Open Stack

On 2/27/20 9:15 AM, Eugen Block wrote:
> Thank you for the confirmation, Brain.
> 
>> No, you didn't miss anything.  We didn't include anything in the Train 
>> release notes because there was nothing new to report, and we didn't 
>> want to clutter up the release notes with a non-announcement.  In 
>> retrospect, though, it might have been a good idea to continue the 
>> series of non-announcements.
> 
> I entirely understand the non-cluttering approach, and if you have 
> stumbled across this before you'll probably find the solution quickly 
> again. On the other hand the non-announcements would at least deliver 
> some kind of consistency. ;-)

We discussed this at today's Glance weekly meeting and decided that your 
suggestion to update the Train release notes is a good one.  Sorry for 
any confusion this caused.
> 
> Zitat von Brian Rosmaita <rosmaita.fossdev at gmail.com>:
> 
>> On 2/27/20 5:55 AM, Eugen Block wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm currently evaluating our new OpenStack environment (Train), 
>>> testing the usual scenarios. In the past I've had issues with nova 
>>> and rbd backend, when the compute nodes used to download rbd images 
>>> just to re-import them back to the ceph cluster instead of simply 
>>> cloning an image.
>>>
>>> The cause was the show_multiple_locations option that was marked 
>>> deprecated since Pike but in fact it's still necessary. The release 
>>> notes of Pike, Queens, Rocky and Stein all mention that the 
>>> workaround is still required:
>>>
>>>> The show_multiple_locations configuration option remains deprecated 
>>>> in this release, but it has not been removed. > (It had been 
>>>> scheduled for removal in the Pike release.) Please keep a watch on 
>>>> the Glance release notes and the > glance-specs repository to stay 
>>>> informed about developments on this issue.
>>>
>>> The Train release notes don't mention this option anymore but my 
>>> tests show that it's still required to avoid unnecessary rbd 
>>> exports/imports.
>>
>> You are correct, the option has not been removed and the workaround is 
>> still required.
>>
>>> Maybe the release notes for Train should be updated to cover this 
>>> issue. In case I missed any further information that already 
>>> addresses this I apologize.
>>
>> No, you didn't miss anything.  We didn't include anything in the Train 
>> release notes because there was nothing new to report, and we didn't 
>> want to clutter up the release notes with a non-announcement.  In 
>> retrospect, though, it might have been a good idea to continue the 
>> series of non-announcements.
>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Eugen
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 
>