Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Rocky spec review day

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:47:58 -0700, Melanie Witt wrote: The past several cycles, we've had a spec review day in the cycle where reviewers focus on specs and iterating quickly with spec authors for the day. Spec freeze is April 19 so I wanted to get some input from all of you about what day would

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron]Does neutron-server support the main backup redundancy？

Thanks for your response, another question is Does the compute nodes or agents know how many neutron-servers running? I mean If there was a server corrupt, they will automatically connect to other servers? Thanks, At 2018-03-21 18:14:47, "Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo" wrote:

Re: [openstack-dev] Adding "not docs" banner to specs website?

It could be *really* useful if you could include the date (month/year would be good enough)of the last significant patch (not including the reformat to Openstackdocstheme). That could give folks a great stick in the mud for what "past" is for the spec. It might even incent some to see if

Re: [openstack-dev] [Blazar] Nominating Bertrand Souville to Blazar core

Hi Blazar folks, I'd like to nominate Bertrand Souville to blazar core team. He has been involved in the project since the Ocata release. He has worked on NFV usecase, gap analysis and feedback in OPNFV and ETSI NFV as well as in Blazar itself. Additionally, he has reviewed not only Blazar

[openstack-dev] OpenStack "S" Release Naming Preliminary Results

Hello all! We decided to run a public poll this time around, we'll likely discuss the process during a TC meeting, but we'd love the hear your feedback. The raw results are below - however ... **PLEASE REMEMBER** that these now have to go through legal vetting. So it is too soon to say

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Rocky spec review day

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:33 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Eric Fried wrote: >> >> +1 for the-earlier-the-better, for the additional reason that, if we >> don't finish, we can do another one in time for spec freeze. >> > >

[openstack-dev] [PTLS] Project Updates & Project Onboarding

Hello! Project Updates[1] & Project Onboarding[2] sessions are now live on the schedule! We did as best as we could to keep project onboarding sessions adjacent to project update slots. Though, given the differences in duration and the number of each we have per day that got increasingly

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][infra][dib] Gate "out of disk" errors and diskimage-builder 2.12.0

On 03/21/2018 03:39 PM, Ian Wienand wrote: We will prepare dib 2.12.1 with the fix. As usual there are complications, since the dib gate is broken due to unrelated triple-o issues [2]. In the mean time, probably avoid 2.12.0 if you can. [2] https://review.openstack.org/554705 Since we

Re: [openstack-dev] [devstack] stable/queens: How to configure devstack to use openstacksdk===0.11.3 and os-service-types===1.1.0

On 03/16/2018 09:29 AM, Kwan, Louie wrote: In the stable/queens branch, since openstacksdk0.11.3 and os-service-types1.1.0 are described in openstack's upper-constraints.txt, https://github.com/openstack/requirements/blob/stable/queens/upper-constraints.txt#L411

[openstack-dev] [sdk] git repo rename and storyboard migration

Hey everybody! This upcoming Friday we're scheduled to complete the transition from python-openstacksdk to openstacksdk. This was started a while back (Tue Jun 16 12:05:38 2015 to be exact) by changing the name of what gets published to PyPI. Renaming the repo is to get those two back inline

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][requirements] a plan to stop syncing requirements into projects

Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2018-03-15 07:03:11 -0400: > > TL;DR > - > > Let's stop copying exact dependency specifications into all our > projects to allow them to reflect the actual versions of things > they depend on. The constraints system in pip makes this change > safe. We

Re: [openstack-dev] [libvirt] [virt-tools-list] Project for profiles and defaults for libvirt domains

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 06:39:52PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 03:00:41PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 03:10:12PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 03:20:31PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote: > > > > 1) Default

Re: [openstack-dev] [libvirt] [virt-tools-list] Project for profiles and defaults for libvirt domains

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 03:10:12PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 03:20:31PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote: > > 1) Default devices/values > > > > Libvirt itself must default to whatever values there were before any > > particular element was introduced due to the fact

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] why cyborg can not support an accelerators info list for more than one host?

got it, thanks. 2018-03-22 0:50 GMT+08:00 Ed Leafe : > On Mar 21, 2018, at 11:35 AM, 少合冯 wrote: > > > >> By default, hosts are weighed one by one. You can subclass the > BaseWeigher (in nova/weights.py) to weigh all objects at once. > > > > Does that means

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] why cyborg can not support an accelerators info list for more than one host?

On Mar 21, 2018, at 11:35 AM, 少合冯 wrote: > >> By default, hosts are weighed one by one. You can subclass the BaseWeigher >> (in nova/weights.py) to weigh all objects at once. > > Does that means it require call cyborg accelerator one by one? the pseudo > code as follow:

[openstack-dev] [horizon] Do we want new meeting time?

Hi team, As was discussed at PTG, usually we've got a very few participants on our weekly meetings. I hope, mostly it's because of not comfort meeting time for many of us. Let's try to re-schedule Horizon weekly meetings and get more attendees there. I've created a doodle for it [1]. Please,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] why cyborg can not support an accelerators info list for more than one host?

2018-03-22 0:11 GMT+08:00 Ed Leafe : > On Mar 21, 2018, at 10:56 AM, 少合冯 wrote: > > > > Sorry, I did not attend the PTG. > > Is it said there is a conclusion: > > Scheduler weigher will call into Cyborg REST API for each host instead > of one REST API for all

[openstack-dev] [oslo][all] Deprecation Notice: Pika driver for oslo.messaging

Folks, Last year at the Boston summit the Oslo team decided to deprecate support for the Pika transport in oslo.messaging with removal planned for Rocky [0]. This was announced on the operators list last May [1]. No objections have been raised to date. We're not aware of any deployments using

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] why cyborg can not support an accelerators info list for more than one host?

On Mar 21, 2018, at 10:56 AM, 少合冯 wrote: > > Sorry, I did not attend the PTG. > Is it said there is a conclusion: > Scheduler weigher will call into Cyborg REST API for each host instead of one > REST API for all hosts. > Is there some reason? By default, hosts are

[openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] why cyborg can not support an accelerators info list for more than one host?

For today's IRC discussion. There is question about the weigher. Can cyborg support a get list API to get more than one host accelerators info when weigher. Sorry, I did not attend the PTG. Is it said there is a conclusion: Scheduler weigher will call into Cyborg REST API for each host instead of

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-12

In case people have missed it, Jim Blair sent an email recently to shed some light on where Zuul is headed [1]. [1]: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-March/128396.html David Moreau Simard Senior Software Engineer | OpenStack RDO dmsimard = [irc, github, twitter] On Tue,

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-12

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:24:19PM +, Chris Dent wrote: > > HTML: https://anticdent.org/tc-report-18-12.html > > This week's TC Report goes off in the weeds a bit with the editorial > commentary from yours truly. I had trouble getting started, so had > to push myself through some thinking by

[openstack-dev] [docs] Documentation meeting canceled

Hi all, Apologies but have to cancel today's docs meeting due to a meeting conflict. If you want to talk to the docs team, we're in #openstack-doc, as always! Thanks, pk __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for

Re: [openstack-dev] [vitrage] Nominating Dong Wenjuan for Vitrage core

+2 On 21 March 2018 at 16:37, Afek, Ifat (Nokia - IL/Kfar Sava) < ifat.a...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I would like to nominate Dong Wenjuan for Vitrage core. > > Wenjuan has been contributing to Vitrage for a long time, since Newton > version. She implemented several important features and

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:49:02AM +, Stephen Finucane wrote: > tl;dr: Make sure you stop using pbr's autodoc feature before converting > them to the new PTI for docs. > > [snip] > > I've gone through and proposed a couple of reverts to fix projects > we've already broken. However, going

Re: [openstack-dev] Poll: S Release Naming

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 07:58:59PM -0400, Paul Belanger wrote: > Greetings all, > > It is time again to cast your vote for the naming of the S Release. This time > is little different as we've decided to use a public polling option over per > user private URLs for voting. This means, everybody

[openstack-dev] [vitrage] Nominating Dong Wenjuan for Vitrage core

Hi, I would like to nominate Dong Wenjuan for Vitrage core. Wenjuan has been contributing to Vitrage for a long time, since Newton version. She implemented several important features and has a deep knowledge of Vitrage architecture. I’m sure she can be a great addition to our team. Thanks,

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Rocky spec review day

>> And I, for one, wouldn't be offended if we could "officially start >> development" (i.e. focus on patches, start runways, etc.) before the >> mystical but arbitrary spec freeze date. Yeah, I agree. I see runways as an attempt to add pressure to the earlier part of the cycle, where we're

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Support share backup to different projects?

Hey Gorka, Thanks for your input:) I think I need to clarify that our idea is to share the backup resource to another tenants, that is different with transfer as the original tenant still can fully control the backup resource, and the tenants that have been shared to only have the ability to

Re: [openstack-dev] Adding "not docs" banner to specs website?

> > We want them all to use the openstackdocstheme so you could look > into creating a "subclass" of that one with the extra content in > the header, then ensure all of the specs repos use it. We would > have to land a small patch to trigger a rebuild, but the patch > switching them from

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Rocky spec review day

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Eric Fried wrote: > +1 for the-earlier-the-better, for the additional reason that, if we > don't finish, we can do another one in time for spec freeze. > > +1 for Wed 27th March. > And I, for one, wouldn't be offended if we could

Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] [heat-dashboard] Horizon plugin settings for new xstatic modules

Hi Ivan, Akihiro, Thanks for your kind arrangement. Looking forward to hearing your decision soon. Regards, Kaz 2018-03-21 21:43 GMT+09:00 Ivan Kolodyazhny : > HI Team, > > From my perspective, I'm OK both with #2 and #3 options. I agree that #4 > could be too complicated for

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Rocky spec review day

+1 for the-earlier-the-better, for the additional reason that, if we don't finish, we can do another one in time for spec freeze. And I, for one, wouldn't be offended if we could "officially start development" (i.e. focus on patches, start runways, etc.) before the mystical but arbitrary spec

Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] [heat-dashboard] Horizon plugin settings for new xstatic modules

HI Team, >From my perspective, I'm OK both with #2 and #3 options. I agree that #4 could be too complicated for us. Anyway, we've got this topic on the meeting agenda [1] so we'll discuss it there too. I'll share our decision after the meeting. [1]

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] about rebuild instance booted from volume

So what should we do then about rebuild the volume backed server?Until the cinder could re-image a volume? -- Original -- From: "Matt Riedemann"; Date: 2018年3月16日(星期五) 上午6:35 To: "OpenStack Developmen"; Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] about rebuild

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Support share backup to different projects?

On 20/03, Jay S Bryant wrote: > > > On 3/19/2018 10:55 PM, TommyLike Hu wrote: > > Now Cinder can transfer volume (with or without snapshots) to different > > projects,  and this make it possbile to transfer data across tenant via > > volume or image. Recently we had a conversation with our

[openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

tl;dr: Make sure you stop using pbr's autodoc feature before converting them to the new PTI for docs. There have been a lot of patches converting projects to use the new Project Testing Interface for building docs [1]. Generally, these make the following changes: 1. Move any requirements for

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron]Does neutron-server support the main backup redundancy？

You can run as many as you want, generally an haproxy is used in front of them to balance load across neutron servers. Also, keep in mind, that the db backend is a single mysql, you can also distribute that with galera. That is the configuration you will get by default when you deploy in HA with

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] The Weekly Owl - 13th Edition

On 20/03/2018 20:16, Emilien Macchi wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Emilien Macchi > wrote: > +--> Matt is John and ruck is John. Please let them know any new CI > issue. > so I double checked and Matt isn't John but in fact he's

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Separate spec for compute node flows?

Hi Sundar, Zhuli will work on os-acc spec, and Li Liu will work on the glance and metadata one, as we assigned during ptg. But you are very welcomed to reach out to them and work together if you have the bandwidth :) On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Nadathur, Sundar

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-Dev] [Neutron] [DragonFlow] Automatic Neighbour Discovery responder for IPv6

Hi Vivek, Originally we planned to support only in-cloud VMs, therefore, we do not use these bits in Dragonflow. We believe we managed to follow the standard without using these bits. If this is a bug, we will try to fix it. Regards, Lihi On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 8:45 AM, N Vivekanandan

[openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Separate spec for compute node flows?

Hi all,     The Cyborg Nova scheduling specification addresses the scheduling aspects alone. There needs to be a separate spec to address: * Cyborg/Nova interactions in the compute node, incl. the newly

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Support share backup to different projects?

Sure! I will bring this to our weekly meeting when more feedbacks are gathered : ) Jay S Bryant 于2018年3月21日周三 下午1:05写道： > Tommy, > > I am still not sure that this is going to move the team to a different > decision. > > Now that you have more information you can propose it