Wondering if heat should be performing this orchestration.

Would provide for a more pluggable front end to the action set.

-matt

On Feb 25, 2015 2:37 PM, Joe Gordon <joe.gord...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Tim Bell <tim.b...@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.corda...@rackspace.com]
>> > Sent: 19 February 2015 17:49
>> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); Joe 
>> > Gordon
>> > Cc: openstack-operat...@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.fainb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >On February 2, 2015 at 1:31:14 PM, Joe Gordon (joe.gord...@gmail.com)
>> > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Morgan Fainberg
>> > ><morgan.fainb...@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 <mtrein...@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-operat...@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-operat...@lists.openstack.org
>> > >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> > openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to