable/2024.2 branch creation for all deliverables that have not branched yet, using the latest available 2024.2 Dalmatian release as the branch point. If your team is ready to go for creating that branch, please let us know by leaving a +1 on these patches. If you would like to wait for another release before branching, you can -1 the patch and update it later in the week with the new release you would like to use. By the end of the week the release team will merge those patches though, unless an exception is granted. Once stable/2024.2 branches are created, if a release-critical bug is detected, you will need to fix the issue in the master branch first, then backport the fix to the stable/2024.2 branch before releasing out of the stable/2024.2 branch. After all of the cycle-with-rc projects have branched we will branch devstack, grenade, and the requirements repos. This will effectively open them up for 2025.1 Epoxy development, though the focus should still be on finishing up 2024.2 (Dalmatian) until the final release. Opening up the new development cycle is also a good opportunity to teams to revise their zuul jobs and used nodesets and clean up all unnecessary ones. For projects with translations, watch for any translation patches coming through and merge them quickly. A new release should be produced so that translations are included in the final 2024.2 Dalmatian release. Finally, now is a good time to finalize release notes. In particular, consider adding any relevant "prelude" content. Release notes are targeted for the downstream consumers of your project, so it would be great to include any useful information for those that are going to pick up and use or deploy the 2024.2 Dalmatian version of your project. Upcoming Deadlines & Dates -------------------------- Final RC deadline: September 26th, 2024 (R-1 week) Final 2024.2 Dalmatian release: October 2nd, 2024 2025.1 Epoxy Project Teams Gathering: October 21-25, 2024 -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)

1 0

PTG October 2024 Teams List
by Kendall Nelson 12 Sep '24

12 Sep '24

Hello Everyone! The October 2024 Project Teams List is official! The following teams will be attending our Project Team Gathering, taking place October 21-25, 2024! Projects + Teams - OpenInfra Foundation Teams - - Diversity WG - Kata Containers - StarlingX - OpenStack - - Services - - Blazar - Cinder - CloudKitty - Designate - Glance - Horizon - Ironic - Keystone - Kolla - Manila - Neutron - Nova - Octavia - OpenStack-Ansible - OpenStack-Helm - QA - SDK/CLI - Sunbeam - Tacker - Other OpenStack Teams - OpenStack Security SIG - OpenStack Technical Committee - Public Cloud SIG - Adjacent Open Source Communities - - OceanBase If your team was planning to meet and isn’t in this list, please contact ptg(a)openinfra.dev IMMEDIATELY. Soon I will be contacting moderators to sign up for time via the PTGBot[1] once I have it configured for the teams that are signed up to attend the event. Otherwise, please don't forget to register[2] — its FREE! As usual, feel free to let us know if you have any questions! Thanks! [1] PTGBot Docs: https://github.com/openstack/ptgbot#open-infrastructure-ptg-bot [2] PTG Registration: http://ptg.openinfra.dev/

1 0

On pre-commit, black, ruff, ruff-format and everything else $linter related
by Stephen Finucane 12 Sep '24

12 Sep '24

o/ Seeing as we've been doing quite a bit of experimentation on this topic in the SDK team recently, and it's come up in random discussions a few times over recent days, I thought it might be helpful to share a few tips and tricks on how our linting stored has evolved across SDK deliverables. Hopefully it's helpful to someone. Historically, teams have provided a `pep8` tox target to run their linters. Originally this would have run flake8 or the hacking wrapper, but over the years these targets have expanded to cover other linters like bandit, doc8 and mypy, as well as various flake8 plugins. In recent times, we have been slowly introducing use of the pre-commit tool [1]. Initially this was purely additive, as it's a nice help for users working in a terminal (like me!) and mostly duplicated what was defined in the `pep8` target. This duplication led to issues where pre-commit was doing slightly different things from the `pep8` target, so we have evolved this so that the `pep8` target now simply calls pre-commit. This is pretty easy to do now since most if not all of the linters in common use across OpenStack - flake8, hacking, doc8, bandit, etc. - provides pre-commit hooks. I recommend anyone using pre-commit does the same thing otherwise these thing can drift. For example, your pep8 target can become: [testenv:pep8] description = Run style checks. skip_install = true deps = pre-commit commands = pre-commit run --all-files --show-diff-on-failure We've since evolved this further to start changing the linters we've used in general. We first introduced black [2], the automatic code formatting tool. The rationale behind this was to remove the need to even think about code style and focus on the actual semantic change. We're already overburdened, and going back and forth on style issues is a waste of everyone's time. Contributors (particularly new ones) can simply install pre-commit or use the `pep8` tox target and their code will be automatically restyled in a generally non- offensive manner. Is it perfect? No, but it's close enough that we've decided we don't care. When we have introduced black, we have typically kept the changes introduced by black separate from the changes to e.g. the `.pre-commit- config.yaml` or `tox.ini` file. This allows us to introduce a `.git-blame- ignore-revs` file afterwards which some software forges (like GitHub, though sadly not Gittea (yet!)) can use to ignore these bulk update changes when using `git-blame`. You can also configure git locally to ignore this, and I've made an effort to place comments in the files whenever I've added them. In addition to black, we also added other linters like bandit [3] and pyupgrade [4], including these in pre-commit so that they would run automatically on commit and in CI. However, as anyone reading the orange site or surveying the broader Python landscape might be aware, the ruff [5] linter and formatter has been gaining steam and is pretty mature at this point. In recent weeks, we have been migrating pretty much all our linters and formatters - black, pyupgrade, bandit and (most of) flake8 - to ruff and ruff-format. We have kept hacking but only enable the H (hacking) ruleset plus any custom rules for now, but at some point we will explore getting these few hacking rules into ruff or writing them off. In any case, this migration has resulted in a significantly trimmer pre- commit-config.yaml file (and much faster runtime to boot). You can see the end result on a repo like e.g. osc-lib [6]. All in all, I think I can recommend this approach for anyone interested in pursuing it. Linters are far from the most important aspect of development, but I've found these tools to yield a nice improvement in developer experience. Top tips: * Have your 'pep8' target (and any other linter-related target run 'pre-commit' rather than the linters themselves), and don't forget to remove linters from test-requirements.txt once you do (with the exception of hacking if you have custom hacking rules) * Consider using ruff and ruff-format in place of all non-hacking linters/formatters: it's seriously fast and provides rules to cover most of these. * When applying ruff-format or the UP (pyupgrade) ruff rules, do it separately so you can add the commit ID to a .git-blame-ignore-revs file. You should be able to do this pre-merge since Gerrit/Zuul merge patches rather than rebasing them so the commit ID won't change. Other points: * When we first introduced pre-commit, some people noted that installing from Git rather than PyPI introduced a possible attack vector since tags can be changed. Given we only use a small, curated set of linters from trusted sources, I don't know how much of an issue this is but I'll raise it here. * Difficulty backporting code has been highlighted as an blocker for running a formatter like black or ruff-format. We don't do many backports in SDK, OSC etc. so this hasn't been a huge issue. If it were though, we would simply apply the formatter to the stable branch first before backporting. Hope this helps, Stephen [1] https://pre-commit.com/ [2] https://github.com/psf/black [3] https://github.com/PyCQA/bandit [4] https://github.com/asottile/pyupgrade [5] https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff [6] https://opendev.org/openstack/osc-lib/

3 3

[horizon] Weekly meeting cancelled Sept 18
by Tatiana Ovchinnikova 11 Sep '24

11 Sep '24

Hello team, I'm on PTO next week, so I'm cancelling the weekly meeting on September 18. See you on September 25! Regards, Tatiana

1 0

[kolla] Proposing Sven Kieske as Kolla and Kolla-Ansible core
by Michał Nasiadka 11 Sep '24

11 Sep '24

Hello Koalas, I would like to propose Sven Kieske as a core reviewer for Kolla and Kolla-Ansible Sven has been very active and providing insightful feedback to reviews as well as code contributions. If I won’t receive any negative votes until 11th of September - I’ll add Sven in Gerrit on the Kolla weekly meeting on that day. Thanks! Michał Nasiadka mnasiadka(a)gmail.com

7 7

[API] Gitea API return 404
by tzing0013＠gmail.com 10 Sep '24

10 Sep '24

Hi everyone， I'm testing Gitea API, I visit the web[1], and click "Try is out", no matter what I enter there, it returns 404, and I also test "/contents" [2], that's ok. [1] https://opendev.org/api/swagger#/repository/repoListPullRequests [2] https://opendev.org/api/swagger#/repository/repoGetContentsList

2 4

[openstack-ansible]: Move one control node to different chasis
by Ram Ram 10 Sep '24

10 Sep '24

Hi All We are currently running 3 control nodes with LXC containers deployed using openstack-ansible release ussuri and need to move 1 control node on HP blade from one chasis to another chasis. Is there any recommended way/procedure to do that? can we directly move the HP blade from one chasis to another? or we need to install new control node and decommission the older one? Regards Rambo

3 3

[kolla][vpn-as-a-service] docker container missing
by garcetto 10 Sep '24

10 Sep '24

good afternoon, installed all-in-one ubuntu 22.04 based kolla-ansible version 2024.1, so far so good. tried to enable vpnaas, folllowing the instructions here https://docs.openstack.org/kolla-ansible/2024.1/reference/networking/neutro… but still missing the container "neutron_vpnaas_agent". i checked the ansible playbook but see no evidence of deployment of this container, what am i doing wrong? thank you.

3 2

[charms] Proposing Rodrigo Barbieri for OpenStack Charms stable core
by Edward Hope-Morley 10 Sep '24

10 Sep '24

Hi everyone, I'd like to propose Rodrigo Barbieri for the OpenStack Charms stable maintenance team. Rodrigo has been a contributor to the charms for many years and has an impressive history of contributions to across all the OpenStack charms. He always demonstrates an attention to detail and provides insightful feedback in reviews and as such I believe he would make a valuable addition to our charms-stable maintenance core team. Thank you for your contributions to the project Rodrigo! Regards, Ed

2 1

Can only live migrate between hypervisors with same kernel
by sinan86polat＠gmail.com 10 Sep '24

10 Sep '24

Is it normal behavior that instances can only be live migrated between hypervisors running the same kernel? Like this I am not able to patch my hypervisors without downtime on the instances. When I live migrate all instances from hypervisor A to hypervisor B, patch hypervisor A, I cannot migrate the instances back to hypervisor A since it is running a newer kernel. The error is: guest CPU doesn't match specification: missing features: xsaves My source and target hypervisors have both the same CPU. Running OpenStack Rocky.

4 3

Clarification on Custom Role and Sub-User Management in OpenStack
by Thamanna Farhath 10 Sep '24

10 Sep '24

Dear OpenStack Community, I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to seek clarification and guidance on a scenario involving custom roles and sub-user management within OpenStack. In our deployment, we have the standard admin role as well as a custom role called super_user, which grants privileges for CRUD operations on projects, role assignments, and user management. We currently have two users with the super_user role, named Alice and John. Each of these super_user accounts manages their own sub-users: Alice manages the ABC sub-users, and John manages the XYZ sub-users. I would like to implement a restriction where Alice, as a super_user, can only manage the A,B,C sub-users and should not be able to delete or manage John's X,Y,Z sub-users. Similarly, John should not be able to manage or delete Alice's A,B,C sub-users. My questions are as follows: How can I identify and ensure that ABC sub-users belong to Alice and X,Y,Z sub-users belong to John? What is the best approach to implement this restriction within OpenStack, preventing cross-management of sub-users between Alice and John? Will using the multi-domain concept help me achieve this? Any insights, best practices, or suggestions on how to configure this within OpenStack would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your assistance and support. Thanks & Regards, Thamanna Farhath | Associate Engineer-R&D Ph No: (+91) 9344093591 email: mailto:thamanna.f@zybisys.com Zybisys Consulting LLP | NO.1B 2nd floor, NSA Tower, Akila Nagar, Main Rd, Ganapathy Nagar, Thiruvanaikoil, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu 620005 zybisys.com 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."

1 0

[swift] Ideas: Object Locking
by David Zanetti 09 Sep '24

09 Sep '24

Hello everyone! We've added an entry to the Swift ideas page about implementing Object Locks. The full description of what this would be and how we expect it to work is in the ideas page here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/ideas/object-lock I have two questions of the community. The first is whether work on this would be accepted by the Swift project, as we wouldn't want to expend efforts on something we'd have to carry as our own patches to upstream. The second is if there is any interest from other people to collaborate on design/implementation of the locking feature. Happy to take replies off-list if people prefer, and thanks for reading this far! (Ob-reply: Yes, we know Ceph RGW does this already. We use Swift for Object for $REASONS, which we'd like to keep doing.) -- David Zanetti Chief Technology Officer [1]Aotearoa New Zealand's cloud provider e david.zanetti(a)catalystcloud.nz w catalystcloud.nz Follow us on LinkedIn [2] Level 9, 33 Federal Street, Auckland 1010 [1] https://catalystcloud.nz/ [2] Follow us on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/catalyst-cloud-limited/

2 1

[tc][all] OpenStack Technical Committee Weekly Summary and Meeting Agenda (2024.2/R-3)
by Goutham Pacha Ravi 09 Sep '24

09 Sep '24

Hello Stackers, Projects following a cycle-with-rc release model are hard at work alongside the release team to tag the first version of the 2024.2 release candidates (RC) this week [1]. The community would appreciate testing of these RC builds so we can weed out any critical issues prior to the coordinated release of this software in three weeks (2024-10-04). The OpenStack Technical Committee Election is ongoing. If you are a Foundation Individual Member who has been an Active Contributor during the past year, you should have received an email ballot with the details. If you haven't, please pop into #openstack-election and let us know. I hope you'll be able to make your vote count. === Weekly Meeting === The OpenStack Technical Committee met simultaneously over video [2] and IRC [3] last week. We took note of the smooth kick-off to the community elections and appreciated the effort the election officials have put in thus far. With the retirement of several inactive project teams and some focused outreach, we had far fewer projects without PTL candidates this time [4]. I will keep you posted on the TC's course of action in this matter over the next few weeks. At the meeting, we brainstormed reasons why these project teams had no PTL candidates, and whether Distributed Project Leadership is an appropriate choice for relatively stable project teams. We reflected on the community's experience with leadership appointments in the past where the appointed individuals couldn't sustain the project. These past experiences will help shape the TC's decisions. We noted that the maintenance phase transition for the stable/2023.1 ("Antelope") branch is coming up. The release team estimates transitioning the "stable/2023.1" branch across OpenStack repositories to "unmaintained/2023.1" [5] around 2024-10-30. After this transition, no further releases will be produced from these branches. If you are relying on this branch, please help project teams maintain testing and continuous integration for it. However, note that the release would be 19 months old at the time of this transition; consider upgrading the software to newer releases instead. The TC is considering a change to the OpenStack CI policy of re-enqueuing changes through Zuul when approved patches fail to get merged. Currently, if a change that fails "gate" jobs is re-enqueued, "check" jobs are re-run if new changes are detected in the repository. A suggestion was made to alter this policy so that only the "gate" jobs are repeated. We decided to defer this discussion to the upcoming PTG in October. We concluded the meeting by acknowledging the contributions Jay Faulkner (JayF) and Dan Smith (dansmith) made during their time on the TC. The elections will conclude on 2024-09-18. Again, please vote if you haven't already! :) The next meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee is today: 2024-09-10. It will be hosted on OFTC's #openstack-tc channel at 1800 UTC. Please find the agenda on the meeting's wiki page [6]. I hope you'll be able to join. Please remember that you can propose discussion items to the agenda. === Governance Proposals === ==== Merged ==== - Fix typo in tested runtimes documents | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/928603 ==== Open for review ==== - Add goal to migrate CI/CD jobs to Ubuntu Noble | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/928078 - Adding Axel Vanzaghi as PTL for Mistral | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/927962 - Charms: retire unmaintained charms | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/926793 - Retire all single charm repositories | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/903490 - Retire kuryr-kubernetes and kuryr-tempest-plugin | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/922507 === Upcoming Events === - 2024-09-10: OpenInfra Board Meeting: https://board.openinfra.dev/ - 2024-09-18: OpenStack 2025.1 Election Polling Ends - 2024-10-15: OpenInfra Days NA, Indianapolis: https://ittraining.iu.edu/explore-topics/titles/oid-iu/ - 2024-10-21: OpenInfra Project Teams Gathering https://openinfra.dev/ptg/ === How to Contact the TC === You can reach out to the TC in multiple ways: 1. **Email**: Send an email with the tag [tc] on this email list. 2. **IRC**: Ping us using the 'tc-members' keyword on the #openstack-tc IRC channel. 3. **Weekly Meeting**: The Technical Committee meets every week on Tuesdays at 1800 UTC [6]. Thank you very much for reading! On behalf of the OpenStack TC, Goutham Pacha Ravi (gouthamr) OpenStack TC Chair [1] Release Schedule: https://releases.openstack.org/dalmatian/schedule.html [2] TC Meeting Video Recording, 2024-09-03: https://youtu.be/22oyI9vuvhM [3] TC Meeting IRC Log, 2024-09-03: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2024/tc.2024-09-03-18.00.log.html [4] "Leaderless" projects for the 2025.1 release cycle: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/2025.1-leaderless [5] "Unmaintained" branches: https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html#unmainta… [6] TC Meeting Agenda, 2024-08-27: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Next_Meeting

1 0

[neutron] bug deputy report for week of 2024-09-02+
by Ihar Hrachyshka 09 Sep '24

09 Sep '24

Hi, Processed everything up to end-of-Mon (Sep 9). --- Gate failures: - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2078846: gate failure that happened to me, some race (?) in provisioning blocks / ovn port UP status propagation. Couldn't figure out the cause completely. Would benefit from a second pair of eyes. No patch. - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2079047: gate issue with one test in openvswitch-iptables_hybrid-distributed-dhcp flavor (not regular one!) No patch. - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2079048: gate failure in functional, sporadic, metadata/l3 related. No patch. - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2079831: tempest issue. Patch posted (WIP): https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/928471 Actionable, need an owner: - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2078849: designate / S-RBAC integration changes needed. - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1995078: OVN: order of external chassis / gateway chassis lists should be stable. There's a WIP from Rodolfo but AFAIU someone else should take it over. - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2066989: SR-IOV; reproducer info was now attached. - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2079996: idea to restart haproxy only when needed. No patch. Marked as Low but isn't it a regression / datapath impact? Waiting for info from reporters: - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2059405: old bug with DNS, confirmed by the user with a non-.local. domain, asked to attach logs etc and then move to New; - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2078856: ovn related, waiting for logs / db dump for ovn to triage VPNaaS: - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2078845: vpnaas, need someone from the project owners to take a look. - https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2080072: vpnaas, sqlalchemy transaction issue. Affected gate. No patch yet. FWaaS: - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2078918: fwaas, TypeError, patch posted. - https://launchpad.net/bugs/2078930: fwaas, patch posted. I hope it's helpful, Ihar

1 0

[nova][ci] cyborg-tempest (non-voting) job is failing
by melanie witt 09 Sep '24

09 Sep '24

Hey everyone, I noticed that the cyborg-tempest (non-voting) CI job began failing on the master branch sometime on 2024-09-03: https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=cyborg-tempest&project… The errors I see in the test result report are policy related, for example: Details: {'error_message': '{"faultcode": "Server", "faultstring": "\\"cyborg:device_profile:create\\": \\"rule:system_admin_api\\" requires a scope of [\'system\'], request was made with project scope.", "debuginfo": null}'} I'm guessing this is related to the recent "oslo.policy 4.4.0 enable the RBAC new defaults by default" change [1]: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/925464 The job is non-voting so it's not blocking anything, but it would be great if someone knows the best way to fix it. -melwitt [1] https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack…

2 1

Request objects
by engineer2024 08 Sep '24

08 Sep '24

How long do nova request objects live when a user request comes in ? Do they persist until the result is returned by the server ? Please throw some light on this... Thanks

1 0

[openstack][glance] Cannot rescue instance if image boot was deleted
by Nguyễn Hữu Khôi 08 Sep '24

08 Sep '24

Hi folks, I have this problem, It is glad if I had some guides for this situation. Openstack Version: 2023.1 OS: Ubuntu 22.04 Deployment Tool: Kolla-Ansible When I try to rescue an instance that booted from a volume, I cannot do so if the image used for the volume boot has been deleted This is an error message: Instance 6deeed71-c701-42a3-a8f9-d89048a47c11 cannot be rescued: Driver Error: Block Device Mapping is Invalid: failed to get image 844ea429-23a5-43d4-8f65-19c879d63921. Thank you. Nguyen Huu Khoi

4 6

Using diskimage-creator for vhd format
by Tony Lombardo 06 Sep '24

06 Sep '24

Hi all. As an example I was trying to run something like this command: sudo tox -e venv -- disk-image-create -o ubuntu-min-gold.vhd vm block-device-gpt ubuntu-minimal -t vhd However, I do get the error message that vhd-util isn't available. "vhd output format specified but no vhd-util executable found." I read the commit where this was deprecated in favor of qemu-img https://opendev.org/openstack/diskimage-builder/commit/a3e9e7f89e1059ae0929… I can't seem to get the syntax for the command to work, not sure what I am missing but any help would be greatly appreciated. QEMU emulator version 6.2.0 Diskimage-builder 3.33.1 I'm running this in WSL Ubuntu, it seems to work. I was able to create an image - just not the vhd format I need. Thanks in advance for any advice. -Tony -- Tony Lombardo Systems Administrator Division of Public Safety Access Control Department Cornell University

4 5

Struggling to rejion a node into rabbitmq cluster of Openstack-on-Ansible environment
by sudeb ghosh 06 Sep '24

06 Sep '24

Hi Team, We are operating an OpenStack environment managed by Ansible with 3 controller nodes. Openstack Version: Ussuri(21.2.1) OS: CentOS8 Recently, Controller-2 encountered a network partition with rabbitmq cluster issue that we couldn't resolve, leading us to remove it from the rabbitmq cluster and do rabbitmqctl reset. Since then, the RabbitMQ cluster node removal, We are currently unable to rejoin this node to the RabbitMQ cluster. The following error occurs when attempting to join the cluster: [Controller-2]# rabbitmqctl join_cluster rabbit@ctrl-1-rabbit-mq-container Clustering node rabbit@ctrl-2 with rabbit@ctrl-1 Error: {:failed_to_cluster_with, [:"rabbit@ctrl-3", :"rabbit@ctrl-1"], 'Mnesia could not connect to any nodes.'} We have verified that Controller-2 can communicate with other nodes in the cluster and it responds with a 'pong' for "rabbitmqctl eval 'net_adm:ping('\''rrabbit@ctrl-1'\'').'" There are no additional error logs indicating the root of the problem. We would appreciate any assistance in resolving this issue. Regards, Sudeb Ghosh 7044064878 9332034788

2 1

[all][tc][ptls] Eventlet: Python 3.13 - Attach your seatbelt
by Herve Beraud 06 Sep '24

06 Sep '24

Hi all, As Python 3.13 is close to become a reality, new concerning incompatibilities between this new CPython version and Eventlet also become a reality: - https://github.com/eventlet/eventlet/issues/964 Fedora Python maintainers proposed a patch, but for now the problem remains unsolved. Also, many people reported bugs related to incompatibility between python3.12/dnspython/eventlet/pip-system-cert. There is an example who summarize well the problem https://github.com/eventlet/eventlet/issues/957 Do you have some visibility concerning the adoption of Python 3.13 into Openstack? Turbulences ahead... -- Hervé Beraud Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat irc: hberaud https://github.com/4383/

4 5

[release] Release countdown for week R-3, Sep 09-13
by Elõd Illés 06 Sep '24

06 Sep '24

Development Focus ----------------- The Release Candidate (RC) deadline is next Friday, September 13th, 2024. Work should be focused on fixing any release-critical bugs. General Information ------------------- All deliverables released under a cycle-with-rc model should have a first release candidate by the end of the week, from which a stable/2024.2 branch will be cut. This branch will track the 2024.2 Dalmatian release. Once stable/2024.2 has been created, the master branch will be ready to switch to 2025.1 Epoxy development. While the master branch will no longer be feature-frozen, please prioritize any work necessary for completing 2024.2 Dalmatian plans. Release-critical bugfixes will need to be merged in the master branch first, then backported to the stable/2024.2 branch before a new release candidate can be proposed. Actions ------- Early in the week, the release team will be proposing RC1 patches for all cycle-with-rc projects, using the latest commit from the master branch. If your team is ready to go for cutting RC1, please let us know by leaving a +1 on these patches. If there are still a few more patches needed before RC1, you can -1 the patch and update it later in the week with the new commit hash you would like to use. Remember, stable/2024.2 branches will be created with this, so you will want to make sure you have what you need included to avoid needing to backport changes from the master branch (which will technically then be 2025.1 Epoxy) to this stable branch for any additional RCs before the final release. The release team will also be proposing releases for any deliverable following a cycle-with-intermediary model that has not produced any 2024.2 Dalmatian release so far. Finally, now is a good time to finalize release highlights. Release highlights help shape the messaging around the release and make sure that your work is properly represented. Upcoming Deadlines & Dates -------------------------- RC1 deadline: September 13th, 2024 (R-3 week) Final RC deadline: September 26th, 2024 (R-1 week) Final 2024.2 Dalmatian release: October 2nd, 2024 Előd Illés irc: elodilles @ #openstack-release

1 0

[releases][tempest] Tempest 39.1.0 release
by Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez 05 Sep '24

05 Sep '24

Hello all: Because I think I'm having some communication problems about [1], I would like to write it down in a mail. This release patch for 2024.2 is pointing to [2]. However, the requirements branch used in tempest was tagged as 2024.1. That means the tempest release for 2024.2 will use the requirements from 2024.1. There are other examples done in previous releases that support what I'm saying: * 2023.2: ** https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/896158 ** https://github.com/openstack/tempest/commit/3926608631111a0ec93b3c44129d0cb… * 2023.1: ** https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/877840 ** https://github.com/openstack/tempest/commit/7c7d0fdd67022ad48ed128c997dfcc3… BTW, despite not having the stable 2024.2 branch in "requirements", the link https://releases.openstack.org/constraints/upper/2024.2 is valid and points to master (once the stable branch is created, that will point to 2024.2). Regards. [1]https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/927833 [2]https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/927831

2 2

[manila] Dalmatian bugsquash - Sep 9th - 10th
by Carlos Silva 05 Sep '24

05 Sep '24

Hello, Zorillas and interested stackers! We'll have the second bugsquash of the Dalmatian cycle next week. As we have agreed a couple of weeks ago, it will be a two day event (Sep 9 and 10th). We will have a kick-off meeting on Monday, 15 UTC and we will use a meetpad [1] for the meeting. We will be focusing on bugs that are in progress and try to get them delivered as part of the 2024.2 Dalmatian release. Please check the ethercalc with the list of bugs [2] and add the bug you are willing to work on over the next week if it is not there yet. I'm looking forward to it :) [1] https://meetpad.opendev.org/manila-dalmatian-m3-bugsquash [2] https://ethercalc.net/mgstvday5vq0 Regards, carloss

1 0

FIPs broken when used with tunneled router gateway networks
by Sesterhenn, Maximilian 05 Sep '24

05 Sep '24

Hey all, I am currently facing an issue with OpenStack Neutron and OVN and could need some help here. Maybe someone else is doing something similar and can report if it works for them. TLDR: FIPs are broken for us when used together with routers which use a tunneled network as router gateway network. ovn_router_indirect_snat is not used and both OVN 23.09 and 24.03 have been tested. FIPs work fine when used with an external provider network. We have deployed three OpenStack projects, let's just call the left, middle and right for simplicity. The middle project has a network with a large subnet. No special configuration here, just a big subnet which is transported by OVN through Geneve. The idea is to use this subnet as an internal transfer network between different projects / tenants, which means we connect routers with SNAT and FIP configuration. Left and right are potentially the same subnet, that's why we cannot simply route the traffic. The network is shared with "access_as_external/shared" RBAC rules with both the left and right tenant, so it can be selected as the external gateway network for routers. I'm aware that until very recently, neutron was unable to assign a chassis to routers which use gateway networks which are tunneled. Thats why we are currently running the latest neutron code from the master branch where this feature was added. Let's say we want to connect from left to right and we have a router in each project that has this large network from the middle project as the external gateway network. An instance in the right tenant has a FIP to be reachable. Another instance in the left tenant is masqueraded by the SNAT functionality of the router. The router in the left project performs SNAT and the router in the right project performs the FIP DNAT. While the instance from the left project can ping the internal and external interfaces of its local router, the FIP is not reachable. The external interface of the remote router (from the right project) can be pinged as well. When capturing packets on the underlying hosts we can see the packet going from the compute host of the left instance to one of the network nodes. SNAT happens there, DNAT is not visible, this could be due to the packet capture scenario. However, we see ARP requests coming from the external interface of the router on the right project for the FIP address. We see the same ARP requests on a second network node. To me it would make more sense if the router from the left project would ARP for the FIP address. This ARP request is not being answered. We're using enable_distributed_floating_ip / DVR, so the FIP is actually configured onto the compute node. We're not using ovn_router_indirect_snat, here are issues with that. We even tried that; it makes no difference. OVN 23.09 (tested 24.03 as well) OpenStack 2024.1 (neutron master) deployed using kolla-ansible. BR Maximilian

2 2

[charms] Proposing Brian Haley and Nicolas Bock for OpenStack Charms core
by Edward Hope-Morley 05 Sep '24

05 Sep '24

Hi everyone, I would like to propose Brian Haley and Nicolas Bock for the OpenStack Charms core development team. Both Brian and Nicolas have been members of the stable charms core team since 2023 and been hugely helpful in that role, providing insightful feedback to reviews as well as contributions of their own. Nicolas has also been a contributor to the OpenStack charms for many years and Brian is well versed in the ways of upstream OpenStack maintenance through his role as Neutron PTL so I have full confidence that they will prove valuable additions to the charms-core team. Thank you both for your contributions to the project! Regards, Ed

3 2