Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:27:54 -0700 Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote: Agreed, a stable virt driver API is not feasible or healthy at this point, IMHO. However, it doesn't change that much as it is. I know I'll be making changes to virt drivers in the coming cycle due to objects and I have no problem submitting the corresponding changes to the nova-extra-drivers tree for those drivers alongside any that go for the main one. If the idea is to gate with nova-extra-drivers this could lead to a rather painful process to change the virt driver API. When all the drivers are in the same tree all of them can be updated at the same time as the infrastructure. If they are in separate trees and Nova gates on nova-extra-drivers then at least temporarily a backwards compatible API would have to remain so the nova-extra-drivers tests still passed. The changes would then be applied to nova-extra-drivers and finally a third changeset to remove the backwards compatible code. We see this in tempest/nova or tempest/cinder occasionally (not often as the APIs are stable) and its not very pretty. Ideally we'd be able to link two changesets for different projects so they can be processed as one. But without that ability I think splitting any drivers out and continuing to gate on them would be bad. Chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][Libvirt] Disabling nova-compute when a connection to libvirt is broken.
+1 for me. And I am willing to be a volunteer. 2013/10/12 Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Vladik Romanovsky vladik.romanov...@enovance.com wrote: Hello everyone, I have been recently working on a migration bug in nova (Bug #1233184). I noticed that compute service remains available, even if a connection to libvirt is broken. I thought that it might be better to disable the service (using conductor.manager.update_service()) and resume it once it's connected again. (maybe keep the host_stats periodic task running or create a dedicated one, once it succeed, the service will become available again). This way new vms wont be scheduled nor migrated to the disconnected host. Any thoughts on that? Sounds reasonable to me. If we can't reach libvirt there isn't much that nova-compute can / should do. Is anyone already working on that? Thank you, Vladik ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- ** *Lingxian Kong* Huawei Technologies Co.,LTD. IT Product Line CloudOS PDU China, Xi'an Mobile: +86-18602962792 Email: konglingx...@huawei.com; anlin.k...@gmail.com ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Nova] [Heat] Havana RC2 available
Happy Saturday everyone, Due to major issues detected in key features during RC1 testing, we just published new Havana release candidates for OpenStack Compute (Nova) and OpenStack Orchestration (Heat). You can find RC2 tarballs and lists of fixed bugs at: https://launchpad.net/nova/havana/havana-rc2 https://launchpad.net/heat/havana/havana-rc2 This is hopefully the last Havana release candidate for Nova and Heat. Unless a last-minute release-critical regression is found that warrant another release candidate respin, those RC2s will be formally included in the common OpenStack 2013.2 final release Thursday. You are therefore strongly encouraged to test and validate these tarballs. Alternatively, you can grab the code at: https://github.com/openstack/nova/tree/milestone-proposed https://github.com/openstack/heat/tree/milestone-proposed If you find a regression that could be considered release-critical, please file it at https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+filebug (or https://bugs.launchpad.net/heat/+filebug if the bug is in Heat) and tag it *havana-rc-potential* to bring it to the release crew's attention. Happy regression hunting, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Thanks for fixing my patch
Really a good idea! It's painful for us to summit a patch, then waiting for reviewing because of the time difference. It's more painful if we get a -1 after getting up. It's very appreciated that if someone could help, and we can help others, too. 2013/10/12 Nikhil Manchanda nik...@manchanda.me Just wanted to chime in that Trove also follows this approach and it's worked pretty well for us. +1 on Doug's suggestion to leave a comment on the patch so that two reviewers don't end up doing the same work fixing it. Cheers, -Nikhil On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Dolph Mathews dolph.math...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote: Recently in the TripleO meeting we identified situations where we need to make it very clear that it is ok to pick up somebody else's patch and finish it. We are broadly distributed, time-zone-wise, and I know other teams working on OpenStack projects have the same situation. So when one of us starts the day and sees an obvious issue with a patch, we have decided to take action, rather than always -1 and move on. We clarified for our core reviewers that this does not mean that now both of you cannot +2. We just need at least one person who hasn't been in the code to also +2 for an approval*. I think all projects can benefit from this model, as it will raise velocity. It is not perfect for everything, but it is really great when running up against deadlines or when a patch has a lot of churn and thus may take a long time to get through the rebase gauntlet. So, all of that said, I want to encourage all OpenStack developers to say thanks for fixing my patch when somebody else does so. It may seem obvious, but publicly expressing gratitude will make it clear that you do not take things personally and that we're all working together. Thanks for your time -Clint * If all core reviewers have been in on the patch, then any two +2's work. +1 across the board -- keystone-core follows this approach, especially around feature freeze / release candidate time. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- -Dolph ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- ** *Lingxian Kong* Huawei Technologies Co.,LTD. IT Product Line CloudOS PDU China, Xi'an Mobile: +86-18602962792 Email: konglingx...@huawei.com; anlin.k...@gmail.com ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Havana RC2 available
Hi, Probably the last before Monday: due to various issues detected in RC1 testing, we just created a new Havana release candidate for OpenStack Networking (Neutron). You can find the RC2 tarball and the list of fixed bugs at: https://launchpad.net/neutron/havana/havana-rc2 This is hopefully the last Havana release candidate for Neutron. Unless a last-minute release-critical regression is found that warrant another release candidate respin, this RC2 will be formally included in the common OpenStack 2013.2 final release next Thursday. You are therefore strongly encouraged to test and validate this tarball. Alternatively, you can grab the code at: https://github.com/openstack/neutron/tree/milestone-proposed If you find a regression that could be considered release-critical, please file it at https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+filebug and tag it *havana-rc-potential* to bring it to the release crew's attention. NB: we still have RC2 windows opened for Keystone, Ceilometer and Horizon. Those should all be published very early next week. Happy regression hunting, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack] quantum network node in KVM guest - connectivity issues
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Nick Maslov azp...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I have following setup: 1) infrastructure node, IP in bond, hosting following KVM guests: 1.1) Postgres KVM guest 1.2) MQ KVM guest 1.3) DNS KVM guest 1.4) Control node with Nova API, Cinder API, Quantum Server, etc. ... 1.8) Quantum network node with quantum agents Agents on this network node are always dying and starting up again: # quantum agent-list +--++-+---++ | id | agent_type | host | alive | admin_state_up | +--++-+---++ | 5656392b-b6fe-4570-802f-97d2154acf31 | L3 agent | net01-001.int.net.net | xxx | True | | 1093fb73-6622-448e-8dad-558a36cca306 | DHCP agent | net01-001.int.net.net | xxx | True | | 4518830d-e112-439f-a629-7defa7bd29e9 | Open vSwitch agent | net01-001.int.net.net | xxx | True | | 86ee6d24-2e6a-4f58-addb-290fefc26401 | Open vSwitch agent | nova05 | :-) | True | | b67697bb-3ec1-49fc-8f3c-7e4e7892e83a | Open vSwitch agent | nova04 | :-) | True | +--++-+---++ Few minutes after, those agents will be up again, one may die - while others not. ping net01-001 PING net01-001.int.net.net (10.10.146.34) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from net01-001.int.net.net (10.10.146.34): icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.912 ms 64 bytes from net01-001.int.net.net (10.10.146.34): icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.273 ms 64 bytes from net01-001.int.net.net (10.10.146.34): icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.319 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from net01-001.int.net.net (10.10.146.34): icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.190 ms 64 bytes from net01-001.int.net.net (10.10.146.34): icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=0.230 ms 64 bytes from net01-001.int.net.net (10.10.146.34): icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=0.305 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from net01-001.int.net.net (10.10.146.34): icmp_req=5 ttl=64 time=0.199 ms 64 bytes from net01-001.int.net.net (10.10.146.34): icmp_req=7 ttl=64 time=0.211 ms 64 bytes from net01-001.int.net.net (10.10.146.34): icmp_req=8 ttl=64 time=0.322 ms 64 bytes from net01-001.int.net.net (10.10.146.34): icmp_req=8 ttl=64 time=0.409 ms (DUP!) ^C --- net01-001.int.net.net ping statistics --- 8 packets transmitted, 7 received, +3 duplicates, 12% packet loss, time 7017ms SSH`ing to network node is also difficult - constant freezes. Nothing suspicious in the logs. Those DUP!'s are suspicious, since you aren't pinging a broadcast domain. That might indicate there's something up with the OVS GRE mesh. Since DHCP agent may be down, spawning a VM may end in waiting for network device state. Then, it might get the internal IP and then floating - but accessing it also proves to be very troublesome - I believe because of L3 agent flapping. My OpenStack was set up under this manual - https://github.com/mseknibilel/OpenStack-Grizzly-Install-Guide/blob/OVS_MultiNode/OpenStack_Grizzly_Install_Guide.rst Only thing I did - I added HAproxy/keepalived on top of it, balancing API requests on control nodes. But this shouldn`t impact networking... Agreed, it should not affect network connectivity for the network node. Not sure what the issue is. Perhaps you might try following through Darragh's excellent tutorial on debugging L3 issues in OVS/Quantum here: http://techbackground.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-quantum-l3-router-and-floating-ips.html DId you manually set up KVM instances for all these nodes, or are you using something like Triple-O? Best, -jay Anyone have any thoughts about this? Cheers, NM ___ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openst...@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
If the idea is to gate with nova-extra-drivers this could lead to a rather painful process to change the virt driver API. When all the drivers are in the same tree all of them can be updated at the same time as the infrastructure. Right, and I think if we split those drivers out, then we do *not* gate on them for the main tree. It's asymmetric, which means potentially more trouble for the maintainers of the extra drivers. However, as has been said, we *want* the drivers in the tree as we have them now. Being moved out would be something the owners of a driver would choose in order to achieve a faster pace of development, with the consequence of having to place catch-up if and when we change the driver API. Like I said, I'll be glad to submit patches to the extra tree in unison with patches to the main tree to make some of the virt API changes that will be coming soon, which should minimize the troubles. I believe Alex has already said that he'd prefer the occasional catch-up activities over what he's currently experiencing. --Dan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
From the user perspective, splitting off the projects seems to be focussing on the ease of commit compared to the final user experience. An 'extras' project without *strong* testing co-ordination with packagers such as SUSE and RedHat would end up with the consumers of the product facing the integration problems rather than resolving where they should be, within the OpenStack project itself. I am sympathetic to the 'extra' drivers problem such as Hyper-V and powervm, but I do not feel the right solution is to split. As CERN uses the Hyper-V driver (we have a dual KVM/Hyper-V approach), we want that this configuration is certified before it reaches us. Assuming there is a summit session on how to address this, I can arrange a user representation in that session. Tim -Original Message- From: Dan Smith [mailto:d...@danplanet.com] Sent: 12 October 2013 18:31 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status If the idea is to gate with nova-extra-drivers this could lead to a rather painful process to change the virt driver API. When all the drivers are in the same tree all of them can be updated at the same time as the infrastructure. Right, and I think if we split those drivers out, then we do *not* gate on them for the main tree. It's asymmetric, which means potentially more trouble for the maintainers of the extra drivers. However, as has been said, we *want* the drivers in the tree as we have them now. Being moved out would be something the owners of a driver would choose in order to achieve a faster pace of development, with the consequence of having to place catch-up if and when we change the driver API. Like I said, I'll be glad to submit patches to the extra tree in unison with patches to the main tree to make some of the virt API changes that will be coming soon, which should minimize the troubles. I believe Alex has already said that he'd prefer the occasional catch-up activities over what he's currently experiencing. --Dan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
From the user perspective, splitting off the projects seems to be focussing on the ease of commit compared to the final user experience. I think what you describe is specifically the desire that originally spawned the thread: making the merging of changes to the hyper-v driver faster by having them not reviewed by the rest of the Nova team. It seems to be what the hyper-v developers want, not necessarily what the Nova team as a whole wants. An 'extras' project without *strong* testing co-ordination with packagers such as SUSE and RedHat would end up with the consumers of the product facing the integration problems rather than resolving where they should be, within the OpenStack project itself. I don't think splitting out to -extras means that it loses strong testing coordination (note that strong testing coordination does not exist with the hyper-v driver at this point in time). Every patch to the -extras tree could still be unit (and soon, integration) tested against the current nova tree, using the proposed patch applied to the -extras tree. It just means that a change against nova wouldn't trigger the same, which is why the potential for catch up behavior would be required. I am sympathetic to the 'extra' drivers problem such as Hyper-V and powervm, but I do not feel the right solution is to split. Assuming there is a summit session on how to address this, I can arrange a user representation in that session. Cool, I really think we're at the point where we know the advantages and disadvantages of the various options and further face-to-face discussion at the summit is what is going to move us to the next stage. --Dan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Icehouse design summit proposal deadline
FYI On 10/10/13 9:43 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote: Greetings, We already have more proposals for the Nova design summit track than time slots. Please get your proposals in as soon as possible, and ideally no later than 1 week from today - Thursday, October 17. At that point we will be focusing on putting a schedule together in order to have the schedule completed at least a week in advance of the summit. Thanks! -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Looking for clarification on the diagnostics API
Yup, it seems to be hypervisor specific. I have added in the Vmware support following you correcting in the Vmware driver. Thanks Gary From: Matt Riedemann mrie...@us.ibm.commailto:mrie...@us.ibm.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:17 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Looking for clarification on the diagnostics API Looks like this has been brought up a couple of times: https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg09138.html https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg08555.html But they seem to kind of end up in the same place I already am - it seems to be an open-ended API that is hypervisor-specific. Thanks, MATT RIEDEMANN Advisory Software Engineer Cloud Solutions and OpenStack Development Phone: 1-507-253-7622 | Mobile: 1-507-990-1889 E-mail: mrie...@us.ibm.commailto:mrie...@us.ibm.com [cid:_1_0B6881F80B687C640069F4B286257C00] 3605 Hwy 52 N Rochester, MN 55901-1407 United States From:Matt Riedemann/Rochester/IBM To:OpenStack Development Mailing List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, Date:10/10/2013 02:12 PM Subject:[nova] Looking for clarification on the diagnostics API Tempest recently got some new tests for the nova diagnostics API [1] which failed when I was running against the powervm driver since it doesn't implement that API. I started looking at other drivers that did and found that libvirt, vmware and xenapi at least had code for the get_diagnostics method. I found that the vmware driver was re-using it's get_info method for get_diagnostics which led to bug 1237622 [2] but overall caused some confusion about the difference between the compute driver's get_info and get_diagnostics mehods. It looks like get_info is mainly just used to get the power_state of the instance. First, the get_info method has a nice docstring for what it needs returned [3] but the get_diagnostics method doesn't [4]. From looking at the API docs [5], the diagnostics API basically gives an example of values to get back which is completely based on what the libvirt driver returns. Looking at the xenapi driver code, it looks like it does things a bit differently than the libvirt driver (maybe doesn't return the exact same keys, but it returns information based on what Xen provides). I'm thinking about implementing the diagnostics API for the powervm driver but I'd like to try and get some help on defining just what should be returned from that call. There are some IVM commands available to the powervm driver for getting hardware resource information about an LPAR so I think I could implement this pretty easily. I think it basically comes down to providing information about the processor, memory, storage and network interfaces for the instance but if anyone has more background information on that API I'd like to hear it. [1] https://github.com/openstack/tempest/commit/da0708587432e47f85241201968e6402190f0c5d [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1237622 [3] https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/2013.2.rc1/nova/virt/driver.py#L144 [4] https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/2013.2.rc1/nova/virt/driver.py#L299 [5] http://paste.openstack.org/show/48236/ Thanks, MATT RIEDEMANN Advisory Software Engineer Cloud Solutions and OpenStack Development Phone: 1-507-253-7622 | Mobile: 1-507-990-1889 E-mail: mrie...@us.ibm.commailto:mrie...@us.ibm.com [cid:_1_0B682BA80B6826140069F4B286257C00] 3605 Hwy 52 N Rochester, MN 55901-1407 United States attachment: ATT1..gifattachment: ATT2..gif___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
On 12.10.2013, at 20:04, Tim Bell tim.b...@cern.ch wrote: From the user perspective, splitting off the projects seems to be focussing on the ease of commit compared to the final user experience. An 'extras' project without *strong* testing co-ordination with packagers such as SUSE and RedHat would end up with the consumers of the product facing the integration problems rather than resolving where they should be, within the OpenStack project itself. I am sympathetic to the 'extra' drivers problem such as Hyper-V and powervm, but I do not feel the right solution is to split. As CERN uses the Hyper-V driver (we have a dual KVM/Hyper-V approach), we want that this configuration is certified before it reaches us. I don't see your point here. From any practical perspective, most of the Nova core review work in the sub-project areas consists in formal validation of the patches (beyond the basic pep8 / pylinting done by Jenkins) or unit test requests while 99% of the authoritative work on the patches is done by the de-facto sub-project maintainers, simply because those are the people knowing the domain. This wouldn't change with a separate project. It would actually improve. Informal Certification, to call it this way, is eventually coming from the users (including CERN of course), not from the reviewers: in the end you (the users) are the ones using this stuff in production environments and you are filing bugs and asking for new features. On the other side, if by extra you mean a repo outside of OpenStack (the vendor repo suggested in previous replies in this thread), I totally agree, as it would move the project outside of the focus of the largest part of the community in most cases. Assuming there is a summit session on how to address this, I can arrange a user representation in that session. Tim -Original Message- From: Dan Smith [mailto:d...@danplanet.com] Sent: 12 October 2013 18:31 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status If the idea is to gate with nova-extra-drivers this could lead to a rather painful process to change the virt driver API. When all the drivers are in the same tree all of them can be updated at the same time as the infrastructure. Right, and I think if we split those drivers out, then we do *not* gate on them for the main tree. It's asymmetric, which means potentially more trouble for the maintainers of the extra drivers. However, as has been said, we *want* the drivers in the tree as we have them now. Being moved out would be something the owners of a driver would choose in order to achieve a faster pace of development, with the consequence of having to place catch-up if and when we change the driver API. Like I said, I'll be glad to submit patches to the extra tree in unison with patches to the main tree to make some of the virt API changes that will be coming soon, which should minimize the troubles. I believe Alex has already said that he'd prefer the occasional catch-up activities over what he's currently experiencing. --Dan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
On 12.10.2013, at 20:22, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote: From the user perspective, splitting off the projects seems to be focussing on the ease of commit compared to the final user experience. I think what you describe is specifically the desire that originally spawned the thread: making the merging of changes to the hyper-v driver faster by having them not reviewed by the rest of the Nova team. It seems to be what the hyper-v developers want, not necessarily what the Nova team as a whole wants. An 'extras' project without *strong* testing co-ordination with packagers such as SUSE and RedHat would end up with the consumers of the product facing the integration problems rather than resolving where they should be, within the OpenStack project itself. I don't think splitting out to -extras means that it loses strong testing coordination (note that strong testing coordination does not exist with the hyper-v driver at this point in time). Every patch to the -extras tree could still be unit (and soon, integration) tested against the current nova tree, using the proposed patch applied to the -extras tree. It just means that a change against nova wouldn't trigger the same, which is why the potential for catch up behavior would be required. I am sympathetic to the 'extra' drivers problem such as Hyper-V and powervm, but I do not feel the right solution is to split. Assuming there is a summit session on how to address this, I can arrange a user representation in that session. Cool, I really think we're at the point where we know the advantages and disadvantages of the various options and further face-to-face discussion at the summit is what is going to move us to the next stage. I agree. Looks like we are converging towards a common ground. I'm summing it up here, including a few additional details, for the benefit of who will not join us in HK (sorry, we'll party for you as well :-)): 1) All the drivers will still be part of Nova. 2) One official project (nova-drivers-incubator?) or more than one will be created for the purpose of supporting a leaner and faster development pace of the drivers. 3) Current driver sub-project teams will informally elect their maintainer(s) which will have +2a rights on the new project or specific subtrees. 4) Periodically, code from the new project(s) must be merged into Nova. Only Nova core reviewers will have obviously +2a rights here. I propose to do it on scheduled days before every milestone, differentiated per driver to distribute the review effort (what about also having Nova core reviewers assigned to each driver? Dan was suggesting something similar some time ago). 5) All drivers will be treated equally and new features and bug fixes for master (except security ones) should land in the new project before moving to Nova. 6) CI gates for all drivers, once available, will be added to the new project as well. Only drivers code with a CI gate will be merged in Nova (starting with the Icehouse release as we already discussed). 7) Active communication should be maintained between the Nova core team and the drivers maintainers. This means something more than: I wrote it on the ML didn't you see it? :-) A couple if questions: will we keep version branches on the new project or just master? Bug fixes for older releases will be proposed to the incubator for the current release in development and to Nova for past versions branches? Please correct me if I missed something! Thanks, Alessandro --Dan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] VPNaaS questions
Hi folks, I was wondering in general how providers can customize service features, based on their capabilities (better or worse than reference). I could create a Summit session topic on this, but wanted to know if this is something that has already been addressed or if a different architectural approach has already been defined. This is seems to be a multilayered feature that needs to be discussed. Mark McClain will be speaking about vendor cli extensions in http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/10. It require API counterpart on server side. I was planning to speak about this in this session: http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/22 Feel free to add your suggestions to the etherpad. more specifically: 7) If a provider as additional attributes (can't think of any yet), how can the attribute be extended, only for that provider (or is that the wrong way to handle this)? I think it should be an additional extension mechanism different from the framework that we're using right now. Service plugin should gather extended resources or attribute maps from supported drivers and return them to the layer that will make wsgi controllers for the collections. So it should be pretty much the same as extension framework but instead of loading common extensions, it should load resources from the service plugin. Thanks, Eugene. On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Nachi Ueno na...@ntti3.com wrote: Hi Paul 2013/10/11 Paul Michali p...@cisco.com: Hi folks, I have a bunch of questions for you on VPNaaS in specific, and services in general... Nachi, 1) You hd a bug fix to do service provider framework support for VPN (41827). It was held for Icehouse. Is that pretty much a working patch? 2) When are you planning on reopening the review? I'm not sure it will work without rebase. I'll rebase, and test it again in next week. Anyone, I see that there is an agent.py file for VPN that has a main() and it starts up an L3 agent, specifying the VPNAgent class (in same file). 3) How does this file get invoked? IOW how does the main() get invoked? we should use neutron-vpn-agent command to run vpn-agent. This command invoke vpn agent class. It is defined setup.cnf https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/master/setup.cfg#L98 4) I take it we can specify multiple device drivers in the config file for the agent? Yes. Currently, for the reference device driver, the hierarchy is currently DeviceDriver [ABC] - IPsecDriver [Swan based logic] - OpenSwanDriver [one function, OpenSwan specific]. The ABC has a specific set of APIs. Wondering how to incorporate provider based device drivers. It is designed when we know only one swan based driver. so It won't fit with another device drivers. if so, You can also extend or modify DeviceDriver also. 5) Should I push up more general methods from IPsecDriver to DeviceDriver, so that they can be reused by other providers? That's woud be great 6) Should I push down the swan based methods from DeviceDriver to IPsecDriver and maybe name it SwanDeviceDriver? yes I see that vpnaas.py is an extension for VPN that defines attributes and the base plugin functions. 7) If a provider as additional attributes (can't think of any yet), how can the attribute be extended, only for that provider (or is that the wrong way to handle this)? You can extend existing extension. For VPN, there are several attributes, each with varying ranges of values allowed. This is reflected in the CLI help messages, the database (e.g. enums), and is validated (some) in the client code and in the VPN service. Chaining existing attributes may be challenging on client side. But let's discuss this with a concrete example. 8) How do we provide different limits/allowed values for attributes, for a specific provider (e.g. let's say the provider supports or doesn't support an encryption method, or doesn't support IKE v1 or v2)? Driver can throw unsupported exception. ( It is not defined yet) 9) Should the code be changed not to do any client validation, and to have generic help, so that different values could be provided, or is there a way to customize this based on provider? That's could be one way. 10) If customized, is it possible to reflect the difference in allowed values in the help strings (and client validation)? May be, server side can tell the client hey I'm supporting this set of values Then client can use it as the help string. # This change may need bp. 11) How do we handle the variation in the database (e.g. when enums specifying a fixed set of values)? Do we need to change the database to be more generic (strings and ints) or do we somehow extend the database? more than one driver will use same DB. so I'm +1 for generic db structure if it is really needed. I was wondering in general how providers can customize service features, based on their
[openstack-dev] [TripleO] All TripleO ATC's - getting accounts on the TripleOCloud
There are reviews up now to add user accounts for the TripleO run OpenStack reference cloud (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/TripleOCloud). To be eligible for an account, you need to be a TripleO ATC, or have some use case which the TripleO PTL considers worthwhile (e.g. just ask :)). To setup an account, submit a review to the tripleo incubator. This https://review.openstack.org/#/c/51410/ is an example of such a review adding accounts for openstack CI to be able to spin up nodepool and other services in the cloud. Until the base infrastructure has landed, you'll need to build on top of review 51354 (e.g. git review -d 51354, add a commit, git review -y). -Rob -- Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
From: Alessandro Pilotti [apilo...@cloudbasesolutions.com] Sent: 12 October 2013 20:21 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status 1) All the drivers will still be part of Nova. 2) One official project (nova-drivers-incubator?) or more than one will be created for the purpose of supporting a leaner and faster development pace of the drivers. I still think that all drivers should be treated equally; if we are to create a separate repository for drivers then I think we should officially split the driver repository out, including KVM and XenAPI drivers. Certainly the XenAPI team have experienced a very similar issue with the time it takes to get reviews in - although I fully accept it may be to a lesser degree than Hyper-V. 3) Current driver sub-project teams will informally elect their maintainer(s) which will have +2a rights on the new project or specific subtrees. The more I've thought about it the more I think we need common +2a's across all drivers to identify commonality before a one-big-drop and not per-driver +2a's. Perhaps if there were dedicate nova driver core folk then the pace of driver development would be increased without sacrificing the good things we get by having people familiar with the expectations of the API, how other drivers implement things or identifying code that should not be written in drivers but moved to oslo or the main nova repository for the good of everyone rather than the specific driver. 4) Periodically, code from the new project(s) must be merged into Nova. Only Nova core reviewers will have obviously +2a rights here. I propose to do it on scheduled days before every milestone, differentiated per driver to distribute the review effort (what about also having Nova core reviewers assigned to each driver? Dan was suggesting something similar some time ago). I don't think this is maintainable. Assuming there is a high rate of change in the drivers, the number of changes that would likely need to be reviewed before each milestone could be huge and completely impossible to review - which could cause an even bigger issue. I worry that if the Nova core reviewers aren't convinced by the code coming from this separate repository their choice would either be to reject the lot or just accept it without review. 5) All drivers will be treated equally and new features and bug fixes for master (except security ones) should land in the new project before moving to Nova. Perhaps I don't understand this in relation to nova-drivers-incubator - but are you suggesting that new APIs are added to Nova, but their implementation is only added to nova-drivers-incubator until the scheduled day before the milestone, when the functionality can be moved into Nova? If so I'm not sure of the benefit of having any drivers in Nova at all is, since the expectation would be you must always deploy the matching nova-drivers to get API compatibility. Or are you suggesting that it is the developers choice about whether to push the new code to both repositories at the same time, or whether they want to wait for the big merge pre-milestone? 6) CI gates for all drivers, once available, will be added to the new project as well. Only drivers code with a CI gate will be merged in Nova (starting with the Icehouse release as we already discussed). I think we can all agree on this one - although I thought the IceHouse expectation was not CI gate, but unit test gate and automated test (possibly through an external system) posting review comments. Having said that, I would be very happy with enforcing CI gate for all drivers. 7) Active communication should be maintained between the Nova core team and the drivers maintainers. This means something more than: I wrote it on the ML didn't you see it? :-) Definitely. I'd suggest an IRC meeting - they are fun. Bob ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
4) Periodically, code from the new project(s) must be merged into Nova. Only Nova core reviewers will have obviously +2a rights here. I propose to do it on scheduled days before every milestone, differentiated per driver to distribute the review effort (what about also having Nova core reviewers assigned to each driver? Dan was suggesting something similar some time ago). FWIW, this is not what I had intended. I think that if you want (or need) to be in the extras tree, then that's where you are. Periodic syncs generate extra work and add the previously-mentioned confusion of which driver is the official/best one? I think that any driver that gets put into -extra gets removed from the mainline nova tree. If that driver has full CI testing and wants to be moved into the main tree, then that happens once. Having commit rights to the extras tree and periodic nearly-unattended or too-large-to-reasonably-review sync patches just sidesteps the process. That gains you the recgonition of being in the tree, without having to undergo the aggressive review and participate in the planning and coordination of the process that goes with it. That is NOT okay, IMHO. Sorry if that was unclear with the previous discussion. I'm not sure who else was thinking that those drivers would exist in both places, but I definitely was not. --Dan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alessandro Pilotti apilo...@cloudbasesolutions.com wrote: On 12.10.2013, at 20:22, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote: From the user perspective, splitting off the projects seems to be focussing on the ease of commit compared to the final user experience. I think what you describe is specifically the desire that originally spawned the thread: making the merging of changes to the hyper-v driver faster by having them not reviewed by the rest of the Nova team. It seems to be what the hyper-v developers want, not necessarily what the Nova team as a whole wants. An 'extras' project without *strong* testing co-ordination with packagers such as SUSE and RedHat would end up with the consumers of the product facing the integration problems rather than resolving where they should be, within the OpenStack project itself. I don't think splitting out to -extras means that it loses strong testing coordination (note that strong testing coordination does not exist with the hyper-v driver at this point in time). Every patch to the -extras tree could still be unit (and soon, integration) tested against the current nova tree, using the proposed patch applied to the -extras tree. It just means that a change against nova wouldn't trigger the same, which is why the potential for catch up behavior would be required. I am sympathetic to the 'extra' drivers problem such as Hyper-V and powervm, but I do not feel the right solution is to split. Assuming there is a summit session on how to address this, I can arrange a user representation in that session. Cool, I really think we're at the point where we know the advantages and disadvantages of the various options and further face-to-face discussion at the summit is what is going to move us to the next stage. I agree. Looks like we are converging towards a common ground. I'm summing it up here, including a few additional details, for the benefit of who will not join us in HK (sorry, we'll party for you as well :-)): This sounds like a very myopic solution to the issue you originally raised, and I don't think it will solve the underlying issues. Taking a step back, you originally raised a concern about how we prioritize reviews with the havana-rc-potential tag. In the past weeks we diligently marked bugs that are related to Havana features with the havana-rc-potential tag, which at least for what Nova is concerned, had absolutely no effect. Our code is sitting in the review queue as usual and, not being tagged for a release or prioritised, there's no guarantee that anybody will take a look at the patches in time for the release. Needless to say, this starts to feel like a Kafka novel. :-) [1] If the issue is just better bug triage and prioritizing reviews, help us do that! [2] shows the current status of your hyper-v havana-rc-potential bugs. Currently there are only 7 bugs that have both tags. Of those 7, 3 have no pending patches to trunk, and one doesn't sound like it warrants a back port (https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1220256). Looking at the remaining 4, one is marked as a WIP by you ( https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1231911 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/48645/) which leaves three patches for nova team to review. Three reviews open for a week doesn't sound like an issue that warrants a whole new repository. You went on to clarify your position. I'm not putting into discussion how much and well you guys are working (I actually firmly believe that you DO work very well), I'm just discussing about the way in which blueprints and bugs get prioritised. snip On the other side, to get our code reviewed and merged we are always dependent on the good will and best effort of core reviewers that don't necessarily know or care about specific driver, plugin or agent internals. This brings to even longer review cycles even considering that reviewers are clearly doing their best in understanding the patches and we couldn't be more thankful. Best effort has also a very specific meaning: in Nova all the Havana Hyper-V blueprints were marked as low priority (which can be translated in: the only way to get them merged is to beg for reviews or maybe commit them on day 1 of the release cycle and pray) while most of the Hyper-V bugs had no priority at all (which can be translated in make some noise on the ML and IRC or nobody will care). :-) This reality unfortunately applies to most of the sub-projects (non only Hyper-V) and can be IMHO solved only by delegating more authonomy to the sub-project teams on their specific area of competence across OpenStack as a whole. Hopefully we'll manage to find a solution during the design summit as we are definitely not the only ones feeling this way, by judging on various threads in this ML. [3] Once again you raise the issue of bug triage and prioritization of reviews (and blueprints), so help us fix that! This isn't
[openstack-dev] [Swift] Porting swiftclient to Python 3?
Hi, I just had a look at the python-swiftclient reviews in Gerrit and noticed that Kui Shi and I are working on the same stuff, but I'm guessing Kui didn't see that I had proposed a number of Python 3 changes from a few weeks ago. Now that there are reviews and a web of dependent branches being maintained by both of us, how should this proceed? I don't want to waste anyone's time with two sets of branches to develop and two sets of patches to review. Brian ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Swift] Porting swiftclient to Python 3?
Co-reviewing each other's patches and discussing changes in #openstack-swift would be good ways to ensure that you are working in the same direction. --John On Oct 12, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Brian Curtin brian.cur...@rackspace.com wrote: Hi, I just had a look at the python-swiftclient reviews in Gerrit and noticed that Kui Shi and I are working on the same stuff, but I'm guessing Kui didn't see that I had proposed a number of Python 3 changes from a few weeks ago. Now that there are reviews and a web of dependent branches being maintained by both of us, how should this proceed? I don't want to waste anyone's time with two sets of branches to develop and two sets of patches to review. Brian ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
On 13.10.2013, at 01:26, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.commailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alessandro Pilotti apilo...@cloudbasesolutions.commailto:apilo...@cloudbasesolutions.com wrote: On 12.10.2013, at 20:22, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.commailto:d...@danplanet.com wrote: From the user perspective, splitting off the projects seems to be focussing on the ease of commit compared to the final user experience. I think what you describe is specifically the desire that originally spawned the thread: making the merging of changes to the hyper-v driver faster by having them not reviewed by the rest of the Nova team. It seems to be what the hyper-v developers want, not necessarily what the Nova team as a whole wants. An 'extras' project without *strong* testing co-ordination with packagers such as SUSE and RedHat would end up with the consumers of the product facing the integration problems rather than resolving where they should be, within the OpenStack project itself. I don't think splitting out to -extras means that it loses strong testing coordination (note that strong testing coordination does not exist with the hyper-v driver at this point in time). Every patch to the -extras tree could still be unit (and soon, integration) tested against the current nova tree, using the proposed patch applied to the -extras tree. It just means that a change against nova wouldn't trigger the same, which is why the potential for catch up behavior would be required. I am sympathetic to the 'extra' drivers problem such as Hyper-V and powervm, but I do not feel the right solution is to split. Assuming there is a summit session on how to address this, I can arrange a user representation in that session. Cool, I really think we're at the point where we know the advantages and disadvantages of the various options and further face-to-face discussion at the summit is what is going to move us to the next stage. I agree. Looks like we are converging towards a common ground. I'm summing it up here, including a few additional details, for the benefit of who will not join us in HK (sorry, we'll party for you as well :-)): This sounds like a very myopic solution to the issue you originally raised, and I don't think it will solve the underlying issues. The solution I just proposed was based on the feedbacks received on this thread trying to make everybody happy, so if you find it myopic please be my guest and find a better one that suits all the different positions. :-) Taking a step back, you originally raised a concern about how we prioritize reviews with the havana-rc-potential tag. In the past weeks we diligently marked bugs that are related to Havana features with the havana-rc-potential tag, which at least for what Nova is concerned, had absolutely no effect. Our code is sitting in the review queue as usual and, not being tagged for a release or prioritised, there's no guarantee that anybody will take a look at the patches in time for the release. Needless to say, this starts to feel like a Kafka novel. :-) [1] If the issue is just better bug triage and prioritizing reviews, help us do that! [2] shows the current status of your hyper-v havana-rc-potential bugs. Currently there are only 7 bugs that have both tags. Of those 7, 3 have no pending patches to trunk, and one doesn't sound like it warrants a back port (https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1220256). Looking at the remaining 4, one is marked as a WIP by you (https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1231911 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/48645/) which leaves three patches for nova team to review. Three reviews open for a week doesn't sound like an issue that warrants a whole new repository. Sure, it's not the volume of reviews the subject here. This is just the icing on the cake on something that goes on since a while (see Havana feature freeze). You went on to clarify your position. I'm not putting into discussion how much and well you guys are working (I actually firmly believe that you DO work very well), I'm just discussing about the way in which blueprints and bugs get prioritised. snip On the other side, to get our code reviewed and merged we are always dependent on the good will and best effort of core reviewers that don't necessarily know or care about specific driver, plugin or agent internals. This brings to even longer review cycles even considering that reviewers are clearly doing their best in understanding the patches and we couldn't be more thankful. Best effort has also a very specific meaning: in Nova all the Havana Hyper-V blueprints were marked as low priority (which can be translated in: the only way to get them merged is to beg for reviews or maybe commit them on day 1 of the release cycle and pray) while most of the Hyper-V bugs had no priority at all (which can be translated in make some noise on the ML and IRC or nobody will
Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
On 13.10.2013, at 01:09, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote: 4) Periodically, code from the new project(s) must be merged into Nova. Only Nova core reviewers will have obviously +2a rights here. I propose to do it on scheduled days before every milestone, differentiated per driver to distribute the review effort (what about also having Nova core reviewers assigned to each driver? Dan was suggesting something similar some time ago). FWIW, this is not what I had intended. I think that if you want (or need) to be in the extras tree, then that's where you are. Periodic syncs generate extra work and add the previously-mentioned confusion of which driver is the official/best one? I think that any driver that gets put into -extra gets removed from the mainline nova tree. If that driver has full CI testing and wants to be moved into the main tree, then that happens once. extra sounds to me like a ghetto for drivers which are not good enough to stay in Nova. No thanks. My suggestion in the previous email was just to make happy also who wanted to keep the drivers in Nova. At this point, based on your reply, why not a clear and simple nova-driver-hyperv project as Russell was initially suggesting? What's the practical difference from extra? It'd be an official project, we won't have to beg you for reviews, you won't need to understand the Hyper-V internals, the community would still support it (definitely more than now), users would have TIMELY bug fixes and new features instead of this mess, the sun would shine, etc etc. As a side note, the stability of the driver's interface is IMO an irrelevant issue here compared to all the opposite drawbacks. Having commit rights to the extras tree and periodic nearly-unattended or too-large-to-reasonably-review sync patches just sidesteps the process. That gains you the recgonition of being in the tree, without having to undergo the aggressive review and participate in the planning and coordination of the process that goes with it. That is NOT okay, IMHO. Sorry if that was unclear with the previous discussion. I'm not sure who else was thinking that those drivers would exist in both places, but I definitely was not. --Dan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Swift] Porting swiftclient to Python 3?
On Oct 12, 2013, at 5:59 PM, John Dickinson m...@not.mn wrote: Co-reviewing each other's patches and discussing changes in #openstack-swift would be good ways to ensure that you are working in the same direction. --John Kui ended up abandoning his changes and I'm going to review them to incorporate them into mine, then we'll move forward that way. Easy enough :) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Looking for clarification on the diagnostics API
There is also a tempest patch now to ease some of the libvirt-specific keys checked in the new diagnostics tests there: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/51412/ To relay some of my concerns that I put in that patch: I'm not sure how I feel about this. It should probably be more generic but I think we need more than just a change in tempest to enforce it, i.e. we should have a nova patch that changes the doc strings for the abstract compute driver method to specify what the minimum keys are for the info returned, maybe a doc api sample change, etc? For reference, here is the mailing list post I started on this last week: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-October/016385.html There are also docs here (these examples use xen and libvirt): http://docs.openstack.org/grizzly/openstack-compute/admin/content/configuring-openstack-compute-basics.html And under procedure 4.4 here: http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/ch_introduction-to-openstack-compute.html#section_manage-the-cloud = I also found this wiki page related to metering and the nova diagnostics API: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/EfficientMetering/FutureNovaInteractionModel So it seems like if at some point this will be used with ceilometer it should be standardized a bit which is what the Tempest part starts but I don't want it to get lost there. Thanks, MATT RIEDEMANN Advisory Software Engineer Cloud Solutions and OpenStack Development Phone: 1-507-253-7622 | Mobile: 1-507-990-1889 E-mail: mrie...@us.ibm.com 3605 Hwy 52 N Rochester, MN 55901-1407 United States From: Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com To: OpenStack Development Mailing List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, Date: 10/12/2013 01:42 PM Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Looking for clarification on the diagnostics API Yup, it seems to be hypervisor specific. I have added in the Vmware support following you correcting in the Vmware driver. Thanks Gary From: Matt Riedemann mrie...@us.ibm.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:17 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Looking for clarification on the diagnostics API Looks like this has been brought up a couple of times: https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg09138.html https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg08555.html But they seem to kind of end up in the same place I already am - it seems to be an open-ended API that is hypervisor-specific. Thanks, MATT RIEDEMANN Advisory Software Engineer Cloud Solutions and OpenStack Development Phone: 1-507-253-7622 | Mobile: 1-507-990-1889 E-mail: mrie...@us.ibm.com 3605 Hwy 52 N Rochester, MN 55901-1407 United States From:Matt Riedemann/Rochester/IBM To:OpenStack Development Mailing List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, Date:10/10/2013 02:12 PM Subject:[nova] Looking for clarification on the diagnostics API Tempest recently got some new tests for the nova diagnostics API [1] which failed when I was running against the powervm driver since it doesn't implement that API. I started looking at other drivers that did and found that libvirt, vmware and xenapi at least had code for the get_diagnostics method. I found that the vmware driver was re-using it's get_info method for get_diagnostics which led to bug 1237622 [2] but overall caused some confusion about the difference between the compute driver's get_info and get_diagnostics mehods. It looks like get_info is mainly just used to get the power_state of the instance. First, the get_info method has a nice docstring for what it needs returned [3] but the get_diagnostics method doesn't [4]. From looking at the API docs [5], the diagnostics API basically gives an example of values to get back which is completely based on what the libvirt driver returns. Looking at the xenapi driver code, it looks like it does things a bit differently than the libvirt driver (maybe doesn't return the exact same keys, but it returns information based on what Xen provides). I'm thinking about implementing the diagnostics API for the powervm driver but I'd like to try and get some help on defining just what should be returned from that call. There are some IVM commands available to the powervm driver for getting hardware resource information about an LPAR so I think I could implement this pretty easily. I think it basically comes down to providing information about the processor, memory, storage and network interfaces for the instance but if anyone has more background information on that API I'd like to hear it. [1] https://github.com/openstack/tempest/commit/da0708587432e47f85241201968e6402190f0c5d [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1237622 [3] https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/2013.2.rc1/nova/virt/driver.py#L144 [4]
Re: [openstack-dev] baremetal nova boot issue
Have you read the docs about nova baremetal ? The questions you're asking - about bootstrapping and about a baremetal agent - don't make any sense to me ;) These are the needed steps: - install openstack - build a deploy ramdisk and kernel - put them in glance - configure nova baremetal as your driver - configure a flavor with the deploy ramdisk and kernel - install tftpd pointing at /tftproot - register machines - add your own image to glance (must be a partition image with separate kernel and ramdisk, not a whole disk image) nova boot, done. -Rob On 12 October 2013 13:58, Ravikanth Samprathi rsamp...@gmail.com wrote: I fixed the quantum issue. Now i am able to successfully do 'nova boot': root@os:/etc/init.d# nova boot --flavor 9 --image 278f9721-1354-4c04-9798-65835398e027 mybmnode +-+--+ | Property| Value | +-+--+ | status | BUILD | | updated | 2013-10-12T00:56:28Z | | OS-EXT-STS:task_state | scheduling | | OS-EXT-SRV-ATTR:host| None | | key_name| None | | image | my-image | | hostId | | | OS-EXT-STS:vm_state | building | | OS-EXT-SRV-ATTR:instance_name | instance-0020 | | OS-EXT-SRV-ATTR:hypervisor_hostname | None | | flavor | my-baremetal-flavor | | id | beeb7ffd-ed81-44e0-91ae-62435442769a | | security_groups | [{u'name': u'default'}] | | user_id | 251bd0a9388a477b9c24c99b223e7b2a | | name| mybmnode | | adminPass | xWurDrbi5E8X | | tenant_id | 8a34123d83824f3ea52527c5a28ad81e | | created | 2013-10-12T00:56:28Z | | OS-DCF:diskConfig | MANUAL | | metadata| {} | | accessIPv4 | | | accessIPv6 | | | progress| 0 | | OS-EXT-STS:power_state | 0 | | OS-EXT-AZ:availability_zone | nova | | config_drive| | +-+--+ root@os:/etc/init.d# Can you please help me on how to go from here: I think all the provisioning listed in the baremetal wiki i could do them successfully. How to now load the images on the baremetal server (bootstrap) and then load my own image on the baremetal server? Thanks Ravi On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Ravikanth Samprathi rsamp...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Joe Thanks, i fixed that, now i see this issue. I have always got confused/wondered about this, which credentials should i use? Can you please help? nova-api.log: == 14 2013-10-11 17:35:44.806 4034 INFO nova.osapi_compute.wsgi.server [-] (4034) accepted ('10.40.0.99', 45381) 15 16 2013-10-11 17:35:44.892 ERROR nova.api.openstack [req-12f8de18-544b-4cde-b46a-55fea30d0057 251bd0a9388a477b9c24c99b223e7b2a 8a34123d83824f3ea52527c5a28ad81e] Caught error: 401 Unauthorized 17 18 This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document you requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser does not understand how to supply the credentials required. 19 20 Authentication required 21 2013-10-11 17:35:44.892 4034 TRACE nova.api.openstack Traceback (most recent call last): 22 2013-10-11 17:35:44.892 4034 TRACE nova.api.openstack File /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nova/api/openstack/__init__.py, line 81, in __call__ 23 2013-10-11 17:35:44.892 4034 TRACE nova.api.openstack return req.get_response(self.application) 24 2013-10-11 17:35:44.892 4034 TRACE nova.api.openstack File /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/webob/request.py, line 1296, in send 25 2013-10-11 17:35:44.892 4034 TRACE nova.api.openstack application, catch_exc_info=False) 26 2013-10-11 17:35:44.892 4034 TRACE nova.api.openstack File /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/webob/request.py, line 1260, in call_application 27 2013-10-11 17:35:44.892 4034 TRACE nova.api.openstack app_iter = application(self.environ, start_response) 28 2013-10-11 17:35:44.892 4034 TRACE nova.api.openstack File /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/webob/dec.py, line 144, in __call__ 29 2013-10-11 17:35:44.892 4034 TRACE nova.api.openstack return resp(environ, start_response) 30 2013-10-11 17:35:44.892 4034 TRACE nova.api.openstack File /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/keystoneclient/middleware/auth_token.py, line 450, in __call__ 31 2013-10-11 17:35:44.892
Re: [openstack-dev] Need suggestions and pointers to start contributing for development :
Thanks Dolph and Mark for the welcome and guidance, Will get start based on the pointers. -Mayank On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Mark McClain mark.mccl...@dreamhost.comwrote: On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:14 AM, Dolph Mathews dolph.math...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, October 11, 2013, Mayank Mittal wrote: Hi Teams, Please suggest and guide for starting to contribute in development. About me - I have been working on L2/L3 protocol, SNMP, NMS development and ready to contribute as a full timer to openstack. PS : My interest lies in LB and MPLS. Any pointers to respective teams will help a lot. Welcome! It sounds like you'd be interested in contributing to neutron: https://github.com/openstack/neutron This should get you pointed in the right direction: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/How_To_Contribute Mayank- Dolph is correct that Neutron matches up with your interests. Here's bit more specific information on Neutron development: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/NeutronDevelopment mark ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Looking for clarification on the diagnostics API
Hi, I agree with Matt here. This is not broad enough. One option is to have a tempest class that overrides for various backend plugins. Then the test can be haredednd for each driver. I am not sure if that is something that has been talked about. Thanks Gary From: Matt Riedemann mrie...@us.ibm.commailto:mrie...@us.ibm.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Sunday, October 13, 2013 6:13 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Looking for clarification on the diagnostics API There is also a tempest patch now to ease some of the libvirt-specific keys checked in the new diagnostics tests there: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/51412/ To relay some of my concerns that I put in that patch: I'm not sure how I feel about this. It should probably be more generic but I think we need more than just a change in tempest to enforce it, i.e. we should have a nova patch that changes the doc strings for the abstract compute driver method to specify what the minimum keys are for the info returned, maybe a doc api sample change, etc? For reference, here is the mailing list post I started on this last week: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-October/016385.html There are also docs here (these examples use xen and libvirt): http://docs.openstack.org/grizzly/openstack-compute/admin/content/configuring-openstack-compute-basics.html And under procedure 4.4 here: http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/ch_introduction-to-openstack-compute.html#section_manage-the-cloud = I also found this wiki page related to metering and the nova diagnostics API: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/EfficientMetering/FutureNovaInteractionModel So it seems like if at some point this will be used with ceilometer it should be standardized a bit which is what the Tempest part starts but I don't want it to get lost there. Thanks, MATT RIEDEMANN Advisory Software Engineer Cloud Solutions and OpenStack Development Phone: 1-507-253-7622 | Mobile: 1-507-990-1889 E-mail: mrie...@us.ibm.commailto:mrie...@us.ibm.com [cid:_1_09B39E1009B3987C0011B74C86257C03] 3605 Hwy 52 N Rochester, MN 55901-1407 United States From:Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.commailto:gkot...@vmware.com To:OpenStack Development Mailing List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, Date:10/12/2013 01:42 PM Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Looking for clarification on the diagnostics API Yup, it seems to be hypervisor specific. I have added in the Vmware support following you correcting in the Vmware driver. Thanks Gary From: Matt Riedemann mrie...@us.ibm.commailto:mrie...@us.ibm.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:17 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Looking for clarification on the diagnostics API Looks like this has been brought up a couple of times: https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg09138.html https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg08555.html But they seem to kind of end up in the same place I already am - it seems to be an open-ended API that is hypervisor-specific. Thanks, MATT RIEDEMANN Advisory Software Engineer Cloud Solutions and OpenStack Development Phone: 1-507-253-7622 | Mobile: 1-507-990-1889 E-mail: mrie...@us.ibm.commailto:mrie...@us.ibm.com [cid:_1_09BCCED809BCCAD80011B74C86257C03] 3605 Hwy 52 N Rochester, MN 55901-1407 United States From:Matt Riedemann/Rochester/IBM To:OpenStack Development Mailing List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, Date:10/10/2013 02:12 PM Subject:[nova] Looking for clarification on the diagnostics API Tempest recently got some new tests for the nova diagnostics API [1] which failed when I was running against the powervm driver since it doesn't implement that API. I started looking at other drivers that did and found that libvirt, vmware and xenapi at least had code for the get_diagnostics method. I found that the vmware driver was re-using it's get_info method for get_diagnostics which led to bug 1237622 [2] but overall caused some confusion about the difference between the compute driver's get_info and get_diagnostics mehods. It looks like get_info is mainly just used to get the power_state of the instance. First, the get_info method has a nice docstring for what it needs returned [3] but the get_diagnostics method