Open Stack

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 12:50 PM Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 12:38 PM Sean Mooney <smooney at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2021-11-26 at 19:48 +0100, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 6:14 PM Alfredo Moralejo Alonso <
>> amoralej at redhat.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:44 PM Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur at redhat.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:35 PM Ghanshyam Mann <
>> gmann at ghanshyammann.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >  ---- On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:20:39 -0600 Dmitry Tantsur <
>> > > > > dtantsur at redhat.com> wrote ----
>> > > > >  >
>> > > > >  >
>> > > > >  > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 3:35 PM Jeremy Stanley <
>> fungi at yuggoth.org>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >  > On 2021-11-26 14:29:53 +0100 (+0100), Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>> > > > >  > [...]
>> > > > >  > > CentOS/RHEL ships 3.6 and a limited version of 3.8 and 3.9.
>> > > > >  > [...]
>> > > > >  >
>> > > > >  > Is this still true for CentOS Stream 9? The TC decision was to
>> > > > >  > support that instead of CentOS Stream 8 in Yoga.
>> > > > >  >
>> > > > >  > No. But Stream 9 is pretty much beta, so it's not a
>> replacement for
>> > > > > us (and we don't have nodes in nodepool with it even yet?).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think here is the confusion. In TC, after checking with centos
>> team
>> > > > > impression was CentOS stream 9 is released and that is
>> > > > > what we should update In OpenStack testing. And then only we
>> updated the
>> > > > > centos stream 8 -> 9 and dropped py3.6 testing
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -
>> > > > >
>> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/815851/3..6/reference/runtimes/yoga.rst
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I think there is an enormous perception gap between the CentOS team
>> and
>> > > > the rest of the world.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > So, CentOS Stream 9 was released, in the official mirrors and usable
>> since
>> > > some weeks ago[1][2]. We shouldn't consider it beta or something like
>> that.
>> > >
>> > > As mentioned, support for diskimage-builder has been introduced for
>> CS9
>> > > and there are nodepool nodes ready for it. From RDO, we are providing
>> RPMs
>> > > for master branch content on CentOS Stream 9 [3] and actually we have
>> been
>> > > doing some tests. Actually, we have recently merged new jobs in
>> > > puppet-openstack[4].
>> > >
>> >
>> > "It's usable since some weeks ago and we even added tests today" is not
>> > exactly reassuring :) The PTI uses wording "stable and LTS", which
>> applies
>> > to Stream 9 no more than it applies to Fedora.
>> thats not quite true.
>> yes centos 9 is a roling release but it is more stable then fedroa since
>> packages landing in centos 9 stream have been
>> stablised via fedroa already and any argurments in this regard would also
>> apply to centos 8 stream.
>>
>
>
That's correct.

Also, the rolling release nature of CentOS Stream applies to a single major
release where Red Hat is committed to provide a set of compatibility rules,
upgrade support (ar packaging levels), abi and api compatibility etc...
That's not the case for Fedora where is rolling update between major
releases including major version rebases, etc...


> Stream 8 is part of an already released and maintained RHEL, hence I give
> it a certain benefit of doubt. More on this below.
>
>
>>
>> The only reason that centos 8 stream would be more stable then 9 stream
>> is due to less frequent updates as focus moves to 9 stream.
>> 9 stream is effectivly a preview of what whill be rhel 9.
>> >
>> > In the end, what we test with Bifrost is what we will recommend people
>> to
>> > deploy it in production on. I do believe people can and should deploy on
>> > Stream 8 despite all the FUD around it, but I cannot do it for Stream 9
>> > until RHEL 9 is out.
>>
>> why just because rhel 9.0 is relased does not mean centos 9 is sudennly
>> more stable.
>>
>
> Okay, you convinced me, I won't recommend Stream 9 at all :)
>
> Kidding aside, we know that each major branch of RHEL offers a certain
> degree of compatibility. It's not expected that 8.N+1 breaks a lot of stuff
> from 8.N, hence it's not expected that Stream between them will break
> anything (modulo bugs) either. I have no idea what and how gets into Stream
> 9 now, nor will I risk recommending it for production.
>
>
I don't understand the doubt here, could you elaborate?

The same compatibility rules applied to RHEL/CentOS Stream 8 are applied to
CS/RHEL9. What is in CS9 will end up in RHEL9 at some later point of time.
However, instead of pushing updates in minor releases are applied more
frequently.

Said this, the concept of "recommended for production" is vague, depends on
how organizations work and how they want to manage risks, and each one of
us may have our own perception, of course.

Alfredo

Dmitry
>
>
>> Now that centos 9 has been release there shoudl be no more package
>> removalas form centos/rhel so
>> it should have stableised in terms of the minium package set and over
>> time we woudl expect more pacakges to be added.
>> yes centos 8 stream will be supported until the EOL or rhel 8 so people
>> can continue to deploy it.
>> rhel 9 will be released next year, perhaps not before yoga is released
>> but if you are deploying RDO you will not be useing
>> RHEL anyway you will be using centos so stream 9 is the better plathform
>> to use if you plan to continue to upgrade the deploy
>> ment over the next few year as it allow you to avoid the costly OS
>> upgrade when moving to the next openstack relesase.
>>
>
>> >
>> > Dmitry
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://www.centos.org/centos-stream/
>> > > <http://mirror.stream.centos.org/9-stream/>
>> > > [2] https://cloud.centos.org/centos/9-stream/x86_64/images/
>> > > [3] https://trunk.rdoproject.org/centos9-master/report.html
>> > > [4]
>> > >
>> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/puppet-openstack-integration/+/793462
>> > >
>> > > Alfredo
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > Dmitry
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > <
>> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/815851/3..6/reference/runtimes/yoga.rst
>> >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -gmann
>> > > > >
>> > > > >  > Dmitry
>> > > > >  >  --
>> > > > >  > Jeremy Stanley
>> > > > >  >
>> > > > >  >
>> > > > >  > --
>> > > > >  > Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat:
>> Grasbrunn,
>> > > > >  > Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
>> > > > >  > Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs,
>> > > > > Michael O'Neill
>> > > > >  >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
>> > > > Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
>> > > > Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs,
>> Michael
>> > > > O'Neill
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>
> --
> Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
> Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
> Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael
> O'Neill
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20211129/23d4ce2a/attachment-0001.htm>