[Openstack] Individual Member Elections
The OpenStack Foundation has already attracted over 2,000 Individual Members in a little over a week. It's a very exciting moment for all of us involved in this effort, but also brings responsibility for each Individual and Corporate member. We've learned that someone may have violated the basic principles that hold this community together by trying to affect the nominations for the Individual Member elections. This is not what our community stands for, and we do not want to let the actions of one or a few tarnish the reputation of the thousands of individuals who are working to make OpenStack a great place to develop open source software. We are so determined to uphold our values that every member--individual or corporate--agrees to a code of conduct that prohibits abusive behavior and attempts to manipulate our elections. Our bylaws and election process have been defined and overseen by very experienced, independent legal counsel, Mark Radcliffe. We are completely committed to ensuring this process is open, fair and legitimate in accordance with our bylaws and Delaware corporate law. To ensure that the process is open, fair and legitimate, we are looking for individuals who would like to volunteer to be inspectors through the duration of the election to certify the outcome along with our counsel. No more than two affiliated members (working for the same company) can be inspectors, and any candidates who wish to run for election are also ineligible to be inspectors. As stated in the bylaws, Each inspector, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, shall take and sign an oath to faithfully execute the duties of inspector with strict impartiality and according to the best of his ability. This will require a firm time commitment from any volunteers, as they will need to be available at a number of points through the process to fulfill their duties in a timely manner. If you are interested in being an inspector, let me know. Any complaints or concerns about the election process are taken extremely seriously. Each complaint will be reviewed by our independent counsel and addressed or brought before the full Board at its first meeting as appropriate. To facilitate reporting we have created an email address that is received only by the Foundation's independent counsel for review: electionmoni...@openstack.org We are also working on process improvements for nominations and elections--more details on that coming soon. In the meantime, please speak up or contact me or Mark Radcliffe directly if you have any concerns. We have all come a very long way in establishing the OpenStack Foundation--our Foundation--and are right on the threshold of having it up and running. Now is the time for us all to pull together and to make sure we continue to build the kind of inclusive, supportive community that has come so far in the last 2 years. Thanks, Jonathan 210-317-2438 ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Individual Member Elections
Hi, The OpenStack Foundation has already attracted over 2,000 Individual Members in a little over a week. It's a very exciting moment for all of us involved in this effort, but also brings responsibility for each Individual and Corporate member. Awesome and kudos to everyone making it successful. We've learned that someone may have violated the basic principles that hold this community together by trying to affect the nominations for the Individual Member elections. This is not what our community stands for, and we do not want to let the actions of one or a few tarnish the reputation of the thousands of individuals who are working to make OpenStack a great place to develop open source software. We are so determined to uphold our values that every member--individual or corporate--agrees to a code of conduct that prohibits abusive behavior and attempts to manipulate our elections. Our bylaws and election process have been defined and overseen by very experienced, independent legal counsel, Mark Radcliffe. We are completely committed to ensuring this process is open, fair and legitimate in accordance with our bylaws and Delaware corporate law. To ensure that the process is open, fair and legitimate, we are looking for individuals who would like to volunteer to be inspectors through the duration of the election to certify the outcome along with our counsel. No more than two affiliated members (working for the same company) can be inspectors, and any candidates who wish to run for election are also ineligible to be inspectors. As stated in the bylaws, Each inspector, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, shall take and sign an oath to faithfully execute the duties of inspector with strict impartiality and according to the best of his ability. This will require a firm time commitment from any volunteers, as they will need to be available at a number of points through the process to fulfill their duties in a timely manner. If you are interested in being an inspector, let me know. Any complaints or concerns about the election process are taken extremely seriously. Each complaint will be reviewed by our independent counsel and addressed or brought before the full Board at its first meeting as appropriate. To facilitate reporting we have created an email address that is received only by the Foundation's independent counsel for review: electionmoni...@openstack.org We are also working on process improvements for nominations and elections--more details on that coming soon. In the meantime, please speak up or contact me or Mark Radcliffe directly if you have any concerns. We have all come a very long way in establishing the OpenStack Foundation--our Foundation--and are right on the threshold of having it up and running. Now is the time for us all to pull together and to make sure we continue to build the kind of inclusive, supportive community that has come so far in the last 2 years. +1 Cheers!! Atul Jha aka koolhead17 http://www.csscorp.com/common/email-disclaimer.php ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Elections
Hi Atul, On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 07:21 +, Atul Jha wrote: We've learned that someone may have violated the basic principles that hold this community together by trying to affect the nominations for the Individual Member elections. This is not what our community stands for, and we do not want to let the actions of one or a few tarnish the reputation of the thousands of individuals who are working to make OpenStack a great place to develop open source software. We are so determined to uphold our values that every member--individual or corporate--agrees to a code of conduct that prohibits abusive behavior and attempts to manipulate our elections. Well said, we cannot allow the entire community to be tainted by the behaviour of an individual. Our bylaws and election process have been defined and overseen by very experienced, independent legal counsel, Mark Radcliffe. My understanding from: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/openstack/foundation/14647 is that Mark was retained to provide additional independent legal advice to the drafting committee. We are completely committed to ensuring this process is open, fair and legitimate in accordance with our bylaws and Delaware corporate law. To ensure that the process is open, fair and legitimate, we are looking for individuals who would like to volunteer to be inspectors through the duration of the election to certify the outcome along with our counsel. No more than two affiliated members (working for the same company) can be inspectors, and any candidates who wish to run for election are also ineligible to be inspectors. As stated in the bylaws, Each inspector, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, shall take and sign an oath to faithfully execute the duties of inspector with strict impartiality and according to the best of his ability. This will require a firm time commitment from any volunteers, as they will need to be available at a number of points through the process to fulfill their duties in a timely manner. If you are interested in being an inspector, let me know. Any complaints or concerns about the election process are taken extremely seriously. Each complaint will be reviewed by our independent counsel and addressed or brought before the full Board at its first meeting as appropriate. To facilitate reporting we have created an email address that is received only by the Foundation's independent counsel for review: electionmoni...@openstack.org We are also working on process improvements for nominations and elections--more details on that coming soon. In the meantime, please speak up or contact me or Mark Radcliffe directly if you have any concerns. We have all come a very long way in establishing the OpenStack Foundation--our Foundation--and are right on the threshold of having it up and running. Now is the time for us all to pull together and to make sure we continue to build the kind of inclusive, supportive community that has come so far in the last 2 years. I don't mean to give offence, but I must admit the above strikes me as rather bizarre. The role inspector you refer to above seems to be about an individual who may be appointed to make a written report of a meeting and any voting that happens there, including by proxy. You are laying out a mechanism for handling complaints about the election process which involves Mark Radcliffe being the sole recipient of those complaints. I know neither what your current role in the Foundation is nor how Mark was appointed to this position. Further, the mechanism above does not address the issue at hand - how should the Foundation handle a complaint about a member of our community[1]? Personally, I assume good good faith and there's some reasonable explanation for how this all came about, but we need to be careful here - having people (apparently arbitrarily) assume roles in the Foundation and establish new processes doesn't help matters IMHO. ... Seeing the brouhaha on twitter last night, I had hoped the target of the allegation would be named and we could sort this out in the open. However, a name doesn't appear forthcoming and the text of the complaint itself has been deleted. Given the code of conduct that members are subject: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/CommunityCodeOfConduct and the bit about OpenStack members ... are ultimately accountable to the OpenStack Board of Directors, I think the way forward is for the complaint to be made formally to the board so that they can investigate the matter and report on their actions to address it. The bylaws name Jonathan Bryce, Mark Collier and Alice King as the Initial Board. The complaint should be made to them. If the complainant isn't satisfied with that and can't make the complaint public, then we may need another process. That would need some open discussion to figure out and IMHO may just be that the complaint is taken to a meeting of the corporate
Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Elections
On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 11:43 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: Hi Atul, On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 07:21 +, Atul Jha wrote: We are also working on process improvements for nominations and elections--more details on that coming soon. In the meantime, please speak up or contact me or Mark Radcliffe directly if you have any concerns. We have all come a very long way in establishing the OpenStack Foundation--our Foundation--and are right on the threshold of having it up and running. Now is the time for us all to pull together and to make sure we continue to build the kind of inclusive, supportive community that has come so far in the last 2 years. [..] You are laying out a mechanism for handling complaints about the election process which involves Mark Radcliffe being the sole recipient of those complaints. I know neither what your current role in the Foundation is nor how Mark was appointed to this position. Wow. See how important it is to properly quote emails? :-( My apologies to all. I see now that Jonathan sent the original email. That makes a whole lot more sense. I hope this gets resolved quickly. Regards, Mark. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] [Nova] proposal to provide project specific instance type
Hi Jay and Nathan, Thank you so much for the inputs. FYI. I've already fired a new blueprint to track this feature. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/project-specific-flavors -- unicell On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: I know folks have started (finished?) work on the per-user quota ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Elections
Jonathon, How is it possible for someone to taint the nomination process? Are we not allowed to promote our nominations? In light of the fact that the process is closed and we can't know how many nominations we had received, it seems fine to me to encourage nominations. Have some unwritten rules been broken, I am completely confused? Saying someone violated the basic principles that hold our community together is an extreme statement. Our community does things in the open, by default. Had we followed our basic principles in this nomination process, I can't help but think we wouldn't be in this situation. Rick On 07/29/2012 01:18 AM, Jonathan Bryce wrote: The OpenStack Foundation has already attracted over 2,000 Individual Members in a little over a week. It's a very exciting moment for all of us involved in this effort, but also brings responsibility for each Individual and Corporate member. We've learned that someone may have violated the basic principles that hold this community together by trying to affect the nominations for the Individual Member elections. This is not what our community stands for, and we do not want to let the actions of one or a few tarnish the reputation of the thousands of individuals who are working to make OpenStack a great place to develop open source software. We are so determined to uphold our values that every member--individual or corporate--agrees to a code of conduct that prohibits abusive behavior and attempts to manipulate our elections. Our bylaws and election process have been defined and overseen by very experienced, independent legal counsel, Mark Radcliffe. We are completely committed to ensuring this process is open, fair and legitimate in accordance with our bylaws and Delaware corporate law. To ensure that the process is open, fair and legitimate, we are looking for individuals who would like to volunteer to be inspectors through the duration of the election to certify the outcome along with our counsel. No more than two affiliated members (working for the same company) can be inspectors, and any candidates who wish to run for election are also ineligible to be inspectors. As stated in the bylaws, Each inspector, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, shall take and sign an oath to faithfully execute the duties of inspector with strict impartiality and according to the best of his ability. This will require a firm time commitment from any volunteers, as they will need to be available at a number of points through the process to fulfill their duties in a timely manner. If you are interested in being an inspector, let me know. Any complaints or concerns about the election process are taken extremely seriously. Each complaint will be reviewed by our independent counsel and addressed or brought before the full Board at its first meeting as appropriate. To facilitate reporting we have created an email address that is received only by the Foundation's independent counsel for review: electionmoni...@openstack.org We are also working on process improvements for nominations and elections--more details on that coming soon. In the meantime, please speak up or contact me or Mark Radcliffe directly if you have any concerns. We have all come a very long way in establishing the OpenStack Foundation--our Foundation--and are right on the threshold of having it up and running. Now is the time for us all to pull together and to make sure we continue to build the kind of inclusive, supportive community that has come so far in the last 2 years. Thanks, Jonathan 210-317-2438 ___ Foundation mailing list foundat...@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Elections
On Jul 29, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Rick Clark wrote: Jonathon, How is it possible for someone to taint the nomination process? Are we not allowed to promote our nominations? In light of the fact that the process is closed and we can't know how many nominations we had received, it seems fine to me to encourage nominations. Have some unwritten rules been broken, I am completely confused? Certainly no rules against promoting your nomination or candidacy (or someone else's for that matter). Campaign away! The situation in question is a completely different matter and involves a serious allegation of harassment that we are still trying to get details on. Saying someone violated the basic principles that hold our community together is an extreme statement. Our community does things in the open, by default. Had we followed our basic principles in this nomination process, I can't help but think we wouldn't be in this situation. I agree that our tools and processes can get better and more transparent, and as I mentioned below, we are working on that. Hope to have an update later today or tomorrow on that to send out. I am not sure that it would have prevented this situation as it involves behavior outside of the mechanics of the nominations. Jonathan Rick On 07/29/2012 01:18 AM, Jonathan Bryce wrote: The OpenStack Foundation has already attracted over 2,000 Individual Members in a little over a week. It's a very exciting moment for all of us involved in this effort, but also brings responsibility for each Individual and Corporate member. We've learned that someone may have violated the basic principles that hold this community together by trying to affect the nominations for the Individual Member elections. This is not what our community stands for, and we do not want to let the actions of one or a few tarnish the reputation of the thousands of individuals who are working to make OpenStack a great place to develop open source software. We are so determined to uphold our values that every member--individual or corporate--agrees to a code of conduct that prohibits abusive behavior and attempts to manipulate our elections. Our bylaws and election process have been defined and overseen by very experienced, independent legal counsel, Mark Radcliffe. We are completely committed to ensuring this process is open, fair and legitimate in accordance with our bylaws and Delaware corporate law. To ensure that the process is open, fair and legitimate, we are looking for individuals who would like to volunteer to be inspectors through the duration of the election to certify the outcome along with our counsel. No more than two affiliated members (working for the same company) can be inspectors, and any candidates who wish to run for election are also ineligible to be inspectors. As stated in the bylaws, Each inspector, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, shall take and sign an oath to faithfully execute the duties of inspector with strict impartiality and according to the best of his ability. This will require a firm time commitment from any volunteers, as they will need to be available at a number of points through the process to fulfill their duties in a timely manner. If you are interested in being an inspector, let me know. Any complaints or concerns about the election process are taken extremely seriously. Each complaint will be reviewed by our independent counsel and addressed or brought before the full Board at its first meeting as appropriate. To facilitate reporting we have created an email address that is received only by the Foundation's independent counsel for review: electionmoni...@openstack.org We are also working on process improvements for nominations and elections--more details on that coming soon. In the meantime, please speak up or contact me or Mark Radcliffe directly if you have any concerns. We have all come a very long way in establishing the OpenStack Foundation--our Foundation--and are right on the threshold of having it up and running. Now is the time for us all to pull together and to make sure we continue to build the kind of inclusive, supportive community that has come so far in the last 2 years. Thanks, Jonathan 210-317-2438 ___ Foundation mailing list foundat...@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Elections
Thanks Jonathon, Apparently, I missed a lot by spending yesterday taking my kids to the movies and playing outside all day. It seems everyone else was on Twitter. I'm glad you are taking care of this. Cheers, Rick On 07/29/2012 11:21 AM, Jonathan Bryce wrote: On Jul 29, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Rick Clark wrote: Jonathon, How is it possible for someone to taint the nomination process? Are we not allowed to promote our nominations? In light of the fact that the process is closed and we can't know how many nominations we had received, it seems fine to me to encourage nominations. Have some unwritten rules been broken, I am completely confused? Certainly no rules against promoting your nomination or candidacy (or someone else's for that matter). Campaign away! The situation in question is a completely different matter and involves a serious allegation of harassment that we are still trying to get details on. Saying someone violated the basic principles that hold our community together is an extreme statement. Our community does things in the open, by default. Had we followed our basic principles in this nomination process, I can't help but think we wouldn't be in this situation. I agree that our tools and processes can get better and more transparent, and as I mentioned below, we are working on that. Hope to have an update later today or tomorrow on that to send out. I am not sure that it would have prevented this situation as it involves behavior outside of the mechanics of the nominations. Jonathan Rick On 07/29/2012 01:18 AM, Jonathan Bryce wrote: The OpenStack Foundation has already attracted over 2,000 Individual Members in a little over a week. It's a very exciting moment for all of us involved in this effort, but also brings responsibility for each Individual and Corporate member. We've learned that someone may have violated the basic principles that hold this community together by trying to affect the nominations for the Individual Member elections. This is not what our community stands for, and we do not want to let the actions of one or a few tarnish the reputation of the thousands of individuals who are working to make OpenStack a great place to develop open source software. We are so determined to uphold our values that every member--individual or corporate--agrees to a code of conduct that prohibits abusive behavior and attempts to manipulate our elections. Our bylaws and election process have been defined and overseen by very experienced, independent legal counsel, Mark Radcliffe. We are completely committed to ensuring this process is open, fair and legitimate in accordance with our bylaws and Delaware corporate law. To ensure that the process is open, fair and legitimate, we are looking for individuals who would like to volunteer to be inspectors through the duration of the election to certify the outcome along with our counsel. No more than two affiliated members (working for the same company) can be inspectors, and any candidates who wish to run for election are also ineligible to be inspectors. As stated in the bylaws, Each inspector, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, shall take and sign an oath to faithfully execute the duties of inspector with strict impartiality and according to the best of his ability. This will require a firm time commitment from any volunteers, as they will need to be available at a numb er of points through the process to fulfill their duties in a timely manner. If you are interested in being an inspector, let me know. Any complaints or concerns about the election process are taken extremely seriously. Each complaint will be reviewed by our independent counsel and addressed or brought before the full Board at its first meeting as appropriate. To facilitate reporting we have created an email address that is received only by the Foundation's independent counsel for review: electionmoni...@openstack.org We are also working on process improvements for nominations and elections--more details on that coming soon. In the meantime, please speak up or contact me or Mark Radcliffe directly if you have any concerns. We have all come a very long way in establishing the OpenStack Foundation--our Foundation--and are right on the threshold of having it up and running. Now is the time for us all to pull together and to make sure we continue to build the kind of inclusive, supportive community that has come so far in the last 2 years. Thanks, Jonathan 210-317-2438 ___ Foundation mailing list foundat...@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation ___ Foundation mailing list foundat...@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation signature.asc
Re: [Openstack] qpid_heartbeat...doesn't?
Looks like a typo. Could you try this. That seems better...although while the documentation says that qpid_heartbeat is Seconds between heartbeat messages [1], observed behavior suggests that it is actually *minutes* between messages. [1]: http://docs.openstack.org/essex/openstack-compute/admin/content/configuration-qpid.html -- Lars Kellogg-Stedman l...@seas.harvard.edu | Senior Technologist| http://ac.seas.harvard.edu/ Academic Computing | http://code.seas.harvard.edu/ Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences | ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] qpid_heartbeat...doesn't?
On 07/29/2012 07:14 PM, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote: Looks like a typo. Could you try this. That seems better...although while the documentation says that qpid_heartbeat is Seconds between heartbeat messages [1], observed behavior suggests that it is actually *minutes* between messages. [1]: http://docs.openstack.org/essex/openstack-compute/admin/content/configuration-qpid.html That's surprising as the qpid code does: if self.connection.heartbeat: times.append(time.time() + self.connection.heartbeat) Notice how time.time() is seconds, and so heartbeat must be given in seconds. Perhaps there is another issue with the scheduling of this? How are you monitoring the connection? cheers, Pádraig. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] [Bug 1030646] [NEW] Devstack vs. Horizon client versions
Hey! This might be fairly tricky to fix properly given the design of the devstack gate. I could be wrong, it might not be terrible now that we can release new client lib versions to PyPI more quickly. The devstack gate explicitly tests proposed change to trunk of one project against tip of trunk across all the other projects. That's great for the dev purpose, and can solidify through sequencing during the milestone-proposed period, but if we have people with standalone horizon installations that are tracking trunk more closely, we might need to do some more thinking. Could I request that you drop by the CI meeting on Tuesday so we can chat about it interactively? I think this is important and that we should do everything we can to get this right. Monty On 07/29/2012 06:34 PM, Gabriel Hurley wrote: Public bug reported: We patched this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/1027210 However, that fix worked for devstack and broke stand-alone installations of horizon because devstack pulled the clients from Github while Horizon's requirements file pulls them from PyPI. This is no good. Now anytime you try to list out images from glance (except when using devstack) you get this error: list() got an unexpected keyword argument 'page_size' We need to reconcile devstack with Horizon, and in the future Horizon will *only* accept changes that work with *released* client versions. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Openstack] Hiding complexity of paste config files from operators
All: I wanted to discuss the usability of the paste config files from an operator's point of view. The paste config files are opaque to administrators who are trying to stand an OpenStack cloud for the first time, since they expose a lot of implementation details about the middleware. I can follow the instructions in the Install and Deploy guide, but I have no idea what the options I don't edit are, and if the documentation has deviated from the implementation, I'm pretty much stuck. As an example, the install and deploy guide says to add authtoken to the pipeline:glance-api section in glance-api-paste.ini http://docs.openstack.org/essex/openstack-compute/install/content/configure-glance-files.html, the example in the docs looks like this: [pipeline:glance-api] pipeline = versionnegotiation authtoken auth-context apiv1app If I install from packages on precise, there's also some lines that look like this: [pipeline:glance-api-keystone] pipeline = versionnegotiation authtoken context apiv1app It looks similar, and it has keystone in there, so maybe that's intended to be used for keystone? And it looks pretty similar, but there's a auth-context instead of context. Maybe the pipeline:glance-api-keystone is used for something else in glance? In the end, I'm just going to slavishly follow the documentation, and I have no mental model of what these options do. On the other hand, the traditional configuration files (e.g., nova.conf) are (relatively) well-documented, have default values, and everything that's exposed is something that could potentially be changed by an administrator. In particular, there's generally a one-to-one correspondence between changing a configuration setting and changing the behavior of the system in a way that's meaningful for the operator. For example, enabling FlatDHCP in nova.conf is just setting a config option to one value: network_manager=nova.network.manager.FlatDHCPManager Assuming that the *-paste.ini files always need to be there, is there some way we could avoid requiring admins to edit these files, and instead make it more like editing the .conf files? For example, could the paste.ini files be generated from the corresponding .conf file as needed? Take care, Lorin -- Lorin Hochstein Lead Architect - Cloud Services Nimbis Services, Inc. www.nimbisservices.com ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] qpid_heartbeat...doesn't?
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 01:41:20AM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote: Perhaps there is another issue with the scheduling of this? That's likely. While I verified that the patch successfully fixed our connection timeout issue, I didn't look closely to see exactly where the behavior changed...and the connection that is standing out now belongs to nova-volume, whereas the timouts were happening with nova-compute. How are you monitoring the connection? Our firewall is a Cisco ASDM (6.1). I'm monitoring the connection by running: show conn lport 5672 Which gets me: TCP compute-hosts:630 10.243.16.151:39756 controllers:621 openstack-controller:5672 idle 0:00:00 Bytes 6410148 FLAGS - UBOI TCP compute-hosts:630 10.243.16.151:39881 controllers:621 openstack-controller:5672 idle 0:00:04 Bytes 10470 FLAGS - UBOI TCP compute-hosts:630 10.243.16.151:39755 controllers:621 openstack-controller:5672 idle 0:00:02 Bytes 9717108 FLAGS - UBOI TCP compute-hosts:630 10.243.16.151:39736 controllers:621 openstack-controller:5672 idle 0:03:59 Bytes 36206 FLAGS - UBOI TCP compute-hosts:630 10.243.16.151:39752 controllers:621 openstack-controller:5672 idle 0:00:03 Bytes 4313246 FLAGS - UBOI Where the fields are: protocol source interface source ip/port dest. interface dest ip/port idle idle time ... The connection from port 39736 on the compute host (which is the nova-volume process) regularly cycles up to 5 minutes of idle time before resetting to 0 (and the firewall sets the idle time to zero whenever any traffic passes across the connection). And indeed, if I run a packet trace on this connection, I can verify that packets are only showing up at five-minute intervals. -- Lars Kellogg-Stedman l...@seas.harvard.edu | Senior Technologist| http://ac.seas.harvard.edu/ Academic Computing | http://code.seas.harvard.edu/ Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences | ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Openstack-ubuntu-testing-notifications] Build Still Failing: precise_folsom_swift_trunk #25
Title: precise_folsom_swift_trunk General InformationBUILD FAILUREBuild URL:https://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/precise_folsom_swift_trunk/25/Project:precise_folsom_swift_trunkDate of build:Sun, 29 Jul 2012 22:01:54 -0400Build duration:1 min 49 secBuild cause:Started by an SCM changeBuilt on:pkg-builderHealth ReportWDescriptionScoreBuild stability: 3 out of the last 5 builds failed.40ChangesLogging improvements: handoffs and thread localsby z-launchpadedittest/unit/proxy/test_server.pyeditswift/common/utils.pyeditdoc/source/deployment_guide.rsteditetc/proxy-server.conf-sampleedittest/unit/common/test_utils.pyeditswift/proxy/server.pyConsole Output[...truncated 1194 lines...]hard linking test/unit/common/ring/test_builder.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/common/ringhard linking test/unit/common/ring/test_ring.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/common/ringhard linking test/unit/container/__init__.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/containerhard linking test/unit/container/test_auditor.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/containerhard linking test/unit/container/test_replicator.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/containerhard linking test/unit/container/test_server.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/containerhard linking test/unit/container/test_sync.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/containerhard linking test/unit/container/test_updater.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/containerhard linking test/unit/obj/__init__.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/objhard linking test/unit/obj/test_auditor.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/objhard linking test/unit/obj/test_expirer.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/objhard linking test/unit/obj/test_internal_client.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/objhard linking test/unit/obj/test_replicator.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/objhard linking test/unit/obj/test_server.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/objhard linking test/unit/obj/test_updater.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/objhard linking test/unit/proxy/__init__.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/proxyhard linking test/unit/proxy/test_server.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/proxyhard linking tools/pip-requires -> swift-1.6.1/toolshard linking tools/test-requires -> swift-1.6.1/toolscopying setup.cfg -> swift-1.6.1Writing swift-1.6.1/setup.cfgcreating distCreating tar archiveremoving 'swift-1.6.1' (and everything under it)ERROR:root:Error occurred during package creation/buildERROR:root:[Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/tmp/tmpIjw6IC/git/swift/dist/swift-1.5.1.tar.gz'INFO:root:Complete command log:INFO:root:Destroying schroot.bzr branch lp:~openstack-ubuntu-testing/swift/precise-folsom-proposed /tmp/tmpIjw6IC/swiftmk-build-deps -i -r -t apt-get -y /tmp/tmpIjw6IC/swift/debian/controlpython setup.py sdistTraceback (most recent call last): File "/var/lib/jenkins/tools/openstack-ubuntu-testing/bin/build-package", line 135, in raise eIOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/tmp/tmpIjw6IC/git/swift/dist/swift-1.5.1.tar.gz'Error in sys.excepthook:Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/apport_python_hook.py", line 68, in apport_excepthookbinary = os.path.realpath(os.path.join(os.getcwdu(), sys.argv[0]))OSError: [Errno 2] No such file or directoryOriginal exception was:Traceback (most recent call last): File "/var/lib/jenkins/tools/openstack-ubuntu-testing/bin/build-package", line 135, in raise eIOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/tmp/tmpIjw6IC/git/swift/dist/swift-1.5.1.tar.gz'Build step 'Execute shell' marked build as failureEmail was triggered for: FailureSending email for trigger: Failure-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-ubuntu-testing-notifications Post to : openstack-ubuntu-testing-notifications@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-ubuntu-testing-notifications More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Openstack-ubuntu-testing-notifications] Build Still Failing: precise_folsom_swift_trunk #26
Title: precise_folsom_swift_trunk General InformationBUILD FAILUREBuild URL:https://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/precise_folsom_swift_trunk/26/Project:precise_folsom_swift_trunkDate of build:Sun, 29 Jul 2012 22:31:53 -0400Build duration:1 min 46 secBuild cause:Started by an SCM changeBuilt on:pkg-builderHealth ReportWDescriptionScoreBuild stability: 4 out of the last 5 builds failed.20Changesupdated changelog with patch from reviewby meeditCHANGELOGConsole Output[...truncated 1194 lines...]hard linking test/unit/common/ring/test_builder.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/common/ringhard linking test/unit/common/ring/test_ring.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/common/ringhard linking test/unit/container/__init__.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/containerhard linking test/unit/container/test_auditor.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/containerhard linking test/unit/container/test_replicator.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/containerhard linking test/unit/container/test_server.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/containerhard linking test/unit/container/test_sync.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/containerhard linking test/unit/container/test_updater.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/containerhard linking test/unit/obj/__init__.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/objhard linking test/unit/obj/test_auditor.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/objhard linking test/unit/obj/test_expirer.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/objhard linking test/unit/obj/test_internal_client.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/objhard linking test/unit/obj/test_replicator.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/objhard linking test/unit/obj/test_server.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/objhard linking test/unit/obj/test_updater.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/objhard linking test/unit/proxy/__init__.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/proxyhard linking test/unit/proxy/test_server.py -> swift-1.6.1/test/unit/proxyhard linking tools/pip-requires -> swift-1.6.1/toolshard linking tools/test-requires -> swift-1.6.1/toolscopying setup.cfg -> swift-1.6.1Writing swift-1.6.1/setup.cfgcreating distCreating tar archiveremoving 'swift-1.6.1' (and everything under it)ERROR:root:Error occurred during package creation/buildERROR:root:[Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/tmp/tmpfEfqBJ/git/swift/dist/swift-1.5.1.tar.gz'INFO:root:Complete command log:INFO:root:Destroying schroot.bzr branch lp:~openstack-ubuntu-testing/swift/precise-folsom-proposed /tmp/tmpfEfqBJ/swiftmk-build-deps -i -r -t apt-get -y /tmp/tmpfEfqBJ/swift/debian/controlpython setup.py sdistTraceback (most recent call last): File "/var/lib/jenkins/tools/openstack-ubuntu-testing/bin/build-package", line 135, in raise eIOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/tmp/tmpfEfqBJ/git/swift/dist/swift-1.5.1.tar.gz'Error in sys.excepthook:Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/apport_python_hook.py", line 68, in apport_excepthookbinary = os.path.realpath(os.path.join(os.getcwdu(), sys.argv[0]))OSError: [Errno 2] No such file or directoryOriginal exception was:Traceback (most recent call last): File "/var/lib/jenkins/tools/openstack-ubuntu-testing/bin/build-package", line 135, in raise eIOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/tmp/tmpfEfqBJ/git/swift/dist/swift-1.5.1.tar.gz'Build step 'Execute shell' marked build as failureEmail was triggered for: FailureSending email for trigger: Failure-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-ubuntu-testing-notifications Post to : openstack-ubuntu-testing-notifications@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-ubuntu-testing-notifications More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
