- openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[openstack-dev] [charms] 18.11 OpenStack Charms release
by David Ames 20 Nov '18

20 Nov '18

Announcing the 18.11 release of the OpenStack Charms. The 18.11 charms have support for Nova cells v2 for deployments of Queens and later. The 18.11 release also has preview features including series upgrades and the Octavia load balancer charm. 47 bugs have been fixed and released across the OpenStack charms. For full details of the release, please refer to the release notes: https://docs.openstack.org/charm-guide/latest/1811.html Thanks go to the following contributors for this release: Alex Kavanagh Andrey Grebennikov Aymen Frikha Billy Olsen Chris MacNaughton Chris Sanders Corey Bryant David Ames Dmitrii Shcherbakov Drew Freiberger Edward Hope-Morley Felipe Reyes Frode Nordahl Fulvio Galeazzi James Page Liam Young Neiloy Mukerjee Pedro Guimarães Pete Vander Giessen Ryan Beisner Vladimir Grevtsev dongdong tao viswesuwara nathan __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

1 0

[goals][tc] community-wide goals for train development cycle
by Doug Hellmann 20 Nov '18

20 Nov '18

Last week at the Forum in Berlin we met to discuss potential community-wide goals for the Train development cycle. We had a good list of proposals [1], although some of them do not meet the criteria for the goals program as currently defined [2]. We came up with a few suggestions that do fit the criteria, listed here in the order we discussed them: * Ensure that each project has contributor on-boarding documentation in a discoverable place in their documentation tree, and link to that from the contributor portal at openstack.org/community. (proposed by TheJulia) This should be relatively light-weight for teams to do, and will uncover some good opportunities for documentation reuse. * Deletion of project resources. (proposed by tobberydberg and adriant) This has been a long-standing request from operators, as discussed in forum session earlier in the week [3]. The propose next-steps are to establish a way for the existing os-purge program to accept plugins so that project teams can declare the relationships between resources that need to be deleted, to make orchestration easier. See the etherpad from the session for more details. * Finish moving legacy python-*client CLIs to python-openstackclient (proposed by mriedem on behalf of Tim Bell) This is another initiative that has been going on for a few years, and completing it would give users more clarity as well as providing a more consistent user interface. The general idea was to finish implementing all of the commands within OSC using the existing client libs, then update the SDK to support those features so we can drop the client libs from OSC as well, giving us 1 SDK and 1 CLI. That’s a multi-step process, so I think for the first phase targeting completing all of the commands within OSC using the various client libraries would be enough for 1 cycle. * Ensure all projects pass request-id when calling one another. (proposed by Pavlo Shchelokovskyy) Passing request-id allows us to chain requests together and trace them for debugging and profiling. We started this a while back and some projects are doing it but not all. * Rolling out oslo health-check middleware so each project provides that API. (proposed by mugsie) This came up at the PTG in Denver earlier this year [4]. There will be some up-front work to make the health check API able to support real backend checks for the database, message bus, etc. Then we would need to add the middleware to all services. In all of these cases, we have a bit more up-front work to do to be ready to accept the idea as a goal. There should be time during the remainder of the Stein cycle to make enough progress on that work to know if we could accept it as a goal. Our next steps are for the people proposing these goals to ensure that up-front work is done and be prepared to write up the goal document for review. If the proposes aren’t able/willing to act as goal champions, we need to identify someone else to fill that role. I propose we set a target of early March for having the formal goal proposals ready for review. That will give us time to approve them well before the next Summit/PTG, so that teams can use time during the PTG for planning their implementation. [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/BER-t-series-goals [2] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/index.html [3] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/BER-deletion-of-project-resources [4] 1. https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/api-sig-stein-ptg (line 20) -- Doug

1 0

[cinder] On-Boarding Session Slides Posted ...
by Jay S Bryant 20 Nov '18

20 Nov '18

All, For those who are interested I have posted my Cinder Project On-Boarding slides here: [1] Thanks! Jay [1] https://www.slideshare.net/JayBryant2/cinder-onboarding-room-berlin-11132018

1 0

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack] Create VMs with Power architecture(ppc64) on OpenStack running on x86_64 nodes??
by Sean Mooney 20 Nov '18

20 Nov '18

adding openstack dev. On Mon, 2018-11-19 at 18:08 +0000, Sean Mooney wrote: > On Mon, 2018-11-19 at 11:57 -0500, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote: > > On 2018-11-19 11:25, Yedhu Sastri wrote: > > > Hello All, > > > > > > I have some use-cases which I want to test in PowerPC architecture(ppc64). As I dont have any Power machines I > > > would > > > like to try it with ppc64 VM's. Is it possible to run these kind of VM's on my OpenStack cluster(Queens) which > > > runs > > > on X86_64 architecture nodes(OS RHEL 7)?? > > > > > > > I'm not 100% sure, but I'm 95% sure that the answer to your question is "No." While there's much emulation that > > occurs, the CPU isn't so much emulated, but more abstracted. Constructing and running a modern CPU in software > > would > > be non-trivial. > > you can do this but not with kvm. > you need to revert the virt dirver in the nova.conf back to qemu to disable kvm to allow emulation of other > plathforms. > that said i have only emulated power on x86_64 using libvirt or qemu idrectly never with openstack but i belive we > used > to support this i just hav enot done it personally. > > > > -Ken > > > > > I set the image property architecture=ppc64 to the ppc64 image I uploaded to glance but no success in launching VM > > > with those images. I am using KVM as hypervisor(qemu 2.10.0) in my compute nodes and I think it is not built to > > > support power architecture. For testing without OpenStack I manually built qemu on a x86_64 host with ppc64 > > > support(qemu-ppc64) and then I am able to host the ppc64 VM. But I dont know how to do this on my OpenStack > > > cluster. > > > Whether I need to manually build qemu on compute nodes with ppc64 support or I need to add some lines in my > > > nova.conf to do this?? Any help to solve this issue would be much appreciated. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Thank you for your time and have a nice day, > > > > > > With kind regards, > > > Yedhu Sastri > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack > > > Post to : openstack(a)lists.openstack.org > > > Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack > > Post to : openstack(a)lists.openstack.org > > Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

2 2

[tc] summary of 12 Nov 2018 joint leadership meeting
by Doug Hellmann 20 Nov '18

20 Nov '18

On Monday 12 November, 2018 the OpenStack Foundation Board of Directors, staff, and project leadership held a joint meeting to discuss the project and foundation status [1]. We were hosted by Deutsche Telekom AG in their Berlin Representative Office. The meeting space was inside a room that housed their original telegraph offices built in 1861, and as someone who appreciates old architecture I can say that DT did an excellent job blending the feeling of the old building with the modern fittings needed for meetings like ours. The morning was taken up with a formal Board of Directors meeting, which Jonathan has already summarized at [2]. I won't repeat everything he wrote here, but there were a few topics that may be of particular interest to ATCs. The first is that the board has approved a set of bylaws changes [3] that declare that the Foundation will establish "Open Infrastructure Projects" (OIP), with the governance for each to be approved by the Board. Because the bylaws require a vote of the Foundation members to change, the details are left up to other documentation, which a subcommittee of the Board is going to begin preparing [4]. Completing that work is a prerequisite for Airship, Kata Containers, StarlingX, and Zuul to be confirmed as Foundation projects (they are "pilot" projects now). The current version of the bylaws includes details about the way OpenStack operates, by defining the membership and role of the Technical and User Committees. Those definitions will remain, to signal the "centrality" of the project and, and there are a few proposed wording changes to try to make election scheduling more flexible and to clarify the relationship between the OpenStack Technical and User Committees and the other OIPs. There is also a change to allow the Board and TC to update the "Technical Committee Member Policy" by voting on it together, rather than requiring a full vote of the Foundation members. There are also some minor cleanup and "modernization" of the language (removing obsolete references to bootstrapping directions, for example). There was not a lot of discussion of the changes in this meeting, because there had been several meetings to discuss and refine them before 12 November. Next, these changes need to be approved by the Platinum and Gold foundation members and then approved by the individual members. The goal is to have everything ready for approval during the board election this January. Please watch for the announcements for that vote and participate in the election, so that we have quorum and so the outcome of the vote is binding. The second topic I thought might be of interest is the discussion of the brand research the Foundation staff commissioned and which Wes previously summarized on the mailing list [5]. I was encouraged by the favorability numbers in the responses (67% of respondents rate OpenStack as "favorable" or "very favorable") as well as the 50-60% of overlap between people reporting an interest in OpenStack and in the existing OIPs. The "Open Infrastructure" renaming for the summit (announced last week) was also very popular in the survey results. After the Board meeting concluded, the Technical Committee presented a summary of the work done during Rocky, a preview of the work to be done during Stein (thank you to the PTLs who responded to my request for information) and some of the initiatives the TC is undertaking right now [6]. The Board was very interested in both the peer review culture change that Julia has been driving and the technical vision document that Zane has been writing [7]. Following the TC presentation, the User Committee presented updates on their work, the user survey, and work being done in adjacent communities such as Kubernetes [8]. We wrapped up the afternoon with presentations from each of the existing pilot projects on their mission and status [9]. [1] joint leadership meeting agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/12Nov2018BoardMeeting [2] Jonathan’s summary of the Board meeting http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2018-November/002654.html [3] bylaws changes http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/2018-November/000459.… [4] Board thread on creating acceptance criteria for OIPs http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/2018-November/000462.… [5] OSF branch research results http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2018-October/002634.html [6] TC presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1wcG7InY2A5y67dt5lC14CI1gQHGZ3db8-ys… [7] Vision for OpenStack Clouds https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/technical-vision.html [8] UC Presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1gLcChOupELCGItD-SzhECEhFMGQc4jf0PlQ… [9] Pilot project presentations https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nsm6ht3kJRw7vZsbjLDcTfPA8d8gu3jSYin… -- Doug

1 0

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Proposing Enrique Llorente Pastora as a core reviewer for TripleO
by Steven Hardy 20 Nov '18

20 Nov '18

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:54 PM Sagi Shnaidman <sshnaidm(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi, > I'd like to propose Quique (@quiquell) as a core reviewer for TripleO. Quique is actively involved in improvements and development of TripleO and TripleO CI. He also helps in other projects including but not limited to Infrastructure. > He shows a very good understanding how TripleO and CI works and I'd like suggest him as core reviewer of TripleO in CI related code. > > Please vote! > My +1 is here :) +1! __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

1 0

[docs] looking for help with sitemap generation
by Doug Hellmann 20 Nov '18

20 Nov '18

During Rocky an intern for the OSF started working on a project to build sitemap files for docs.openstack.org. Megan has moved on, and we're looking for someone to pick up and finish that work. What we need is to have the tool to produce the per-doc-build sitemap finished [1], then to update the main doc site build to produce a full sitemap that links to the other existing sitemaps. If you have a little time and interest, please get in touch and I'll be happy to clarify and expand on that description. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/524862/ -- Doug

1 0

[python3] RHEL 8 will include python 3.6
by Doug Hellmann 20 Nov '18

20 Nov '18

Now that the RHEL 8 beta is released, there is more official information about what is included. In particular, the question we've been waiting to have answered is "which version of python 3 will be the default?" The answer is 3.6, which means it should be safe to drop 3.5 testing for Stein. https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2018/11/14/python-in-rhel-8/ -- Doug

1 0

[openstack-dev] [Searchlight] Weekly report, Stein R-21
by Trinh Nguyen 20 Nov '18

20 Nov '18

Hello team, Here is the report for last week, Stein R-21. Please have a look: https://www.dangtrinh.com/2018/11/searchlight-weekly-report-stein-r-21.html Thanks, -- *Trinh Nguyen* *www.edlab.xyz <https://www.edlab.xyz>* __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

1 0

Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] how to get horizon related logs to syslog?
by Akihiro Motoki 19 Nov '18

19 Nov '18

Hi, Horizon logging depends on Django configuration which supports full python logging [1]. [1] does not provide enough examples. Perhaps [2] will help you (though I haven't tested it). [1] https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.0/topics/logging/ [2] https://www.simonkrueger.com/2015/05/27/logging-django-apps-to-syslog.html Thanks, Akihiro 2018年11月16日(金) 18:47 Tikkanen, Viktor (Nokia - FI/Espoo) < viktor.tikkanen(a)nokia.com>: > Hi! > > For most openstack parts (e.g. Aodh, Cinder, Glance, Heat, Ironic, > Keystone, Neutron, Nova) it was easy to get logs to syslog. > > For example for Heat something similar to this (into file > templates/heat.conf.j2): > > # Syslog usage > {% if heat_syslog_enabled %} > use_syslog = True > syslog_log_facility = LOG_LOCAL3 > {% else %} > log_file = /var/log/heat/heat.log > {% endif %} > > But how to get Horizon related logs to syslog? > > -V. > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

2 1