Re: [Openstack-operators] Docker using novadocker vs coreos ?

[Christopher Aedo]

I missed that session in Atlanta but sounds like what you're talking
about is a pretty standard approach on OpenStack.  I think it's a good
way to go.  I've heard little overhead is lost by running the
container host on a VM vs. bare metal, and the advantage is better
tenant isolation (so if for some reason the container host is
compromised, it's not as big a deal as an entire hypervisor being
compromised.)

You also gain a relatively easy way to tie in cinder for additional
block storage.

-Christopher

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Zeeshan Ali Shah  wrote:
> Thanks Christopher for details response,
>
> What if we take this path
> https://www.openstack.org/summit/openstack-summit-atlanta-2014/session-videos/presentation/automating-service-orchestration-with-docker-and-coreos
>
> that is have core OS images and use them to launch docker images over it.
>
> any comment ?
>
>
> /Zee
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Christopher Aedo  wrote:
>>
>> The Nova-Docker driver is available here, and allows Nova to address a
>> Docker host natively:
>> https://github.com/stackforge/nova-docker
>> There are some very recent commits, and it's being actively developed.
>>
>> The Kolla work (https://github.com/stackforge/kolla) has details on
>> deploying Docker images via Heat templates (for the Triple-O project -
>> but can easily be extended to Docker-specific stuff).
>>
>> Lars' blog post from last summer goes over the Docker plugin for Heat:
>> http://blog.oddbit.com/2014/08/30/docker-plugin-for-openstack-he/
>>
>> The Magnum project (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Magnum) is young,
>> but making fast progress.  If you're interested in OpenStack and
>> containers it's a good one to keep an eye on.
>>
>> Finally, Murano (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Murano) can be used
>> to launch VMs to as Docker hosts with the benefit of neutron-native
>> networking for orchestration purposes (making an overlay like Flannel
>> unnecessary if you are going to experiment with Kubernetes).
>>
>> -Christopher
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Zeeshan Ali Shah  wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > Has someone tried running docker over OS ? I found
>> > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Docker  little bit old, it's github repo
>> > activities are not that frequent.
>> >
>> > other option is to have core-os as vm image and have docker over it .
>> >
>> > Any other options ?  specially for building cluster of dockers .. if we
>> > can
>> > have elasticity that would be great.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Zeeshan Ali Shah
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>> >
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> Zeeshan Ali Shah
> System Administrator - PDC HPC
> PhD researcher (IT security)
> Kungliga Tekniska Hogskolan
> +46 8 790 9115
> http://www.pdc.kth.se/members/zashah

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ?

[David Medberry]

http://www.tranquilpcshop.co.uk/cluster/ orange box or milder looking black
box, 10 NUCs and net.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:54 PM, David Medberry 
wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> The Ubuntu Orange box also uses NUCs so seem to be a good choice. I
> believe there are a variety of good Small Form Factor AIO computers that
> will fill the bill but NUC is the best known.
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Will Snow (wasnow) 
> wrote:
>
>>   I went with the 54250 version - and it's working great.
>>
>>  --Will Snow
>> was...@cisco.com
>> Director, OpenStack Customer Engineering
>> Mobile: +1-650-544-5460
>>
>>   From: matt 
>> Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:36 PM
>> To: will snow 
>> Cc: "openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org" <
>> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device
>> openstack ) ?
>>
>>   I was looking at the NUCs as well.  I think I may go that route.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Will Snow (wasnow) 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  I've been building out a small cluster of intel NUC's and have been
>>> quite happy with them - reasonable performance, 16g ram, and usb3 if you
>>> need storage.
>>>
>>>  Great little machines, make sure you update the firmware!
>>>
>>>  We did a talk on the setup 2 summits ago, and we're looking to provide
>>> an update on using them at Vancouver
>>>
>>>  --Will Snow
>>>  was...@cisco.com
>>> Director, OpenStack Customer Engineering
>>> Mobile: +1-650-544-5460
>>>
>>>   From: matt 
>>> Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>>> To: "openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org" <
>>> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>
>>> Subject: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device
>>> openstack ) ?
>>>
>>> I am setting up a demo openstack environment to integrate with a
>>> switch stack for our organization.
>>>
>>>  I was just curious if anyone had any preferences on low power / low
>>> cost small form factor embedded devices for running openstack compute nodes
>>> on?
>>>
>>>  I was tempted to just use some beagle bones or something but the ram
>>> limitations do suck there.
>>>
>>>  Was curious if anyone had any preferences on this front.
>>>
>>>  -Matt
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>>
>>
>
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ?

[David Medberry]

Hi guys,

The Ubuntu Orange box also uses NUCs so seem to be a good choice. I believe
there are a variety of good Small Form Factor AIO computers that will fill
the bill but NUC is the best known.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Will Snow (wasnow)  wrote:

>   I went with the 54250 version - and it's working great.
>
>  --Will Snow
> was...@cisco.com
> Director, OpenStack Customer Engineering
> Mobile: +1-650-544-5460
>
>   From: matt 
> Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:36 PM
> To: will snow 
> Cc: "openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org" <
> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device
> openstack ) ?
>
>   I was looking at the NUCs as well.  I think I may go that route.
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Will Snow (wasnow) 
> wrote:
>
>>  I've been building out a small cluster of intel NUC's and have been
>> quite happy with them - reasonable performance, 16g ram, and usb3 if you
>> need storage.
>>
>>  Great little machines, make sure you update the firmware!
>>
>>  We did a talk on the setup 2 summits ago, and we're looking to provide
>> an update on using them at Vancouver
>>
>>  --Will Snow
>>  was...@cisco.com
>> Director, OpenStack Customer Engineering
>> Mobile: +1-650-544-5460
>>
>>   From: matt 
>> Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>> To: "openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org" <
>> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>
>> Subject: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device
>> openstack ) ?
>>
>> I am setting up a demo openstack environment to integrate with a
>> switch stack for our organization.
>>
>>  I was just curious if anyone had any preferences on low power / low cost
>> small form factor embedded devices for running openstack compute nodes on?
>>
>>  I was tempted to just use some beagle bones or something but the ram
>> limitations do suck there.
>>
>>  Was curious if anyone had any preferences on this front.
>>
>>  -Matt
>>
>
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ?

[Will Snow (wasnow)]

I went with the 54250 version – and it’s working great.

--Will Snow
was...@cisco.com
Director, OpenStack Customer Engineering
Mobile: +1-650-544-5460

From: matt mailto:m...@nycresistor.com>>
Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:36 PM
To: will snow mailto:was...@cisco.com>>
Cc: 
"openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org"
 
mailto:openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack 
) ?

I was looking at the NUCs as well.  I think I may go that route.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Will Snow (wasnow) 
mailto:was...@cisco.com>> wrote:
I’ve been building out a small cluster of intel NUC’s and have been quite happy 
with them – reasonable performance, 16g ram, and usb3 if you need storage.

Great little machines, make sure you update the firmware!

We did a talk on the setup 2 summits ago, and we’re looking to provide an 
update on using them at Vancouver

--Will Snow
was...@cisco.com
Director, OpenStack Customer Engineering
Mobile: +1-650-544-5460

From: matt mailto:m...@nycresistor.com>>
Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:05 PM
To: 
"openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org"
 
mailto:openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ?

I am setting up a demo openstack environment to integrate with a switch stack 
for our organization.

I was just curious if anyone had any preferences on low power / low cost small 
form factor embedded devices for running openstack compute nodes on?

I was tempted to just use some beagle bones or something but the ram 
limitations do suck there.

Was curious if anyone had any preferences on this front.

-Matt

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ?

[matt]

I was looking at the NUCs as well.  I think I may go that route.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Will Snow (wasnow)  wrote:

>  I’ve been building out a small cluster of intel NUC’s and have been
> quite happy with them – reasonable performance, 16g ram, and usb3 if you
> need storage.
>
>  Great little machines, make sure you update the firmware!
>
>  We did a talk on the setup 2 summits ago, and we’re looking to provide
> an update on using them at Vancouver
>
>  --Will Snow
>  was...@cisco.com
> Director, OpenStack Customer Engineering
> Mobile: +1-650-544-5460
>
>   From: matt 
> Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:05 PM
> To: "openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org" <
> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device
> openstack ) ?
>
> I am setting up a demo openstack environment to integrate with a
> switch stack for our organization.
>
>  I was just curious if anyone had any preferences on low power / low cost
> small form factor embedded devices for running openstack compute nodes on?
>
>  I was tempted to just use some beagle bones or something but the ram
> limitations do suck there.
>
>  Was curious if anyone had any preferences on this front.
>
>  -Matt
>
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ?

[Will Snow (wasnow)]

I’ve been building out a small cluster of intel NUC’s and have been quite happy 
with them – reasonable performance, 16g ram, and usb3 if you need storage.

Great little machines, make sure you update the firmware!

We did a talk on the setup 2 summits ago, and we’re looking to provide an 
update on using them at Vancouver

--Will Snow
was...@cisco.com
Director, OpenStack Customer Engineering
Mobile: +1-650-544-5460

From: matt mailto:m...@nycresistor.com>>
Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:05 PM
To: 
"openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org"
 
mailto:openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: [Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ?

I am setting up a demo openstack environment to integrate with a switch stack 
for our organization.

I was just curious if anyone had any preferences on low power / low cost small 
form factor embedded devices for running openstack compute nodes on?

I was tempted to just use some beagle bones or something but the ram 
limitations do suck there.

Was curious if anyone had any preferences on this front.

-Matt
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

[Openstack-operators] demo environment ( embedded device openstack ) ?

[matt]

I am setting up a demo openstack environment to integrate with a switch
stack for our organization.

I was just curious if anyone had any preferences on low power / low cost
small form factor embedded devices for running openstack compute nodes on?

I was tempted to just use some beagle bones or something but the ram
limitations do suck there.

Was curious if anyone had any preferences on this front.

-Matt
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases

[George Shuklin]

On 02/06/2015 09:14 PM, Marcos Garcia wrote:


It does look like that.  However, the intent here is to allow 
non-developer
members of a Telco provide the use cases they need to accomplish. 
This way

the Telco WG can identify gaps and file a proper spec into each of the
OpenStack projects.
Indeed, what we're trying to do is help the non-developer members of 
the group articulate their use cases and tease them out to a level 
that is meaningful to someone who is not immersed in 
telecommunications themselves. In this way we hope to in turn be 
able to create meaningful specifications for the actual OpenStack 
projects impacted.


It's possible that some of these will be truly cross-project and 
therefore head to openstack-specs but initial indications seem to be 
that most will either be specific to a project, or cross only a 
couple of projects (e.g. nova and neutron) - I am sure someone will 
come up with some more exceptions to this statement to prove me 
wrong :).



Ok, I definitively out of telco business, and I indeed openstack 
operator. My first question: what you want to do, what problems you 
want to solve?


IMO most of the Telco's are asking Openstack developers to work in the 
following big areas (the first 3 are basically Carrier Grade):
- Performance on the virtualization layer (NUMA, etc) - get 
baremetal-like performance in big VM's
- QoS and capacity management - to get deterministic behavior, always 
the same regardless of the load
- Reliability (via HA, duplicate systems, live-migration, etc) - 
achieve 99'999% uptime,
- Management interfaces (OAM), compatible with their current OSS/BSS 
systems (i.e. SNMP traps, usage metering for billing)  - to don't 
reinvent the wheel, they have other things to manage too (i.e. legacy)


Most of this sounds really interesting for any operators. May be except 
of NUMA. Buy why telco want more performance? Few percent of loss for 
manageability - most companies accept this.


HA is achievable, QoS may be, duplication is ok. But of deterministic 
live migrations... Why telco want it? If system have own way to 
rebalance load, there is a more simple way: to terminate one instance 
and to buid new. Btw I really want to see deterministic way to fight 
with 'No valid hosts found'.


I was on one 'NVF' session in Paris, and I've expected it to be about 
SR-IOV and using VF (virtual functions) of network cards for guest 
acceleration. But instead it was something I just didn't got at all 
(sorry, Ericsson). So, what are you want to do? Not in terms of 
'business solution', but on very low level. Run some specific 
appliance? Add VoIP support to Neutron? Make something differ?


It's all about SLA's stablished by telco's customers: government, 
military and healthcare systems. SLA's are crazy there. And as an IT 
operators, you'll all understand those requirements, so it's really 
not that different compared to Telco operators.


Just remember that ETSI NFV is more than all that: you probably saw 
Ericsson speaking about high-level telco functions: MANO, VIM, EMS and 
VNFs, etc... that's beyond the scope of you guys, and probably outside 
the scope of all of the Openstack world.. that's why OPNFV exists.
I will be a bit skeptic. It will not work with current quality of the 
development process ('devstack syndrome').  I just done digging in yet 
another funny nova 'half-bug' around migration and what I see in the 
code is... to agile for high SLA systems. May be they (telcos) can 
really change this, and I really hope, but up to now... Thousands of 
loosly coupled systems with own bugs and world vision. Just today I 
found 'hanged' network interface (any operation with netsocket goes to 
'D' and can not be terminated) due ixgbe/netconsole bug. 99.99% in those 
conditions? I just do not believe. 
(https://www.mail-archive.com/e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg10178.html)



About Ericcson's presentation - yes, I was inspired by details of 
previous Rackspace's presentation about depth of the hell 
openvswitch, and suddenly all around starts to talk foreign language.
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases

[Marcos Garcia]

Hello George
Inline,
On 2015-02-06 1:11 PM, George Shuklin wrote:
>
> On 02/06/2015 04:21 PM, Steve Gordon wrote:
>>> It does look like that.  However, the intent here is to allow
>>> non-developer
>>> members of a Telco provide the use cases they need to accomplish.
>>> This way
>>> the Telco WG can identify gaps and file a proper spec into each of the
>>> OpenStack projects.
>> Indeed, what we're trying to do is help the non-developer members of
>> the group articulate their use cases and tease them out to a level
>> that is meaningful to someone who is not immersed in
>> telecommunications themselves. In this way we hope to in turn be able
>> to create meaningful specifications for the actual OpenStack projects
>> impacted.
>>
>> It's possible that some of these will be truly cross-project and
>> therefore head to openstack-specs but initial indications seem to be
>> that most will either be specific to a project, or cross only a
>> couple of projects (e.g. nova and neutron) - I am sure someone will
>> come up with some more exceptions to this statement to prove me wrong
>> :).
>>
>>
> Ok, I definitively out of telco business, and I indeed openstack
> operator. My first question: what you want to do, what problems you
> want to solve?
>
IMO most of the Telco's are asking Openstack developers to work in the
following big areas (the first 3 are basically Carrier Grade):
- Performance on the virtualization layer (NUMA, etc) - get
baremetal-like performance in big VM's
- QoS and capacity management - to get deterministic behavior, always
the same regardless of the load
- Reliability (via HA, duplicate systems, live-migration, etc) - achieve
99'999% uptime,
- Management interfaces (OAM), compatible with their current OSS/BSS
systems (i.e. SNMP traps, usage metering for billing)  - to don't
reinvent the wheel, they have other things to manage too (i.e. legacy)
> I was on one 'NVF' session in Paris, and I've expected it to be about
> SR-IOV and using VF (virtual functions) of network cards for guest
> acceleration. But instead it was something I just didn't got at all
> (sorry, Ericsson). So, what are you want to do? Not in terms of
> 'business solution', but on very low level. Run some specific
> appliance? Add VoIP support to Neutron? Make something differ?
>
It's all about SLA's stablished by telco's customers: government,
military and healthcare systems. SLA's are crazy there. And as an IT
operators, you'll all understand those requirements, so it's really not
that different compared to Telco operators.

Just remember that ETSI NFV is more than all that: you probably saw
Ericsson speaking about high-level telco functions: MANO, VIM, EMS and
VNFs, etc... that's beyond the scope of you guys, and probably outside
the scope of all of the Openstack world.. that's why OPNFV exists.

Kind regards
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
> -- 
> Marcos Garcia
> Technical Sales Engineer; RHCE, RHCVA, ITIL
> Red Hat Canada, Inc
> -- 
>
> *Marcos Garcia
> *
> Technical Sales Engineer - eNovance, from Red Hat; RHCE, RHCVA, ITIL
>
> *PHONE : *(514) – 907 - 0068 *EMAIL :*mgarc...@redhat.com
>  - *SKYPE : *enovance-marcos.garcia**
> *ADDRESS :* 127 St-Pierre – Montréal (QC) H2Y 2L6, Canada *WEB
> : *www.enovance.com 
>
>
>
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases

[Anita Kuno]

On 02/06/2015 01:11 PM, George Shuklin wrote:
> 
> On 02/06/2015 04:21 PM, Steve Gordon wrote:
>>> It does look like that.  However, the intent here is to allow
>>> non-developer
>>> members of a Telco provide the use cases they need to accomplish.
>>> This way
>>> the Telco WG can identify gaps and file a proper spec into each of the
>>> OpenStack projects.
>> Indeed, what we're trying to do is help the non-developer members of
>> the group articulate their use cases and tease them out to a level
>> that is meaningful to someone who is not immersed in
>> telecommunications themselves. In this way we hope to in turn be able
>> to create meaningful specifications for the actual OpenStack projects
>> impacted.
>>
>> It's possible that some of these will be truly cross-project and
>> therefore head to openstack-specs but initial indications seem to be
>> that most will either be specific to a project, or cross only a couple
>> of projects (e.g. nova and neutron) - I am sure someone will come up
>> with some more exceptions to this statement to prove me wrong :).
>>
>>
> Ok, I definitively out of telco business, and I indeed openstack
> operator. My first question: what you want to do, what problems you want
> to solve?
> 
> I was on one 'NVF' session in Paris, and I've expected it to be about
> SR-IOV and using VF (virtual functions) of network cards for guest
> acceleration. But instead it was something I just didn't got at all
> (sorry, Ericsson). So, what are you want to do? Not in terms of
> 'business solution', but on very low level. Run some specific appliance?
> Add VoIP support to Neutron? Make something differ?
> 
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
It sounds to me like what Marc wants to do is move to a different tool
to improve the communication process.

If you do decide that creating a repo is the way forward and need a hand
with that Marc, do let me know. I'm happy to help.

Thanks,
Anita.

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases

[Steve Gordon]

- Original Message -
> From: "Paul Belanger" 
> To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> 
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:25 AM, George Shuklin
>  wrote:
> > On 02/06/2015 04:12 PM, Steve Gordon wrote:
> >>
> >> - Original Message -
> >>>
> >>> From: "George Shuklin" 
> >>> To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> >>>
> >>> Sorry guys. I think most of the ops here have no idea what you talking
> >>> about. Telcos is telcos, ops is ops. Different worlds, different
> >>> problems, different terminology.
> >>
> >> Hi George,
> >>
> >> The telco working group is intended to bridge the gap between
> >> telcommunications operators and the openstack community, something we've
> >> been working on in some form since Atlanta. Once you boil away the TLAs
> >> many
> >> of their core requirements are not significantly different for what you
> >> might consider "normal" operators, or at least operators in other
> >> verticals
> >> like high performance computing.
> >>
> >> We primarily communicated on the -dev list prior to Paris but the feedback
> >> we got in the session there (on the operators track no less!) was that
> >> most
> >> people involved were more comfortable communicating in the context of the
> >> operators M/L than mixed in with the development traffic. If certain types
> >> of operators are not welcome in the openstack operators community then I
> >> think that would be a shame.
> >>
> >>
> > I think it not really possible. If you talking about 'openstack' as
> > 'Openstack developers', may be. But for operators all telco stuff is just
> > completely foreign. I do not understand what they doing and I don't need
> > them for my job. Sorry.
> >
> Interesting, I was actually talking for some friends about the
> business of 'telco' and OpenStack recently.  Like some operators have
> indicated, the world of 'telco' is foreign to them but since my
> background come from the VoIP / telco environment I can see where you
> are coming from.
> 
> I'm going to look at your proposal, and see if I can make some
> comments.  But, I am personally interested in this topic, more as a
> FYI.

Right, and on face value many of the use cases are still too far removed in 
terms of domain specific language, acronyms, etc. from where we want them to be 
to be broadly understandable and actionable - but we're trying to start 
somewhere and work on that :).

I think the more broadly applicable/interesting conversation from Marc's 
original question is how/where are operators coming at OpenStack from other 
directions documenting their use cases that they ultimately want to drive 
changes or new features in OpenStack with for community consumption? 

Thanks,

Steve

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases

[Matt Van Winkle]

On 2/6/15 12:09 PM, "Tim Bell"  wrote:

>> -Original Message-
>> From: Paul Belanger [mailto:paul.belan...@polybeacon.com]
>> Sent: 06 February 2015 18:52
>> To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of
>> TelcoWG use cases
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:25 AM, George Shuklin
>>
>> wrote:
>> > On 02/06/2015 04:12 PM, Steve Gordon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> - Original Message -
>> >>>
>> >>> From: "George Shuklin" 
>> >>> To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>> >>>
>> >>> Sorry guys. I think most of the ops here have no idea what you
>> >>> talking about. Telcos is telcos, ops is ops. Different worlds,
>> >>> different problems, different terminology.
>> >>
>> >> Hi George,
>> >>
>> >> The telco working group is intended to bridge the gap between
>> >> telcommunications operators and the openstack community, something
>> >> we've been working on in some form since Atlanta. Once you boil away
>> >> the TLAs many of their core requirements are not significantly
>> >> different for what you might consider "normal" operators, or at least
>> >> operators in other verticals like high performance computing.
>> >>
>> >> We primarily communicated on the -dev list prior to Paris but the
>> >> feedback we got in the session there (on the operators track no
>> >> less!) was that most people involved were more comfortable
>> >> communicating in the context of the operators M/L than mixed in with
>> >> the development traffic. If certain types of operators are not
>> >> welcome in the openstack operators community then I think that would
>>be a
>> shame.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > I think it not really possible. If you talking about 'openstack' as
>> > 'Openstack developers', may be. But for operators all telco stuff is
>> > just completely foreign. I do not understand what they doing and I
>> > don't need them for my job. Sorry.
>> >
>> Interesting, I was actually talking for some friends about the business
>>of 'telco'
>> and OpenStack recently.  Like some operators have indicated, the world
>>of
>> 'telco' is foreign to them but since my background come from the VoIP /
>>telco
>> environment I can see where you are coming from.
>> 
>> I'm going to look at your proposal, and see if I can make some
>>comments.  But, I
>> am personally interested in this topic, more as a FYI.
>> 
>
>I find a risk in splitting our community into too many pieces. The High
>Performance needs are different from the Telcos from the Finance sector
>but I think we can learn hugely from others. The work that Telcos do for
>SR-IOV and low latency is a major benefit for the HPC Infiniband use
>cases. Best of all is if we can make our requirements sufficiently
>generic to cover multiple user communities.
>
>So, Let's tag the subject lines with [telco] so people can skip if they
>wish but I think we have lots in common to run production clouds even if
>the final businesses are different.
>
>Tim

I would agree.  We are doing the same thing with the Large Deployments
Team - keeping a group of folks focused on issues, wants, needs of large
OpenStack deployments, but doing it as much as possible within the larger
Ops community with some of the same tactics as mentioned above.

Thanks!
VW

>
>> --
>> Paul Belanger | PolyBeacon, Inc.
>> Jabber: paul.belan...@polybeacon.com | IRC: pabelanger (Freenode)
>> Github: https://github.com/pabelanger | Twitter:
>> https://twitter.com/pabelanger
>> 
>> ___
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>___
>OpenStack-operators mailing list
>OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators


___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases

[George Shuklin]

On 02/06/2015 04:21 PM, Steve Gordon wrote:

It does look like that.  However, the intent here is to allow non-developer
members of a Telco provide the use cases they need to accomplish. This way
the Telco WG can identify gaps and file a proper spec into each of the
OpenStack projects.

Indeed, what we're trying to do is help the non-developer members of the group 
articulate their use cases and tease them out to a level that is meaningful to 
someone who is not immersed in telecommunications themselves. In this way we 
hope to in turn be able to create meaningful specifications for the actual 
OpenStack projects impacted.

It's possible that some of these will be truly cross-project and therefore head 
to openstack-specs but initial indications seem to be that most will either be 
specific to a project, or cross only a couple of projects (e.g. nova and 
neutron) - I am sure someone will come up with some more exceptions to this 
statement to prove me wrong :).


Ok, I definitively out of telco business, and I indeed openstack 
operator. My first question: what you want to do, what problems you want 
to solve?


I was on one 'NVF' session in Paris, and I've expected it to be about 
SR-IOV and using VF (virtual functions) of network cards for guest 
acceleration. But instead it was something I just didn't got at all 
(sorry, Ericsson). So, what are you want to do? Not in terms of 
'business solution', but on very low level. Run some specific appliance? 
Add VoIP support to Neutron? Make something differ?


___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases

[Tim Bell]

> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Belanger [mailto:paul.belan...@polybeacon.com]
> Sent: 06 February 2015 18:52
> To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of
> TelcoWG use cases
> 
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:25 AM, George Shuklin 
> wrote:
> > On 02/06/2015 04:12 PM, Steve Gordon wrote:
> >>
> >> - Original Message -
> >>>
> >>> From: "George Shuklin" 
> >>> To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> >>>
> >>> Sorry guys. I think most of the ops here have no idea what you
> >>> talking about. Telcos is telcos, ops is ops. Different worlds,
> >>> different problems, different terminology.
> >>
> >> Hi George,
> >>
> >> The telco working group is intended to bridge the gap between
> >> telcommunications operators and the openstack community, something
> >> we've been working on in some form since Atlanta. Once you boil away
> >> the TLAs many of their core requirements are not significantly
> >> different for what you might consider "normal" operators, or at least
> >> operators in other verticals like high performance computing.
> >>
> >> We primarily communicated on the -dev list prior to Paris but the
> >> feedback we got in the session there (on the operators track no
> >> less!) was that most people involved were more comfortable
> >> communicating in the context of the operators M/L than mixed in with
> >> the development traffic. If certain types of operators are not
> >> welcome in the openstack operators community then I think that would be a
> shame.
> >>
> >>
> > I think it not really possible. If you talking about 'openstack' as
> > 'Openstack developers', may be. But for operators all telco stuff is
> > just completely foreign. I do not understand what they doing and I
> > don't need them for my job. Sorry.
> >
> Interesting, I was actually talking for some friends about the business of 
> 'telco'
> and OpenStack recently.  Like some operators have indicated, the world of
> 'telco' is foreign to them but since my background come from the VoIP / telco
> environment I can see where you are coming from.
> 
> I'm going to look at your proposal, and see if I can make some comments.  
> But, I
> am personally interested in this topic, more as a FYI.
> 

I find a risk in splitting our community into too many pieces. The High 
Performance needs are different from the Telcos from the Finance sector but I 
think we can learn hugely from others. The work that Telcos do for SR-IOV and 
low latency is a major benefit for the HPC Infiniband use cases. Best of all is 
if we can make our requirements sufficiently generic to cover multiple user 
communities.

So, Let's tag the subject lines with [telco] so people can skip if they wish 
but I think we have lots in common to run production clouds even if the final 
businesses are different.

Tim

> --
> Paul Belanger | PolyBeacon, Inc.
> Jabber: paul.belan...@polybeacon.com | IRC: pabelanger (Freenode)
> Github: https://github.com/pabelanger | Twitter:
> https://twitter.com/pabelanger
> 
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases

[George Shuklin]

On 02/06/2015 07:52 PM, Paul Belanger wrote:



I think it not really possible. If you talking about 'openstack' as
'Openstack developers', may be. But for operators all telco stuff is just
completely foreign. I do not understand what they doing and I don't need
them for my job. Sorry.


Interesting, I was actually talking for some friends about the
business of 'telco' and OpenStack recently.  Like some operators have
indicated, the world of 'telco' is foreign to them but since my
background come from the VoIP / telco environment I can see where you
are coming from.

I'm going to look at your proposal, and see if I can make some
comments.  But, I am personally interested in this topic, more as a
FYI.

On second thought OS operators can have different background and 
specialization. I was to selfish, sorry. I came from DC/hosting area and 
still in it, and I assumed many guys here are the same - provide 
computational infrastructure for the hosting/applications. Some are more 
'enterprise', some more 'hosting multitenant', but mostly is 'how to 
manage virtualization'.


And telco, voip, it all like dark side of the moon. I'm better 
understand what programmers do than telcos. And it is interesting, 
because NOC's (networking guys, again, DC-style) are not telcos.


Anyway, sorry for been too rude.

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases

[Paul Belanger]

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:25 AM, George Shuklin
 wrote:
> On 02/06/2015 04:12 PM, Steve Gordon wrote:
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>>
>>> From: "George Shuklin" 
>>> To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>>>
>>> Sorry guys. I think most of the ops here have no idea what you talking
>>> about. Telcos is telcos, ops is ops. Different worlds, different
>>> problems, different terminology.
>>
>> Hi George,
>>
>> The telco working group is intended to bridge the gap between
>> telcommunications operators and the openstack community, something we've
>> been working on in some form since Atlanta. Once you boil away the TLAs many
>> of their core requirements are not significantly different for what you
>> might consider "normal" operators, or at least operators in other verticals
>> like high performance computing.
>>
>> We primarily communicated on the -dev list prior to Paris but the feedback
>> we got in the session there (on the operators track no less!) was that most
>> people involved were more comfortable communicating in the context of the
>> operators M/L than mixed in with the development traffic. If certain types
>> of operators are not welcome in the openstack operators community then I
>> think that would be a shame.
>>
>>
> I think it not really possible. If you talking about 'openstack' as
> 'Openstack developers', may be. But for operators all telco stuff is just
> completely foreign. I do not understand what they doing and I don't need
> them for my job. Sorry.
>
Interesting, I was actually talking for some friends about the
business of 'telco' and OpenStack recently.  Like some operators have
indicated, the world of 'telco' is foreign to them but since my
background come from the VoIP / telco environment I can see where you
are coming from.

I'm going to look at your proposal, and see if I can make some
comments.  But, I am personally interested in this topic, more as a
FYI.

-- 
Paul Belanger | PolyBeacon, Inc.
Jabber: paul.belan...@polybeacon.com | IRC: pabelanger (Freenode)
Github: https://github.com/pabelanger | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pabelanger

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

[Openstack-operators] OpenStack Community Weekly Newsletter (Jan 30 - Feb 6)

[Stefano Maffulli]

OpenStack "L" naming poll 
We'd like your help again in selecting the right name for the
development cycle and release coming after "Kilo". Our next summit will
happen in Vancouver, BC (Canada) in May. L candidate names were
proposed, selected and checked for various issues... leaving 4
candidates on the final public poll. Please take a moment to participate
to our poll: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/openstack-l-naming

Take these OpenStack Infrastructure tools and run!

When you’ve got thousands of proposed patchsets, comments and test
environments flooding in every day, you need the right tools to handle
them. OpenStack created these free software tools to handle its
burgeoning scale - here’s what they can do for you.

How to craft a successful OpenStack Summit proposal

The community has plenty to say: there were over 1,000 proposals for
less than 200 talks at the Paris Summit in November 2014. For the
upcoming Summit in Vancouver, there are 17 Summit tracks, from community
building and security to hands-on labs. The deadline for proposals is
February 9.

Musings and Predictions from Superuser's Editorial Advisors

We spoke to Superuser’s editorial advisory board to hear their
perspectives on the Kilo release and what they’re looking forward to as
the Vancouver Summit approaches in May.


The Road to Vancouver

  * Call For Speakers open until February 9 – TWO MORE DAYS!
  * Applications for OpenStack Travel Support Program
  * Vancouver Summit Sponsorships Now Available
  * Canada Visa Information
  * Official Hotel Room Blocks
  * Next batch of invites to Kilo contributors will be sent after a
new milestone is released

Relevant Conversations

  * All About That Loop. Lessons from the OpenStack Product
Mid-Cycle
  * Finding people to work on the EC2 API in Nova
  * do we really need project tags in the governance repository? 
  * “Vanilla OpenStack” Doesn’t Exist and Never Will
  * The API WG mission statement 

Deadlines and Development Priorities

  * [cinder] Kilo Deadlines need to have a CI by end of K-3, March
19th 2015
  * OpenStack 2014.2.2 released [Stable]
  * Kilo-2 development milestone available 

Reports From Previous Events

  * Big in Japan: OpenStack Days in Tokyo double in size
  * OpenStack Nova Mid-cycle Meetup, Day 3

Security Advisories and Notices

  * [OSSN 0043] glibc 'GHOST' vulnerability can allow remote code
execution 

Tips ‘n Tricks

  * By Lars Kellogg-Stedman: Installing nova-docker in N easy steps
and Filtering libvirt XML in Nova
  * By Tim Bell: Choosing the right image
  * By Craige McWhirter: Attaching Multiple Network Interfaces and
Floating IPs to OpenStack Instances with Neutron
  * By Sébastien Han: OpenStack and Ceph: RBD discard

Upcoming Events

The 2015 events plan is now available on the Global Events Calendar
wiki.


  * Feb 11, 2015 HandsOn Prescriptive Topology Mgr Mountain View,
CA, US
  * Feb 11, 2015 CloudCamp Bangladesh @Digital World Dhaka, BD
  * Feb 18, 2015 First OpenStack BW Meetup Stuttgart,
Baden-Württemberg, DE
  * Feb 19 - 20, 2015 World Techies Forum Mumbai, Maharashtra, IN
  * Mar 04, 2015 OpenStack Finland meetup Helsinki, Uusimaa, FI
  * Mar 11 - 12, 2015 Cloud Expo Europe London, GB
  * Mar 26, 2015 PDX OpenStack Hackathon Portland, OR, US
  * Apr 08 - 16, 2015 PyCon 2015 Montreal, Quebec, CA
  * Apr 13 - 14, 2015 OpenStack Live Santa Clara, CA, US
  * Apr 21 - 22, 2015 CONNECT 2015 Melbourne, Victoria, AU
  * Apr 22 - 23, 2015 China SDNNFV Conference Beijing, CN
  * May 05 - 07, 2015 CeBIT AU 2015 Sydney, NSW, AU
  * May 18 - 22, 2015 OpenStack Summit May 2015 Vancouver, BC
  * Jun 11, 2015 OpenStack DACH Day 2015 Berlin, DE
  * Jul 20 - 24, 2015 OSCON 2015 Portland, OR, US
  * Aug 10 - 13, 2015 Gartner Catalyst Conference San Diego, CA, US
  * Sep 17, 2015 OpenStack Benelux Conference 2015 Bussum, NL
  * Oct 04 - 08, 2015 Gartner SymposiumITxpo Orlando, FL, US
  * Nov 15 - 20, 2015 Supercomputing 15 Austin, TX, US

Other News

  * OpenStack Foundation 2014 Annual Report 
  * Hypervisor support matrix now in GIT 
  * Announcing 61 new infra puppet modules 
  * New small project: stackquery-dashboard
  * What Do OpenStack Operators Do All Day?
  * Playing with QueueController
  * Ubuntu OpenStack Charms: 15.01 release
  * Python 3 is dead, long live Python 3 
  * What's Up Doc? Jan 30 2015 

Got Answers?

Ask OpenStack is the go-to destination for OpenStack users. Interesting
questions waiting for answers:


  * Helion baremetal stuck on undercloud install - no valid host
found
  * vpn service restarted in any tenant when add/updating/del ipsec
connection - openstack juno 2014.2.1
  * heat SoftwareDeployment executed twice when depends_on property
 

Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases

[George Shuklin]

On 02/06/2015 04:12 PM, Steve Gordon wrote:

- Original Message -

From: "George Shuklin" 
To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org

Sorry guys. I think most of the ops here have no idea what you talking
about. Telcos is telcos, ops is ops. Different worlds, different
problems, different terminology.

Hi George,

The telco working group is intended to bridge the gap between telcommunications operators 
and the openstack community, something we've been working on in some form since Atlanta. 
Once you boil away the TLAs many of their core requirements are not significantly 
different for what you might consider "normal" operators, or at least operators 
in other verticals like high performance computing.

We primarily communicated on the -dev list prior to Paris but the feedback we 
got in the session there (on the operators track no less!) was that most people 
involved were more comfortable communicating in the context of the operators 
M/L than mixed in with the development traffic. If certain types of operators 
are not welcome in the openstack operators community then I think that would be 
a shame.


I think it not really possible. If you talking about 'openstack' as 
'Openstack developers', may be. But for operators all telco stuff is 
just completely foreign. I do not understand what they doing and I don't 
need them for my job. Sorry.


___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases

[Steve Gordon]

- Original Message -
> From: "Anthony Veiga" 
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
> 
> 
> > On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:17 , Jeremy Stanley  wrote:
> > 
> > On 2015-02-06 12:11:40 +0100 (+0100), Marc Koderer wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Therefore I uploaded one of them (Session Border Controller) to
> >> the Gerrit system into the sandbox repo:
> >> 
> >>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/152940/1
> > [...]
> > 
> > This looks a lot like the beginnings of a specification which has
> > implications for multiple OpenStack projects. Would proposing a
> > cross-project spec in the openstack/openstack-specs repository be an
> > appropriate alternative?\
> 
> It does look like that.  However, the intent here is to allow non-developer
> members of a Telco provide the use cases they need to accomplish. This way
> the Telco WG can identify gaps and file a proper spec into each of the
> OpenStack projects.

Indeed, what we're trying to do is help the non-developer members of the group 
articulate their use cases and tease them out to a level that is meaningful to 
someone who is not immersed in telecommunications themselves. In this way we 
hope to in turn be able to create meaningful specifications for the actual 
OpenStack projects impacted.

It's possible that some of these will be truly cross-project and therefore head 
to openstack-specs but initial indications seem to be that most will either be 
specific to a project, or cross only a couple of projects (e.g. nova and 
neutron) - I am sure someone will come up with some more exceptions to this 
statement to prove me wrong :).

Thanks,

Steve

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases

[Steve Gordon]

- Original Message -
> From: "George Shuklin" 
> To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> 
> Sorry guys. I think most of the ops here have no idea what you talking
> about. Telcos is telcos, ops is ops. Different worlds, different
> problems, different terminology.

Hi George,

The telco working group is intended to bridge the gap between telcommunications 
operators and the openstack community, something we've been working on in some 
form since Atlanta. Once you boil away the TLAs many of their core requirements 
are not significantly different for what you might consider "normal" operators, 
or at least operators in other verticals like high performance computing.

We primarily communicated on the -dev list prior to Paris but the feedback we 
got in the session there (on the operators track no less!) was that most people 
involved were more comfortable communicating in the context of the operators 
M/L than mixed in with the development traffic. If certain types of operators 
are not welcome in the openstack operators community then I think that would be 
a shame.

Thanks,

Steve

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2015-02-06 12:11:40 +0100 (+0100), Marc Koderer wrote:
[...]
> Therefore I uploaded one of them (Session Border Controller) to
> the Gerrit system into the sandbox repo:
> 
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/152940/1
[...]

This looks a lot like the beginnings of a specification which has
implications for multiple OpenStack projects. Would proposing a
cross-project spec in the openstack/openstack-specs repository be an
appropriate alternative?

>  - we create a project under Stackforge called telcowg-usecases
>  - we link blueprint related to this use case
>  - we build a core team and approve/prioritize them

I suppose this somewhat parallels how the API Working Group has
decided to operate, so perhaps you just need a dedicated repository
for Telco Working Group documents in general... some of which would
percolate to cross-project specs (or maybe just related per-project
specs) once sufficiently refined for a broader audience?
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases

[George Shuklin]

Sorry guys. I think most of the ops here have no idea what you talking 
about. Telcos is telcos, ops is ops. Different worlds, different 
problems, different terminology.


On 02/06/2015 01:11 PM, Marc Koderer wrote:

Hello everyone,

we are currently facing the issue that we don’t know how to proceed with
our telco WG use cases. There are many of them already defined but the
reviews via Etherpad doesn’t seem to work.

I suggest to do a review on them with the usual OpenStack tooling.
Therefore I uploaded one of them (Session Border Controller) to the
Gerrit system into the sandbox repo:

 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/152940/1

I would really like to see how many review we can get on it.
If this works out my idea is the following:

  - we create a project under Stackforge called telcowg-usecases
  - we link blueprint related to this use case
  - we build a core team and approve/prioritize them

Regards
Marc
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators



___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

[Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases

[Marc Koderer]

Hello everyone,

we are currently facing the issue that we don’t know how to proceed with
our telco WG use cases. There are many of them already defined but the
reviews via Etherpad doesn’t seem to work.

I suggest to do a review on them with the usual OpenStack tooling.
Therefore I uploaded one of them (Session Border Controller) to the
Gerrit system into the sandbox repo:

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/152940/1

I would really like to see how many review we can get on it.
If this works out my idea is the following:

 - we create a project under Stackforge called telcowg-usecases
 - we link blueprint related to this use case
 - we build a core team and approve/prioritize them

Regards
Marc
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] How to handle updates of public images?

[George Shuklin]

Hello. We're forced to use _base because nova wants them. But disks are 
raw and _base is just overhead.


Migration (we use cold migration with instance shutdown) with deleted 
images was is broken in havana, but we're using patch from 
icehouse (see attachment and 
https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1329313). I still didn't test it 
with juno (in process).


On 02/06/2015 12:11 AM, Joe Topjian wrote:
I'm curious: are you using _base files? We're not and we're able to 
block migrate instances based on deleted images or images that were 
public but are now private.


On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Belmiro Moreira 
> wrote:


We don't delete public images from Glance because it breaks
migrate/resize and block live migration. Not tested with upstream
Kilo, though.
As consequence, our public image list has been growing over time...

In order to manage image releases we use "glance image properties"
to tag them.

Some relevant reviews:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150337/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90321/

Belmiro
CERN

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Kris G. Lindgren
mailto:klindg...@godaddy.com>> wrote:

In the case of a raw backed qcow2 image (pretty sure that¹s
the default)
the instances root disk as seen inside the vm is made up of
changes made
on the instance disk (qcow2 layer) + the base image (raw). 
Also, remember

that as currently coded a resize migration will almost always be a
migrate.  However, since the vm is successfully running on the
old compute
node it *should* be a trivial change that if the backing image
is no
longer available via glance - copy that over to the new host
as well.


Kris Lindgren
Senior Linux Systems Engineer
GoDaddy, LLC.




On 2/5/15, 11:55 AM, "Clint Byrum" mailto:cl...@fewbar.com>> wrote:

>Excerpts from George Shuklin's message of 2015-02-05 05:09:51
-0800:
>> Hello everyone.
>>
>> We are updating our public images regularly (to provide them to
>> customers in up-to-date state). But there is a problem: If some
>>instance
>> starts from image it becomes 'used'. That means:
>> * That image is used as _base for nova
>> * If instance is reverted this image is used to recreate
instance's disk
>> * If instance is rescued this image is used as rescue base
>> * It is redownloaded during resize/migration (on a new
compute node)
>>
>
>Some thoughts:
>
>* All of the operations described should be operating on an
image ID. So
>the other suggestions of renaming seems the right way to go.
"Ubuntu
>14.04" becomes "Ubuntu 14.04 02052015" and the ID remains in
the system
>for a while. If something inside Nova doesn't work with IDs,
it seems
>like a bug.
>
>* rebuild, revert, rescue, and resize, are all very _not_
cloud things
>that increase the complexity of Nova. Perhaps we should all
reconsider
>their usefulness and encourage our users to spin up new
resources, use
>volumes and/or backup/restore methods, and then tear down old
instances.
>
>One way to encourage them is to make it clear that these
operations will
>only work for X amount of time before old versions images
will be removed.
>So if you spin up Ubuntu 14.04 today, reverts and resizes and
rescues
>are only guaranteed to work for 6 months. Then aggressively
clean up >
>6 month old image ids. To make this practical, you might even
require
>a role, something like "reverter", "rescuer", "resizer" and
only allow
>those roles to do these operations, and then before purging
images,
>notify those users in those roles of instances they won't be
able to
>resize/rescue/revert anymore.
>
>It also makes no sense to me why migrating an instance
requires its
>original image. The instance root disk is all that should matter.
>
>___
>OpenStack-operators mailing list
>OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org

>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators


___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-opera

[Openstack-operators] Help in accessing VM's from outside network (Devstack Juno)

[shiva m]

Hi,

I have installed Devstack Juno on my ubuntu 14.04 VM.
I have only one NIC its in bridged mode. Its IP is 172.28.217.11.
I want to use same subnet IP's as my floating IP's so that I can access
Devstack VM's from outside network, like my host machine.

When I installed Devstack Juno it has pre-allocated with 172.24.4.0/24
subnet, I can create VM's and can assign 172.24.4.0/24 floating IPs and can
ping all these VM's from the host.

Afte adding

*sudo iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE*

I can access outside network from VM's, but I can't access VM's from
outside network as they are NATtted. I tried giving 172.28.217.0/24 as my
floating IP's but still VM's are not pingable

Can any one please share the localrc and help me to use my subnet
172.28.217.0/24 as my floating IP's so that I have outside connectivity.


Thanks,
Shiva
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators