Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Infra] Support for PCI Passthrough
On 2013年11月27日 23:43, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2013-11-27 11:18:46 +0800 (+0800), yongli he wrote: [...] if you post -1, you should post testing log somewhere for people to debug it, so does third party testing can post testing log to the infra log server? Not at the moment--the infra log server is just an Apache name-based virtual host on the static.openstack.org VM using mod_autoindex to serve log files out of the DocumentRoot (plus a custom filter CGI Sean Dague wrote recently), and our Jenkins has a shell account it can use to SCP files onto it. We can't really scale that access control particularly safely to accommodate third parties, nor do we have an unlimited amount of space on that machine (we currently only preserve 6 months of test logs, and even compressing the limit on how much Cinder block storage we can attach to the VM is coming into sight). There has been recent discussion about designing a more scalable build/test artifact publication system backed by Swift object storage, and suggestion that once it's working we might consider support for handing out authorization to third-party-specific containers for the purpose you describe. Until we have developed something like that, however, you'll need to provide your own place this need appoved by my supervisor or IT, i can not do anything about this. does any one hear of any free space can host such thing? Yongli He to publish your logs (something like we use--bog standard Apache on a public VM--should work fine I'd think?). ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Summit session wrapup
On 2013/28/11 06:41, Robert Collins wrote: Certainly. Do we have Personas for those people? (And have we done any validation of them?) We have shorter paragraph to each. But not verified by any survey, so we don't have very solid basis in this area right now and I believe we all are trying to assume at the moment. This may be where we disagree indeed :). Wearing my sysadmin hat ( a little dusty, but never really goes away :P) - I can tell you I spent a lot of time worrying about what went on what machine. But it was never actually what I was paid to do. What I was paid to do was to deliver infrastructure and services to the business. Everything that we could automate, that we could describe with policy and still get robust, reliable results - we did. It's how one runs many hundred machines with an ops team of 2. Planning around failure domains for example, is tedious work; it's needed at a purchasing level - you need to decide if you're buying three datacentres or one datacentre with internal redundancy, but once thats decided the actual mechanics of ensure that each HA service is spread across the (three datacentres) or (three separate zones in the one DC) is not interesting. So - I'm sure that many sysadmins do manually assign work to machines to ensure a good result from performance or HA concerns, but thats out of necessity, not desire. Well, I think there is one small misunderstanding. I've never said that manual way should be primary workflow for us. I agree that we should lean toward as much automation and smartness as possible. But in the same time, I am adding that we need manual fallback for user to change that smart decision. Primary way would be to let TripleO decide, where the stuff go. I think we agree here. But I, as sysadmin, want to see the distribution of stuff before I deploy. And if there is some failure in the automation logic, I need to have possibility to change that. Not from scratch, but do the change in suggested distribution. There always should be way to do that manually. Let's imagine that TripleO will by some mistake or intentionally distribute nodes across my datacenter wrong (wrong for me, not necessarily for somebody else). What would I do? Would I let TripleO to deploy it anyway? No. I will not use TripleO. But If there is something what I need to change and I have a way to do that, I will keep with TripleO, because it allows me to satisfy all I need. We can be smart, but we can't be the smartest and see all reasons of all users. Why does that layout make you happy? What is it about that setup where things will work better for you? Note that in the absence of a sophisticated scheduler you'll have some volumes with redundancy of 3 end up all in one rack: you won't get rack-can-fail safety on the delivered cloud workloads (I mention this as one attempt to understand why knowing there is a control node / 3 storage /rest compute in each rack makes you happy). It doesn't have to make me happy, but somebody else might have strong reasoning for that (or any other setup which we didn't cover). We don't have to know it, but why can't we allow him to do this? One more time, I want to stress this out - I am not fighting for absence of sophisticated scheduler, I am fighting for allowing user to control the stuff if he wants/needs to. I think having that degree of control is failure. Our CloudOS team has considerable experience now in deploying clouds using a high-touch system like you describe - and they are utterly convinced that it doesn't scale. Even at 20 nodes it is super tedious, and beyond that it's ridiculous. Right. And are they convinced that automated tool will do the best job for them? Are they trusting them so strongly, so that they would deploy their whole datacenter without checking the correct distribution? Would they say - OK I said I want 50 compute, 10 block storage, 3 control. As long as it will work, I don't care, be smart, do it for me. It all depends on the GUI design. If we design it well enough, so that we allow user to do quick bulk actions, even manual distribution can be easy. Even for 100 nodes... or more. (But I don't suggest we do that all manual.) Flexibilty comes with a cost. Right now we have a large audience interested in what we have, but we're delivering two separate things: we have a functional sysadminny interface with command line scripts and heat templates - , and we have a GUI where we can offer a better interface which the tuskar folk are building up. I agree that homogeneous hardware isn't a viable long term constraint. But if we insist on fixing that issue first, we sacrifice our ability to learn about the usefulness of a simple, straight forward interface. We'll be doing a bunch of work - regardless of implementation - to deal with heterogeneity, when we could be bringing Swift and Cinder up to production readiness - which IMO will get many more folk onboard for adoption. I agree that
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Summit session wrapup
Hello, just few notes from me: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-feature-map sounds like a great idea, we should go through them one by one maybe on meeting. We should agree on what is doable for I, without violating the Openstack way in some very ugly way. So do we want to be Openstack on Openstack or Almost Openstack on Openstack? Or what is the goal here? So let's take a simple example, flat network 2 racks (32 nodes), 2 controllers nodes, 2 neutron nodes, 14 nova compute, 14 storage I. Manual way using Heat and Scheduler could be assigning every group of nodes to special flavor by hard. Then nova scheduler will take care of it. 1. How hard it will be to implement 'Assigning a specific nodes to Flavor' ? (probably adding a condition for MAC address?) Or do you have some other idea how to do this in an almost clean way? Without reimplementing nova scheduler. (though this is probably messing with scheduler) 2. How this will be implementable in UI? Just assigning nodes to flavors and uploading a Heat template? II. Having homogeneous hardware, all will be one flavor and then nova scheduler will decide, where to put what. When you give heat e.g. I want to spawn 2 controller images. 1. How hard is to set the policies, like we want to spread those nodes over all racks? 2. How this will be implementable in UI? It is basically building a complex Heat template, right? So just uploading a Heat template? III. Having more flavors 1. We will be able to set in Heat something like, I want Nova compute node on compute_flavor(amazon c1,c3) with high priority or on all_purpose_flavor(amazon m1) with normal_priority. How hard is that? 2. How this will be implementable in UI? Just uploading a Heat template? IV. Tripleo way 1. From the OOO name I infer, we want to use openstack, that means using Heat, Nova scheduler etc. From my point of view having Heat template for deploying e.g. Wordpress installation seems the same to me like having a Heat template to deploy Openstack, it's just much more complex. Is this a valid assumption? If you think it's not, explain why please. Radical idea : we could ask (e.g. on -operators) for a few potential users who'd be willing to let us interview them. Yes please!!! Talking to jcoufal, being able to edit Heat template in UI, being able to assign baremetals to flavors(later connected to template catalog). It could be all we need. Also later visualize what will happen when you actually stack create the template, so we don't go blindly would be very needed. Kind regards, Ladislav On 11/28/2013 06:41 AM, Robert Collins wrote: Hey, I realise I've done a sort of point-bypoint thing below - sorry. Let me say that I'm glad you're focused on what will help users, and their needs - I am too. Hopefully we can figure out why we have different opinions about what things are key, and/or how we can get data to better understand our potential users. On 28 November 2013 02:39, Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com wrote: Important point here is, that we agree on starting with very basics - grow then. Which is great. The whole deployment workflow (not just UI) is all about user experience which is built on top of TripleO's approach. Here I see two important factors: - There are users who are having some needs and expectations. Certainly. Do we have Personas for those people? (And have we done any validation of them?) - There is underlying concept of TripleO, which we are using for implementing features which are satisfying those needs. mmm, so the technical aspect of TripleO is about setting up a virtuous circle: where improvements in deploying cluster software via OpenStack makes deploying OpenStack better, and those of us working on deploying OpenStack will make deploying cluster software via OpenStack better in general, as part of solving 'deploying OpenStack' in a nice way. We are circling around and trying to approach the problem from wrong end - which is implementation point of view (how to avoid own scheduling). Let's try get out of the box and start with thinking about our audience first - what they expect, what they need. Then we go back, put our implementation thinking hat on and find out how we are going to re-use OpenStack components to achieve our goals. In the end we have detailed plan. Certainly, +1. === Users === I would like to start with our targeted audience first - without milestones, without implementation details. I think here is the main point where I disagree and which leads to different approaches. I don't think, that user of TripleO cares only about deploying infrastructure without any knowledge where the things go. This is overcloud user's approach - 'I want VM and I don't care where it runs'. Those are self-service users / cloud users. I know we are OpenStack on OpenStack, but we shouldn't go that far that we expect same behavior from undercloud users. I can tell you various examples of why the
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Summit session wrapup
Hi Mark, thanks for your insight, I mostly agree. Just few points below. On 2013/27/11 21:54, Mark McLoughlin wrote: Hi Jarda, ... Yes, I buy this. And I think it's the point worth dwelling on. It would be quite a bit of work to substantiate the point with hard data - e.g. doing user testing of mockups with and without placement control - so we have to at least try to build some consensus without that. I agree here. It will be a lot of work. I'd love to have that, but creating distinct designs, finding users for real testing and testing with them will consume big amount of time and in this agile approach we can't afford it. I believe that we are not very distinct in our goals and that we can get to consensus without that. There was smaller confusion which I tried to clarify in answer to Rob's response. We could do some work on a more detailed description of the persona and their basic goals. This would clear up whether we're designing for the case where one persona owns the undercloud and there's another overcloud operator persona. Yes, we need to have this written down. Or at least get to consensus if we can quickly get there and document it then. Whatever works and doesn't block us. We could also look at other tools targeted to similar use cases and see what they do. I looked and they all do it very manual way. (or at least those which I have seen from Mirantis, Huawei, etc) - and there is some reason for this. As I wrote into Robert's answer, we can do much more, we can be smart, but we can't think that we are the smartest. But yeah - my instinct is that all of that would show that we'd be fighting an uphill battle to persuade our users that this type of magic is what they want. That's exactly my point. Thanks for saying that. We want to help them and feed them with ready-to-deploy solution. But they need to have feeling that they have things under control (maybe just check the solution and/or allow to change). ... === Implementation === Above mentioned approach shouldn't lead to reimplementing scheduler. We can still use nova-scheduler, but we can take advantage of extra params (like unique identifier), so that we specify more concretely what goes where. It's hard to see how what you describe doesn't ultimately mean we completely by pass the Nova scheduler. Yes, if you request placement on a specific node, it does still go through the scheduler ... but it doesn't do any actual scheduling. Maybe we should separate the discussion/design around control nodes and resource (i.e. compute/storage) nodes. Mostly because there should be a large ratio of the latter to the former, so you'd expect it to be less likely for such fine grained control over resource nodes to be useful. e.g. maybe adding more compute nodes doesn't involve the user doing any placement, and we just let the nova scheduler choose from the available nodes which are suitable for compute workloads. Yes, controller nodes will need to get better treatment, but I think not in our first steps. I believe that for now we are fine with going with generic controller node which is running all controller services. I think what would be great to have is to let nova-scheduler to do its job (dry-run), show the distribution and just confirm (or do some change in there). -- Jarda ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer][horizon] The meaning of Network Duration
Hello Daisy, the tables were deleted from Horizon, because of that confusion. https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/1249279 We are going to clearly document each ceilometer meter first. Then this information will appear again in Horizon. E.g. the duration as stated in doc http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ceilometer/measurements.html is kind of misguiding, as it actually mean presence. So the samples of these metrics contains 1 or 0, depending on whether network was up or down in that time. The actual duration then must be inferred from these samples. This should be also backported to H. Kind regards. Ladislav On 11/27/2013 10:16 AM, Ying Chun Guo wrote: Hello, While I translate Horizon web UI, I'm a little confused with Network Duration, Port Duration, and Router Duration in the Resources Usage statistics table. What does Duration mean here? If I translate it exactly as the meaning of Duration, my customers cannot understand. Does it equal to usage time? Regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy) ___ 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] [TripleO] Summit session wrapup
On 2013/27/11 16:37, James Slagle wrote: On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com wrote: V0: basic slick installer - flexibility and control first - enable user to auto-discover (or manual register) nodes - let user decide, which node is going to be controller, which is going to be compute or storage - associate images with these nodes - deploy I think you've made some good points about the user experience helping drive the design of what Tuskar is targeting. I think the conversation around how to design letting the user pick what to deploy where should continue. I wonder though, would it be possible to not have that in a V0? Basically make your V0 above even smaller (eliminating the middle 2 bullets), and just letting nova figure it out, the same as what happens now when we run heat stack-create from the CLI. I see 2 possible reasons for trying this: - Gets us to something people can try even sooner - It may turn out we want this option in the long run ... a figure it out all out for me type of approach, so it wouldn't be wasted effort. Hey James, well as long as we end up with possibility to have control over it in the Icehouse release , I am fine with that. (The 'control' I tried to explain closer in response to Robert's e-mail). As for the milestone approach: I just think that more basic and traditional way for user is to do stuff manually. And that's where I think we can start. That's user's point of view. From implementation point of view, there is already some magic in openstack, so it might be easier to start with that already existing magic, add manual support then and then enhance the magic to much smarter approach. In the end, most of the audience will see the result in Icehouse release, so if we start one way or another - whatever works. I just want to make sure, that we are going to deliver usable solution. -- Jarda ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] rpc concurrency control rfc
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 07:34:15PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 06:43:42PM +, Edward Hope-Morley wrote: On 27/11/13 18:20, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 06:10:47PM +, Edward Hope-Morley wrote: On 27/11/13 17:43, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 05:39:30PM +, Edward Hope-Morley wrote: On 27/11/13 15:49, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 02:45:22PM +, Edward Hope-Morley wrote: Moving this to the ml as requested, would appreciate comments/thoughts/feedback. So, I recently proposed a small patch to the oslo rpc code (initially in oslo-incubator then moved to oslo.messaging) which extends the existing support for limiting the rpc thread pool so that concurrent requests can be limited based on type/method. The blueprint and patch are here: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo.messaging/+spec/rpc-concurrency-control The basic idea is that if you have server with limited resources you may want restrict operations that would impact those resources e.g. live migrations on a specific hypervisor or volume formatting on particular volume node. This patch allows you, admittedly in a very crude way, to apply a fixed limit to a set of rpc methods. I would like to know whether or not people think this is sort of thing would be useful or whether it alludes to a more fundamental issue that should be dealt with in a different manner. Based on this description of the problem I have some observations - I/O load from the guest OS itself is just as important to consider as I/O load from management operations Nova does for a guest. Both have the capability to impose denial-of-service on a host. IIUC, the flavour specs have the ability to express resource constraints for the virtual machines to prevent a guest OS initiated DOS-attack - I/O load from live migration is attributable to the running virtual machine. As such I'd expect that any resource controls associated with the guest (from the flavour specs) should be applied to control the load from live migration. Unfortunately life isn't quite this simple with KVM/libvirt currently. For networking we've associated each virtual TAP device with traffic shaping filters. For migration you have to set a bandwidth cap explicitly via the API. For network based storage backends, you don't directly control network usage, but instead I/O operations/bytes. Ultimately though there should be a way to enforce limits on anything KVM does, similarly I expect other hypervisors can do the same - I/O load from operations that Nova does on behalf of a guest that may be running, or may yet to be launched. These are not directly known to the hypervisor, so existing resource limits won't apply. Nova however should have some capability for applying resource limits to I/O intensive things it does and somehow associate them with the flavour limits or some global per user cap perhaps. Thoughts? Overall I think that trying to apply caps on the number of API calls that can be made is not really a credible way to avoid users inflicting DOS attack on the host OS. Not least because it does nothing to control what a guest OS itself may do. If you do caps based on num of APIs calls in a time period, you end up having to do an extremely pessistic calculation - basically have to consider the worst case for any single API call, even if most don't hit the worst case. This is going to hurt scalability of the system as a whole IMHO. Regards, Daniel Daniel, thanks for this, these are all valid points and essentially tie with the fundamental issue of dealing with DOS attacks but for this bp I actually want to stay away from this area i.e. this is not intended to solve any tenant-based attack issues in the rpc layer (although that definitely warrants a discussion e.g. how do we stop a single tenant from consuming the entire thread pool with requests) but rather I'm thinking more from a QOS perspective i.e. to allow an admin to account for a resource bias e.g. slow RAID controller, on a given node (not necessarily Nova/HV) which could be alleviated with this sort of crude rate limiting. Of course one problem with this approach is that blocked/limited requests still reside in the same pool as other requests so if we did want to use this it may be worth considering offloading blocked requests or giving them their own pool altogether. ...or maybe this is just pie in the sky after all. I don't think it is valid to ignore tenant-based attacks in this. You have a single resource here and it can be consumed by the tenant OS, by the VM associated with the tenant or by
Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone][Marconi][Oslo] Discoverable home document for APIs (Was: Re: [Nova][Glance] Support of v1 and v2 glance APIs in Nova)
On 26/11/13 10:57 -0600, Dolph Mathews wrote: On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Flavio Percoco fla...@redhat.com wrote: As crazy as it sounds, have you guys considered migrating to Nottingham's approach? It only sounds crazy because I have no idea how to migrate an unversioned endpoint :) Skimming through his proposal, it looks like it might actually be compatible with ours to include side by side? If so, we could support both for a couple releases before moving on. This would be awesome. We'll still have to write a python library for it but that's something we could do as part of Marconi's client development and then move it to its own repo - or oslo - once it's ready. Does this proposal have much traction outside the OpenStack community? (and how much traction does it have within the community already?) It does. I don't have the exact numbers of users but I know for sure the work there is moving forward. A new version will be released soon, AFAIU. Cheers, FF -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco pgp5LOk44Ranp.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] excessively difficult to support both iso8601 0.1.4 and 0.1.8 as deps
On 11/27/2013 06:46 PM, Alan Pevec wrote: 2013/11/27 Sean Dague s...@dague.net: The problem is you can't really support both iso8601 was dormant for years, and the revived version isn't compatible with the old version. So supporting both means basically forking iso8601 and maintaining you own version of it monkey patched in your own tree. Right, hence glance was added https://review.openstack.org/55998 to unblock the previous gate failure. Issue now is that stable/grizzly Tempest uses clients from git trunk, which is not going to work since trunk will add more and more incompatible dependencies, even if backward compatbility is preserved against the old service APIs! Solutions could be that Tempest installs clients into separate venv to avoid dependecy conflicts or establish stable/* branches for clients[1] which are created around OpenStack release time. I'd like to propose to switch testing for stable branches: We should switch to install environments for stable releases through other methods, such as packages. There are quite a few provisioning methods out there right now. The benefit would be, we'd have a very reproducible way to build identical environments for each run; the cost would be, that we'd need to create a test environment for each project: install everything but the project to test via packages. When choosing packages to install: which one do we want to take? Just a single source or take for each (major) distribution, thus multiplying effort here? Matthias ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [heat][horizon]Heat UI related requirements roadmap
On 27/11/13 23:37, Fox, Kevin M wrote: Hmm... Yeah. when you tell heat client the url to a template file, you could set a flag telling the heat client it is in a git repo. It could then automatically look for repo information and set a stack metadata item pointing back to it. Or just store the URL. If you didn't care about taking a performance hit, heat client could always try and check to see if it was a git repo url. That may add several extra http requests though... Thanks, Kevin From: Clint Byrum [cl...@fewbar.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 1:04 PM To: openstack-dev Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [heat][horizon]Heat UI related requirements roadmap Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2013-11-27 08:58:16 -0800: This use case is sort of a providence case. Where did the stack come from so I can find out more about it. This exhibits similar problems to our Copyright header problems. Relying on authors to maintain their authorship information in two places is cumbersome and thus the one that is not automated will likely fall out of sync fairly quickly. You could put a git commit field in the template itself but then it would be hard to keep updated. Or you could have Heat able to pull from any remote source rather than just allowing submission of the template directly. It would just be another column in the stack record. This would allow said support person to see where it came from by viewing the stack, which solves the use case. ___ 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] [TripleO] Summit session wrapup
Hi all, just a few thoughts (subjective opinions) regarding the whole debate: * I think that having a manually picking images for machines approach would make TripleO more usable in the beginning. I think it will take a good deal of time to get our smart solution working with the admin rather than against him [1], and a possibility of manual override is a good safety catch. E.g. one question that i wonder about - how would our smart flavor-based approach solve this situation: I have homogenous nodes on which i want to deploy Cinder and Swift. Half of those nodes has better connectivity to the internet than the other half. I want Swift on the ones with better internet connectivity. How will i ensure such deployment with flavor-based approach? Could we use e.g. host aggregates defined on the undercloud for this? I think it will take time before our smart solution can understand such and similar conditions. * On the other hand, i think relying on Nova to pick hosts feels more TripleO-spirited solution to me. It means using OpenStack to deploy OpenStack. So i can't really lean towards one solution or the other. Maybe it's most important to make *something*, gather some feedback, and tweak what needs tweaking. Cheers Jirka [1] http://i.technet.microsoft.com/dynimg/IC284957.jpg ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack][qa][Tempest][Network] Test for external connectivity
Thanks for the input. I apologize for the delay. 1. A working patch is here - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/55146. Reviews will be much appreciated. 2. Default setting has external_connectivity=False so tempest gate doesn't check this. I wonder if we could somehow set the neutron gate to configure external access and enable this feature for all tests? 3. Tomoe How can we test the internal network connectivity? -- I'm pinging router and dhcp ports from the VM via ssh and floating IP, since l2 and l3 agents might reside on different hosts. 4. Jeremy Stanley - test check for no fewer than three addresses -- Why? - Original Message - From: Jeremy Stanley fu...@yuggoth.org To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:17:52 AM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack][qa][Tempest][Network] Test for external connectivity On 2013-11-20 14:07:49 -0800 (-0800), Sean Dague wrote: On 11/18/2013 02:41 AM, Yair Fried wrote: [...] 2. add fields in tempest.conf for * external connectivity = False/True * external ip to test against (ie 8.8.8.8) +1 for #2. In the gate we'll need to think about what that address can / should be. It may be different between different AZs. At this point I'd leave the rest of the options off the table until #2 is working reliably. [...] Having gone down this path in the past, I suggest the test check for no fewer than three addresses, sending several probes to each, and be considered successful if at least one gets a response. -- Jeremy Stanley ___ 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] ml2 and vxlan configurations, neutron-server fails to start
Hi
I am configuring Havana on fedora 19. Observing the below errors in case of
neutron.
Please help me resolve this issue.
Note: copied only few lines from the server.log, in case full log is
required, let me know.
/etc/neutron/plugins/ml2/ml2_conf.ini
type_drivers = vxlan,local
tenant_network_types = vxlan
mechanism_drivers = neutron.plugins.ml2.drivers.OpenvswitchMechanismDriver
network_vlan_ranges = physnet1:1000:2999
vni_ranges = 5000:6000
vxlan_group = 239.10.10.1
ERROR neutron.common.legacy [-] Skipping unknown group key: firewall_driver
ERROR stevedore.extension [-] Could not load 'local': (SQLAlchemy 0.8.3
(/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages),
Requirement.parse('SQLAlchemy=0.7.8,=0.7.99'))
ERROR stevedore.extension [-] (SQLAlchemy 0.8.3
(/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages),
Requirement.parse('SQLAlchemy=0.7.8,=0.7.99'))
ERROR stevedore.extension [-] Could not load 'vxlan': (SQLAlchemy 0.8.3
(/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages),
Requirement.parse('SQLAlchemy=0.7.8,=0.7.99'))
ERROR stevedore.extension [-] (SQLAlchemy 0.8.3
(/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages),
Requirement.parse('SQLAlchemy=0.7.8,=0.7.99'))
TRACE stevedore.extension VersionConflict: (SQLAlchemy 0.8.3
(/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages),
Requirement.parse('SQLAlchemy=0.7.8,=0.7.99'))
ERROR neutron.common.config [-] Unable to load neutron from configuration
file /etc/neutron/api-paste.ini.
TRACE neutron.common.config LookupError: No section 'quantum' (prefixed by
'app' or 'application' or 'composite' or 'composit' or 'pipeline' or
'filter-app') found in config /etc/neutron/api-paste.ini
ERROR neutron.service [-] In serve_wsgi()
TRACE neutron.service RuntimeError: Unable to load quantum from
configuration file /etc/neutron/api-paste.ini.
Regards
Gopi Krishna
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][libvirt] Gate bug 'libvirtError: Unable to read from monitor: Connection reset by peer'
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 07:26:03PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2013-11-27 19:18:12 + (+), Daniel P. Berrange wrote: [...] It would be desirable if the gate logs included details of all software package versions installed. eg so we can see what libvirt, qemu and kernel are present. [...] It seems reasonable to me that we could dpkg -l or rpm -qa at the end of the job similar to how we currently already do a pip freeze. Sounds like a good plan to me. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] ml2 and vxlan configurations, neutron-server fails to start
Can u post the contents of neutron.conf file too ?
Also, the complete neutron log..
Check the sqlalchemy version compatibility
--
Trinath Somanchi - B39208
trinath.soman...@freescale.com | extn: 4048
From: Gopi Krishna B [mailto:gopi97...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 5:32 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] ml2 and vxlan configurations, neutron-server fails to
start
Hi
I am configuring Havana on fedora 19. Observing the below errors in case of
neutron.
Please help me resolve this issue.
Note: copied only few lines from the server.log, in case full log is
required, let me know.
/etc/neutron/plugins/ml2/ml2_conf.ini
type_drivers = vxlan,local
tenant_network_types = vxlan
mechanism_drivers = neutron.plugins.ml2.drivers.OpenvswitchMechanismDriver
network_vlan_ranges = physnet1:1000:2999
vni_ranges = 5000:6000
vxlan_group = 239.10.10.1
ERROR neutron.common.legacy [-] Skipping unknown group key: firewall_driver
ERROR stevedore.extension [-] Could not load 'local': (SQLAlchemy 0.8.3
(/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages),
Requirement.parse('SQLAlchemy=0.7.8,=0.7.99'))
ERROR stevedore.extension [-] (SQLAlchemy 0.8.3
(/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages),
Requirement.parse('SQLAlchemy=0.7.8,=0.7.99'))
ERROR stevedore.extension [-] Could not load 'vxlan': (SQLAlchemy 0.8.3
(/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages),
Requirement.parse('SQLAlchemy=0.7.8,=0.7.99'))
ERROR stevedore.extension [-] (SQLAlchemy 0.8.3
(/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages),
Requirement.parse('SQLAlchemy=0.7.8,=0.7.99'))
TRACE stevedore.extension VersionConflict: (SQLAlchemy 0.8.3
(/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages),
Requirement.parse('SQLAlchemy=0.7.8,=0.7.99'))
ERROR neutron.common.config [-] Unable to load neutron from configuration file
/etc/neutron/api-paste.ini.
TRACE neutron.common.config LookupError: No section 'quantum' (prefixed by
'app' or 'application' or 'composite' or 'composit' or 'pipeline' or
'filter-app') found in config /etc/neutron/api-paste.ini
ERROR neutron.service [-] In serve_wsgi()
TRACE neutron.service RuntimeError: Unable to load quantum from configuration
file /etc/neutron/api-paste.ini.
Regards
Gopi Krishna
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Thursday subteam meeting
Hi Itsuro, I've updated the wiki with some examples of cli workflow that illustrate proposed API. Please see the updated page: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/LoadbalancerInstance#API_change Thanks, Eugene. On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Itsuro ODA o...@valinux.co.jp wrote: Hi, I'd like to review about LoadblancerInstance API specification. Please update wiki page before the meeting. (It is a little bit hard to follow in the IRC for me since I'm not English native. so I'd like to consider for the API beforehand.) Thanks. Itsuro Oda On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:07:47 +0400 Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Neutron folks, LBaaS subteam meeting will be on Thursday, 27, at 14-00 UTC as usual. We'll discuss current progress and continue with feature design. Thanks, Eugene. -- Itsuro ODA o...@valinux.co.jp ___ 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] FreeBSD hypervisor (bhyve) driver
On 11/28/2013 05:13 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: snip NB, technically we should have separate CI running for each hypervisor that libvirt is able to talk to, so there'd likely want to be dedicated CI infrastructure for the libvirt+bhyve combination regardless, perhaps it would need less overall though. Ideally, yes. However I think it's completely fair to have in tree Class C hypervisors which don't have separate CI if they are behind the libvirt interface, which is highly tested in tree. That's my opinion only, so don't take it as project level guidance. However, if we are really telling folks to do the right thing and go through libvirt instead of building new Nova drivers because it reduces the nova maintenance burden, there should be incentive for doing so, like getting the really minimal nova changes in tree to just config their libvirt endpoints correctly without having to stand up the whole CI path. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] request-id in API response
Hi, I am working on adding request-id to API response in Neutron. After I checked what header is used in other projects header name varies project by project. It seems there is no consensus what header is recommended and it is better to have some consensus. nova: x-compute-request-id cinder: x-compute-request-id glance: x-openstack-request-id neutron: x-network-request-id (under review) request-id is assigned and used inside of each project now, so x-service-request-id looks good. On the other hand, if we have a plan to enhance request-id across projects, x-openstack-request-id looks better. Thought? Thanks, Akihiro ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Schduler] Volunteers wanted for a modest proposal for an external scheduler in our lifetime
On 11/28/13 12:10 AM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: On 25 November 2013 21:51, Sylvain Bauza sylvain.ba...@bull.net wrote: As said earlier, I also would love to join the team, triggering a few blueprints or so. By the way, I'm currently reviewing the Scheduler code. Do you began to design the API queries or do you need help for that ? -Sylvain https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://blueprints.launchpad.ne t/nova/%2Bspec/remove-cast-to-schedule-run-instancek=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIl LLqw%3D%3D%0Ar=eH0pxTUZo8NPZyF6hgoMQu%2BfDtysg45MkPhCZFxPEq8%3D%0Am=m51N cC8%2Byhvmtv%2FnrCQvfmoJK0QyJo5pl7iShl2bmck%3D%0As=bf6f26da40ba9acedc20fe 3f1f84d4d3eb1a215282db3e59ff7088225da7e6f1 is a pre-requisite for nova to use the split out scheduler, but I think we can begin before that is complete, by doing the work on the new trees: - setting up the basic trees we'll need (a service tree and a client tree) as openstack-infra/config changes I am not really sure how we can have a client tree without even having discussed the API's and interfaces. From the initial round of emails the intention was to make use of the RPC mechanism to speak with the scheduler. One option worth thinking about is to introduce a new scheduling driver to nova - this driver will interface with the external scheduler. This will let us define the scheduling API, model etc, without being in the current confines of Nova. This will also enable all of the other modules, for example Cinder to hook into it. To be honest I think that that is a lot cleaner way of going about it. Once the driver is working then we can speak about deprecating the existing drivers. My thoughts are: 1. Lets start to define the external scheduler API's - say V1 - support all existing Nova, Cinder, Neutron etc - that is have parity with these 2. Start to think of the new and shiny scheduling features How about we draw up a plan for #1 and then see how we can divide up the work and set milestones etc. The API's can evolve, but we need to get the initial engine (which will be based on nova code) up and runningŠ. Happy holidays - picking an interim name (e.g. external-scheduler and python-external-schedulerclient) However, lets get russelb to approve the blueprint https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://blueprints.launchpad.ne t/nova/%2Bspec/forklift-scheduler-breakoutk=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3 D%0Ar=eH0pxTUZo8NPZyF6hgoMQu%2BfDtysg45MkPhCZFxPEq8%3D%0Am=m51NcC8%2Byhv mtv%2FnrCQvfmoJK0QyJo5pl7iShl2bmck%3D%0As=5b89f2239e66793a9d62e7a1249b60a bda511694a43ddb28c5e8109cc5f43ac1 first. Cheers, Rob ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.openstack.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-devk=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0Ar=e H0pxTUZo8NPZyF6hgoMQu%2BfDtysg45MkPhCZFxPEq8%3D%0Am=m51NcC8%2Byhvmtv%2Fnr CQvfmoJK0QyJo5pl7iShl2bmck%3D%0As=4e696767b9510069b282cad72b0e37841731a66 3c904fdf41fb7f94b4cc1b9dc ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Schduler] Volunteers wanted for a modest proposal for an external scheduler in our lifetime
On 11/28/2013 09:50 AM, Gary Kotton wrote: One option worth thinking about is to introduce a new scheduling driver to nova - this driver will interface with the external scheduler. This will let us define the scheduling API, model etc, without being in the current confines of Nova. This will also enable all of the other modules, for example Cinder to hook into it. I see a couple nice things about this proposal: 1) Going this route means that we're free to mess with the APIs to some extent since they're not really public yet. 2) Once we have API parity with the current schedulers all in one place then we'll be able to more easily start extracting common stuff. Chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Schduler] Volunteers wanted for a modest proposal for an external scheduler in our lifetime
Le 28/11/2013 17:04, Chris Friesen a écrit : On 11/28/2013 09:50 AM, Gary Kotton wrote: One option worth thinking about is to introduce a new scheduling driver to nova - this driver will interface with the external scheduler. This will let us define the scheduling API, model etc, without being in the current confines of Nova. This will also enable all of the other modules, for example Cinder to hook into it. I see a couple nice things about this proposal: 1) Going this route means that we're free to mess with the APIs to some extent since they're not really public yet. 2) Once we have API parity with the current schedulers all in one place then we'll be able to more easily start extracting common stuff. I agree with Gary. From my POV, I think it's really important to define what the interfaces are, what is passed to the scheduler and what is given by the scheduler. Of course, Nova is the first starting point for knowing what to define, but we need to make sure the I/Os are enough modular to support any type of things to schedule (Cinder backends, Manila FSes, Climate compute-hosts and so far...) -Sylvain ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Hacking] License headers in empty files
Hi folks, according to our hacking rules all source files should contain the Apache license header in the beginning (http://docs.openstack.org/developer/hacking/#openstack-licensing). There are special files that in most of the cases are empty, i.e., __init__.py. I used to put license headers to __init__ files when I was working on Neutron or Ironic. However, recently I got a feedback for one of my patches from several folks that said that licence headers should be removed from __init__ files because empty files are not source files. The point of this email is _not_ to blame someone or to push my personal opinion to the folks who gave me the feedback. What I'm trying to do is to to bring more clarity to our hacking rules because, as I see, currently different folks interpret them differently. - Roman 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] [Openstack][qa][Tempest][Network] Test for external connectivity
On 2013-11-28 06:46:27 -0500 (-0500), Yair Fried wrote: [...] 4. Jeremy Stanley - test check for no fewer than three addresses -- Why? If your tests try to communicate with addresses which are truly outside your own network, and thus outside your sphere of control, you don't want them failing because of maintenance on the system being pinged (don't just trust in a third party's HA to be working around the clock--I've been burned there before as well). Also, the Internet is not generally trustworthy, least of all for a low-priority protocol like ICMP type echo/echo-reply. Send several each to several remote addresses and as long as at least one reply comes back, there is *probably* working egress. Also, even at that level of belt-and-braces paranoia, I'm pretty sure we won't want this test enabled in upstream CI unless we can fake an external address on a loopback within the DevStack server itself (or perhaps if the addresses belong to remote things on which the test already depends, such as our PyPI mirror and Git farm, but that still adds a requirement for layer 4 NAT on the DevStack VM). -- Jeremy Stanley ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Stop logging non-exceptional conditions as ERROR
I have been doing so in the number of patches I pushed to reduce error traces due to the communication between server and dhcp agent. I wanted to take care of the l3 agent too, but one thing I noticed is that I couldn't find a log for it (I mean on the artifacts that are published at job's completion). Actually, I couldn't find an l3 agent started by devstack either. Am I missing something? On 27 November 2013 09:08, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote: Thanks Maru, This is something my team had on the backlog for a while. I will push some patches to contribute towards this effort in the next few days. Let me know if you're already thinking of targeting the completion of this job for a specific deadline. Salvatore On 27 November 2013 17:50, Maru Newby ma...@redhat.com wrote: Just a heads up, the console output for neutron gate jobs is about to get a lot noisier. Any log output that contains 'ERROR' is going to be dumped into the console output so that we can identify and eliminate unnecessary error logging. Once we've cleaned things up, the presence of unexpected (non-whitelisted) error output can be used to fail jobs, as per the following Tempest blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/fail-gate-on-log-errors I've filed a related Neutron blueprint for eliminating the unnecessary error logging: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/log-only-exceptional-conditions-as-error I'm looking for volunteers to help with this effort, please reply in this thread if you're willing to assist. Thanks, Maru ___ 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] [Hacking] License headers in empty files
On Thu, Nov 28 2013, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote: The point of this email is _not_ to blame someone or to push my personal opinion to the folks who gave me the feedback. What I'm trying to do is to to bring more clarity to our hacking rules because, as I see, currently different folks interpret them differently. Anyway, having headers in empty file sounds just dumb. Maybe a mistake that has been transformed into a rule? -- Julien Danjou // Free Software hacker / independent consultant // http://julien.danjou.info signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Hacking] License headers in empty files
On 11/28/2013 01:01 PM, Julien Danjou wrote: On Thu, Nov 28 2013, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote: The point of this email is _not_ to blame someone or to push my personal opinion to the folks who gave me the feedback. What I'm trying to do is to to bring more clarity to our hacking rules because, as I see, currently different folks interpret them differently. Anyway, having headers in empty file sounds just dumb. Maybe a mistake that has been transformed into a rule? When we wrote the hacking rule for the license check basically we didn't want to overreach and cause a ton of work on projects to purge this. So basically any file 10 lines, we don't enforce the Apache license header check. This allows __init__.py files to be either empty (which is what they should be), or have the header. It just doesn't check for trivially small files. I'm totally in favor of going further and saying empty files shouldn't have license headers, because their content of emptiness isn't copyrightable [1]. That's just not how it's written today. -Sean 1. Philip Glass might disagree - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3 -- Sean Dague http://dague.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Schduler] Volunteers wanted for a modest proposal for an external scheduler in our lifetime
On 29 November 2013 04:50, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote: I am not really sure how we can have a client tree without even having discussed the API's and interfaces. From the initial round of emails the intention was to make use of the RPC mechanism to speak with the scheduler. It still is. We have an existing RPC API in the nova/scheduler tree. One option worth thinking about is to introduce a new scheduling driver to nova - this driver will interface with the external scheduler. This will let us define the scheduling API, model etc, without being in the current confines of Nova. This will also enable all of the other modules, for example Cinder to hook into it. The problem is that that is the boil-the-ocean approach that hasn't succeeded for several cycles. We have interest in trying something new - there are three failure modes I can see: A - we fail to split it out enough, and noone else uses it. B - we introduce a performance / correctness problem during the split out C - we stall and don't do anything Right now, I am mainly worried about B. Getting good APIs is step two after getting a solid split out scheduler. -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] [Hacking] License headers in empty files
Sean, Julien, Than really makes sense. I've seen cases when guys -1ed patches for not having the header in empty files referring to that ...all source files... phrase. That's why I think it's reasonable to add your comments to the Hacking rules. - Roman On Nov 28, 2013, at 20:08 , Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote: On 11/28/2013 01:01 PM, Julien Danjou wrote: On Thu, Nov 28 2013, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote: The point of this email is _not_ to blame someone or to push my personal opinion to the folks who gave me the feedback. What I'm trying to do is to to bring more clarity to our hacking rules because, as I see, currently different folks interpret them differently. Anyway, having headers in empty file sounds just dumb. Maybe a mistake that has been transformed into a rule? When we wrote the hacking rule for the license check basically we didn't want to overreach and cause a ton of work on projects to purge this. So basically any file 10 lines, we don't enforce the Apache license header check. This allows __init__.py files to be either empty (which is what they should be), or have the header. It just doesn't check for trivially small files. I'm totally in favor of going further and saying empty files shouldn't have license headers, because their content of emptiness isn't copyrightable [1]. That's just not how it's written today. -Sean 1. Philip Glass might disagree - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3 -- Sean Dague http://dague.net 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] [Hacking] License headers in empty files
On Thu, Nov 28 2013, Sean Dague wrote: I'm totally in favor of going further and saying empty files shouldn't have license headers, because their content of emptiness isn't copyrightable [1]. That's just not how it's written today. I went ahead and sent a first patch: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59090/ Help appreciated. :) -- Julien Danjou -- Free Software hacker - independent consultant -- http://julien.danjou.info signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Stop logging non-exceptional conditions as ERROR
Perhaps it's because the l3 agent log it's now named q-vpn.log, if the vpn service is enabled as well. Salvatore On 28 November 2013 18:50, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote: I have been doing so in the number of patches I pushed to reduce error traces due to the communication between server and dhcp agent. I wanted to take care of the l3 agent too, but one thing I noticed is that I couldn't find a log for it (I mean on the artifacts that are published at job's completion). Actually, I couldn't find an l3 agent started by devstack either. Am I missing something? On 27 November 2013 09:08, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote: Thanks Maru, This is something my team had on the backlog for a while. I will push some patches to contribute towards this effort in the next few days. Let me know if you're already thinking of targeting the completion of this job for a specific deadline. Salvatore On 27 November 2013 17:50, Maru Newby ma...@redhat.com wrote: Just a heads up, the console output for neutron gate jobs is about to get a lot noisier. Any log output that contains 'ERROR' is going to be dumped into the console output so that we can identify and eliminate unnecessary error logging. Once we've cleaned things up, the presence of unexpected (non-whitelisted) error output can be used to fail jobs, as per the following Tempest blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/fail-gate-on-log-errors I've filed a related Neutron blueprint for eliminating the unnecessary error logging: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/log-only-exceptional-conditions-as-error I'm looking for volunteers to help with this effort, please reply in this thread if you're willing to assist. Thanks, Maru ___ 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 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum] Configuration options placement
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Georgy Okrokvertskhov gokrokvertsk...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi, I am working on the user-authentication BP implementation. I need to introduce a new configuration option for enable or disable keystone authentication for incoming request. I am looking for a right place for this option. The current situation is that we have two places for configuration, one is oslo.config and second one is a pecan configuration. My initial intension was to add all parameters to solum.conf file like it is done for nova. Keystone middleware anyway use oslo.config for keystone connection parameters. At the same time there are projects (Ceilometer and Ironic) which have enable_acl parameter as a part of pecan config. From my perspective it is not reasonable to have authentication options in two different places. I would rather use solum.conf for all parameters and limit pecan config usage to pecan specific options. Yes, I think the intent for ceilometer was to add a separate configuration option to replace the one in the pecan config and that we just overlooked doing that. It will certainly happen before any of that app code makes it way into Oslo (planned for this cycle). Doug I am looking for your input on this. Thanks, Georgy ___ 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] [Ironic][Ceilometer] get IPMI data for ceilometer
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Devananda van der Veen
devananda@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 25, 2013 7:13 PM, Doug Hellmann doug.hellm...@dreamhost.com
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Devananda van der Veen
devananda@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
Very good questions. I think most of them are directed towards the
Ceilometer team, but I have answered a few bits inline.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:24 AM, wanghaomeng wanghaom...@163.com
wrote:
Hello all:
Basically, I understand the solution is - Our Ironic will implement an
IPMI driver
We will need to add a new interface -- for example,
ironic.drivers.base.BaseDriver:sensor and the corresponding
ironic.drivers.base.SensorInterface class, then implement this interface as
ironic.drivers.modules.ipmitool:IPMISensor
We also need to define the methods this interface supports and what the
return data type is for each method. I imagine it may be something like:
- SensorInterface.list_available_sensors(node) returns a list of sensor
names for that node
- SensorInterface.get_measurements(node, list_of_sensor_names) returns
a dict of dicts, eg, { 'sensor_1': {'key': 'value'}, 'sensor_2': ...}
(extendable framework for more drivers) to collect hardware sensor
data(cpu temp, fan speed, volts, etc) via IPMI protocol from hardware
server node, and emit the AMQP message to Ceilometer Collector, Ceilometer
have the framework to handle the valid sample message and save to the
database for data retrieving by consumer.
Now, how do you think if we should clearly define the interface data
model specifications between Ironic and Ceilometer to enable IPMI data
collecting, then our two team can start the coding together?
I think this is just a matter of understanding Ceilometer's API so that
Ironic can emit messages in the correct format. You've got many good
questions for the Ceilometer team on this below.
And I still have some concern with our interface and data model as
below, the spec need to be discussed and finalized:
1. What is the Ceilometer sample data mandatory attributes, such as
instance_id/tenant_id/user_id/resource_id, if they are not optional, where
are these data populated, from Ironic or Ceilomter side?
name/type/unit/volume/timestamp - basic sample property, can be
populated from Ironic side as data source
user_id/project_id/resource_id - Ironic or Ceilometer populate these
fields??
Ceilometer knows nothing about resources unless it is told, so all of
the required fields have to be provided by the sender.
resource_metadata - this is for Ceilometer metadata query, Ironic
know nothing for such resource metadata I think
The resource metadata depends on the resource type, but should be all of
the user-visible attributes for that object stored in the database at the
time the measurement is taken. For example, for instances we (try to) get
all of the instance attributes.
We could send all the node.properties, Getting into node.driver_info
would expose passwords and such, so we shouldn't send that.
Agreed.
source - can we hard-code as 'hardware' as a source identifier?
No, the source is the source of the user and project ids, not the source
of the measurement (the data source is implied by the meter name). The
default source for user and project is openstack to differentiate from an
add-on layer like a PaaS where there are different user or project ids.
Ironic can cache the user_id and project_id of the instance. These will
not be present for unprovisioned nodes.
I'm not sure what resource_id is in this context, perhaps the nova
instance_uuid? If so, Ironic has that as well.
Do end-users know about bare metal servers before they are provisioned
as instances? Can a regular user, for example, as for the list of available
servers or find details about one by name or id?
There is an API service which exposes information about unprovisioned
servers. At the moment, it is admin-only. If you think of an end-user as
someone using tuskar, they will likely want to know about unprovisioned
servers.
OK, then some form of auditing event (similar to the instance and network
exists events) might make sense. I think those are a lower priority than
the standard CRUD events, though.
2. Not sure if our Ceilometer only accept the signed-message, if it is
case, how Ironic get the message trust for Ceilometer, and send the valid
message which can be accepted by Ceilometer Collector?
I'm not sure it's appropriate for ironic to be sending messages using
ceilometer's sample format. We receive data from the other projects using
the more generic notification system, and that seems like the right tool to
use here, too. Unless the other ceilometer devs disagree?
3. What is the Ceilometer sample data structure, and what is the min
data item set for the IPMI message
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Schduler] Volunteers wanted for a modest proposal for an external scheduler in our lifetime
On 29 November 2013 09:44, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote: The first stage is technical - move Nova scheduling code from A to be. What do we achieve - not much - we actually complicate things - there is always churn in Nova and we will have duplicate code bases. In addition to this the only service that can actually make use of they is Nova The second stage is defining an API that other modules can use (we have yet to decide if this will be RPC based or have a interface like Glance, Cinder etc.) We have yet to even talk about the API's. The third stage is adding shiny new features and trying to not have a community tar and feather us. Yup; I look forward to our tar and feathering overlords. :) Prior to copying code we really need to discuss the API's. I don't think we do: it's clear that we need to come up with them - it's necessary, and noone has expressed any doubt about the ability to do that. RPC API evolution is fairly well understood - we add a new method, and have it do the necessary, then we go to the users and get them using it, then we delete the old one. This can even be done in parallel if your concern is time and resources. But the point is we need a API to interface with the service. For a start we can just address the Nova use case. We need to at least address: 1. Scheduling interface 2. Statistics updates 3. API's for configuring the scheduling policies Later these will all need to bode well with all of the existing modules that we want to support - Nova, Cinder and Neutron (if I missed on then feel free to kick me whilst I am down) Ironic perhaps. I do not think that we should focus on failure modes, we should plan it and break it up so that it will be usable and functional and most importantly useful in the near future. How about next week we sit together and draw up a wiki of the flows, data structures and interfaces. Lets go from there. While I disagree about us needing to do it right now, I'm very happy to spend some time on it - I don't want to stop folk doing work that needs to be done! -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] [Neutron][LBaaS] Thursday subteam meeting
Hi Eugene, Thank you for the response. I have a comment. I think 'provider' attribute should be added to loadbalance resource and used rather than pool's 'provider' since I think using multiple driver within a loadbalancer does not make sense. What do you think ? I'm looking forward to your code up ! Thanks. Itsuro Oda On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:58:40 +0400 Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Itsuro, I've updated the wiki with some examples of cli workflow that illustrate proposed API. Please see the updated page: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/LoadbalancerInstance#API_change Thanks, Eugene. On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Itsuro ODA o...@valinux.co.jp wrote: Hi, I'd like to review about LoadblancerInstance API specification. Please update wiki page before the meeting. (It is a little bit hard to follow in the IRC for me since I'm not English native. so I'd like to consider for the API beforehand.) Thanks. Itsuro Oda On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:07:47 +0400 Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Neutron folks, LBaaS subteam meeting will be on Thursday, 27, at 14-00 UTC as usual. We'll discuss current progress and continue with feature design. Thanks, Eugene. -- Itsuro ODA o...@valinux.co.jp ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Itsuro ODA o...@valinux.co.jp ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Thursday subteam meeting
Hi, I can't find the 28th meeting log. (Does not logs automatically generated ?) Thanks. -- Itsuro ODA o...@valinux.co.jp ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [heat][hadoop][template] Does anyone has a hadoop template
Hi, I'm now trying to deploy a hadoop cluster with heat, just wondering if someone who has a heat template which can help me do the work. Thanks, Jay ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Glance] How to handle simple janitorial tasks?
Hi All, A quick question about simple janitorial tasks ... I noticed that glance.api.v2.image_data.ImageDataController.upload has two identical except clauses (circa line 98): except exception.StorageFull as e: msg = _(Image storage media is full: %s) % e LOG.error(msg) raise webob.exc.HTTPRequestEntityTooLarge(explanation=msg, request=req) except exception.StorageFull as e: msg = _(Image storage media is full: %s) % e LOG.error(msg) raise webob.exc.HTTPRequestEntityTooLarge(explanation=msg, request=req) Obviously one of the except clauses can be removed (or am I missing something glaringly obvious?) - I shall be happy to do that but should I first raise some kind of bug or should I directly commit a fix or should I bring up such simple janitorial tasks to the mailing list here on a case-by-case basis for discussion first? I do realize that the definition of simple can vary from person to person and so (ideally) such cases should perhaps should be brought to the list for discussion first. But I also worry about introducing noise into the list. -- Koo ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Thursday subteam meeting
Hi, I found it in /meeting/nuetron_lbaas. (neutron - nuetron) On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:51:56 +0900 Itsuro ODA o...@valinux.co.jp wrote: Hi, I can't find the 28th meeting log. (Does not logs automatically generated ?) Thanks. -- Itsuro ODA o...@valinux.co.jp ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Itsuro ODA o...@valinux.co.jp ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance] How to handle simple janitorial tasks?
Hi Koo, On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:15 AM, David koo david@huawei.com wrote: Hi All, A quick question about simple janitorial tasks ... I noticed that glance.api.v2.image_data.ImageDataController.upload has two identical except clauses (circa line 98): except exception.StorageFull as e: msg = _(Image storage media is full: %s) % e LOG.error(msg) raise webob.exc.HTTPRequestEntityTooLarge(explanation=msg, request=req) except exception.StorageFull as e: msg = _(Image storage media is full: %s) % e LOG.error(msg) raise webob.exc.HTTPRequestEntityTooLarge(explanation=msg, request=req) Obviously one of the except clauses can be removed (or am I missing something glaringly obvious?) - I shall be happy to do that but should I first raise some kind of bug or should I directly commit a fix or should I bring up such simple janitorial tasks to the mailing list here on a case-by-case basis for discussion first? eagle-eyed man, I think it's a defect. I prefer you file a bug report first then to prepare patch. (and put the bug id into the commit message) Actually reviewers can give you some valuable message when they look your patch, and you can discussing them in team room within IRC if you needed. ML is a good place but it has some delay than IRC, I think simple questions can be talked in Gerrit or IRC directly but IMO ML is better for complicated topic or you want to get more feedback cross different project. And if you consider those topic which has epic effect change you can involve etherpad or wiki also. zhiyan I do realize that the definition of simple can vary from person to person and so (ideally) such cases should perhaps should be brought to the list for discussion first. But I also worry about introducing noise into the list. -- Koo ___ 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] [eventlet] should we use spawn instead of spawn_n?
eventlet.spawn_n is the same as eventlet.spawn, but it’s not possible to know how the function terminated (i.e. no return value or exceptions)[1]. If an exception is raised in the function, spawn_n prints a stack trace. The stack trace will not be written to the log file. It will be lost if we restart the daemon. Maybe we need to replace spawn_n with spawn. If an exception is raised in the function, we can log it if needed. Any thoughts? related bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1254984 [1] http://eventlet.net/doc/basic_usage.html -- Cheers, Jian ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] remote debugging
Hello Tracy, some of the problem I faced, to execute different nova cli(s), i required to restart nova service every-time. Nova service needs to fully start/realize, before debugging can start. import pydev; works as break-point for debugger, needs to add at all the places. For ex: in case one wants to debug nova boot flow end-to-end. needs to know, the exact code location to put break-point in each service. Regards, Yatin On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Tracy Jones tjo...@vmware.com wrote: Thanks Yatin - that is the change I am proposing in my patch On Nov 25, 2013, at 9:09 AM, yatin kumbhare yatinkumbh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, http://debugopenstack.blogspot.in/ I have done Openstack remote debugging with eclipse and pydev. only change is to exclude python thread library from monkey patch at service start up. Regards, Yatin On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.comwrote: On 11/25/2013 10:28 AM, Tracy Jones wrote: Hi Folks - i am trying to add a patch to enable remote debugging in the nova services. I can make this work very simply, but it requires a change to monkey_patching - i.e. eventlet.monkey_patch(os=False, select=True, socket=True, thread=False, time=True, psycopg=True) I’m working with some folks from the debugger vendor (pycharm) on why this is needed. However - i’ve been using it with nova-compute for a month or so and do not see any issues which changing the monkey-patching. Since this is done only when someone wants to use the debugger - is making this change so bad? https://review.openstack.org/56287 Last I looked at the review, it wasn't known that thread=False was specifically what was needed IIRC That's good progress and is a bit less surprising than the change before. I suppose if the options that enable this come with a giant warning, it'd be OK. Something like: WARNING: Using this option changes how Nova uses the eventlet library to support async IO. This could result in failures that do not occur under normal opreation. Use at your own risk. -- 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] Reg : Security groups implementation using openflows in quantum ovs plugin
I don't think we can implement a stateful firewall[1] now. Once connection tracking capability[2] is added to the Linux OVS, we could start to implement the ovs-firewall-driver blueprint. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateful_firewall [2] http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Xen_Development_Projects#Add_connection_tracking_capability_to_the_Linux_OVS On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Mike Wilson geekinu...@gmail.com wrote: Adding Jun to this thread since gmail is failing him. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Amir Sadoughi amir.sadou...@rackspace.com wrote: Yes, my work has been on ML2 with neutron-openvswitch-agent. I’m interested to see what Jun Park has. I might have something ready before he is available again, but would like to collaborate regardless. Amir On Nov 19, 2013, at 3:31 AM, Kanthi P pavuluri.kan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, Thanks for the response! Amir,Mike: Is your implementation being done according to ML2 plugin Regards, Kanthi On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Mike Wilson geekinu...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Kanthi, Just to reiterate what Kyle said, we do have an internal implementation using flows that looks very similar to security groups. Jun Park was the guy that wrote this and is looking to get it upstreamed. I think he'll be back in the office late next week. I'll point him to this thread when he's back. -Mike On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) kmest...@cisco.com wrote: On Nov 18, 2013, at 4:26 PM, Kanthi P pavuluri.kan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, We are planning to implement quantum security groups using openflows for ovs plugin instead of iptables which is the case now. Doing so we can avoid the extra linux bridge which is connected between the vnet device and the ovs bridge, which is given as a work around since ovs bridge is not compatible with iptables. We are planning to create a blueprint and work on it. Could you please share your views on this Hi Kanthi: Overall, this idea is interesting and removing those extra bridges would certainly be nice. Some people at Bluehost gave a talk at the Summit [1] in which they explained they have done something similar, you may want to reach out to them since they have code for this internally already. The OVS plugin is in feature freeze during Icehouse, and will be deprecated in favor of ML2 [2] at the end of Icehouse. I would advise you to retarget your work at ML2 when running with the OVS agent instead. The Neutron team will not accept new features into the OVS plugin anymore. Thanks, Kyle [1] http://www.openstack.org/summit/openstack-summit-hong-kong-2013/session-videos/presentation/towards-truly-open-and-commoditized-software-defined-networks-in-openstack [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/ML2 Thanks, Kanthi ___ 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 ___ 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 -- Cheers, Jian ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance] How to handle simple janitorial tasks?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1256207 On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Zhi Yan Liu lzy@gmail.com wrote: Hi Koo, On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:15 AM, David koo david@huawei.com wrote: Hi All, A quick question about simple janitorial tasks ... I noticed that glance.api.v2.image_data.ImageDataController.upload has two identical except clauses (circa line 98): except exception.StorageFull as e: msg = _(Image storage media is full: %s) % e LOG.error(msg) raise webob.exc.HTTPRequestEntityTooLarge(explanation=msg, request=req) except exception.StorageFull as e: msg = _(Image storage media is full: %s) % e LOG.error(msg) raise webob.exc.HTTPRequestEntityTooLarge(explanation=msg, request=req) Obviously one of the except clauses can be removed (or am I missing something glaringly obvious?) - I shall be happy to do that but should I first raise some kind of bug or should I directly commit a fix or should I bring up such simple janitorial tasks to the mailing list here on a case-by-case basis for discussion first? eagle-eyed man, I think it's a defect. I prefer you file a bug report first then to prepare patch. (and put the bug id into the commit message) Actually reviewers can give you some valuable message when they look your patch, and you can discussing them in team room within IRC if you needed. ML is a good place but it has some delay than IRC, I think simple questions can be talked in Gerrit or IRC directly but IMO ML is better for complicated topic or you want to get more feedback cross different project. And if you consider those topic which has epic effect change you can involve etherpad or wiki also. zhiyan I do realize that the definition of simple can vary from person to person and so (ideally) such cases should perhaps should be brought to the list for discussion first. But I also worry about introducing noise into the list. -- Koo ___ 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][heat][[keystone] RFC: introducing request identification
Thank you for your reply. I completely misunderstood. You're correct on request_id and task_id. What I'm planning is a string field that a user can pass in with the request and it will be part of the task representation. That field will have no meaning to Nova, but a client like Heat could use it to ensure that they don't send requests twice by checking if there's a task with that field set. I see. Especially, this point is so good. 'Heat could use it to ensure that they don't send requests twice by checking if there's a task with that field set.' Moreover, I want to ask some questions about instance-tasks-api. (I'm sorry it's a little bit long...) * Is instance-tasks-api process outside of Nova? Is it standalone? * About 'user can pass in with the request' When user specifies task_id, task_id would be which user specified. And if user doesn't specify task_id, does task_id generate automatically by Nova? (like correlation_id is generated by oslo auto when specified from noonne.) * About management state of API Which is correct 'Queued, Active, Error, Complete' or ' pendig, in progress, and completed'? And for exmple 'live migration', there are 'pre migration', 'migration(migrateToURI)' and 'post migration'. Do you care about each detailed task? or care about 'live migrating ' ? Does 'in progress'(for example) say about in progress of 'pre migration' or in progress of 'live migration'? * About relation with 'Taskflow'. Nova's taskflow-nize is not yet. However, taskflow's persistence of flow state is good helper for cancelling tasks, I think. (I think cancelling is not scope of i-2.) How do you think of this relation and the fiture? I would appriciate updating etherpad or blueprint if you have more detail or data flow of instance-tasks-api. Sincerely, Haruka Tanizawa 2013/11/28 Andrew Laski andrew.la...@rackspace.com On 11/22/13 at 10:14am, haruka tanizawa wrote: Thanks for your reply. I'm working on the implementation of instance-tasks-api[0] in Nova and this is what I've been moving towards so far. Yes, I know. I think that is good idea. The API will accept a string to be a part of the task but it will have meaning only to the client, not to Nova. Then if tasks can be searched or filtered by that field I think that would meet the requirements you layed out above, or is something missing? Hmmm, as far as I understand, keystone(keystone work plan blueprint) generate request_id to each request. (I think that is a good idea.) And task_id is generated by instance-tasks-api. Is my understanding of this correct? Or if I miss something, thanks for telling me anything. You're correct on request_id and task_id. What I'm planning is a string field that a user can pass in with the request and it will be part of the task representation. That field will have no meaning to Nova, but a client like Heat could use it to ensure that they don't send requests twice by checking if there's a task with that field set. Haruka Tanizawa ___ 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] FreeBSD hypervisor (bhyve) driver
Hello, Yes, libvirt's qemu driver works almost fine currently, except the fact that it needs a 'real' bridge driver, so all the networking configuration like filtering rules, NAT, etc could be done automatically, like for Linux now, instead of making user to perform all the configuration manually. I've been planning to get to bhyve driver as well, but probably after finishing with the bridge driver (but unfortunately, I don't have a full picture what would be the best way to implement that). On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.comwrote: On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:46:19AM -0500, Russell Bryant wrote: On 11/22/2013 10:43 AM, Rafał Jaworowski wrote: Russell, First, thank you for the whiteboard input regarding the blueprint for FreeBSD hypervisor nova driver: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/freebsd-compute-node We were considering libvirt support for bhyve hypervisor as well, only wouldn't want to do this as the first approach for FreeBSD+OpenStack integration. We'd rather bring bhyve bindings for libvirt later as another integration option. For FreeBSD host support a native hypervisor driver is important and desired long-term and we would like to have it anyways. Among things to consider are the following: - libvirt package is additional (non-OpenStack), external dependency (maintained in the 'ports' collection, not included in base system), while native API (via libvmmapi.so library) is integral part of the base system. - libvirt license is LGPL, which might be an important aspect for some users. That's perfectly fine if you want to go that route as a first step. However, that doesn't mean it's appropriate for merging into Nova. Unless there are strong technical justifications for why this approach should be taken, I would probably turn down this driver until you were able to go the libvirt route. The idea of a FreeBSD bhyve driver for libvirt has been mentioned a few times. We've already got a FreeBSD port of libvirt being actively maintained to support QEMU (and possibly Xen, not 100% sure on that one), and we'd be more than happy to see further contributions such as a bhyve driver. I am of course biased, as libvirt project maintainer, but I do agree that supporting bhyve via libvirt would make sense, since it opens up opportunities beyond just OpenStack. There are a bunch of applications built on libvirt that could be used to manage bhyve, and a fair few applications which have plugins using libvirt Taking on maint work for a new OpenStack driver is a non-trivial amount of work in itself. If the burden for OpenStack maintainers can be reduced by, pushing work out to / relying on support from, libvirt, that makes sense from OpenStack/Nova's POV. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/:| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org:| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/:| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc:| ___ 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] FreeBSD hypervisor (bhyve) driver
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Rafał Jaworowski r...@semihalf.com wrote: The maintenance aspect and testing coverage are valid points, on the other hand future changes would have to go a longer way for us: first upstream to libvirt, then downstream to the FreeBSD ports collection (+ perhaps some OpenStack code bits as well), which makes the process more complicated. I don't think that there would be a huge problem with that, because libvirt releases quite often, and Jason Helfman, who maintains libvirt package in FreeBSD ports tree, always updates to the new versions on time. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
