1319046 is an upstream bug and there's already a fix available: https://review.openstack.org/90644
We should add this patch to our cinder package. On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Mike Scherbakov <[email protected]> wrote: >> If the teams not involved in correcting the HA issues can move on to >> creating 4.1.1 (with 2013.2.3 support & HA fixes), 5.0.1 (with 2014.1.1 >> support and lower priority defect fixes) and working on blueprints for 5.1, >> I think that’s a good idea so that we don’t lose velocity. > David, yep, that's the idea. > > Dmitry, thanks. Should we move 1319106 to 5.1 then? Also, I bet we need your > thoughts about https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1319046. > > Thanks, > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Dmitry Borodaenko > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It turns out 1319106 was caused by having a cinder node in an >> environment configured to use ceph for volumes, so I downgraded it to >> low. I've posted a fix but I'm not sure it's worth merging this before >> stable/5.0 is branched, this kind of configuration is a really low >> priority corner case, most people using Ceph for volumes don't need >> Cinder LVM nodes. We need to fix the test not to assign cinder roles >> to nodes, too. >> >> The only reason I originally set it to Critical is because the >> exception I saw in the logs was the same I've seen in Nova where it >> was caused by a different kind of bug that would unconditionally break >> the rbd backend. I have confirmed that such bug is not present in >> Cinder. >> >> -DmitryB >> >> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Mike Scherbakov >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Fuelers, >> > we had a hard time squashing ton of bugs - 421 publicly reported bugs >> > already closed in 5.0. >> > >> > Now we see quite low number of bugs coming daily with extensive testing, >> > and >> > we fix more than we find. You can take a look at bug trends here: >> > http://fuel-launchpad.mirantis.com/project/fuel/bug_trends/5.0 >> > >> > Main issues which needs to be closed in 5.0 (excluding documentation / >> > qa / >> > devops): >> > Critical - 2 bugs >> > image could not be stored in rbd in case if ceph is using as backend for >> > glance >> > Wrong interface in dnsmasq.conf inside cobbler container >> > >> > High priority - 8 bugs >> > HA. Nova-compute is down after destroying primary controller >> > mcollective failed to upload image but error was deployment timed out >> > [OSTF]After succesfull cleanup button 'run test' does not appear >> > Cannot create bootable volume on CEPH backend for cinder >> > keystone-manage db_sync failed on first controller in ha mode >> > add stickiness=1 to neutron agents PM resources >> > [UI] Node renaming issues >> > 'list index out of range' error on group node disks configuration >> > >> > All of them are taken by engineers and being addressed. >> > >> > We need to think about two questions: >> > >> > HA issues, summarized at >> > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fuel-ha-rabbitmq. >> > If we are about to provide fixes in 5.0, or we can address them in 5.0.1 >> > Current definition of HCF is strict - >> > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Fuel/Hard_Code_Freeze. Pros is that we >> > keep >> > working in master and thus there is no need in providing patches to both >> > master and stable/5.0 branch. Cons is that we block UI & Python teams >> > which >> > have almost 0 bugs to work on. >> > My suggestion for now is to call for HCF even if we think about HA >> > issues as >> > those which are critical, and keep a small group of people addressing >> > those >> > issues, while the rest of the team will move ahead and start landing 5.1 >> > changes into master. And I believe we should concentrate and call for >> > HCF >> > already tomorrow. >> > For further, I think we would rather call for HCF not when we reach <=5 >> > High >> > bugs and 0 criticals, but somehow based on bug trends over last days. >> > With a >> > few components in Fuel, it seems to be pretty strict (no more than 1 bug >> > per >> > component), and velocity of bug fixing is pretty high - over 3 last days >> > we >> > had 21 incoming, 37 outcoming bugs. Any ideas on best formula for this? >> > >> > Your thoughts, folks? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > -- >> > Mike Scherbakov >> > #mihgen >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev >> > Post to : [email protected] >> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev >> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Dmitry Borodaenko > > > > > -- > Mike Scherbakov > #mihgen > -- Dmitry Borodaenko -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
