Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [Tuskar] [Horizon] Icehouse Release of TripleO UI + Demo
On 10/04/14 20:55, Jay Dobies wrote: On 04/10/2014 01:40 PM, Nachi Ueno wrote: Hi Jarda Congratulations This release and the demo is super awesome!! Do you have any instruction to install this one? I'd like to see this too. I asked a few times and never got an answer on whether or not there was a documented way of demoing this without a ton of baremetal lying around. from what Jarda said in his other email (un-narrated one), this is all running from master. In which case all you need is an undercloud setup and then you can install tuskar/ui on that host. WRT the baremetal - For dev I've only ever done this with poseur nodes - or I misunderstood the question marios 2014-04-10 1:32 GMT-07:00 Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com: Dear Stackers, I am happy to announce that yesterday Tuskar UI (TripleO UI) has tagged branch 0.1.0 for Icehouse release [0]. I put together a narrated demo of all included features [1]. You can find one manual part in the whole workflow - cloud initialization. There is ongoing work on automatic os-cloud-config, but for the release we had to include manual way. Automation should be added soon though. I want to thank all contributors for hard work to make this happen. It has been pleasure to cooperate with all of you guys and I am looking forward to bringing new features [2] in. -- Jarda [0] 0.1.0 Icehouse Release of the UI: https://github.com/openstack/tuskar-ui/releases/tag/0.1.0 [1] Narrated demo of TripleO UI 0.1.0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6whFIqCqLU [2] Juno Planning for Tuskar: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/TuskarJunoPlanning ___ 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] [Neutron] [IPv6] Ubuntu PPA with IPv6 enabled, need help to achieve it
On 04/08/2014 03:10 AM, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote: Hi Thomas! It will be a honor for me to join Debian OpenStack packaging team! I'm in!! :-D Listen, that neutron-ipv6.patch I have, doesn't apply against neutron-2014.1.rc1, here is it: neutron-ipv6.patch: http://paste.openstack.org/show/74857/ I generated it from the commands that Xuhan Peng told me to do, few posts back, which are: -- git fetch https://review.openstack.org/openstack/neutron refs/changes/49/70649/15 git format-patch -1 --stdout FETCH_HEAD neutron-ipv6.patch -- But, as Collins said, even if the patch applies successfully against neutron-2014.1.rc1 (or newer), it will not pass the tests, so, there is still a lot of work to do, to enable Neutron with IPv6 but, I think we can start working on this patches and start testing whatever is already there (related to IPv6). Best! Thiago Hi Thiago, It's my view that we'd better keep each patch separated, so that they can evolve over time, as they are accepted or fixed in review.openstack.org. On the Debian packaging I do, each and every patch has to comply with the DEP3 patch header specifications [1]. Specifically, I do insist that the Origin: field is set with the correct gerrit review URL, so that we can easily find out which patch comes from where. The Last-Update field is also important, so we know which version of the patch is in. Also, at eNovance, we are currently in the process of selecting which patch should get in, and which patch shouldn't. Currently, we are tracking the below patches: 1. Support IPv6 SLAAC mode in dnsmasq https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dnsmasq-ipv6-slaac Patchset: Add support to DHCP agent for BP ipv6-two-attributes: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/70649/ 2. Bind dnsmasq in qrouter- namespace. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dnsmasq-bind-into-qrouter-namespace Patchset: Add support to DHCP agent for BP ipv6-two-attributes: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/70649/ 3. IPv6 Feature Parity https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/ipv6-feature-parity Definition: Superseded. 4. Two Attributes Proposal to Control IPv6 RA Announcement and Address Assignment https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/ipv6-two-attributes Patchset: Create new IPv6 attributes for Subnets. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/52983/ Patchset: Add support to DHCP agent for BP ipv6-two-attributes. https://review.openstack.org/70649 Patchset: Calculate stateless IPv6 address. https://review.openstack.org/56184 Patchset: Permit ICMPv6 RAs only from known routers. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/72252/ 5. Support IPv6 DHCPv6 Stateless mode in dnsmasq https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dnsmasq-ipv6-dhcpv6-stateless Patchset: Add support to DHCP agent for BP ipv6-two-attributes: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/70649/ 6. Support IPv6 DHCPv6 Stateful mode in dnsmasq https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dnsmasq-ipv6-dhcpv6-stateful Patchset: Add support to DHCP agent for BP ipv6-two-attributes: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/70649/ 7. Support IPv6 DHCPv6 Relay Agent https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dnsmasq-ipv6-dhcpv6-relay-agent Definition: Drafting. 8. Provider Networking - upstream SLAAC support https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/ipv6-provider-nets-slaac Patchset: Ensure that that all fixed ips for a port belong to a subnet using DHCP. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/64578/ 9. Store both LLA and GUA on router interface port https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/ipv6-lla-gua-router-interface Definition: New 10. Add RADVD to router namespaces to serve ipv6 RAs when required https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/neutron-ipv6-radvd-ra Definition: New 11. Allow multiple subnets on gateway port for router https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/allow-multiple-subnets-on-gateway-port Patchset: Add support for dual-stack (IPv4 and IPv6) on external gateway. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/77471/ Definition: Review It is my own personal view that we shouldn't care about DHCPv6, and that only RADVD is important, though maybe my colleagues will have a different view. Also, it is very important that we only use patches that have a reasonable chance to be merged, or at least for which the functionality will for sure get in Juno. The current plan is that my colleagues (sridhar and Sylvain Afchain, which are both reacheable on IRC as SridharG and safchain in #openstack-neutron) will work on grabbing each patch, reviewing it and evaluating it, then rewrite the patch header, and finally send me a patchset to apply on top of Icehouse. It's much better that it is them, rather than me, that works on that, as they are specialists of Neutron, while I'm a specialist of Debian packaging. Your input on this process is very much welcome here. Your thoughts? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) [1]
[openstack-dev] TripleO fully uploaded to Debian Experimental
Hi, it's with a great joy that I can announce today, that TripleO is now fully in Debian [1]. It is currently only uploaded to Debian experimental, like for all Icehouse (I don't think I can upload to normal Sid until Icehouse is released). Feedback (and bug reports to the Debian BTS) would be more than welcome, as I had no time to test it myself! Of course, the plan is to have it updated again soon. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) [1] http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=openstack-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [Tuskar] [Horizon] Icehouse Release of TripleO UI + Demo
Hello, we have used this list of steps for the demo on Fedora 20: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Tuskar/Devtest The demo is running on one machine with 24GB RAM and 120GB disk. We are using virtualized baremetals(bm_poseur) for development. KInd Regards, Ladislav On 04/10/2014 07:40 PM, Nachi Ueno wrote: Hi Jarda Congratulations This release and the demo is super awesome!! Do you have any instruction to install this one? 2014-04-10 1:32 GMT-07:00 Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com: Dear Stackers, I am happy to announce that yesterday Tuskar UI (TripleO UI) has tagged branch 0.1.0 for Icehouse release [0]. I put together a narrated demo of all included features [1]. You can find one manual part in the whole workflow - cloud initialization. There is ongoing work on automatic os-cloud-config, but for the release we had to include manual way. Automation should be added soon though. I want to thank all contributors for hard work to make this happen. It has been pleasure to cooperate with all of you guys and I am looking forward to bringing new features [2] in. -- Jarda [0] 0.1.0 Icehouse Release of the UI: https://github.com/openstack/tuskar-ui/releases/tag/0.1.0 [1] Narrated demo of TripleO UI 0.1.0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6whFIqCqLU [2] Juno Planning for Tuskar: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/TuskarJunoPlanning ___ 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] [oslo] using transport_url disables connection pooling?
Hi, Le 2014-04-10 22:02, Gordon Sim a écrit : If you use the transport_url config option (or pass a url directly to get_transport()), then the amqp connection pooling appears to be disabled[1]. That means a new connection is created for every request send as well as for every response. So I guess rpc_backend is the recommended approach to selecting the transport at present(?). To keep same behavior as before yes. Also, they are a pending review to fix that (multi amqp hosts and connection pooling when using a transport url): https://review.openstack.org/#/c/78948/ Cheers, --- Mehdi Abaakouk mail: sil...@sileht.net irc: sileht ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [Tuskar] [Horizon] Icehouse Release of TripleO UI + Demo
On 11/04/14 10:35, Ladislav Smola wrote: Hello, we have used this list of steps for the demo on Fedora 20: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Tuskar/Devtest nice! The demo is running on one machine with 24GB RAM and 120GB disk. We are using virtualized baremetals(bm_poseur) for development. KInd Regards, Ladislav On 04/10/2014 07:40 PM, Nachi Ueno wrote: Hi Jarda Congratulations This release and the demo is super awesome!! Do you have any instruction to install this one? 2014-04-10 1:32 GMT-07:00 Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com: Dear Stackers, I am happy to announce that yesterday Tuskar UI (TripleO UI) has tagged branch 0.1.0 for Icehouse release [0]. I put together a narrated demo of all included features [1]. You can find one manual part in the whole workflow - cloud initialization. There is ongoing work on automatic os-cloud-config, but for the release we had to include manual way. Automation should be added soon though. I want to thank all contributors for hard work to make this happen. It has been pleasure to cooperate with all of you guys and I am looking forward to bringing new features [2] in. -- Jarda [0] 0.1.0 Icehouse Release of the UI: https://github.com/openstack/tuskar-ui/releases/tag/0.1.0 [1] Narrated demo of TripleO UI 0.1.0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6whFIqCqLU [2] Juno Planning for Tuskar: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/TuskarJunoPlanning ___ 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] [TripleO] [Tuskar] [Horizon] Icehouse Release of TripleO UI + Demo
On 2014/10/04 19:40, Nachi Ueno wrote: Hi Jarda Congratulations This release and the demo is super awesome!! Do you have any instruction to install this one? Thank you, Nachi! look at Ladislav's response he posted our guideline for installation. If you have any problems, let us know on #tuskar or #tripleo channel and we will help you to go through it. -- Jarda ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [Tuskar] [Horizon] Icehouse Release of TripleO UI + Demo
On 2014/10/04 19:40, Nachi Ueno wrote: Hi Jarda Congratulations This release and the demo is super awesome!! Do you have any instruction to install this one? Thank you, Nachi! look at Ladislav's response he posted our guideline for installation. If you have any problems, let us know on #tuskar channel and we will help you to go through. -- Jarda ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon] [TripleO] [Tuskar] Demo of current state of Tuskar-UI
On 2014/10/04 22:55, Robert Collins wrote: On 10 April 2014 01:54, Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com wrote: Hello OpenStackers, I would like to share with you non-narrated demo of current version of 'Tuskar-UI' project, which is very close to Icehouse release (one or two more patches to come in). Very very cool! It's thrilling to see all the effort folk have been putting into this - I just showed it to one of our product folk here and they really love it ;) -Rob Thank you, Rob! I think this was very important step and since now everything will go smoothly :) I also wanted to thank you for valuable feedbacks and contributions. Getting through this milestone brings us a lot of work for Juno which is good news. Cheers -- Jarda ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [fuel-dev][Fuel] VXLAN tunnels support
Hello, We have implemented support for VXLAN tunnels. Please review. Blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/neutron-vxlan-support Review requests: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86611/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/83767/ -- ___ Best Regards Oleg Balakirev Deployment Engineer Mirantis Inc. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] config options, defaults, oh my!
Clint Byrum said on Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 09:45:17AM -0700: Now you've described it, you're right, I'm not interested in TripleO or TripleO milestones. I am interested in using os-*-config, Heat and tripleo-image-elements to produce pure OpenStack deployments from 3 to 3000 nodes, for varying workloads. That is precisely what TripleO wants as that first milestone too. What is the difference between what I said we want (a default OpenStack deployment) and what you just said (a pure OpenStack deployment)? At what point did anybody suggest to you that TripleO doesn't want a highly scalable deployment of OpenStack? I'm not sure why you wouldn't just put the configuration you need in the upstream TripleO as the default configuration. Even more, why wouldn't you put these configurations in as the defaults for upstream Nova/Glance/Cinder/Neutron/etc? The trouble is there can only be one default configuration, whereas there are many potential kinds of deployment. If the default deployment is highly scalable, it will need a minimum number of nodes to start up. EG a highly scalable Logstash infrastructure requires at least 8 nodes to itself before you add any compute nodes. This won't be useful to those who want to start with a trial deployment and scale up from there. I like your Heat idea very much, where the user can easily supply whole files or filesets. This allows the user to choose: 1) What software is installed on which nodes, by element composition 2) The contents of configuration files, by Heat passthrough of a fileset 3) Per-instance variables plus a few tweak-prone knobs, via Heat parameters Thus we don't have to enshrine a single configuration or add a Heat parameter for every single config option. And TripleO can publish at first one but later several default Openstack deployments, each suitable for a different scale. Alexis -- Nova Engineer, HP Cloud. AKA lealexis, lxsli. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Neutron] Networking Discussions last week
On Apr 11, 2014, at 12:35 AM, Andrey Danin ada...@mirantis.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Mike Scherbakov mscherba...@mirantis.com wrote: Looks like it falls into two parts: Fuel Neutron requirements. Use case, as far as I understand, is following: user doesn't have one large range of publicly routable IP addresses for environment, and has multiple L3 ranges instead. So for Fuel it means: We should not waste public IPs for compute nodes nodes if we don't need them there (Neutron doesn't need it, only required for nova-network in multi-host mode). I think it should be covered by https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/advanced-networking We can do that when we introduce a role-based network assignment. If we use public network then only for OpenStack REST API services, we should be fine with one single IP range, do we? Yes. Floating network, which is external in Neutron terms, can be large waste of IPs for VMs. So it's impossible that in large clusters there is gonna be single L3 which would cover it. That means, Fuel should allow to have multiple L3 external networks per OpenStack environment, in theory they can be even in different L2. Our complex network setup (many bridges and many patches) allows us to concatenate multiple L3-networks into one L2-segment. And theoreticaly Neutron can manage multiple external networks in this setup. But we need to test it. also we should be able provide multiple floating networks (each in different L2 network) like on diagram https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Tv5g8RQZt1R3NIUEZtYkhEVVk/edit?usp=sharing It will be useful for hybrid (private/public) cloud. I had a short discussion with Maru Mark in IRC, it looks like we need in Neutron: It should be possible to have multiple L3 subnets for external network It is unlikely that we will need to have more than one subnet serving by single Neutron server, but we might in theory.. Alexander, please take a look if I treated your initial blueprint in a right way. Thanks, On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote: Hi Mike, For all neutron-related fuel developments please feel free to reach to to the neutron team for any help you might need either by using the ML or pinging people in #openstack-neutron. Regarding the fuel blueprints you linked in your first post, I am looking in particular at https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/separate-public-floating I am not entirely sure of what are the semantics of 'public' and 'floating' here, but I was wondering if this would be achievable at all with the current neutron API, since within a subnet CIDR there's no 'qualitative' distinction of allocations pools; so it would not be possible to have a 'public' IP pool and a 'floating' IP pool in the same L3 segment. Also, regarding nova gaps, it might be worth noting that Mark McClain (markmcclain) and Brent Eagles (beagles) are keeping track of current feature/testing/quality gaps and also covering progress for the relevant work items. Regards, Salvatore On 8 April 2014 14:46, Mike Scherbakov mscherba...@mirantis.com wrote: Great, thanks Assaf. I will keep following it. I've added a link to this bp on this page: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/NovaNeutronGapHighlights#Multi-Host, might help people to get the status. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Assaf Muller amul...@redhat.com wrote: - Original Message - Hi all, we had a number of discussions last week in Moscow, with participation of guys from Russia, Ukraine and Poland. That was a great time!! Thanks everyone who participated. Special thanks to Przemek for great preparations, including the following: https://docs.google.com/a/mirantis.com/presentation/d/115vCujjWoQ0cLKgVclV59_y1sLDhn2zwjxEDmLYsTzI/edit#slide=id.p I've searched over blueprints which require update after meetings: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/multiple-cluster-networks https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/fuel-multiple-l3-agents https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/fuel-storage-networks https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/separate-public-floating https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/advanced-networking We will need to create one for UI. Neutron blueprints which are in the interest of large and thus complex deployments, with the requirements of scalability and high availability: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/l3-high-availability https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/quantum-multihost The last one was rejected... there is might be another way of achieving same use cases? Use case, I think, was explained in great details here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/NovaNeutronGapHighlights Any thoughts on this? https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/neutron-ovs-dvr This is the up the date blueprint,
Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] Consolidating efforts around Fedora/Centos gate job
On 04/11/2014 01:43 AM, Ian Wienand wrote: Hi, To summarize recent discussions, nobody is opposed in general to having Fedora / Centos included in the gate. However, it raises a number of big questions : which job(s) to run on Fedora, where does the quota for extra jobs come from, how do we get the job on multiple providers, how stable will it be, how will we handle new releases, centos v fedora, etc. I think we agreed in [1] that the best thing to do is to start small, get some experience with multiple platforms and grow from there. Thus the decision to target a single job to test just incoming devstack changes on Fedora 20. This is a very moderate number of changes, so adding a separate test will not have a huge impact on resources. Evidence points to this being a good point to start. People submitting to devstack might have noticed comments from redhatci like [2] which reports runs of their change on a variety of rpm-based distros. Fedora 20 has been very stable, so we should not have many issues. Making sure it stays stable is very useful to build on for future gate jobs. I believe we decided that to make a non-voting job we could just focus on running on Rackspace and avoid the issues of older fedora images on hp cloud. Longer term, either a new hp cloud version comes, or DIB builds the fedora images ... either way we have a path to upgrading it to a voting job in time. Another proposal was to use the ooo cloud, but dprince feels that is probably better kept separate. Then we have the question of the nodepool setup scripts working on F20. I just tested the setup scripts from [3] and it all seems to work on a fresh f20 cloud image. I think this is due to kchamart, peila2 and others who've fixed parts of this before. So, is there: 1) anything blocking having f20 in the nodepool? 2) anything blocking a simple, non-voting job to test devstack changes on f20? Thanks, -i [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/infra/2014/infra.2014-04-08-19.01.log.html#l-89 [2] http://people.redhat.com/~iwienand/86310/ [3] https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/config/tree/modules/openstack_project/files/nodepool/scripts I can't speak to #1, however I'm +1 on this effort. Would love to have devstack running on Fedora as well on changes in general, and especially on devstack, as we accidentally break Fedora far too often. -Sean -- Sean Dague Samsung Research America s...@dague.net / sean.da...@samsung.com 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] [TripleO] [Tuskar] [Horizon] Icehouse Release of TripleO UI + Demo
On 2014/11/04 10:27, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 04/10/2014 04:32 PM, Jaromir Coufal wrote: Dear Stackers, I am happy to announce that yesterday Tuskar UI (TripleO UI) has tagged branch 0.1.0 for Icehouse release [0]. I put together a narrated demo of all included features [1]. You can find one manual part in the whole workflow - cloud initialization. There is ongoing work on automatic os-cloud-config, but for the release we had to include manual way. Automation should be added soon though. I want to thank all contributors for hard work to make this happen. It has been pleasure to cooperate with all of you guys and I am looking forward to bringing new features [2] in. -- Jarda Are all needed components latest tags enough? In other words, if I update all of TripleO in Debian, will I have a useable system? Cheers, Thomas Hi Thomas, I would say yes. The question is what you mean by usable system? You want to try the Tuskar UI? If yes, here is devtest which will help you to get the dev setup: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Tuskar/Devtest and here is the part for Tuskar UI: https://github.com/openstack/tuskar-ui/blob/master/docs/install.rst If you want more general info about Tuskar, here is wiki page: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Tuskar. We are also very happy to help on #tuskar or #tripleo freenode channels if you experience some troubles. -- Jarda ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon][heat] Unusable error messages in dashboard for Orchestration
Hi Tom, On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 01:05:00PM +0800, Tom Fifield wrote: Hi, Lodged a bug the day after Havana came out to hope to get this usability problem addressed. https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/1241395 Essentially, if something goes wrong creating a stack through the dashboard, all the user ever sees is: Stack creation failed. ... which is, a little less than useful in terms of enabling them to fix the problem. Testing using RC1 today, there is no improvement, and I was shocked to discover the the bug submitted was not even triaged during icehouse! Any ideas? :) Thanks for drawing attention to this problem, unfortunately it looks like this bug has fallen through the cracks so sorry about that. I am a little confused however, because when I create a stack which fails, it does provide fedback regarding the reason for failure in both the topology and stack overview pages. Heres the steps I went through to test: 1. login as demo user, select demo tenant 2. select Orchestration-Stacks page 3. Click Launch Stack, do direct input of this template: heat_template_version: 2013-05-23 resources: wait_handle: type: OS::Heat::UpdateWaitConditionHandle wait_condition: type: AWS::CloudFormation::WaitCondition properties: Count: 1 Handle: { get_resource: wait_handle } Timeout: 10 4. Click next, enter stack name test, password dummy and Click Launch 5. The UI returns to the stack list view, with the test stack status in progress 6. The stack creation fails, status moves to failed 7. Click on the stack name, takes me to Stack Overview page 8. Observe Status for failure: Status Create_Failed: Resource CREATE failed: WaitConditionTimeout: 0 of 1 received So there evidently are some other error paths which do not provide feedback (when we fail to attempt stack creation at all) - the only way I could reproduce your issue was by attempting to create a stack with a duplicate name, which as you say does result in an uhelpful popup saying Error: Stack creation failed. Comparing that with, for example, creating a stack with an invalid name 123, which gives you a nice explanation of the problem on the form. SO I guess what you're seeing is a default response to some error paths which are not explicitly handled. What I think may help is if you can update the bug with steps to reproduce the problem. It may be there are several failure scenarios we need to resolve, so getting specific details to reproduce is the first step. Thanks! Steve ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [Tuskar] [Horizon] Icehouse Release of TripleO UI + Demo
On 04/11/2014 06:05 PM, Jaromir Coufal wrote: On 2014/11/04 10:27, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 04/10/2014 04:32 PM, Jaromir Coufal wrote: Dear Stackers, I am happy to announce that yesterday Tuskar UI (TripleO UI) has tagged branch 0.1.0 for Icehouse release [0]. I put together a narrated demo of all included features [1]. You can find one manual part in the whole workflow - cloud initialization. There is ongoing work on automatic os-cloud-config, but for the release we had to include manual way. Automation should be added soon though. I want to thank all contributors for hard work to make this happen. It has been pleasure to cooperate with all of you guys and I am looking forward to bringing new features [2] in. -- Jarda Are all needed components latest tags enough? In other words, if I update all of TripleO in Debian, will I have a useable system? Cheers, Thomas Hi Thomas, I would say yes. The question is what you mean by usable system? You want to try the Tuskar UI? If yes, here is devtest which will help you to get the dev setup: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Tuskar/Devtest and here is the part for Tuskar UI: https://github.com/openstack/tuskar-ui/blob/master/docs/install.rst If you want more general info about Tuskar, here is wiki page: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Tuskar. We are also very happy to help on #tuskar or #tripleo freenode channels if you experience some troubles. -- Jarda Hi Jarda, Thanks a lot for your reply. Unfortunately, these instructions aren't very useful if you want to do an installation based on packages. Something like: git clone https://git.openstack.org/openstack/tripleo-incubator $TRIPLEO_ROOT/tripleo-incubator/scripts/devtest.sh --trash-my-machine is of course a no go. Stuff with pip install or easy_install, or git clone, aren't what Debian users should read. So, I guess the documentation for when using packages have to be written from scratch. I'm not sure where to start... :( Do you have time to help with this? Now, yes, I'd be very happy to chat about this on IRC. However, I have to get my hands on a powerful enough server. I've read a post in this list by Robert that I would need at least 16 GB of RAM. I hope to get a spare hardware for such tests soon. Thomas ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Ironic][TripleO] ubuntu deploy-ironic element ramdisk does not detect sata disks
I am using Ironic's out of tree Nova driver and running Ironic + PXESeamicro driver. I am using a ubuntu based deployment ramdisk created using below cmd in diskimage-builder. sudo bin/ramdisk-image-create -a amd64 ubuntu deploy-ironic -o /tmp/deploy-ramdisk I can see that the ramdisk is pxe-booted on the baremetal correctly. But the ramdisk throws an error saying it cannot find the target disk device https://github.com/openstack/diskimage-builder/blob/master/elements/deploy-ironic/init.d/80-deploy-ironic#L18 I then hard-code /dev/sda as target_disk, yet the ramdisk does not actually detect any disks after booting up or while booting up. I have cross-checked using a SystemRescueCD linux image on the same baremetal, i can see all the sata disks attached to it fine. Any pointers? Regards, Rohan Kanade ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Problem with kombu version.
We are going to move to kombu==2.5.14 today. Right now we have 2.1.8. 2.5.14 meets global-requirements.txt, and 3.0 does not. Because =3.0 is much more strict requirement then =2.4.8. We can try to migrate to kombu 3.0, but looks like we have no resources for this in 5.0. It needs to be fully tested before update. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Matthew Mosesohn mmoses...@mirantis.comwrote: Dmitry, I don't think you should drop kombu.five so soon. We haven't heard directly from Fuel python team, such as Dmitry Pyzhov, what reason we have to lock kombu at version 2.5.14. I wrote to him earlier today out of band, so hopefully he will get back to this message soon. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Dmitry Teselkin dtesel...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi again, So there is a reply from the Dmitry Burmistrov which for some reason was missed in this thread: Nailgun requires exact version of kombu ( == 2.5.14 ). This is the only reason why we can't update it. I think you should talk to Dmitry P. about this version conflict. I want to take this opportunity to remind everyone that we should adhere to the global-requirements.txt in order to avoid such conflicts. Hopefully our developers decided to get rid of kombu.five usage what looks an easy task. Thanks, everyone. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Dmitry Teselkin dtesel...@mirantis.com wrote: Hello, I'm working on Murano integration into FUEL-5.0, and have faced the following problem: our current implementation depends on 'kombu.five' module, but this module (actually a single file) is available only starting at kombu 3.0. So this means that murano-api component depends on kombu =3.0. This meets the OpenStack global requirements list, where kombu =2.4.8 is declared. Unfortunately, this also means that system-wide version upgrade is required. So the question is - what is the right way to solve the promblem? I see the following options: 1. change kombu version requirement to =3.0 for entire FUEL installation - it doesn't break global requirements constraint but some other FUEL components could be affected. 2. replace calls to functions from 'python.kombu' and use existing version - I'm not sure if it's possible, I'm awaiting answer from our developers. Which is the most suitable variant, or are there any other solutions for the problem? -- Thanks, Dmitry Teselkin Deployment Engineer Mirantis http://www.mirantis.com -- Thanks, Dmitry Teselkin Deployment Engineer Mirantis http://www.mirantis.com ___ 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] [Tuskar] [Horizon] Icehouse Release of TripleO UI + Demo
On 04/11/2014 01:03 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 04/11/2014 06:05 PM, Jaromir Coufal wrote: On 2014/11/04 10:27, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 04/10/2014 04:32 PM, Jaromir Coufal wrote: Dear Stackers, I am happy to announce that yesterday Tuskar UI (TripleO UI) has tagged branch 0.1.0 for Icehouse release [0]. I put together a narrated demo of all included features [1]. You can find one manual part in the whole workflow - cloud initialization. There is ongoing work on automatic os-cloud-config, but for the release we had to include manual way. Automation should be added soon though. I want to thank all contributors for hard work to make this happen. It has been pleasure to cooperate with all of you guys and I am looking forward to bringing new features [2] in. -- Jarda Are all needed components latest tags enough? In other words, if I update all of TripleO in Debian, will I have a useable system? Cheers, Thomas Hi Thomas, I would say yes. The question is what you mean by usable system? You want to try the Tuskar UI? If yes, here is devtest which will help you to get the dev setup: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Tuskar/Devtest and here is the part for Tuskar UI: https://github.com/openstack/tuskar-ui/blob/master/docs/install.rst If you want more general info about Tuskar, here is wiki page: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Tuskar. We are also very happy to help on #tuskar or #tripleo freenode channels if you experience some troubles. -- Jarda Hi Jarda, Thanks a lot for your reply. Unfortunately, these instructions aren't very useful if you want to do an installation based on packages. Something like: git clone https://git.openstack.org/openstack/tripleo-incubator $TRIPLEO_ROOT/tripleo-incubator/scripts/devtest.sh --trash-my-machine is of course a no go. Stuff with pip install or easy_install, or git clone, aren't what Debian users should read. So, I guess the documentation for when using packages have to be written from scratch. I'm not sure where to start... :( Do you have time to help with this? Now, yes, I'd be very happy to chat about this on IRC. However, I have to get my hands on a powerful enough server. I've read a post in this list by Robert that I would need at least 16 GB of RAM. I hope to get a spare hardware for such tests soon. Thomas Hi Thomas, Yes, devtest is suppose to run on bleeding edge. :-) For Fedora: I think you are looking for this https://github.com/agroup/instack-undercloud It uses packages and pre-created images. For Debian like, I am afraid nobody started to prepare a package based solution. Kind Regards, Ladislav ___ 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] [Fuel] Brocade NICs support
Folks, does our boostrap discovery image still can't see Brocade NICs? Do we have anyone to try it out? https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1260492 this bug can't be resolved unless we have hardware to test a fix for it? Fix was proposed when bootstrap was on CentOS 6.4, and now we have CentOS 6.5, I hope the issue has gone away... Thanks, -- Mike Scherbakov #mihgen ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Cinder] XXXFSDriver: Query on usage of load_shares_config in ensure_shares_mounted
Hi, I am using the nfs and glusterfs driver as reference here. I see that load_shares_config is called everytime via _ensure_shares_mounted which I feel is incorrect mainly because ensure_shares_mounted loads the config file again w/o restarting the service I think that the shares config file should only be loaded once (during service startup) as part of do_setup and never again. If someone changes something in the conf file, one needs to restart service which calls do_setup again and the changes made in shares.conf is taken effect. In looking further.. the ensure_shares_mounted ends up calling remotefsclient.mount() which does _Nothing_ if the share is already mounted.. whcih is mostly the case. So even if someone changed something in the shares file (like added -o options) it won't take effect as the share is already mounted service already running. In fact today, if you restart the service, even then the changes in share won't take effect as the mount is not un-mounted, hence when the service is started next, the mount is existing and ensures_shares_mounted just returns w/o doing anything. The only adv of calling load_shares_config in ensure_shares_mounted is if someone changed the shares server IP while the service is running ... it loads the new share usign the new server IP.. which again is wrong since ideally the person should restart service for any shares.conf changes to take effect. Hence i feel callign load_shares_config in ensure_shares_mounted is Incorrect and should be removed Thoughts ? thanx, deepak ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Regarding manage_existing and unmanage
My argument was mostly from the perspective that unmanage shud do its best to revert back the volume to its original state (mainly the name). Like you said, once its given to cinder, its not a external volume anymore similary, once its taken out of cinder, its a external volume and its just logical for admin/user to expect the volume with its original name Thinking of scenarios.. (i may be wrong here) An admin submits few storage array LUNs (for which he has setup a mirroring relationship in the storage array) as volumes to cinder using manage_existing.. uses the volume as part of openstack, and there are 2 cases here 1) cinder renames the volume, which causes his backend mirroring relationship to be broken 2) He disconnects the mirror relnship while submitting the volume to cinder and when he unmanages it, expects the mirror to work Will this break if cinder renames the volume ? On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.comwrote: On 10 April 2014 09:02, Deepak Shetty dpkshe...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, agreed. But then when admin unmanages it, we shud rename it back to the name that it originally had before it was managed by cinder. At least thats what admin can hope to expect, since he is un-doing the managed_existing stuff, he expects his file name to be present as it was before he managed it w/ cinder. I'd question this assertion. Once you've given a volume to cinder, it is not an external volume any more, it is cinder's. Unmanage of any volume should be consistent, regardless of whether it got into cinder via a volume create or a 'cinder manage' command. It is far worse to have unmanage inconsistent at some point in the distant future than it is for the storage admin to do some extra work in the short term if he is experimenting with managing / unmanaging volumes. As was discussed at the summit, manage / unmanage is *not* designed to be a routine operation. If you're unmanaging volumes regularly then you're not using the interface as intended, and we need to discuss your use-case, not bake weird and inconsistent behaviour into the current interface. So, under what circumstances do you expect that the current behaviour causes a significant problem? ___ 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] PTL Election Conclusion and Results
Thank you to the electorate, to all those who voted and to all candidates who put their name forward for PTL for this election. A healthy, open process breeds trust in our decision making capability - thank you to all those who make this process possible. Now for the results of the PTL election process, please join me in extending congratulations to the following PTLs: * Compute (Nova) ** Michael Still * Object Storage (Swift) ** John Dickinson * Image Service (Glance) ** Mark Washenberger * Identity (Keystone) ** Dolph Mathews * Dashboard (Horizon) ** David Lyle * Networking (Neutron) ** Kyle Mestery * Block Storage (Cinder) ** John Griffith * Metering/Monitoring (Ceilometer) ** Eoghan Glynn * Orchestration (Heat) ** Zane Bitter * Database Service (Trove) ** Nikhil Manchanda * Bare metal (Ironic) ** Devananda van der Veen * Common Libraries (Oslo) ** Doug Hellmann * Infrastructure ** Jim Blair * Documentation ** Anne Gentle * Quality Assurance (QA) ** Matt Treinish * Deployment (TripleO) ** Robert Collins * Devstack (DevStack) ** Dean Troyer * Release cycle management ** Thierry Carrez * Queue Service (Marconi) ** Kurt Griffiths * Data Processing Service (Sahara) ** Sergey Lukjanov * Key Management Service (Barbican) ** Jarret Raim Election Results: * Nova: http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_e295a4530c19f691 * Neutron: http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_230fb7953010b219 * Cinder: http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_cdc16bb61aacc74a * Ceilometer: http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_18b9e8d39c82df0b * Heat: http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_e0f670cec964fef8 * TripleO: http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_eeaa27c0de8c9a51 Shortly I will post the announcement opening TC nominations and then we are into the TC election process. Thank you to all involved in the PTL election process, Anita. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [Tuskar] [Horizon] Icehouse Release of TripleO UI + Demo
Hi Jarda, Thanks a lot for your reply. Unfortunately, these instructions aren't very useful if you want to do an installation based on packages. Something like: git clone https://git.openstack.org/openstack/tripleo-incubator $TRIPLEO_ROOT/tripleo-incubator/scripts/devtest.sh --trash-my-machine is of course a no go. Stuff with pip install or easy_install, or git clone, aren't what Debian users should read. So, I guess the documentation for when using packages have to be written from scratch. I'm not sure where to start... :( Do you have time to help with this? Now, yes, I'd be very happy to chat about this on IRC. However, I have to get my hands on a powerful enough server. I've read a post in this list by Robert that I would need at least 16 GB of RAM. I hope to get a spare hardware for such tests soon. Thomas Right, sorry, I somehow missed Debian note in your e-mail... Robert was right, it is a bit demanding project :) So once you get your server, just jump into the #tuskar channel and somebody will definitely try to help you with setting it up. If you could take notes and help us updating the wiki page with installation instruction for Debian, it would be awesome. Thanks -- Jarda ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Regarding manage_existing and unmanage
On 11 April 2014 14:21, Deepak Shetty dpkshe...@gmail.com wrote: My argument was mostly from the perspective that unmanage shud do its best to revert back the volume to its original state (mainly the name). Like you said, once its given to cinder, its not a external volume anymore similary, once its taken out of cinder, its a external volume and its just logical for admin/user to expect the volume with its original name Thinking of scenarios.. (i may be wrong here) An admin submits few storage array LUNs (for which he has setup a mirroring relationship in the storage array) as volumes to cinder using manage_existing.. uses the volume as part of openstack, and there are 2 cases here 1) cinder renames the volume, which causes his backend mirroring relationship to be broken 2) He disconnects the mirror relnship while submitting the volume to cinder and when he unmanages it, expects the mirror to work Will this break if cinder renames the volume ? Both of those are unreasonable expectations, and I would entirely expect both of them to break. Once you give cidner a volume, you no longer have *any* control over what happens to that volume. Mirroring relationships, volume names, etc *all* become completely under cinder's control. Expecting *anything* to go back to the way it was before cinder got hold of the volume is completely wrong. The scenario I *don't want to see is: 1) Admin import a few hundred volumes into the cloud 2) Some significant time goes by 3) Cloud is being decommissioned / the storage transfer / etc. so the admin runs unmanage on all cinder volumes on that storage 4) The volumes get renamed or not, based on whether they happened to come into cinder via manage or volume create *That* I would consider broken. I'll say it again, to make my position totally clear - Once you've run cinder manage, you can have no further expectations on a a volume. Cinder might rename it, migrate it, compress it, change the on disk format of it, etc. Cinder will not, and should not, remember *anything* about the volume before it was managed. You give the volume to cinder, and it becomes just another cinder volume, nothing special about it at all. Anything else is *not* covered by the manage / unmanage commands, and needs to be discussed, with clear, reasoned usecases. We do not want people using this interface with any other expectations, because even for things that happen to work now, they might get changed in future, without warning. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] XXXFSDriver: Query on usage of load_shares_config in ensure_shares_mounted
Hi Deepak, I know that there are plans to completely change how NFS uses (or more accurately, will not use) the shares.conf file in the future. My guess is that a lot of this code will be changed in the near future during that rework. Andrew Kerr OpenStack QA Cloud Solutions Group NetApp From: Deepak Shetty dpkshe...@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Friday, April 11, 2014 at 7:54 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] XXXFSDriver: Query on usage of load_shares_config in ensure_shares_mounted Hi, I am using the nfs and glusterfs driver as reference here. I see that load_shares_config is called everytime via _ensure_shares_mounted which I feel is incorrect mainly because ensure_shares_mounted loads the config file again w/o restarting the service I think that the shares config file should only be loaded once (during service startup) as part of do_setup and never again. If someone changes something in the conf file, one needs to restart service which calls do_setup again and the changes made in shares.conf is taken effect. In looking further.. the ensure_shares_mounted ends up calling remotefsclient.mount() which does _Nothing_ if the share is already mounted.. whcih is mostly the case. So even if someone changed something in the shares file (like added -o options) it won't take effect as the share is already mounted service already running. In fact today, if you restart the service, even then the changes in share won't take effect as the mount is not un-mounted, hence when the service is started next, the mount is existing and ensures_shares_mounted just returns w/o doing anything. The only adv of calling load_shares_config in ensure_shares_mounted is if someone changed the shares server IP while the service is running ... it loads the new share usign the new server IP.. which again is wrong since ideally the person should restart service for any shares.conf changes to take effect. Hence i feel callign load_shares_config in ensure_shares_mounted is Incorrect and should be removed Thoughts ? thanx, deepak ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] XXXFSDriver: Query on usage of load_shares_config in ensure_shares_mounted
Hi Deepak Both of those (config being read repeatedly, and config not being applied if the share is already mounted) sound like bugs. Please file bug reports for both, with reproducers if possible. Thanks On 11 April 2014 12:54, Deepak Shetty dpkshe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I am using the nfs and glusterfs driver as reference here. I see that load_shares_config is called everytime via _ensure_shares_mounted which I feel is incorrect mainly because ensure_shares_mounted loads the config file again w/o restarting the service I think that the shares config file should only be loaded once (during service startup) as part of do_setup and never again. If someone changes something in the conf file, one needs to restart service which calls do_setup again and the changes made in shares.conf is taken effect. In looking further.. the ensure_shares_mounted ends up calling remotefsclient.mount() which does _Nothing_ if the share is already mounted.. whcih is mostly the case. So even if someone changed something in the shares file (like added -o options) it won't take effect as the share is already mounted service already running. In fact today, if you restart the service, even then the changes in share won't take effect as the mount is not un-mounted, hence when the service is started next, the mount is existing and ensures_shares_mounted just returns w/o doing anything. The only adv of calling load_shares_config in ensure_shares_mounted is if someone changed the shares server IP while the service is running ... it loads the new share usign the new server IP.. which again is wrong since ideally the person should restart service for any shares.conf changes to take effect. Hence i feel callign load_shares_config in ensure_shares_mounted is Incorrect and should be removed Thoughts ? thanx, deepak ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- -- Duncan Thomas ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [infra][nova][docker]
Hi All, I've been taking a look at devstack support for nova-docker[1] which was recently taken out of nova. I stumbled across a similar effort currently underway[2], so have based my work off that. What I hope to do is setup a check doing CI on devstack-f20 nodes[3], this will setup a devstack based nova with the nova-docker driver and can then run what ever tests make sense (currently only a minimal test, Eric I believe you were looking at tempest support maybe it could be hooked in here?). I've taken this as far as I can locally to make sure it all works on a manually setup devstack-f20 node and it works, of course there may be slight differences in what nodepool sets up but we can't know that until we try :-) So I'd like to give this a go, I've left the various patches in WIP for the moment so people can take a look etc... https://review.openstack.org/86905 https://review.openstack.org/86910 Any thoughts? thanks, Derek. [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/nova-docker [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/81097/ [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86842/ ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] Candidate proposals for TC (Technical Committee) positions are now open
Candidate proposals for the Technical Committee positions (7 positions) are now open and will remain open until 05:59 utc April 18, 2014. Candidates for the Technical Committee Positions: Any Foundation individual member can propose their candidacy for an available, directly-elected TC seat. [0] (except the six TC members who were elected for a one-year seat last October: Monty Taylor, Russell Bryant, Anne Gentle, Mark McLoughlin, Doug Hellman and Sean Dague)[1] Propose your candidacy by sending an email to the openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org mailing-list, with the subject: TC candidacy. Please start your own thread so we have one thread per candidate. Since there will be many people voting for folks with whom they might not have worked, including a platform or statement to help voters make an informed choice is recommended, though not required. Tristan and I will confirm candidates with an email to the candidate thread as well as create a link to the confirmed candidate's proposal email on the wikipage for this election. [1] The election will be held from April 18 through to 13:00 utc April 24, 2014. The electorate are the Foundation individual members that are also committers for one of the official programs projects[2] over the Havana-Icehouse timeframe (April 4, 2013 06:00 UTC to April 4, 2014 05:59 UTC), as well as the 3 non-code ATCs who are acknowledged by the TC. [3] Please see the wikipage for additional details about this election. [1] If you have any questions please be sure to either voice them on the mailing list or email Tristan or myself[4] or contact Tristan or myself on IRC. Thank you, and I look forward to reading your candidate proposals, Anita Kuno (anteaya) [0] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TC_Elections_April_2014 [2] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/programs.yaml?id=april-2014-elections Note the tag for this repo, april-2014-elections. [3] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/extra-atcs?id=april-2014-elections [4] Anita: anteaya at anteaya dot info Tristan: tristan dot cacqueray at enovance dot com ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] Vagrant Devstack projects - time to consolidate?
Hi, I've noticed a proliferation of Vagrant projects that are popping up, is there any interest from other authors in trying to consolidate? https://github.com/bcwaldon/vagrant_devstack https://github.com/sdague/devstack-vagrant http://openstack.prov12n.com/how-to-make-a-lot-of-devstack-with-vagrant/ https://github.com/jogo/DevstackUp https://github.com/search?q=vagrant+devstackref=cmdform -- Sean M. Collins ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Dynamic scheduling
On 04/10/14 at 11:33pm, Oleg Gelbukh wrote: Andrew, Thank you for clarification! On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Laski andrew.la...@rackspace.comwrote: The scheduler as it currently exists is a placement engine. There is sufficient complexity in the scheduler with just that responsibility so I would prefer to see anything that's making runtime decisions separated out. Perhaps it could just be another service within the scheduler project once it's broken out, but I think it will be beneficial to have a clear distinction between placement decisions and runtime monitoring. Do you think that auto-scaling could be considered another facet of this 'runtime monitoring' functionality? Now it is a combination of Heat and Ceilometer. Does it worth moving to hypothetical runtime mobility service as well? Auto-scaling is certainly a facet of runtime monitoring. But auto-scaling performs actions based on a set of user defined rules and is very visible while the enhancements proposed below are intended to benefit deployers and be very invisible to users. So the set of allowable actions is very constrained compared to what auto-scaling can do. In my opinion what's being proposed doesn't seem to fit cleanly into any existing service, so perhaps it could start as a standalone entity. Then once there's something that can be used and demoed a proper place might suggest itself, or it might make sense to keep it separate. -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Jay Lau jay.lau@gmail.com wrote: @Oleg, Till now, I'm not sure the target of Gantt, is it for initial placement policy or run time policy or both, can you help clarify? @Henrique, not sure if you know IBM PRS (Platform Resource Scheduler) [1], we have finished the dynamic scheduler in our Icehouse version (PRS 2.2), it has exactly the same feature as your described, we are planning a live demo for this feature in Atlanta Summit. I'm also writing some document for run time policy which will cover more run time policies for OpenStack, but not finished yet. (My shame for the slow progress). The related blueprint is [2], you can also get some discussion from [3] [1] http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype= ANsubtype=CAhtmlfid=897/ENUS213-590appname=USN [2] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/resource- optimization-service [3] http://markmail.org/~jaylau/OpenStack-DRS Thanks. 2014-04-09 23:21 GMT+08:00 Oleg Gelbukh ogelb...@mirantis.com: Henrique, You should check out Gantt project [1], it could be exactly the place to implement such features. It is a generic cross-project Scheduler as a Service forked from Nova recently. [1] https://github.com/openstack/gantt -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh Mirantis Labs On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Henrique Truta henriquecostatr...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, everyone! I am currently a graduate student and member of a group of contributors to OpenStack. We believe that a dynamic scheduler could improve the efficiency of an OpenStack cloud, either by rebalancing nodes to maximize performance or to minimize the number of active hosts, in order to minimize energy costs. Therefore, we would like to propose a dynamic scheduling mechanism to Nova. The main idea is using the Ceilometer information (e.g. RAM, CPU, disk usage) through the ceilometer-client and dinamically decide whether a instance should be live migrated. This might me done as a Nova periodic task, which will be executed every once in a given period or as a new independent project. In both cases, the current Nova scheduler will not be affected, since this new scheduler will be pluggable. We have done a search and found no such initiative in the OpenStack BPs. Outside the community, we found only a recent IBM announcement for a similiar feature in one of its cloud products. A possible flow is: In the new scheduler, we periodically make a call to Nova, get the instance list from a specific host and, for each instance, we make a call to the ceilometer-client (e.g. $ ceilometer statistics -m cpu_util -q resource=$INSTANCE_ID) and then, according to some specific parameters configured by the user, analyze the meters and do the proper migrations. Do you have any comments or suggestions? -- Ítalo Henrique Costa Truta ___ 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 -- Thanks, Jay ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing
Re: [openstack-dev] Vagrant Devstack projects - time to consolidate?
On 04/11/2014 10:34 AM, Collins, Sean wrote: Hi, I've noticed a proliferation of Vagrant projects that are popping up, is there any interest from other authors in trying to consolidate? https://github.com/bcwaldon/vagrant_devstack https://github.com/sdague/devstack-vagrant http://openstack.prov12n.com/how-to-make-a-lot-of-devstack-with-vagrant/ https://github.com/jogo/DevstackUp https://github.com/search?q=vagrant+devstackref=cmdform That's definitely an option. As I look at the differences across the projects I mostly see that there are differences with the provisioning engine. My personal end game was to get to a point where it would be simple to replicate the devstack gate, which means reusing that puppet policy (which is why I started with puppet). I see https://github.com/bcwaldon/vagrant_devstack is based on chef. And https://github.com/jogo/DevstackUp is just shell. Maybe it would be good to get an ad-hoc IRC meeting together to figure out what the must have features are that inspired everyone to write these. If we can come up with a way to overlap those all sanely, moving to stackforge and doing this via gerrit would be something I'd be into. -Sean -- Sean Dague Samsung Research America s...@dague.net / sean.da...@samsung.com 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] [infra][nova][docker]
On 04/11/2014 10:11 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: Hi All, I've been taking a look at devstack support for nova-docker[1] which was recently taken out of nova. I stumbled across a similar effort currently underway[2], so have based my work off that. What I hope to do is setup a check doing CI on devstack-f20 nodes[3], this will setup a devstack based nova with the nova-docker driver and can then run what ever tests make sense (currently only a minimal test, Eric I believe you were looking at tempest support maybe it could be hooked in here?). I've taken this as far as I can locally to make sure it all works on a manually setup devstack-f20 node and it works, of course there may be slight differences in what nodepool sets up but we can't know that until we try :-) So I'd like to give this a go, I've left the various patches in WIP for the moment so people can take a look etc... https://review.openstack.org/86905 https://review.openstack.org/86910 Any thoughts? thanks, Derek. [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/nova-docker [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/81097/ [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86842/ Hugely appreciated! It'd be nice to have one other person ACK the devstack integration and then I think we should merge it. I know last cycle we were looking at 3rd party CI, but that was because of timing and infra review availability. I think a re-focus on doing it in openstack's infra is the right approach. -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [IPv6] Ubuntu PPA with IPv6 enabled, need help to achieve it
Many of those patches are stale - please join us in the subteam IRC meeting if you wish to coordinate development of IPv6 features, so that we can focus on updating them and getting them merged. At this point simply applying them to the Icehouse tree is not enough. -- Sean M. Collins ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] more oslo liaisons needed
I see that several projects have their Oslo liaisons lined up (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Oslo/ProjectLiaisons). It would be great if we had at least one volunteer from each project before the summit, so we can get a head start on the coordination work. Doug ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] Consolidating efforts around Fedora/Centos gate job
On 11/04/14 06:43, Ian Wienand wrote: Hi, To summarize recent discussions, nobody is opposed in general to having Fedora / Centos included in the gate. However, it raises a number of big questions : which job(s) to run on Fedora, where does the quota for extra jobs come from, how do we get the job on multiple providers, how stable will it be, how will we handle new releases, centos v fedora, etc. I think we agreed in [1] that the best thing to do is to start small, get some experience with multiple platforms and grow from there. Thus the decision to target a single job to test just incoming devstack changes on Fedora 20. This is a very moderate number of changes, so adding a separate test will not have a huge impact on resources. Evidence points to this being a good point to start. People submitting to devstack might have noticed comments from redhatci like [2] which reports runs of their change on a variety of rpm-based distros. Fedora 20 has been very stable, so we should not have many issues. Making sure it stays stable is very useful to build on for future gate jobs. I believe we decided that to make a non-voting job we could just focus on running on Rackspace and avoid the issues of older fedora images on hp cloud. Longer term, either a new hp cloud version comes, or DIB builds the fedora images ... either way we have a path to upgrading it to a voting job in time. Another proposal was to use the ooo cloud, but dprince feels that is probably better kept separate. Then we have the question of the nodepool setup scripts working on F20. I just tested the setup scripts from [3] and it all seems to work on a fresh f20 cloud image. I think this is due to kchamart, peila2 and others who've fixed parts of this before. So, is there: 1) anything blocking having f20 in the nodepool? I believe it should work, I've also done manual runs and they went ok, there may be minor differences when launched from nodepool but I don't think anything major, anyways I submitted this earlier for another job I'm proposing on nova-docker http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-April/032493.html https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86842/1 2) anything blocking a simple, non-voting job to test devstack changes on f20? Thanks, -i [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/infra/2014/infra.2014-04-08-19.01.log.html#l-89 [2] http://people.redhat.com/~iwienand/86310/ [3] https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/config/tree/modules/openstack_project/files/nodepool/scripts ___ 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] Security Group logging
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 00:02 +0100, Salvatore Orlando wrote: Auditing has been discussed for the firewall extension. However, it is reasonable to expect some form of auditing for security group rules as well. To the best of my knowledge there has never been an explicit decision to not support logging. However, my guess here is that we might be better off with an auditing service plugin integrating with security group and firewall agents rather than baking the logging feature in the security group extension. Please note that I'm just thinking aloud here. +1. A notification event should be sent across the typical notifier mechanisms when a security group rule is changed or applied. Best, -jay ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Security Group logging
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 00:02 +0100, Salvatore Orlando wrote: Auditing has been discussed for the firewall extension. However, it is reasonable to expect some form of auditing for security group rules as well. To the best of my knowledge there has never been an explicit decision to not support logging. However, my guess here is that we might be better off with an auditing service plugin integrating with security group and firewall agents rather than baking the logging feature in the security group extension. Please note that I'm just thinking aloud here. +1. A notification event should be sent across the typical notifier mechanisms when a security group rule is changed or applied. Throwing my hat in the ring for this as well. Preferably the message should include the UUID of the Group being changed, and also the UUID of the Instance if it¹s being applied. Best, -jay ___ 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] Vagrant Devstack projects - time to consolidate?
Maybe it would be good to get an ad-hoc IRC meeting together to figure out what the must have features are that inspired everyone to write these. If we can come up with a way to overlap those all sanely, moving to stackforge and doing this via gerrit would be something I'd be into. -Sean +1 to this idea. I found vagrant_devstack a while ago and started using it and then started documenting it for our development team at Comcast, it has been very helpful for getting new developers started. Having something in Stackforge would be great, so that we can consolidate all our knowledge and energy. -- Sean M. Collins ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon][heat] Unusable error messages in dashboard for Orchestration
I've seen unusable error messages out of heat as well. I've been telling users (our ops guys) to look at the heat-engine logs when it happens and usually its fairly apparent what is wrong with their templates. In the future, Should I report each of these I see as a new bug or add each to the existing bug? Thanks, Kevin From: Steven Hardy [sha...@redhat.com] Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 3:24 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon][heat] Unusable error messages in dashboard for Orchestration Hi Tom, On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 01:05:00PM +0800, Tom Fifield wrote: Hi, Lodged a bug the day after Havana came out to hope to get this usability problem addressed. https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/1241395 Essentially, if something goes wrong creating a stack through the dashboard, all the user ever sees is: Stack creation failed. ... which is, a little less than useful in terms of enabling them to fix the problem. Testing using RC1 today, there is no improvement, and I was shocked to discover the the bug submitted was not even triaged during icehouse! Any ideas? :) Thanks for drawing attention to this problem, unfortunately it looks like this bug has fallen through the cracks so sorry about that. I am a little confused however, because when I create a stack which fails, it does provide fedback regarding the reason for failure in both the topology and stack overview pages. Heres the steps I went through to test: 1. login as demo user, select demo tenant 2. select Orchestration-Stacks page 3. Click Launch Stack, do direct input of this template: heat_template_version: 2013-05-23 resources: wait_handle: type: OS::Heat::UpdateWaitConditionHandle wait_condition: type: AWS::CloudFormation::WaitCondition properties: Count: 1 Handle: { get_resource: wait_handle } Timeout: 10 4. Click next, enter stack name test, password dummy and Click Launch 5. The UI returns to the stack list view, with the test stack status in progress 6. The stack creation fails, status moves to failed 7. Click on the stack name, takes me to Stack Overview page 8. Observe Status for failure: Status Create_Failed: Resource CREATE failed: WaitConditionTimeout: 0 of 1 received So there evidently are some other error paths which do not provide feedback (when we fail to attempt stack creation at all) - the only way I could reproduce your issue was by attempting to create a stack with a duplicate name, which as you say does result in an uhelpful popup saying Error: Stack creation failed. Comparing that with, for example, creating a stack with an invalid name 123, which gives you a nice explanation of the problem on the form. SO I guess what you're seeing is a default response to some error paths which are not explicitly handled. What I think may help is if you can update the bug with steps to reproduce the problem. It may be there are several failure scenarios we need to resolve, so getting specific details to reproduce is the first step. Thanks! Steve ___ 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] more oslo liaisons needed
I see that several projects have their Oslo liaisons lined up (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Oslo/ProjectLiaisons). It would be great if we had at least one volunteer from each project before the summit, so we can get a head start on the coordination work. Hi Doug, I'd be happy to handle the role for Heat. Cheers, -- Thomas ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] XXXFSDriver: Query on usage of load_shares_config in ensure_shares_mounted
On 04/11/2014 10:55 AM, Eric Harney wrote: On 04/11/2014 07:54 AM, Deepak Shetty wrote: Hi, I am using the nfs and glusterfs driver as reference here. I see that load_shares_config is called everytime via _ensure_shares_mounted which I feel is incorrect mainly because ensure_shares_mounted loads the config file again w/o restarting the service I think that the shares config file should only be loaded once (during service startup) as part of do_setup and never again. Wouldn't this change the functionality that this provides now, though? Unless I'm missing something, since get_volume_stats calls _ensure_shares_mounted(), this means you can add a new share to the config file and have it become active in the driver. (While I'm not sure this was the original intent, it could be nice to have and should at least be considered before ditching it.) If someone changes something in the conf file, one needs to restart service which calls do_setup again and the changes made in shares.conf is taken effect. I'm not sure this is correct given the above. In looking further.. the ensure_shares_mounted ends up calling remotefsclient.mount() which does _Nothing_ if the share is already mounted.. whcih is mostly the case. So even if someone changed something in the shares file (like added -o options) it won't take effect as the share is already mounted service already running. In fact today, if you restart the service, even then the changes in share won't take effect as the mount is not un-mounted, hence when the service is started next, the mount is existing and ensures_shares_mounted just returns w/o doing anything. The only adv of calling load_shares_config in ensure_shares_mounted is if someone changed the shares server IP while the service is running ... it loads the new share usign the new server IP.. which again is wrong since ideally the person should restart service for any shares.conf changes to take effect. This won't work anyway because of how we track provider_location in the database. This particular case is planned to be addressed via this blueprint with reworks configuration: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/remotefs-share-cfg-improvements I suppose I should also note that if the plans in this blueprint are implemented the way I've had in mind, the main issue here about only loading shares at startup time would be in place, so we may want to consider these questions under that direction. Hence i feel callign load_shares_config in ensure_shares_mounted is Incorrect and should be removed Thoughts ? thanx, deepak ___ 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] [infra][nova][docker]
I would rather see the devstack support be integrated in devstack's repo itself. There's a review Outstanding for devstack[1] that adds this support in and also adds in some pieces to make it easier to utilize external nova drivers. If that fails out then I'm all for merging in your review to the nova-docker driver. We're Currently using nova-docker for Solum and having the devstack support would help us out a lot. There is some ugliness in the nova-docker review[2] that we could avoid by merging the integration directly into devstack. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/84839/ [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/81097/3/contrib/devstack/stackrc.diff On 4/11/14 9:53 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/11/2014 10:11 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: Hi All, I've been taking a look at devstack support for nova-docker[1] which was recently taken out of nova. I stumbled across a similar effort currently underway[2], so have based my work off that. What I hope to do is setup a check doing CI on devstack-f20 nodes[3], this will setup a devstack based nova with the nova-docker driver and can then run what ever tests make sense (currently only a minimal test, Eric I believe you were looking at tempest support maybe it could be hooked in here?). I've taken this as far as I can locally to make sure it all works on a manually setup devstack-f20 node and it works, of course there may be slight differences in what nodepool sets up but we can't know that until we try :-) So I'd like to give this a go, I've left the various patches in WIP for the moment so people can take a look etc... https://review.openstack.org/86905 https://review.openstack.org/86910 Any thoughts? thanks, Derek. [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/nova-docker [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/81097/ [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86842/ Hugely appreciated! It'd be nice to have one other person ACK the devstack integration and then I think we should merge it. I know last cycle we were looking at 3rd party CI, but that was because of timing and infra review availability. I think a re-focus on doing it in openstack's infra is the right approach. -- 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] Vagrant Devstack projects - time to consolidate?
I'd love to see consolidation as I've tried to keep up nova dev docs for example, and with all the options it's tough to test and maintain one for docs. Go for it. On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Collins, Sean sean_colli...@cable.comcast.com wrote: Hi, I've noticed a proliferation of Vagrant projects that are popping up, is there any interest from other authors in trying to consolidate? https://github.com/bcwaldon/vagrant_devstack https://github.com/sdague/devstack-vagrant http://openstack.prov12n.com/how-to-make-a-lot-of-devstack-with-vagrant/ https://github.com/jogo/DevstackUp https://github.com/search?q=vagrant+devstackref=cmdform -- Sean M. Collins ___ 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] Vagrant Devstack projects - time to consolidate?
Sean Dague wrote: Maybe it would be good to get an ad-hoc IRC meeting together to figure out what the must have features are that inspired everyone to write these. If we can come up with a way to overlap those all sanely, moving to stackforge and doing this via gerrit would be something I'd be into. This is a good idea, I've definitely stumbled across lots of GitHub projects, blog posts, etc that overlap here. Folks seem to have a strong preference for provisioner so it may makes sense to support several. We can put together a Vagrantfile that allows you to choose a provisioner while maintaining a common machine configuration (using --provision-with or using env variables and loading in additional rb files, etc). ~Greg ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][nova][docker]
On 04/11/2014 11:28 AM, Paul Czarkowski wrote: I would rather see the devstack support be integrated in devstack's repo itself. There's a review Outstanding for devstack[1] that adds this support in and also adds in some pieces to make it easier to utilize external nova drivers. If that fails out then I'm all for merging in your review to the nova-docker driver. We're Currently using nova-docker for Solum and having the devstack support would help us out a lot. There is some ugliness in the nova-docker review[2] that we could avoid by merging the integration directly into devstack. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/84839/ [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/81097/3/contrib/devstack/stackrc.diff Agree that directly in devstack is easier, but I just don't see that happening. They've been pretty clear on only including support for things in official projects. See Sean's review of I feel like this should be done entirely as an extras.d file which is actually in the docker driver tree. If there are call points which are needed in extras.d, we should add those. So, I think we should proceed with the support in the nova-docker repo for now. That will unblock CI progress against nova-docker, which is the #1 blocker for eventually re-proposing the driver to nova itself. -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Climate] Meeting minutes
Hello, folks! Our Climate meeting minutes are here :) Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/climate/2014/climate.2014-04-11-15.00.html Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/climate/2014/climate.2014-04-11-15.00.txt Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/climate/2014/climate.2014-04-11-15.00.log.html Best regards, Dina Belova Software Engineer Mirantis Inc. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic][Agent]
Maybe an Intel AMT driver too: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/intel-active-management-technology.html You could use desktop class machines with ironic then. Kevin From: Devananda van der Veen [devananda@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 4:15 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic][Agent] On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Stig Telfer stel...@cray.commailto:stel...@cray.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Matt Wagner [mailto:matt.wag...@redhat.commailto:matt.wag...@redhat.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 6:46 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic][Agent] On 08/04/14 14:04 +0400, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote: snip 0) There are a plenty of old hardware which does not have IPMI/ILO at all. How Ironic is supposed to power them off and on? Ssh? But Ironic is not supposed to interact with host OS. I'm more accustomed to using PDUs for this type of thing. I.e., a power strip you can ssh into or hit via a web API to toggle power to individual ports. Machines are configured to power up on power restore, plus PXE boot. You have less control than with IPMI -- all you can do is toggle power to the outlet -- but it works well, even for some desktop machines I have in a lab. I don't have a compelling need, but I've often wondered if such a driver would be useful. I can imagine it also being useful if people want to power up non-compute stuff, though that's probably not a top priority right now. We have developed a driver that might be of interest. Ironic uses it to control the PDUs in our lab cluster through SNMP. It appears the leading brands of PDU implement SNMP interfaces, albeit through vendor-specific enterprise MIBs. As a mechanism for control, I'd suggest that SNMP is going to be a better bet than an automated tron for hitting the ssh or web interfaces. Currently our power driver is a point solution for our PDUs, but why not make it generalised? We'd be happy to contribute it. Best wishes Stig Telfer Cray Inc. A PDU-based power driver has come up in discussions in the past several times, and I think it's well within Ironic's scope to support this. An iBoot driver was proposed, but bit rotted. I'd rather see a generic one, honestly. FWIW, there already is an SSH-based power driver, which is primarily used in test environments (we mock real hardware with VMs to cut down the cost of developer testing), but this could probably be extended to support connecting to PDU's. Best, Devananda ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] TripleO fully uploaded to Debian Experimental
Hi Thomas Great! Do we have a doc how to use these packages? 2014-04-11 0:00 GMT-07:00 Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org: Hi, it's with a great joy that I can announce today, that TripleO is now fully in Debian [1]. It is currently only uploaded to Debian experimental, like for all Icehouse (I don't think I can upload to normal Sid until Icehouse is released). Feedback (and bug reports to the Debian BTS) would be more than welcome, as I had no time to test it myself! Of course, the plan is to have it updated again soon. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) [1] http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=openstack-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org ___ 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] more oslo liaisons needed
Thanks, Thomas! If you're on IRC, you can join us in #openstack-oslo. On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Thomas Herve thomas.he...@enovance.com wrote: I see that several projects have their Oslo liaisons lined up (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Oslo/ProjectLiaisons). It would be great if we had at least one volunteer from each project before the summit, so we can get a head start on the coordination work. Hi Doug, I'd be happy to handle the role for Heat. Cheers, -- Thomas ___ 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] [infra][nova][docker]
On 11/04/14 16:28, Paul Czarkowski wrote: I would rather see the devstack support be integrated in devstack's repo itself. There's a review Outstanding for devstack[1] that adds this support in and also adds in some pieces to make it easier to utilize external nova drivers. Great, I hadn't spotted the review to put it back into devstack, I'll give it a go and review to help move it along. I see there is a -1 suggesting it should be in nova-docker, the devstack approach certainly looks cleaner. regardless of which approach is taken I should be able to work the check job to use it for nova-docker CI. If that fails out then I'm all for merging in your review to the nova-docker driver. We're Currently using nova-docker for Solum and having the devstack support would help us out a lot. There is some ugliness in the nova-docker review[2] that we could avoid by merging the integration directly into devstack. Yup, agreed. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/84839/ [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/81097/3/contrib/devstack/stackrc.diff On 4/11/14 9:53 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/11/2014 10:11 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: Hi All, I've been taking a look at devstack support for nova-docker[1] which was recently taken out of nova. I stumbled across a similar effort currently underway[2], so have based my work off that. What I hope to do is setup a check doing CI on devstack-f20 nodes[3], this will setup a devstack based nova with the nova-docker driver and can then run what ever tests make sense (currently only a minimal test, Eric I believe you were looking at tempest support maybe it could be hooked in here?). I've taken this as far as I can locally to make sure it all works on a manually setup devstack-f20 node and it works, of course there may be slight differences in what nodepool sets up but we can't know that until we try :-) So I'd like to give this a go, I've left the various patches in WIP for the moment so people can take a look etc... https://review.openstack.org/86905 https://review.openstack.org/86910 Any thoughts? thanks, Derek. [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/nova-docker [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/81097/ [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86842/ Hugely appreciated! It'd be nice to have one other person ACK the devstack integration and then I think we should merge it. I know last cycle we were looking at 3rd party CI, but that was because of timing and infra review availability. I think a re-focus on doing it in openstack's infra is the right approach. -- 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 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Climate] Meeting minutes
Hi Dina et al. I'm sorry, I was facing this week a particular off-load due to various concerns, and so was unable to attend the meeting. About the wondering of my participation, please all be sure I'll still dedicate some of my time to Climate, including some BPs and bugs, so yes I will handle the new resource framework proposal. Starting next week, I'll also propose an events lifecycle service for Climate, so that we could properly handle leases statuses (started, in progress, done, error) based on the events. -Sylvain (sorry again about my dotted participation, I understand this is frustrating for both of us :-) ) 2014-04-11 17:59 GMT+02:00 Dina Belova dbel...@mirantis.com: Hello, folks! Our Climate meeting minutes are here :) Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/climate/2014/climate.2014-04-11-15.00.html Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/climate/2014/climate.2014-04-11-15.00.txt Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/climate/2014/climate.2014-04-11-15.00.log.html Best regards, Dina Belova Software Engineer Mirantis Inc. ___ 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] [mistral] [taskflow] Mistral TaskFlow integration summary
Thanks for the write-up krill. Also some adjustments, Both points are good, and putting some of this on @ https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/taskflow-mistral-details so that we can have it actively noted (feel free to adjust it). I think ivan is working on some docs/code/… for the lazy engine idea, so hopefully we can get back soon with that. Lets see what comes out of that effort and iterate on that. For (2), our are mostly correct about unconditional execution although [1] does now change this, and there are a few active reviews that are being worked [3] on to fit this mistral use-case better. I believe [2] can help move in this direction, ivans ideas I think will also push it a little farther to. Of course lets work together to make sure they fit the best so that taskflow mistral openstack can be the best it can be (pigeons not included). Can we also make sure the small issues are noted somewhere (maybe in the above etherpad??). Thanks! [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TaskFlow#Retries [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86470 [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/taskflow,n,z From: Kirill Izotov enyk...@stackstorm.commailto:enyk...@stackstorm.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Thursday, April 10, 2014 at 9:20 PM To: OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [mistral] [taskflow] Mistral TaskFlow integration summary Hi everyone, This is a summary to the prototype integration we did not too long ago: http://github.com/enykeev/mistral/pull/1. Hope it would shed some light on the aspects of the integration we are struggling with. There is a possibility to build Mistral on top of TaskFlow as a library, but in order to meet the requirements dictated by Mistral users and use cases, both Mistral and TaskFlow should change. There are two main sides of the story. One is engine. The other is flow control capabilities. 1) THE ENGINE The current TaskFlow implementation of engine doesn't fit Mistral needs because it is synchronous, it blocks the thread, it requires us to store the reference to the particular engine to be able to get its status and suspend the execution and it lacks long-running task compatibility. To fix this problem in a solid and maintainable way, we need to split the engine into its synchronous and asynchronous counterparts. Lazy engine should be async and atomic, it should not have its own state, instead it should rely on some kind of global state (db or in-memory, depending on a type of application). It should have at least two methods: run and task_complete. Run method should calculate the first batch of tasks and schedule them for executing (either put them in queue or spawn the threads). Task_complete should mark a certain task to be completed and then schedule the next batch of tasks that became available due to resolution of this one. The desired use of lazy engine in Mistral is illustrated here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Mistral/Blueprints/ActionsDesign#Big_Picture. It should support long running tasks and survive engine process restart without loosing the state of the running actions. So it must be passive (lazy) and persistent. On Mistral side we are using Lazy engine by patching async.run directly to the API (or engine queue) and async.task_complete to the worker queue result channel (and the API for long running tasks). We are still sharing the same graph_analyzer, but instead of relying on loop and Futures, we are handling the execution ourselves in a scalable and robust way. Then, on top of it you can build a sync engine by introducing Futures. You are using async.run() to schedule tasks by transforming them to Futures and then starting a loop, checking Futures for completion and sending their results to async.task_complete() which would produce even more Futures to check over. Just the same way TaskFlow do it right now. The reason I'm proposing to extract Futures from async engine is because they won't work if we have multiple engine processes that should handle the task results concurrently (and without that there will be no scalability). 2) THE FLOW CONTROL CAPABILITIES Since we treat TaskFlow as a library we expect them to provide us with a number of primitives to build our workflow with them. Most important of them to us for the moment are Direct Transitions, and Conditional Transitions. The current implementation of flow transitions in TaskFlow are built on top of data flow dependencies where each task provides some data to the flow and requires some data to be present prior being executed. In other words, you are starting to build your flow tree from the last task through the first one by adding their requirements to the
Re: [openstack-dev] [swift] Enterprise Deployment
This sounds like a question for either the users list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack or the operators list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators Thanks. -Ben On 04/10/2014 09:07 PM, Sumit Gaur wrote: Hi I understand that Swift need a lot of configuration and manual steps. Need to know if somebody knows about any existing opensource tool/process that can help in deploying multinode enterprise deployment of Openstack SWIFT. I tried chef and some existing cookbooks but using them need a lot of learning curve for ruby and chef , also I understand that dev stack also does not provide enterprise level scripts. Thanks sumit ___ 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] Dynamic scheduling
Is there anyone currently working on Neat/Gantt projects? I'd like to contribute to them, as well. 2014-04-11 11:37 GMT-03:00 Andrew Laski andrew.la...@rackspace.com: On 04/10/14 at 11:33pm, Oleg Gelbukh wrote: Andrew, Thank you for clarification! On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Laski andrew.la...@rackspace.com wrote: The scheduler as it currently exists is a placement engine. There is sufficient complexity in the scheduler with just that responsibility so I would prefer to see anything that's making runtime decisions separated out. Perhaps it could just be another service within the scheduler project once it's broken out, but I think it will be beneficial to have a clear distinction between placement decisions and runtime monitoring. Do you think that auto-scaling could be considered another facet of this 'runtime monitoring' functionality? Now it is a combination of Heat and Ceilometer. Does it worth moving to hypothetical runtime mobility service as well? Auto-scaling is certainly a facet of runtime monitoring. But auto-scaling performs actions based on a set of user defined rules and is very visible while the enhancements proposed below are intended to benefit deployers and be very invisible to users. So the set of allowable actions is very constrained compared to what auto-scaling can do. In my opinion what's being proposed doesn't seem to fit cleanly into any existing service, so perhaps it could start as a standalone entity. Then once there's something that can be used and demoed a proper place might suggest itself, or it might make sense to keep it separate. -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Jay Lau jay.lau@gmail.com wrote: @Oleg, Till now, I'm not sure the target of Gantt, is it for initial placement policy or run time policy or both, can you help clarify? @Henrique, not sure if you know IBM PRS (Platform Resource Scheduler) [1], we have finished the dynamic scheduler in our Icehouse version (PRS 2.2), it has exactly the same feature as your described, we are planning a live demo for this feature in Atlanta Summit. I'm also writing some document for run time policy which will cover more run time policies for OpenStack, but not finished yet. (My shame for the slow progress). The related blueprint is [2], you can also get some discussion from [3] [1] http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype= ANsubtype=CAhtmlfid=897/ENUS213-590appname=USN [2] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/resource- optimization-service [3] http://markmail.org/~jaylau/OpenStack-DRS Thanks. 2014-04-09 23:21 GMT+08:00 Oleg Gelbukh ogelb...@mirantis.com: Henrique, You should check out Gantt project [1], it could be exactly the place to implement such features. It is a generic cross-project Scheduler as a Service forked from Nova recently. [1] https://github.com/openstack/gantt -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh Mirantis Labs On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Henrique Truta henriquecostatr...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, everyone! I am currently a graduate student and member of a group of contributors to OpenStack. We believe that a dynamic scheduler could improve the efficiency of an OpenStack cloud, either by rebalancing nodes to maximize performance or to minimize the number of active hosts, in order to minimize energy costs. Therefore, we would like to propose a dynamic scheduling mechanism to Nova. The main idea is using the Ceilometer information (e.g. RAM, CPU, disk usage) through the ceilometer-client and dinamically decide whether a instance should be live migrated. This might me done as a Nova periodic task, which will be executed every once in a given period or as a new independent project. In both cases, the current Nova scheduler will not be affected, since this new scheduler will be pluggable. We have done a search and found no such initiative in the OpenStack BPs. Outside the community, we found only a recent IBM announcement for a similiar feature in one of its cloud products. A possible flow is: In the new scheduler, we periodically make a call to Nova, get the instance list from a specific host and, for each instance, we make a call to the ceilometer-client (e.g. $ ceilometer statistics -m cpu_util -q resource=$INSTANCE_ID) and then, according to some specific parameters configured by the user, analyze the meters and do the proper migrations. Do you have any comments or suggestions? -- Ítalo Henrique Costa Truta ___ 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] Dynamic scheduling
-Original Message- From: Andrew Laski [mailto:andrew.la...@rackspace.com] Sent: 11 April 2014 16:38 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Dynamic scheduling On 04/10/14 at 11:33pm, Oleg Gelbukh wrote: Andrew, ... In my opinion what's being proposed doesn't seem to fit cleanly into any existing service, so perhaps it could start as a standalone entity. Then once there's something that can be used and demoed a proper place might suggest itself, or it might make sense to keep it separate. I strongly support no auto scaling. Heat looks after this and is a user facing activity since it needs to know what to do when a new VM is created and how to set it up. A dynamic scheduling 'service' would work on an operator infrastructure layer performing VM relocation according to the service provider needs (balance between optimisation, thrashing, acceptable downtime). It should be performed within the SLA expectations of the VM. The dynamic scheduling is 'OpenStack Tetris', trying to ensure a consistent packing policy of VMs on resources based on the policy for the service class. Tim ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Mistral][TaskFlow] Mistral-TaskFlow Summary
We prototyped Mistral / TaskFlow integration and have a follow-up discussions. SUMMARY: Mistral (Workflow Service) can embed TaskFlow as a workflow library, with some required modifications to function resliently as a service, and for smooth integration. However, the TaskFlow flow controls are insufficient for Mistral use cases. Details discussed on other thirds. The prototype scope - [0]; code and discussion - [1] and techical highlights - [2]. DETAILS: 1) Embedding TaskFlow inside Mistral: * Required: make the engine lazy [3], [4].This is required to support long-running delegates and not loose tasks when engine manager process restarts. * Persistence: need clarity how to replace or mix-in TaskFlow persistence with Mistral persistence. Renat is taking a look. * Declaring Flows in YAML DSL: done for simplest flow. Need to prototype for data flow. Rich flow controls are missing in TaskFlow for a representative prototype. * ActionRunners vs Taskflow Workers - not prototyped. Not a risk: both Mistral and TaskFlow implementations work. But we shall resolve the overlap. * Ignored for now - unlikely any risks: Keystone integration, Mistral event scheduler, Mistral declarative services and action definition. 2) TaskFlow library features * Must: flow control - conditional transitions, references, expression evaluation, to express real-life workflows [5]. The required flow control primitives are 1) repeater 2) flow in flow 3) direct transition 4) conditional transition 5) multiple data. TaskFlow has 1) and 2), need to add 3/4/5. * Other details and smaller requests are in the discussion [1] 3) Next Steps proposed: * Mistal team: summarize the requirements discussed and agreed on [2] and [3] * Mistral team: code sample (tests?) on how Mistral would like to consume TaskFlow lazy engine * Taskflow team: Provide a design for alternative TaskExecutor approach (prototypes, boxes, arrows, crayons :)) * Decide on lazy engine * Move the discussion on other elements on integration. References: [0] The scope of the prototype: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mistral-taskflow-prototype [1] Prototype code and discussion https://github.com/enykeev/mistral/pull/1 [2] Techical summary http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-April/032461.html [3] Email discussion on TaskFlow lazy eninge http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/031134.html [4] IRC discussion Mistral/Taskflow http://paste.openstack.org/show/75389/ [5] Use cases https://github.com/dzimine/mistral-workflows/tree/add-usecases___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Mistral][TaskFlow] Mistral-TaskFlow Summary
I'm confused, why is this 2 emails?? http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-April/032461.html Seems better to just have 1 chain, not 2. From: Dmitri Zimine d...@stackstorm.commailto:d...@stackstorm.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Friday, April 11, 2014 at 9:55 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [Mistral][TaskFlow] Mistral-TaskFlow Summary We prototyped Mistral / TaskFlow integration and have a follow-up discussions. SUMMARY: Mistral (Workflow Service) can embed TaskFlow as a workflow library, with some required modifications to function resliently as a service, and for smooth integration. However, the TaskFlow flow controls are insufficient for Mistral use cases. Details discussed on other thirds. The prototype scope - [0https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mistral-taskflow-prototype]; code and discussion - [1https://github.com/enykeev/mistral/pull/1] and techical highlights - [2http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-April/032461.html]. DETAILS: 1) Embedding TaskFlow inside Mistral: * Required: make the engine lazy [3http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/031134.html], [4http://paste.openstack.org/show/75389/].This is required to support long-running delegates and not loose tasks when engine manager process restarts. * Persistence: need clarity how to replace or mix-in TaskFlow persistence with Mistral persistence. Renat is taking a look. * Declaring Flows in YAML DSL: done for simplest flow. Need to prototype for data flow. Rich flow controls are missing in TaskFlow for a representative prototype. * ActionRunners vs Taskflow Workers - not prototyped. Not a risk: both Mistral and TaskFlow implementations work. But we shall resolve the overlap. * Ignored for now - unlikely any risks: Keystone integration, Mistral event scheduler, Mistral declarative services and action definition. 2) TaskFlow library features * Must: flow control - conditional transitions, references, expression evaluation, to express real-life workflows [5https://github.com/dzimine/mistral-workflows/tree/add-usecases]. The required flow control primitives are 1) repeater 2) flow in flow 3) direct transition 4) conditional transition 5) multiple data. TaskFlow has 1) and 2), need to add 3/4/5. * Other details and smaller requests are in the discussion [1https://github.com/enykeev/mistral/pull/1] 3) Next Steps proposed: * Mistal team: summarize the requirements discussed and agreed on [2http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-April/032461.html] and [3http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/031134.html] * Mistral team: code sample (tests?) on how Mistral would like to consume TaskFlow lazy engine * Taskflow team: Provide a design for alternative TaskExecutor approach (prototypes, boxes, arrows, crayons :)) * Decide on lazy engine * Move the discussion on other elements on integration. References: [0] The scope of the prototype: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mistral-taskflow-prototype [1] Prototype code and discussion https://github.com/enykeev/mistral/pull/1 [2] Techical summary http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-April/032461.html [3] Email discussion on TaskFlow lazy eninge http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/031134.html [4] IRC discussion Mistral/Taskflow http://paste.openstack.org/show/75389/ [5] Use cases https://github.com/dzimine/mistral-workflows/tree/add-usecases ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Multiprovider API documentation
On 4/10/14, 6:35 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote: The bug for documenting the 'multi-provider' API extension is still open [1]. The bug report has a good deal of information, but perhaps it might be worth also documenting how ML2 uses the segment information, as this might be useful to understand when one should use the 'provider' extension and when instead the 'multi-provider' would be a better fit. Unfortunately I do not understand enough how ML2 handles multi-segment networks, so I hope somebody from the ML2 team can chime in. Here's a quick description of ML2 port binding, including how multi-segment networks are handled: Port binding is how the ML2 plugin determines the mechanism driver that handles the port, the network segment to which the port is attached, and the values of the binding:vif_type and binding:vif_details port attributes. Its inputs are the binding:host_id and binding:profile port attributes, as well as the segments of the port's network. When port binding is triggered, each registered mechanism driver's bind_port() function is called, in the order specified in the mechanism_drivers config variable, until one succeeds in binding, or all have been tried. If none succeed, the binding:vif_type attribute is set to 'binding_failed'. In bind_port(), each mechanism driver checks if it can bind the port on the binding:host_id host, using any of the network's segments, honoring any requirements it understands in binding:profile. If it can bind the port, the mechanism driver calls PortContext.set_binding() from within bind_port(), passing the chosen segment's ID, the values for binding:vif_type and binding:vif_details, and optionally, the port's status. A common base class for mechanism drivers supporting L2 agents implements bind_port() by iterating over the segments and calling a try_to_bind_segment_for_agent() function that decides whether the port can be bound based on the agents_db info periodically reported via RPC by that specific L2 agent. For network segment types of 'flat' and 'vlan', the try_to_bind_segment_for_agent() function checks whether the L2 agent on the host has a mapping from the segment's physical_network value to a bridge or interface. For tunnel network segment types, try_to_bind_segment_for_agent() checks whether the L2 agent has that tunnel type enabled. Note that, although ML2 can manage binding to multi-segment networks, neutron does not manage bridging between the segments of a multi-segment network. This is assumed to be done administratively. Finally, at least in ML2, the providernet and multiprovidernet extensions are two different APIs to supply/view the same underlying information. The older providernet extension can only deal with single-segment networks, but is easier to use. The newer multiprovidernet extension handles multi-segment networks and potentially supports an extensible set of a segment properties, but is more cumbersome to use, at least from the CLI. Either extension can be used to create single-segment networks with ML2. Currently, ML2 network operations return only the providernet attributes (provider:network_type, provider:physical_network, and provider:segmentation_id) for single-segment networks, and only the multiprovidernet attribute (segments) for multi-segment networks. It could be argued that all attributes should be returned from all operations, with a provider:network_type value of 'multi-segment' returned when the network has multiple segments. A blueprint in the works for juno that lets each ML2 type driver define whatever segment properties make sense for that type may lead to eventual deprecation of the providernet extension. Hope this helps, -Bob Salvatore [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-api-site/+bug/1242019 ___ 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] Vagrant Devstack projects - time to consolidate?
On 04/11/2014 11:38 AM, Greg Lucas wrote: Sean Dague wrote: Maybe it would be good to get an ad-hoc IRC meeting together to figure out what the must have features are that inspired everyone to write these. If we can come up with a way to overlap those all sanely, moving to stackforge and doing this via gerrit would be something I'd be into. This is a good idea, I've definitely stumbled across lots of GitHub projects, blog posts, etc that overlap here. Folks seem to have a strong preference for provisioner so it may makes sense to support several. We can put together a Vagrantfile that allows you to choose a provisioner while maintaining a common machine configuration (using --provision-with or using env variables and loading in additional rb files, etc). Honestly, multi provisioner support is something I think shouldn't be done. That's realistically where I become uninterested in spending effort here. Puppet is needed if we want to be able to replicate devstack-gate locally (which is one of the reasons I started writing this). Being opinionated is good when it comes to providing tools to make things easy to onboard people. The provisioner in infra is puppet. Learning puppet lets you contribute to the rest of the openstack infra, and I expect to consume some piece of that in this process. I get that leaves other efforts out in the cold, but the tradeoff in the other direction I don't think is worth it. The place I think plugability makes sense is in virt backends. I'd honestly love to be able to do nested kvm for performance reasons, or an openstack cloud for dogfooding reasons. -Sean -- Sean Dague Samsung Research America s...@dague.net / sean.da...@samsung.com 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] [infra][nova][docker]
On 04/11/2014 11:50 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: On 11/04/14 16:28, Paul Czarkowski wrote: I would rather see the devstack support be integrated in devstack's repo itself. There's a review Outstanding for devstack[1] that adds this support in and also adds in some pieces to make it easier to utilize external nova drivers. Great, I hadn't spotted the review to put it back into devstack, I'll give it a go and review to help move it along. I see there is a -1 suggesting it should be in nova-docker, the devstack approach certainly looks cleaner. regardless of which approach is taken I should be able to work the check job to use it for nova-docker CI. Right, I remain -1 on adding this kind of function into devstack for external repos. Devstack is an opinionated development setup tool for OpenStack. If it's not in tree for an OpenStack project, then it's not OpenStack (we already have way too much to support in tree). So if and when docker comes back in the nova tree, we can integrate it back to devstack. Until then, the extras.d approach is the right one. -Sean -- Sean Dague Samsung Research America s...@dague.net / sean.da...@samsung.com 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] [OpenStack-Infra] [infra] Consolidating efforts around Fedora/Centos gate job
Ian Wienand iwien...@redhat.com writes: Then we have the question of the nodepool setup scripts working on F20. I just tested the setup scripts from [3] and it all seems to work on a fresh f20 cloud image. I think this is due to kchamart, peila2 and others who've fixed parts of this before. So, is there: 1) anything blocking having f20 in the nodepool? 2) anything blocking a simple, non-voting job to test devstack changes on f20? I'm not aware of blockers; I think this is great, so thanks to all the people who have worked to make it happen! -Jim ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][nova][docker]
Based on this feedback I have removed the docker portions of the review to devstack But have kept in the changes that make it easier for a nova drivers to add their own Files to the nova rootwrap.d directory. On 4/11/14 10:47 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/11/2014 11:28 AM, Paul Czarkowski wrote: I would rather see the devstack support be integrated in devstack's repo itself. There's a review Outstanding for devstack[1] that adds this support in and also adds in some pieces to make it easier to utilize external nova drivers. If that fails out then I'm all for merging in your review to the nova-docker driver. We're Currently using nova-docker for Solum and having the devstack support would help us out a lot. There is some ugliness in the nova-docker review[2] that we could avoid by merging the integration directly into devstack. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/84839/ [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/81097/3/contrib/devstack/stackrc.diff Agree that directly in devstack is easier, but I just don't see that happening. They've been pretty clear on only including support for things in official projects. See Sean's review of I feel like this should be done entirely as an extras.d file which is actually in the docker driver tree. If there are call points which are needed in extras.d, we should add those. So, I think we should proceed with the support in the nova-docker repo for now. That will unblock CI progress against nova-docker, which is the #1 blocker for eventually re-proposing the driver to nova itself. -- 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] [TripleO] tripleo-heat-templates migration to software-config: please rebase on top
Another massive change just landed in front of 81666. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/84197/ So let me make my statement below a bit more clear: Please do not land changes until this is fixed and merged. Every time I have to merge in the new changes is a few hours to a whole day of work. If we keep landing changes in front of it, we will never get this refactor done, which stands in the way of HA, rolling updates, and deprecation of merge.py. Thanks! Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of 2014-04-10 13:39:35 -0700: Hi! For the last 2 weeks I've been trying to prepare and land a change in tripleo-heat-templates to migrate to using OS::Heat::StructuredConfig and OS::Heat::StructuredDeployment so we can start deprecating features of merge.py. However, this is quite a large refactoring, and it will be complicated to do in pieces, so there is just one patch: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/81666/ Because this is such a large refactoring, merging new changes in is extremely time consuming and tedious. So, I am asking that if you plan on editting any of the yaml files in tripleo-heat-templates, that you rebase on top of that change, and please help test the migration. Hopefully we can get this working and merged soon. Thank you! ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Load balancing use cases and web ui screen captures
Hi Kevin, We are trying to prioritize features based on actual data utilization. If you have some, by all means please add it to https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ar1FuMFYRhgadDVXZ25NM2NfbGtLTkR0TDFNUWJQUWc#gid=0. One reason we are focusing on HTTP(S) and not FTP is that 0.27% of our lb instances leverage the FTP protocol. That being said, we are only one cloud provider so if you have an interesting use case please add it to the links that Sam added. Once it is in the docs then it will be easier for everyone to be aware of it and thus make for a more spirited discussion. Cheers, --Jorge From: Fox, Kevin M kevin@pnnl.govmailto:kevin@pnnl.gov Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 7:21 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, Eugene Nikanorov (enikano...@mirantis.commailto:enikano...@mirantis.com) enikano...@mirantis.commailto:enikano...@mirantis.com Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Load balancing use cases and web ui screen captures I'm not seeing anything here about non http(s) related Load balancing. We're interested in load balancing ssh, ftp, and other services too. Thanks, Kevin From: Samuel Bercovici [samu...@radware.commailto:samu...@radware.com] Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 5:51 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org); Eugene Nikanorov (enikano...@mirantis.commailto:enikano...@mirantis.com) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Load balancing use cases and web ui screen captures Per the last LBaaS meeting. 1. Please find a list of use cases. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ewl95yxAMq2fO0Z6Dz6fL-w2FScERQXQR1-mXuSINis/edit?usp=sharing a) Please review and see if you have additional ones for the project-user b) We can then chose 2-3 use cases to play around with how the CLI, API, etc. would look 2. Please find a document to place screen captures of web UI. I took the liberty to place a few links showing ELB. https://docs.google.com/document/d/10EOCTej5CvDfnusv_es0kFzv5SIYLNl0uHerSq3pLQA/edit?usp=sharing Regards, -Sam. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Vagrant Devstack projects - time to consolidate?
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 02:24:10PM EDT, Sean Dague wrote: Honestly, multi provisioner support is something I think shouldn't be done. Agreed - in addition let's keep this in perspective - we're just adding a little bit of glue to prep the VM for the running of DevStack, which does the heavy lifting. Being opinionated is good when it comes to providing tools to make things easy to onboard people. The provisioner in infra is puppet. Learning puppet lets you contribute to the rest of the openstack infra, and I expect to consume some piece of that in this process. +1000 on this - if there's already a provisioner that is used for infra, let's re-use some of that knowledge and expertise. -- Sean M. Collins ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][nova][docker]
What I hope to do is setup a check doing CI on devstack-f20 nodes[3], this will setup a devstack based nova with the nova-docker driver and can then run what ever tests make sense (currently only a minimal test, Eric I believe you were looking at tempest support maybe it could be hooked in here?). I'm not sure how far you've gotten, but my approach had been not to use devstack-gate, but to build upon dockenstack ( https://github.com/ewindisch/dockenstack) to hasten the tests. Advantages to this over devstack-gate are that: 1) It is usable for developers as an alternative to devstack-vagrant so it may be the same environment for developing as for CI. 2) All network-dependent resources are downloaded into the image - completely eliminating the need for mirrors/caching infrastructure. 3) Most of the packages are installed and pre-configured inside the image prior to running the tests such that there is little time spent initializing the testing environment. Disadvantages are: 1) It's currently tied to Ubuntu. It could be ported to Fedora, but hasn't been. 2) Removal of apt/rpm or even pypi dependencies may allow for false-positive testing results (if a dependency is removed from a requirements.txt or devstack's packages lists, it will still be installed within the testing image); This is something that could be easily fixed if should it be essential. If you're interested, I'd be willing to entertain adding Fedora support to Dockenstack. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][nova][docker]
On 04/11/2014 04:29 PM, Eric Windisch wrote: What I hope to do is setup a check doing CI on devstack-f20 nodes[3], this will setup a devstack based nova with the nova-docker driver and can then run what ever tests make sense (currently only a minimal test, Eric I believe you were looking at tempest support maybe it could be hooked in here?). I'm not sure how far you've gotten, but my approach had been not to use devstack-gate, but to build upon dockenstack (https://github.com/ewindisch/dockenstack) to hasten the tests. Advantages to this over devstack-gate are that: 1) It is usable for developers as an alternative to devstack-vagrant so it may be the same environment for developing as for CI. 2) All network-dependent resources are downloaded into the image - completely eliminating the need for mirrors/caching infrastructure. 3) Most of the packages are installed and pre-configured inside the image prior to running the tests such that there is little time spent initializing the testing environment. Disadvantages are: 1) It's currently tied to Ubuntu. It could be ported to Fedora, but hasn't been. 2) Removal of apt/rpm or even pypi dependencies may allow for false-positive testing results (if a dependency is removed from a requirements.txt or devstack's packages lists, it will still be installed within the testing image); This is something that could be easily fixed if should it be essential. If you're interested, I'd be willing to entertain adding Fedora support to Dockenstack. I think part of the issue is how quickly we can get this working in OpenStack infra. devstack-gate and devstack are how most (all?) functional test jobs work there today. -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Load balancing use cases and web ui screen captures
Most everything non-http(s) related can simply be load-balanced under the generic umbrella of UDP or TCP protocol. MySQL often gets it's own special protocol (Libra has MySQL/Galera), but of what you listed, SSH is the only real special case I can think of, wherein something more specialized like Ballast* would be useful. * http://code.nasa.gov/project/balancing-load-across-systems-ballast/ --Adam From: Fox, Kevin M kevin@pnnl.govmailto:kevin@pnnl.gov Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 7:21 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, Eugene Nikanorov (enikano...@mirantis.commailto:enikano...@mirantis.com) enikano...@mirantis.commailto:enikano...@mirantis.com Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Load balancing use cases and web ui screen captures I'm not seeing anything here about non http(s) related Load balancing. We're interested in load balancing ssh, ftp, and other services too. Thanks, Kevin From: Samuel Bercovici [samu...@radware.commailto:samu...@radware.com] Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 5:51 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org); Eugene Nikanorov (enikano...@mirantis.commailto:enikano...@mirantis.com) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Load balancing use cases and web ui screen captures Per the last LBaaS meeting. 1. Please find a list of use cases. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ewl95yxAMq2fO0Z6Dz6fL-w2FScERQXQR1-mXuSINis/edit?usp=sharing a) Please review and see if you have additional ones for the project-user b) We can then chose 2-3 use cases to play around with how the CLI, API, etc. would look 2. Please find a document to place screen captures of web UI. I took the liberty to place a few links showing ELB. https://docs.google.com/document/d/10EOCTej5CvDfnusv_es0kFzv5SIYLNl0uHerSq3pLQA/edit?usp=sharing Regards, -Sam. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [infra][nova][docker]
On 04/11/2014 04:39 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: On 04/11/2014 04:29 PM, Eric Windisch wrote: What I hope to do is setup a check doing CI on devstack-f20 nodes[3], this will setup a devstack based nova with the nova-docker driver and can then run what ever tests make sense (currently only a minimal test, Eric I believe you were looking at tempest support maybe it could be hooked in here?). I'm not sure how far you've gotten, but my approach had been not to use devstack-gate, but to build upon dockenstack (https://github.com/ewindisch/dockenstack) to hasten the tests. Advantages to this over devstack-gate are that: 1) It is usable for developers as an alternative to devstack-vagrant so it may be the same environment for developing as for CI. 2) All network-dependent resources are downloaded into the image - completely eliminating the need for mirrors/caching infrastructure. 3) Most of the packages are installed and pre-configured inside the image prior to running the tests such that there is little time spent initializing the testing environment. Disadvantages are: 1) It's currently tied to Ubuntu. It could be ported to Fedora, but hasn't been. 2) Removal of apt/rpm or even pypi dependencies may allow for false-positive testing results (if a dependency is removed from a requirements.txt or devstack's packages lists, it will still be installed within the testing image); This is something that could be easily fixed if should it be essential. If you're interested, I'd be willing to entertain adding Fedora support to Dockenstack. I think part of the issue is how quickly we can get this working in OpenStack infra. devstack-gate and devstack are how most (all?) functional test jobs work there today. Correct. If this is intended for infra, it has to use devstack-gate. That has lots of levers that we need to set based on branches, how to do the zuul ref calculations (needed for the speculative gating), how to do branch overrides for stable an upgrade jobs, etc. If we think it's staying in 3rd party, people are free to use whatever they would like. -Sean -- Sean Dague Samsung Research America s...@dague.net / sean.da...@samsung.com 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] [infra][nova][docker]
On 04/11/2014 04:58 PM, Sean Dague wrote: On 04/11/2014 04:39 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: On 04/11/2014 04:29 PM, Eric Windisch wrote: What I hope to do is setup a check doing CI on devstack-f20 nodes[3], this will setup a devstack based nova with the nova-docker driver and can then run what ever tests make sense (currently only a minimal test, Eric I believe you were looking at tempest support maybe it could be hooked in here?). I'm not sure how far you've gotten, but my approach had been not to use devstack-gate, but to build upon dockenstack (https://github.com/ewindisch/dockenstack) to hasten the tests. Advantages to this over devstack-gate are that: 1) It is usable for developers as an alternative to devstack-vagrant so it may be the same environment for developing as for CI. 2) All network-dependent resources are downloaded into the image - completely eliminating the need for mirrors/caching infrastructure. 3) Most of the packages are installed and pre-configured inside the image prior to running the tests such that there is little time spent initializing the testing environment. Disadvantages are: 1) It's currently tied to Ubuntu. It could be ported to Fedora, but hasn't been. 2) Removal of apt/rpm or even pypi dependencies may allow for false-positive testing results (if a dependency is removed from a requirements.txt or devstack's packages lists, it will still be installed within the testing image); This is something that could be easily fixed if should it be essential. If you're interested, I'd be willing to entertain adding Fedora support to Dockenstack. I think part of the issue is how quickly we can get this working in OpenStack infra. devstack-gate and devstack are how most (all?) functional test jobs work there today. Correct. If this is intended for infra, it has to use devstack-gate. That has lots of levers that we need to set based on branches, how to do the zuul ref calculations (needed for the speculative gating), how to do branch overrides for stable an upgrade jobs, etc. If we think it's staying in 3rd party, people are free to use whatever they would like. I guess we should be clear on this point. I *really* think the best way forward is to move back to trying to get this working in openstack infra. I really can't think of any reason not to. Any disagreements with that goal? -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [fuel] oddness with sqlalchemy db().refresh(object)
Recently in one of my changes [1] I was fighting with one of the unit tests showing a failure for a test which should have been outside the sphere of influence. Traceback (most recent call last): File /home/andreww/.virtualenvs/fuel/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mock.py, line 1190, in patched return func(*args, **keywargs) File /home/andreww/git/fuel-web/nailgun/nailgun/test/integration/test_task_managers.py, line 65, in test_deployment_task_managers self.assertEquals(provision_task.weight, 0.4) AssertionError: 1.0 != 0.4 After walking through a number of times and finally playing with it we where able to find that the db().refresh(task_provision) call appeared to be reseting the object. This caused the loss of the weight being set to 0.4 (1.0 is the model default). db().commit(), db().flush() and no call to db all caused the test to pass again. Does anyone have any input on why this would occur? The oddly odd part is that this test doesn't fail outside of the change set in [1] [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/78406/8/nailgun/nailgun/task/manager.py -- Andrew Mirantis Ceph community ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] TripleO fully uploaded to Debian Experimental
Hi On 11 April 2014 08:00, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: it's with a great joy that I can announce today, that TripleO is now fully in Debian [1]. It is currently only uploaded to Debian woo! Thanks very much Thomas :) -- Cheers, Chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Multiprovider API documentation
On 11 April 2014 19:11, Robert Kukura kuk...@noironetworks.com wrote: On 4/10/14, 6:35 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote: The bug for documenting the 'multi-provider' API extension is still open [1]. The bug report has a good deal of information, but perhaps it might be worth also documenting how ML2 uses the segment information, as this might be useful to understand when one should use the 'provider' extension and when instead the 'multi-provider' would be a better fit. Unfortunately I do not understand enough how ML2 handles multi-segment networks, so I hope somebody from the ML2 team can chime in. Here's a quick description of ML2 port binding, including how multi-segment networks are handled: Port binding is how the ML2 plugin determines the mechanism driver that handles the port, the network segment to which the port is attached, and the values of the binding:vif_type and binding:vif_details port attributes. Its inputs are the binding:host_id and binding:profile port attributes, as well as the segments of the port's network. When port binding is triggered, each registered mechanism driver’s bind_port() function is called, in the order specified in the mechanism_drivers config variable, until one succeeds in binding, or all have been tried. If none succeed, the binding:vif_type attribute is set to 'binding_failed'. In bind_port(), each mechanism driver checks if it can bind the port on the binding:host_id host, using any of the network’s segments, honoring any requirements it understands in binding:profile. If it can bind the port, the mechanism driver calls PortContext.set_binding() from within bind_port(), passing the chosen segment's ID, the values for binding:vif_type and binding:vif_details, and optionally, the port’s status. A common base class for mechanism drivers supporting L2 agents implements bind_port() by iterating over the segments and calling a try_to_bind_segment_for_agent() function that decides whether the port can be bound based on the agents_db info periodically reported via RPC by that specific L2 agent. For network segment types of 'flat' and 'vlan', the try_to_bind_segment_for_agent() function checks whether the L2 agent on the host has a mapping from the segment's physical_network value to a bridge or interface. For tunnel network segment types, try_to_bind_segment_for_agent() checks whether the L2 agent has that tunnel type enabled. Note that, although ML2 can manage binding to multi-segment networks, neutron does not manage bridging between the segments of a multi-segment network. This is assumed to be done administratively. Thanks Bob. I think the above paragraph is the answer I was looking for. Finally, at least in ML2, the providernet and multiprovidernet extensions are two different APIs to supply/view the same underlying information. The older providernet extension can only deal with single-segment networks, but is easier to use. The newer multiprovidernet extension handles multi-segment networks and potentially supports an extensible set of a segment properties, but is more cumbersome to use, at least from the CLI. Either extension can be used to create single-segment networks with ML2. Currently, ML2 network operations return only the providernet attributes (provider:network_type, provider:physical_network, and provider:segmentation_id) for single-segment networks, and only the multiprovidernet attribute (segments) for multi-segment networks. It could be argued that all attributes should be returned from all operations, with a provider:network_type value of 'multi-segment' returned when the network has multiple segments. A blueprint in the works for juno that lets each ML2 type driver define whatever segment properties make sense for that type may lead to eventual deprecation of the providernet extension. Hope this helps, -Bob Salvatore [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-api-site/+bug/1242019 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing listOpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orghttp://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] [infra][nova][docker]
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/11/2014 04:58 PM, Sean Dague wrote: [snip] If we think it's staying in 3rd party, people are free to use whatever they would like. I guess we should be clear on this point. I *really* think the best way forward is to move back to trying to get this working in openstack infra. I really can't think of any reason not to. Any disagreements with that goal? Agreed, where it makes sense. In general we should be avoiding third party CI unless we need to support something we can't in the gate -- a proprietary virt driver, or weird network hardware for example. I think we've now well and truly demonstrated that third party CI implementations are hard to run well. Docker doesn't meet either of those tests. However, I can see third party CI being a stepping stone required by the infra team to reduce their workload -- in other words that they'd like to see things running consistently as a third party CI before they move it into their world. However, I'll leave that call to the infra team. Michael -- Rackspace Australia ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [NOVA][Neutron][ML2][Tunnel] Error in nova-agent when launching VM in compute for Tunnel cases
Hello, I have two Openstack nodes (controller Compute and a Compute). VM's are getting launched fine on the node that also acts as the controller. But, the VM's that are scheduled on the compute node seems to go to error state. I am running Icehouse Master version and my ML2 type driver is GRE (even VXLAN has the same error) . I used devstack for my installation. If I use non-tunnel mode and change it to VLAN, I don't see this error and VM's are launched fine in compute nodes as well. My devstack configuration on controller/compute is: Q_PLUGIN=ml2 Q_ML2_PLUGIN_MECHANISM_DRIVERS=openvswitch Q_ML2_PLUGIN_TYPE_DRIVERS=gre ENABLE_TENANT_TUNNELS=True TENANT_TUNNEL_RANGE=32000:33000 The error i see in compute nova screen is: 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 ERROR nova.compute.manager [-] [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] An error occurred while refreshing the network cache. 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] Traceback (most recent call last): 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] File /opt/stack/nova/nova/compute/manager.py, line 4871, in _heal_instance_info_cache 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] self._get_instance_nw_info(context, instance, use_slave=True) 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] File /opt/stack/nova/nova/compute/manager.py, line 1129, in _get_instance_nw_info 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] instance) 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] File /opt/stack/nova/nova/network/api.py, line 48, in wrapper 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] res = f(self, context, *args, **kwargs) 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] File /opt/stack/nova/nova/network/neutronv2/api.py, line 465, in get_instance_nw_info 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] port_ids) 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] File /opt/stack/nova/nova/network/neutronv2/api.py, line 474, in _get_instance_nw_info 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] port_ids) 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] File /opt/stack/nova/nova/network/neutronv2/api.py, line 1106, in _build_network_info_model 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] data = client.list_ports(**search_opts) 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] File /opt/stack/python-neutronclient/neutronclient/v2_0/client.py, line 108, in with_params 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] ret = self.function(instance, *args, **kwargs) 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] File /opt/stack/python-neutronclient/neutronclient/v2_0/client.py, line 310, in list_ports 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] **_params) 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] File /opt/stack/python-neutronclient/neutronclient/v2_0/client.py, line 1302, in list 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] for r in self._pagination(collection, path, **params): 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] File /opt/stack/python-neutronclient/neutronclient/v2_0/client.py, line 1315, in _pagination 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] res = self.get(path, params=params) 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] File /opt/stack/python-neutronclient/neutronclient/v2_0/client.py, line 1288, in get 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] headers=headers, params=params) 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] File /opt/stack/python-neutronclient/neutronclient/v2_0/client.py, line 1280, in retry_request 2014-04-11 09:38:57.042 TRACE nova.compute.manager [instance: b12490cc-a237-47e1-b2df-fe69d4a5e516] raise
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [IPv6] Ubuntu PPA with IPv6 enabled, need help to achieve it
On 04/11/2014 10:52 PM, Collins, Sean wrote: Many of those patches are stale - please join us in the subteam IRC meeting if you wish to coordinate development of IPv6 features, so that we can focus on updating them and getting them merged. At this point simply applying them to the Icehouse tree is not enough. When and where is the next meeting? Thomas ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [IPv6] Ubuntu PPA with IPv6 enabled, need help to achieve it
Hey Thomas! That's an amazing list! :-D Okay, I'll drop by on IRC anytime soon to chat with you guys, tk for the invite! About DHCPv6 support, yes, I agree with you, it can be postponed (in fact, I don't think I'll ever use it). Radvd should be enough for me. I think that we need to start with the simplest configuration possible, that I think it is this one: 8- Provider Networking - upstream SLAAC support: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/ipv6-provider-nets-slaac Please, Collins, can you confirm this for us: is this above blueprint the easiest to achieve (or almost)?! If not, which one is closest to be ready for tests?! Nevertheless, from what I'm seeing, that this is, in fact, the simplest blueprint / topology we can start testing, so, I'm finishing a Quick Guide for our tests (more commits to it comming - cleanup). It perfect fits into the proposed blueprint topology, which is upstream router (no L3, no gre/vxlan tunnels, no Floating IPs, no NAT even for IPv4)... Here it is: Ultimate OpenStack IceHouse Guide - IPv6-Friednly: https://gist.github.com/tmartinx/9177697 My current plan is, if you guys can read this page (not all of it) for a moment, at the step 5.2.1. Creating the Flat Neutron Network, I would like to do, basically this: neutron subnet-create --ip-version 6 --tenant-id $ADMIN_TENANT_ID sharednet1 2001:db8:1:1::/64 --dns_nameservers list=true 2001:4860:4860::8844 2001:4860:4860:: ...Into that Simple Flat Network Right after applying the patch for upstream SLAAC / ipv6-provider-nets-slaac at the IceHouse lab I have, it is up and running now. You guys can easily replicated it with 3 KVM Virtual Machines (1 gateway (dual-stacked) / 1 controller / 1 compute). BTW, which extra options for subnet-create, the blueprint ipv6-provider-nets-slaac covers, if any? --ipv6_ra_mode XXX --ipv6_address_mode YYY ? Here at my lab, my upstream SLAAC already have radvd ready, IPv6 connectivity okay and etc, I think I have everything ready to start testing it. Cheers! Thiago On 11 April 2014 03:26, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: On 04/08/2014 03:10 AM, Martinx - ジェ�`ムズ wrote: Hi Thomas! It will be a honor for me to join Debian OpenStack packaging team! I'm in!! :-D Listen, that neutron-ipv6.patch I have, doesn't apply against neutron-2014.1.rc1, here is it: neutron-ipv6.patch: http://paste.openstack.org/show/74857/ I generated it from the commands that Xuhan Peng told me to do, few posts back, which are: -- git fetch https://review.openstack.org/openstack/neutron refs/changes/49/70649/15 git format-patch -1 --stdout FETCH_HEAD neutron-ipv6.patch -- But, as Collins said, even if the patch applies successfully against neutron-2014.1.rc1 (or newer), it will not pass the tests, so, there is still a lot of work to do, to enable Neutron with IPv6 but, I think we can start working on this patches and start testing whatever is already there (related to IPv6). Best! Thiago Hi Thiago, It's my view that we'd better keep each patch separated, so that they can evolve over time, as they are accepted or fixed in review.openstack.org. On the Debian packaging I do, each and every patch has to comply with the DEP3 patch header specifications [1]. Specifically, I do insist that the Origin: field is set with the correct gerrit review URL, so that we can easily find out which patch comes from where. The Last-Update field is also important, so we know which version of the patch is in. Also, at eNovance, we are currently in the process of selecting which patch should get in, and which patch shouldn't. Currently, we are tracking the below patches: 1. Support IPv6 SLAAC mode in dnsmasq https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dnsmasq-ipv6-slaac Patchset: Add support to DHCP agent for BP ipv6-two-attributes: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/70649/ 2. Bind dnsmasq in qrouter- namespace. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dnsmasq-bind-into-qrouter-namespace Patchset: Add support to DHCP agent for BP ipv6-two-attributes: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/70649/ 3. IPv6 Feature Parity https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/ipv6-feature-parity Definition: Superseded. 4. Two Attributes Proposal to Control IPv6 RA Announcement and Address Assignment https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/ipv6-two-attributes Patchset: Create new IPv6 attributes for Subnets. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/52983/ Patchset: Add support to DHCP agent for BP ipv6-two-attributes. https://review.openstack.org/70649 Patchset: Calculate stateless IPv6 address. https://review.openstack.org/56184 Patchset: Permit ICMPv6 RAs only from known routers. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/72252/ 5. Support IPv6 DHCPv6 Stateless mode in dnsmasq https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/dnsmasq-ipv6-dhcpv6-stateless Patchset: Add support to DHCP agent for BP
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [IPv6] Ubuntu PPA with IPv6 enabled, need help to achieve it
Hey guys! My OpenStack Instance have IPv6 connectivity! Using ML2 / Simple Flat Network... For the first time ever! Look: --- administrative@controller:~$ nova boot --image 70f335e3-798b-4031-9773-a640970a8bdf --key-name Key trusty-1 administrative@controller:~$ ssh -i ~/test.pem ubuntu@10.33.14.21 ubuntu@trusty-1:~$ sudo ip -6 a a 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::300/64 dev eth0 ubuntu@trusty-1:~$ sudo ip -6 r a default via 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::1 ubuntu@trusty-1:~$ ping6 -c 1 google.com PING google.com(2800:3f0:4004:801::1000) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 2800:3f0:4004:801::1000: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=55.1 ms --- google.com ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 55.121/55.121/55.121/0.000 ms - # From my Laptop (and from another IPv6 block): testuser@macbuntu:~$ telnet 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::300 22 Trying 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::300... Connected to 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::300. Escape character is '^]'. SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_6.6p1 Ubuntu-2 --- But, OpenStack / Neutron isn't aware of that fixed IPv6 ( 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::300) I just configured within the trusty-1 Instance, so, I think we just need: - Blueprint ipv6-provider-nets-slaac ready; - Start radvd on upstream router (2001:1291:2bf:fffb::1). Am I right?! In fact, apparently, Security Groups is also working! I can ssh into trusty-1 through IPv6 right now, but can't access port 80 of it (it is closed buy 22 is open to the world)... Maybe it will also work with VLANs... BTW, I just realized that both the physical servers, controllers, networks and compute nodes and etc, can be installed under a single IPv6 /64 subnet! Since the openstack will random generate the MAC address (plus SLAAC), IPv6s will never conflict. Best! Thiago On 12 April 2014 00:09, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: On 04/11/2014 10:52 PM, Collins, Sean wrote: Many of those patches are stale - please join us in the subteam IRC meeting if you wish to coordinate development of IPv6 features, so that we can focus on updating them and getting them merged. At this point simply applying them to the Icehouse tree is not enough. When and where is the next meeting? Thomas ___ 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] [infra][nova][docker]
Any disagreements with that goal? No disagreement at all. Not that we're talking yet about moving the driver back into Nova, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind anyone interesting in contributing a Cinder driver that it would be a lot easier if they do it while the driver is still in Stackforge. Correct. If this is intended for infra, it has to use devstack-gate. That has lots of levers that we need to set based on branches, how to do the zuul ref calculations (needed for the speculative gating), how to do branch overrides for stable an upgrade jobs, etc. I suppose I wasn't very clear and what I said may have been misinterpreted. I'm certainly not opposed to the integration being introduced into devstack-gate or testing that way. I'm also happy that someone wants to contribute on the '-infra' side of things (thank you Derek!). In part, my response earlier was to point to work that has already been done, since Derek pointedly asked me about those efforts. Derek: for more clarification on the Tempest work, however, most of the patches necessary for using Docker with Tempest have been merged into Tempest itself. Some patches were rejected or expired. I can share these with you. Primarily, these patches were to make tempest work with Cinder, Neutron, suspend/unsuspend, pause/resume, and snapshots disabled. Snapshot support exists in the driver, but has an open bug that prevents tempest from passing. Neutron support is now integrated into the driver. Primarily, the driver lacks support for suspend/unsuspend and pause/resume. As for dockenstack, this might deserve a separate thread. What I've done here is build something that may be useful to openstack-infra and might necessitate further discussion. It's the fastest way to get the Docker driver up and running, but that's aside to its more generic usefulness as a potential tool for openstack-infra. Basically, I do not see dockenstack as being in conflict with devstack-gate. If anything, it overlaps more with 'install_jenkins_slave.sh'. What's nice about dockenstack is that improving that infrastructure can be easily tested locally and as the jobs are significantly less dependent on that infrastructure, those jobs may be easily run on a developer's workstation. Have you noticed that jobs in the gate run significantly faster than devstack on a laptop? Does that have to be the case? Can we not consolidate these into a single solution that is always fast for everyone, all the time? Something used in dev and gating? Something that might reduce the costs for running openstack-infra? That's what dockenstack is. -- Regards, Eric Windisch ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [IPv6] Ubuntu PPA with IPv6 enabled, need help to achieve it
In fact, neutron accepted the following command: --- root@controller:~# neutron subnet-create --ip-version 6 --disable-dhcp --tenant-id 5e0106fa81104c5cbe21e1ccc9eb1a36 sharednet1 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::/64 Created a new subnet: +--+-+ | Field| Value | +--+-+ | allocation_pools | {start: 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::2, end: 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::::fffe} | | cidr | 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::/64 | | dns_nameservers | | | enable_dhcp | False | | gateway_ip | 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::1 | | host_routes | | | id | 8685c917-e8df-4741-987c-6a531dca9fcd | | ip_version | 6 | | name | | | network_id | 17cda0fb-a59b-4a7e-9d96-76d0670bc95c | | tenant_id| 5e0106fa81104c5cbe21e1ccc9eb1a36 | +--+-+ --- Where gateway_ip 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::1 is my upstream SLAAC router (radvd stopped for now). Diving: I think I'll put my OVS bridge br-eth0 (bridge_mappings = physnet1:br-eth0) on top of a VLAN but, I'll not tell OpenStack to use vlan, I'll keep using flat but, on top of a hidden vlan... eheh :-P I'll keep testing to see how far I can go...:-) Cheers! On 12 April 2014 00:42, Martinx - ジェームズ thiagocmarti...@gmail.com wrote: Hey guys! My OpenStack Instance have IPv6 connectivity! Using ML2 / Simple Flat Network... For the first time ever! Look: --- administrative@controller:~$ nova boot --image 70f335e3-798b-4031-9773-a640970a8bdf --key-name Key trusty-1 administrative@controller:~$ ssh -i ~/test.pem ubuntu@10.33.14.21 ubuntu@trusty-1:~$ sudo ip -6 a a 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::300/64 dev eth0 ubuntu@trusty-1:~$ sudo ip -6 r a default via 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::1 ubuntu@trusty-1:~$ ping6 -c 1 google.com PING google.com(2800:3f0:4004:801::1000) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 2800:3f0:4004:801::1000: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=55.1 ms --- google.com ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 55.121/55.121/55.121/0.000 ms - # From my Laptop (and from another IPv6 block): testuser@macbuntu:~$ telnet 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::300 22 Trying 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::300... Connected to 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::300. Escape character is '^]'. SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_6.6p1 Ubuntu-2 --- But, OpenStack / Neutron isn't aware of that fixed IPv6 ( 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::300) I just configured within the trusty-1 Instance, so, I think we just need: - Blueprint ipv6-provider-nets-slaac ready; - Start radvd on upstream router (2001:1291:2bf:fffb::1). Am I right?! In fact, apparently, Security Groups is also working! I can ssh into trusty-1 through IPv6 right now, but can't access port 80 of it (it is closed buy 22 is open to the world)... Maybe it will also work with VLANs... BTW, I just realized that both the physical servers, controllers, networks and compute nodes and etc, can be installed under a single IPv6 /64 subnet! Since the openstack will random generate the MAC address (plus SLAAC), IPv6s will never conflict. Best! Thiago On 12 April 2014 00:09, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: On 04/11/2014 10:52 PM, Collins, Sean wrote: Many of those patches are stale - please join us in the subteam IRC meeting if you wish to coordinate development of IPv6 features, so that we can focus on updating them and getting them merged. At this point simply applying them to the Icehouse tree is not enough. When and where is the next meeting? Thomas ___ 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] [IPv6] Ubuntu PPA with IPv6 enabled, need help to achieve it
Cool! Instance shows an IPv6 address and it clearly isn't generated by EUI-64 (SLAAC) but, at least, I can use static IPv6! YAY! --- root@controller:~# nova list +--+--+++-+---+ | ID | Name | Status | Task State | Power State | Networks | +--+--+++-+---+ | 1654644d-6d52-4760-b147-4b88769a6fc2 | trusty-2 | ACTIVE | - | Running | sharednet1=10.33.14.23, 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::3 | +--+--+++-+---+ root@controller:~# ssh -i ~/xxx.pem ubuntu@10.33.14.23 ubuntu@trusty-2:~$ sudo ip -6 a a 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::3/64 dev eth0 ubuntu@trusty-2:~$ sudo ip -6 r a default via 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::1 ubuntu@trusty-2:~$ ping6 -c 1 google.com PING google.com(2800:3f0:4004:801::100e) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 2800:3f0:4004:801::100e: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=49.6 ms --- google.com ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 49.646/49.646/49.646/0.000 ms --- IPv6 up and running and OpenStack is aware of both IPv4 and IPv6 instance's addresses! Security Group is also taking care of ip6tables. I'm pretty sure that if I start radvd on upstream router right now, all instances will generate its own IPv6 based on their respective MAC address. But then, the IPv6 will differ from what OpenStack thinks that each instance have. So many e-mails, sorry BTW! :-P Best, Thiago On 12 April 2014 01:11, Martinx - ジェームズ thiagocmarti...@gmail.com wrote: In fact, neutron accepted the following command: --- root@controller:~# neutron subnet-create --ip-version 6 --disable-dhcp --tenant-id 5e0106fa81104c5cbe21e1ccc9eb1a36 sharednet1 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::/64 Created a new subnet: +--+-+ | Field| Value | +--+-+ | allocation_pools | {start: 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::2, end: 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::::fffe} | | cidr | 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::/64 | | dns_nameservers | | | enable_dhcp | False | | gateway_ip | 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::1 | | host_routes | | | id | 8685c917-e8df-4741-987c-6a531dca9fcd | | ip_version | 6 | | name | | | network_id | 17cda0fb-a59b-4a7e-9d96-76d0670bc95c | | tenant_id| 5e0106fa81104c5cbe21e1ccc9eb1a36 | +--+-+ --- Where gateway_ip 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::1 is my upstream SLAAC router (radvd stopped for now). Diving: I think I'll put my OVS bridge br-eth0 (bridge_mappings = physnet1:br-eth0) on top of a VLAN but, I'll not tell OpenStack to use vlan, I'll keep using flat but, on top of a hidden vlan... eheh :-P I'll keep testing to see how far I can go...:-) Cheers! On 12 April 2014 00:42, Martinx - ジェームズ thiagocmarti...@gmail.com wrote: Hey guys! My OpenStack Instance have IPv6 connectivity! Using ML2 / Simple Flat Network... For the first time ever! Look: --- administrative@controller:~$ nova boot --image 70f335e3-798b-4031-9773-a640970a8bdf --key-name Key trusty-1 administrative@controller:~$ ssh -i ~/test.pem ubuntu@10.33.14.21 ubuntu@trusty-1:~$ sudo ip -6 a a 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::300/64 dev eth0 ubuntu@trusty-1:~$ sudo ip -6 r a default via 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::1 ubuntu@trusty-1:~$ ping6 -c 1 google.com PING google.com(2800:3f0:4004:801::1000) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 2800:3f0:4004:801::1000: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=55.1 ms --- google.com ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 55.121/55.121/55.121/0.000 ms - # From my Laptop (and from another IPv6 block): testuser@macbuntu:~$ telnet 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::300 22 Trying 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::300... Connected to 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::300. Escape character is '^]'. SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_6.6p1 Ubuntu-2 --- But, OpenStack / Neutron isn't aware of that fixed IPv6 ( 2001:1291:2bf:fffb::300) I just configured within the trusty-1 Instance, so, I think we just need: - Blueprint ipv6-provider-nets-slaac ready; - Start radvd on upstream