- openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[cinder] volume migration and multipathing
by Karl-Heinz Preuß 12 Jan '26

12 Jan '26

Hi Everyone, I'm trying to migrate cinder volumes from one backend to another. Namely I'm migrating from an HPE Nimble Storage backend to a Ceph backend. My Problem: the volume migration speed is kinda sluggish - around 100 MB/s. I can read from a Nimble backed volume way faster. And of course the Ceph can also write more than 1GB/s. After quite some debugging, the problem seems to be: cinder uses multipathing to access the Nimble backed volumes. But for some reason cinder's volume migration explicitly doesn't use multipathing. (I found "multipath=false" in the cinder logs when looking for my slow migrations.) Question: is there a way to configure cinder to use multipathing for volume migrations when available. -- Karl-Heinz Preuß Linux Consultant Tel.: +49 1515 5806243 E-Mail: preuss(a)b1-systems.de B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / https://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt, HRB 3537

2 1

[aco][ansible] PRs for the ansible collection
by James Hewitt-Thomas 12 Jan '26

12 Jan '26

Hi all, I've made a few proposed changes for the ansible collection, not sure on the process so thought I'd reach out and check. I've got them passing the zuul checks - is there anything I need to do to request reviewers, or is it just an it'll happen over time thing? There's no urgency, just making sure I'm not leaving things in limbo. Thanks, James.

1 0

[ceilometer] ceilometer metrics for list fields in event payloads
by NITIN GUPTA 12 Jan '26

12 Jan '26

Hello Ceilometer Team! Good Day! Could you please suggest, how to create ceilometer metrics for list fields in event payloads when creating Gnocchi resources? Looks like Ceilometer doesn't iterate over list fields in event payloads when creating Gnocchi resources. Is this a known issue? From the below Sample payload, I'm looking to create a separate metric for "vcpus" field (for example) from each item in "reservations", which is a list of dictionary type of data in the payload. 'payload': { 'lease_id': 'f94182be-70e2-4f3f-bc8d-a1d1c2eea0aa', 'user_id': '2cf63f4ecf7740f5ac9ef4adfa4cdf5e', 'project_id': '07f1a09ab11543bb9080d260a98d812c', 'trust_id': '0037eb9121f04cdc94c39628a8354dde', 'start_date': '2025-12-15T16:18:00.000000', 'end_date': '2025-12-15T16:22:00.000000', 'status': 'PENDING', '*reservations*': [ { 'id': '1fffeb17-599d-441a-80e0-ca6d9044fd36', 'lease_id': 'f94182be-70e2-4f3f-bc8d-a1d1c2eea0aa', 'resource_id': 'c9daade3-4a85-4122-bec2-f34b7a849a01', 'resource_type': 'virtual:instance', 'status': 'pending', 'missing_resources': False, 'resources_changed': False, 'created_at': '2025-12-15 16:18:07', 'updated_at': '2025-12-15 16:18:10', '*vcpus*': 1, 'memory_mb': 1024, 'disk_gb': 20, 'amount': 1, 'affinity': None, 'resource_properties': '', 'flavor_id': '1fffeb17-599d-441a-80e0-ca6d9044fd36', 'aggregate_id': 292, 'server_group_id': None }, { 'id': '97df8162-d756-44c0-a27f-c832101577e8', 'lease_id': 'f94182be-70e2-4f3f-bc8d-a1d1c2eea0aa', 'resource_id': '4a3e20b1-5f63-46b1-a61b-13a267fd829a', 'resource_type': 'virtual:instance', 'status': 'pending', 'missing_resources': False, 'resources_changed': False, 'created_at': '2025-12-15 16:18:05', 'updated_at': '2025-12-15 16:18:07', '*vcpus*': 1, 'memory_mb': 1024, 'disk_gb': 20, 'amount': 1, 'affinity': None, 'resource_properties': '', 'flavor_id': '97df8162-d756-44c0-a27f-c832101577e8', 'aggregate_id': 291, 'server_group_id': None } ], 'events': [{'id': '4cea5a4f-53f4-4a69-969b-74a5869c7ab1', 'lease_id': 'f94182be-70e2-4f3f-bc8d-a1d1c2eea0aa', 'event_type': 'end_lease', 'time': '2025-12-15T16:22:00.000000', 'status': 'UNDONE', 'created_at': '2025-12-15 16:18:10', 'updated_at': None}, {'id': '63b51fc9-5eca-4729-8f5e-a3659e7db24b', 'lease_id': 'f94182be-70e2-4f3f-bc8d-a1d1c2eea0aa', 'event_type': 'start_lease', 'time': '2025-12-15T16:18:00.000000', 'status': 'UNDONE', 'created_at': '2025-12-15 16:18:10', 'updated_at': None}, {'id': 'bba382f6-47d8-4bb0-b3aa-0a65c6959ed9', 'lease_id': 'f94182be-70e2-4f3f-bc8d-a1d1c2eea0aa', 'event_type': 'before_end_lease', 'time': '2025-12-15T16:18:00.000000', 'status': 'UNDONE', 'created_at': '2025-12-15 16:18:10', 'updated_at': None}], 'name': 'lease-short-ins', 'created_at': '2025-12-15 16:18:05', 'updated_at': '2025-12-15 16:18:10', 'degraded': False } Best regards. -- NITIN GUPTA

3 12

[neutron] Bug deputy Jan 5 - Jan 11
by Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez 12 Jan '26

12 Jan '26

Hello Neutrinos: This is the list of bugs created during the last week: * Critical ** networking-bgpvpn and neutron-vpnaas unit tests arefailing due to tenant_id to project_id migration ( https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2137489) Fixes merged and bug closed. * High: ** devstack deployment failing on stable/2025.1 branch without wsgi ( https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2137540) Fix proposed: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/972669 (tested in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron-tempest-plugin/+/972266) * Medium ** neutron.tests.functional.services.bgp.test_ovn.TestBgpOvnLocking.test_locking_mechanism randomly fails with AssertionError: Second API did not lose the lock ( https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2137467) In progress: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/972547 ** ``get_api_worker_id`` should not fail if ``uwsgi`` module is not installed (https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2137715) Fix proposed: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/972687 (needed up to 2025.2) Regards.

1 0

[tacker] Cancelling weekly IRC meeting
by Yasufumi Ogawa 11 Jan '26

11 Jan '26

Hi tacker team, Due to a holiday in Japan and most of team members aren't join, I'm cancelling meeting this week. Regards, Yasufumi

1 0

[release] Release countdown for week R-11, Jan 12 - 16
by Elõd Illés 09 Jan '26

09 Jan '26

Development Focus ----------------- We are now past the Gazpacho-2 milestone, and entering the last development phase of the cycle. Please review the late milestone-2 release patches at https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:gazpacho-milestone-2 if you have not done so already! Teams should otherwise be focused on implementing planned work for the cycle. Now is a good time to review those plans and reprioritize anything if needed based on the what progress has been made and what looks realistic to complete in the next few weeks. General Information ------------------- Looking ahead to the end of the release cycle, please be aware of the feature freeze dates. Those vary depending on deliverable type: * General libraries (except client libraries) need to have their last feature release before Non-client library freeze (February 19th, 2026). Their stable branches are cut early. * Client libraries (think python-*client libraries) need to have their last feature release before Client library freeze (February 26th, 2026) * Deliverables following a cycle-with-rc model (that would be most services) observe a Feature freeze on that same date, February 26th, 2026. Any feature addition beyond that date should be discussed on the mailing-list and get PTL approval. After feature freeze, cycle-with-rc deliverables need to produce a first release candidate (and a stable branch) before RC1 deadline (March 12th, 2026) * Deliverables following cycle-with-intermediary model can release as necessary, but in all cases before Final RC deadline (March 26th, 2026) Upcoming Deadlines & Dates -------------------------- Non-client library freeze: February 19th, 2026 (R-6 week) Client library freeze: February 26th, 2026 (R-5 week) Gazpacho-3 milestone: February 26th, 2026 (R-5 week) Előd Illés irc: elodilles @ #openstack-release

1 0

[Nova] Proposal: NetApp FlexGroup Backend for Ceph-like Ephemeral Storage Performance on NFS
by Borra, Jayaanand 08 Jan '26

08 Jan '26

Hi everyone, Happy New Year to all! I hope you all had a great holiday season. I'm reaching out to share a proposal we've been working on that addresses a performance challenge many enterprises face with ephemeral storage in Nova. Context: Currently, OpenStack deployments running on NFS-based storage (like NetApp FlexGroups) face a significant performance penalty compared to Ceph RBD due to the QCOW2-over-NFS approach. The hypervisor manages Copy-on-Write operations, which introduces: * Double filesystem metadata overhead (QCOW2 on top of NFS) * CPU tax on compute nodes for CoW management * Slower instance provisioning compared to Ceph's instant cloning We are planning to implement solution that leverages NetApp's FlexClone technology through the ONTAP REST API to achieve Ceph-like performance while maintaining the operational simplicity of NFS. Essentially, we're offloading the cloning operation to the storage array itself, making instance creation a metadata-only operation (sub-second) with zero data copying. The implementation involves creating a new NetAppNfs image backend class in nova/virt/libvirt/imagebackend.py that calls the ONTAP REST API's /storage/file/clone endpoint instead of traditional file copy operations. I'm wondering if anyone has insights into: * Similar efforts: Has anyone explored or implemented storage-side cloning for other NFS vendors? * Design concerns: Any architectural red flags with this approach in the Nova driver? * Security practices: Best approach for managing storage credentials and oslo.privsep<vscode-file://vscode-app/Applications/Visual%20Studio%20Code.app/Contents/Resources/app/out/vs/code/electron-browser/workbench/workbench.html> integration? * Community interest: Would this be valuable for other NFS deployments? This will enable high-performance ephemeral storage from, so I'm curious if others have encountered this limitation and whether there's are any known limitation with this approach. Thanks in advance for any guidance or suggestions! Best regards, Jayaanand.

1 0

SECURITY BUG
by Umbrella Corporation 08 Jan '26

08 Jan '26

i found a vulnerability in your git repo so if i reported bugs and vulnerabilities can i get a reward bounty ?

3 3

OpenStack 2026.2 'H' Release Name Poll
by Allison Price 08 Jan '26

08 Jan '26

Hi everyone, Happy New Year! To kick off 2026, I wanted to share the poll to vote for the OpenStack 2026.2 release name, starting with the letter H. The poll will close this Thursday, January 8 at 1700 UTC. https://civs1.civs.us/cgi-bin/vote.pl?id=E_e4708c67d8d7e171&akey=e3b1514078… If you have any questions / comments, please let me know. Cheers, Allison

1 1

[designate] Question about NS record update restriction in multi-region PRIMARY/SECONDARY setup
by Sylvain 08 Jan '26

08 Jan '26

Hi everyone, I hope this email finds you well. I'm reaching out to the community because I'm encountering a limitation with Designate that I don't fully understand, and I'm hoping someone can shed some light on the reasoning behind it or suggest alternative approaches. My Setup I'm running a multi-region Designate deployment with: - 3 independent Designate instances (one per region) - Each instance has its own pool with a single nameserver: - Region 1: ns.region1.net. - Region 2: ns.region2.net. - Region 3: ns.region3.net. This default configuration works perfectly for most of our use cases where zones are region-specific. What I'm Trying to Achieve For certain domains, I need to set up a PRIMARY/SECONDARY configuration across all three regions: - Region 1: PRIMARY zone for example.com - Region 2: SECONDARY zone for example.com - Region 3: SECONDARY zone for example.com For this to work correctly, the PRIMARY zone needs to have NS records pointing to all three nameservers so that: 1. DNS clients can query any of the three nameservers 2. Zone transfers are properly configured between primary and secondaries The Problem When I try to update the NS recordset on the primary zone, I get the error: Updating a root zone NS record is not allowed Steps I'm following: # List recordsets to get the NS recordset ID openstack recordset list example.com. # Attempt to update the NS recordset openstack recordset set example.com. <ns-recordset-id> \ --record ns.region1.net. \ --record ns.region2.net. \ --record ns.region3.net. This happens even when authenticated as an admin user. Why the Default Workaround Doesn't Work I understand that one typical solution is to modify the pool configuration to include all three nameservers. However, this doesn't work in my case because: - I don't want to change the default pool settings since most zones should only use their local regional nameserver - Modifying the pool in Region 1 would affect *all zones* created there, not just the ones I want to replicate My Questions I'm trying to understand the design decisions here, and I'd really appreciate any insights: 1. What's the reasoning behind blocking NS record updates on root zones? I'm not seeing the security or technical concern that this protects against. 2. Is this restriction something that could potentially be made configurable via policy? For example, allowing zone owners to update their own NS records when they have legitimate multi-region or high-availability requirements. 3. Are there any alternative approaches I should be considering for this multi-region PRIMARY/SECONDARY setup that I might be missing? 4. Would the community be open to discussing a potential enhancement that makes this more flexible? I understand if there are concerns, but I'd love to understand them better. Use Case Context This is a fairly standard DNS architecture for high availability and geographic distribution. Many organizations need to run primary and secondary nameservers across different regions or datacenters, and being able to configure the NS records accordingly seems like it should be a supported use case. Thank you very much for taking the time to read this, and I appreciate any guidance or feedback the community can provide! Best regards, Sylvain.

2 2