Open Stack

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch> wrote:

>
> A few inline comments and a general point
>
> How do we handle scenarios like volumes when we have a per-component
> janitor rather than a single co-ordinator ?
>
> To be clean,
>
> 1. nova should shutdown the instance
> 2. nova should then ask the volume to be detached
> 3. cinder could then perform the 'project deletion' action as configured
> by the operator (such as shelve or backup)
> 4. nova could then perform the 'project deletion' action as configured by
> the operator (such as VM delete or shelve)
>
> If we have both cinder and nova responding to a single message, cinder
> would do 3. Immediately and nova would be doing the shutdown which is
> likely to lead to a volume which could not be shelved cleanly.
>
> The problem I see with messages is that co-ordination of the actions may
> require ordering between the components.  The disable/enable cases would
> show this in a worse scenario.
>

You raise two good points.

* How to clean something up may be different for different clouds
* Some cleanup operations have to happen in a specific order

Not sure what the best way to address those two points is.  Perhaps the
best way forward is a openstack-specs spec to hash out these details.



> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Cordasco [mailto:ian.cordasco at RACKSPACE.COM]
> > Sent: 19 February 2015 17:49
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); Joe
> Gordon
> > Cc: openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> > Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Resources owned by a
> > project/tenant are not cleaned up after that project is deleted from
> keystone
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/2/15, 15:41, "Morgan Fainberg" <morgan.fainberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >On February 2, 2015 at 1:31:14 PM, Joe Gordon (joe.gordon0 at gmail.com)
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Morgan Fainberg
> > ><morgan.fainberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >I think the simple answer is "yes". We (keystone) should emit
> > >notifications. And yes other projects should listen.
> > >
> > >The only thing really in discussion should be:
> > >
> > >1: soft delete or hard delete? Does the service mark it as orphaned, or
> > >just delete (leave this to nova, cinder, etc to discuss)
> > >
> > >2: how to cleanup when an event is missed (e.g rabbit bus goes out to
> > >lunch).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >I disagree slightly, I don't think projects should directly listen to
> > >the Keystone notifications I would rather have the API be something
> > >from a keystone owned library, say keystonemiddleware. So something like
> > this:
> > >
> > >
> > >from keystonemiddleware import janitor
> > >
> > >
> > >keystone_janitor = janitor.Janitor()
> > >keystone_janitor.register_callback(nova.tenant_cleanup)
> > >
> > >
> > >keystone_janitor.spawn_greenthread()
> > >
> > >
> > >That way each project doesn't have to include a lot of boilerplate
> > >code, and keystone can easily modify/improve/upgrade the notification
> > mechanism.
> > >
> > >
>
>
> I assume janitor functions can be used for
>
> - enable/disable project
> - enable/disable user
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Sure. I’d place this into an implementation detail of where that
> > >actually lives. I’d be fine with that being a part of Keystone
> > >Middleware Package (probably something separate from auth_token).
> > >
> > >
> > >—Morgan
> > >
> >
> > I think my only concern is what should other projects do and how much do
> we
> > want to allow operators to configure this? I can imagine it being
> preferable to
> > have safe (without losing much data) policies for this as a default and
> to allow
> > operators to configure more destructive policies as part of deploying
> certain
> > services.
> >
>
> Depending on the cloud, an operator could want different semantics for
> delete project's impact, between delete or 'shelve' style or maybe disable.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--Morgan
> > >
> > >Sent via mobile
> > >
> > >> On Feb 2, 2015, at 10:16, Matthew Treinish <mtreinish at kortar.org>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 11:46:53AM -0600, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> > >>> This came up in the operators mailing list back in June [1] but
> > >>>given the  subject probably didn't get much attention.
> > >>>
> > >>> Basically there is a really old bug [2] from Grizzly that is still a
> > >>>problem  and affects multiple projects.  A tenant can be deleted in
> > >>>Keystone even  though other resources in other projects are under
> > >>>that project, and those  resources aren't cleaned up.
> > >>
> > >> I agree this probably can be a major pain point for users. We've had
> > >>to work around it  in tempest by creating things like:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/tempest/tree/tempest/cmd/cleanu
> > >p_s
> > >ervice.py
> > ><http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/tempest/tree/tempest/cmd/clean
> > >up_
> > >service.py>
> > >> and
> > >>
> > >http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/tempest/tree/tempest/cmd/cleanu
> > >p.p
> > >y
> > ><
> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/tempest/tree/tempest/cmd/cleanup
> > .
> > >py>
> > >>
> > >> to ensure we aren't dangling resources after a run. But, this doesn't
> > >>work in  all cases either. (like with tenant isolation enabled)
> > >>
> > >> I also know there is a stackforge project that is attempting
> > >>something similar
> > >> here:
> > >>
> > >> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/ospurge/
> > >>
> > >> It would be much nicer if the burden for doing this was taken off
> > >>users and this  was just handled cleanly under the covers.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Keystone implemented event notifications back in Havana [3] but the
> > >>>other  projects aren't listening on them to know when a project has
> > >>>been deleted  and act accordingly.
> > >>>
> > >>> The bug has several people saying "we should talk about this at the
> > >>>summit"
> > >>> for several summits, but I can't find any discussion or summit
> > >>>sessions  related back to the bug.
> > >>>
> > >>> Given this is an operations and cross-project issue, I'd like to
> > >>>bring it up  again for the Vancouver summit if there is still
> > >>>interest (which I'm  assuming there is from operators).
> > >>
> > >> I'd definitely support having a cross-project session on this.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> There is a blueprint specifically for the tenant deletion case but
> > >>> it's targeted at only Horizon [4].
> > >>>
> > >>> Is anyone still working on this? Is there sufficient interest in a
> > >>> cross-project session at the L summit?
> > >>>
> > >>> Thinking out loud, even if nova doesn't listen to events from
> > >>>keystone, we  could at least have a periodic task that looks for
> > >>>instances where the  tenant no longer exists in keystone and then
> > >>>take some action (log a  warning, shutdown/archive/, reap, etc).
> > >>>
> > >>> There is also a spec for L to transfer instance ownership [5] which
> > >>>could  maybe come into play, but I wouldn't depend on it.
> > >>>
> > >>> [1]
> > >
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2014-June/004559.
> > >html
> > ><http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2014-June/004
> > >559
> > >.html>
> > >>> [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/967832
> > >>> [3]
> > >https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/notifications
> > ><https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/notifications>
> > >>> [4]
> > >https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/tenant-deletion
> > ><https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/tenant-deletion>
> > >>> [5] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105367/
> > >>
> > >> -Matt Treinish
> > >
> > >
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> > >> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> > >>
> > >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> > ><http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operator
> > >s>
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >OpenStack-operators mailing list
> > >OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> > >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
> > OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20150225/f83ba8f6/attachment.html>