[openstack-dev] [all][zaqar][cloudkitty] Default ports list

Brant Knudson blk at acm.org
Thu Mar 10 16:43:21 UTC 2016

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Thomas Herve <therve at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
> > On 03/10/2016 08:40 AM, Thomas Herve wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Chris Dent <cdent+os at anticdent.org>
> wrote:
> >>> +many. It would be great if we just got rid of the runnable web
> >>> servers in the projects and just expose wsgi apps (the tools like
> >>> devstack etc mounted under whatever the available server is).
> >>
> >> Isn't devstack meant for development? Running the APIs in a WSGI
> >> container like Apache or uwsgi makes for a terrible debugging
> >> experience. Just this morning I had to prevent aodh from running in
> >> Apache to be able to run it standalone.
> >>
> >> Also, those apps that use WSGI still bind a different port. The fact
> >> that it runs in Apache doesn't really solve the URLs problem.
> >
> > But they shouldn't. I do realize it's taking a while to get there, but
> > this is the push to get rid of all these weird ports. The point is to
> > get them all on 80 in a subpath or a separate domain.
> >
> >
> > If projects use the pbr wsgi_script directive the wsgi script will run
> > on wsgi ref on the commandline if you need that for debug -
> >
> https://github.com/openstack/keystone/blob/4db54810e58ad86edb92869a608fb5630a6b99e5/setup.cfg#L75
> > that was built to make this simpler.
> Right, but if we move to everything in WSGI besides a subpath, you
> won't be able to switch to the script easily. Unless you actually
> implement that using a reverse proxy.
> I totally understand the will to remove those ports from the final
> product. I question whether it's the right choice for devstack. It
> would seem that at least keeping those 'weird' ports for internal
> consumption would be useful. It's not like we're close to use the 65K
> available.
> --
> Thomas
For some time, devstack has been running with keystone accepting on both
it's legacy ports (:5000 and :35357), and on subpaths (:80/identity and
/identity_admin). I tried to change devstack to have keystone only
listening on subpaths but this is failing in tempest-lib -- see the errors
in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/193894/. At first I thought it would be
best to get tempest-lib doing version discovery but this turned into a lot
of code since version discovery requires quite a bit of parsing and
searching through dicts which always requires lots of error handling and
test code (see reviews ending at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/263452/).
(You might wonder why I didn't use the code that's already in
keystoneclient/keystoneauth for version discovery -- it's because tempest
doesn't use the client libs.)

Anyways I think the alternative that's going to be backwards compatible is
to have the user be able to pass in the identity endpoints for v2 and v3
and have tempest use those if provided. I haven't had time to propose this

My preference would be to have the keystone processes running separately
under uwsgi or gunicorn, then httpd proxies to that from /identity and
/identity_admin (and :5000 and :35357 for legacy). Hopefully this would be
over a unix socket talking uwsgi protocol or whatever the process and httpd
support. Note that devstack already has a TLS-proxy deployment option
that's similar. I've been hoping to have time to propose the keystone
devstack deployment use this but I'm easily distracted.

- Brant
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160310/88769210/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list