[openstack-dev] [Glance] Need to revert "Don't enable all stores by default"

Jay Pipes jaypipes at gmail.com
Wed Mar 12 17:10:06 UTC 2014

On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 07:18 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 03/12/2014 06:38 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> > On 11/03/14 16:25 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> >> Hi. I asked in #openstack-glance a few times today but got no response,
> >> so sorry for the list spam.
> >>
> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/79710/
> >>
> >> This change introduces a backward incompatible change to defaults with
> >> Havana. If a user has chosen to configure swift, but did not add swift
> >> to the known_stores, then when that user upgrades Glance, Glance will
> >> fail to start because their swift configuration will be invalid.
> >>
> >> This broke TripleO btw, which tries hard to use default configurations.
> > 
> > I don't think this change has to be reverted. We could add an upgrade
> > path for this. We could enable a driver if its config options were set
> > and warn the user about this change. Also, we could make sure we
> > import all drivers and the config options are registered but that we
> > don't try to enable them.
> > 
> > Also, I don't expect (yeah, I know this is not always the case) users to
> > blindly upgrade if they really care about their cloud deployment.
> > Since this change will be part of the change log and the release
> > notes, I expect the user to be aware of it.
> OpenStack's 2 largest public clouds don't wait for releases, so that's
> not really a good answer.
> >>
> >> Also I am not really sure why this approach was taken. If a user has
> >> explicitly put swift configuration options in their config file, why
> >> not just load swift store? Oslo.config will help here in that you can
> >> just add all of the config options but not actually expect them to be
> >> set. It seems entirely backwards to just fail in this case.
> > 
> > This is exactly the problem. With the current approach, the user has
> > not explicitly enabled the swift store. The user just put swift
> > configs. With the current 'enable all and let it fail' approach, it is
> > really confusing for users to see all the failures and it's not nice to
> > enable things by default for the user.
> > 
> > Thanks for raising this issue, I didn't think about this corner
> > case.
> > Flavio
> In fairness, this wasn't a corner case. Grenade was blocking this change
> for the whole cycle until a change was made in stable/havana devstack
> that sneaked around it with https://review.openstack.org/#/c/75827/.  :)
> In addition, the commit in question for glance -
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59150/ didn't have UpgradeImpact, which
> is the signaling mechanism for these kinds of issues.
> I do think this is a real issue. OpenStack really is expected to be CD
> upgradable, not just post release and post release notes. Commits in
> OpenStack need to take that into account.
> A compatibility behavior should be put in place here.
> I do agree the current behavior isn't nice with gorpy error messages all
> the time. However, a completely legitimate approach would be:
> If configuration for a storage back end existed, but the driver wasn't
> explicitly set, load and configure that driver and throw a big
> DEPRECATION WARNING in the logs that Glance will require explicit
> loading of drivers in an upcoming release. That would let you move
> forward, and provide some user signally.

That's pretty much what already happens. On startup, Glance will log a
message about a particular store driver being disabled [1] because
configuration settings were not set properly. [2]

IIRC, on startup is the only place these messages occur (not, for
instance, every time somebody uploads an image), so I'm not entirely
sure what the big deal was.

Long term, moving stores into entrypoints might be a cleaner solution,
but you will still need to validate configuration for those endpoints on
startup -- all endpoints give you is a cleaner method than "set your new
store in the known_stores configuration option".



por ejemplo:

> That is definitely more effort, but as a community we've decided to
> support the CD method for OpenStack, which means we need to take account
> of these kinds of cases.
> 	-Sean
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list