Re: [openstack-dev] [Mistral] Roll back capabilities execution data context variables in YAML
Hi 1) Roll back support : I came across few blueprints that talk about the roll-back support but not sure if they are delivered yet, I wanted to check if something is there out of the box that I should be aware of. Ofcourse, roll-back being very specific, I'd expect a user defined action being called for rolling back, just wondering if there is any construct after (on-error : ) to be used in YAML Yes, it’s really specific. We ourselves discussed several options on what facilities we could provide regarding rollbacks. None of the BPs that you’ve probably seen is implemented yet though and more importantly there haven’t been any decisions made on that. I think we should start a wider discussion on that. As far as the idea itself, the whole point is that it may not be required to implement any specific in addition to existing functionality because from what we learned we can make a conclusion that most often rollback is a different workflow. Meaning that rolling back all the tasks in the same but reverse order (assuming they have a roll back action) doesn’t make too much sense. It’s 100% true if workflow tasks change some state in a non-revertable manner, for example. If so then Mistral already has ‘on-error’ clause which could be used to jump to a task associated with calling a workflow (rollback workflow). I really wonder what your input on this would be? 2) Execution context predefined ids - Here is what I found that talks about task and execution ids that I can access (execution context https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Mistral/DSLv2#Predefinted_Values_in_execution_data_context), it would be great if you could point me to the list of all possible variables like $.execution_id that are accessible inside the YAML. Not too many things at this point: * $.__execution consisting of fields ‘id’, ‘wf_spec’ (workflow specification as a dictionary), ‘input’ and ‘start_params’ (which can contain some additional start parameters like ‘task_name’ for reverse workflows and ‘env’ containing the environment variables or a name of the previously saved environment, but environments are not officially announced yet). * $.openstack which contains whatever is listed in the doc (project_id etc.) This part is slightly changing now and there isn’t still a final doc on that. It will be created by the end of kilo-3. Thanks Renat Akhmerov @ Mirantis Inc. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [ceilometer] nova api.fault notification isn't collected by ceilometer
Hi all, In nova api, a nova api.fault notification will be send out when the when there is en error. http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova/tree/nova/api/openstack/__init__.py#n119 but i couldn't find where they are processed in ceilometer, an error notification can be very desired to be collected, do we have plan to add this, shall i need a bp to do that ? -Yuntong __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] FFE request for passing capabilities in the flavor to ironic
+1 for FFE. This should be very low risk to Nova since it affects only the Ironic driver. On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Nisha Agarwal agarwalnisha1...@gmail.com wrote: Hi wanyen and Nova team, I support wanyen for this FFE. The code changes are very small and harmless to Nova. They just provide a way to ironic to comsume inputs given at flavor. Regards Nisha On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Hsu, Wan-Yen wan-yen@hp.com wrote: Hi, I would like to ask for a feature freeze exception for passing capabilities in the flavor to Ironic: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/pass-flavor-capabilities-to-ironic-virt-driver Addressed by: https://review.openstack.org/136104 Pass on the capabilities in the flavor to the ironic Addressed by: https://review.openstack.org/141012 Pass on the capabilities to instance_info several Ironic Kilo features including secure boot, trusted boot, and local boot support with partition image are depending on this feature. It also has impact on Ironic vendor driver’s hardware property introspection feature. Code changes to support this spec in Nova ironic virt driver is very small- only 31 lines of code (including comments) in nova/virt/ironic/patcher.py, and 22 lines of code in test_patcher.py. Please consider approving this FFE. Thanks! Regards, wanyen __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- The Secret Of Success is learning how to use pain and pleasure, instead of having pain and pleasure use you. If You do that you are in control of your life. If you don't life controls you. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] nova api.fault notification isn't collected by ceilometer
On Mon, Feb 09 2015, yuntong wrote: In nova api, a nova api.fault notification will be send out when the when there is en error. http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova/tree/nova/api/openstack/__init__.py#n119 but i couldn't find where they are processed in ceilometer, an error notification can be very desired to be collected, do we have plan to add this, shall i need a bp to do that ? Are you talking about: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+bug/1364708 ? Cheers, -- Julien Danjou # Free Software hacker # http://julien.danjou.info signature.asc Description: PGP signature __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] JavaScript docs?
On 02/05/2015 07:26 PM, Michael Krotscheck wrote: On Thu Feb 05 2015 at 12:07:01 AM Radomir Dopieralski openst...@sheep.art.pl mailto:openst...@sheep.art.pl wrote: Plus, the documentation generator that we are using already, Sphinx, supports JavaScript perfectly fine, so I see no reason to add another tool. Try to empathize with us a little here. What you're asking is equivalent to saying OpenStack should use JavaDoc for all its documentation because it supports python. For all the reasons that you would mistrust JavaDoc, I mistrust Sphinx when it comes to parsing javascript. With that in mind, how about we run a side-by-side comparison of Sphinx vs. NGDoc? Without actual comparable output, this discussion isn't much more than warring opinions. I'm not mistrusting JavaDoc or NGDoc or whatever new documentation system you are proposing. I merely think that, while JavaScript programmers are special snowflakes indeed, they are not special enough warrant introducing and maintaining a whole separate documentation system, especially since we are already using a documentation system that is well used and maintained by the whole of OpenStack, not just the Python programmers in Horizon. And since you will have to learn to use Sphinx sooner or later anyways, because basically everything in OpenStack is documented using it, I see no reason why we should expend additional energy on implementing, deploying and maintaining a new set of tools, just because you don't like the current one. If it was JavaDoc instead of Sphinx being used by the whole of OpenStack, I would advocate its use the same way as I advocate Sphinx now. It seems that the whole docs format discussion is just a way of putting away having to actually write the docs. -- Radomir Dopieralski __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Murano] Translation usage suggestion
I think all proposed actions make sense, and I strongly agree that we need to start working on them and finish them in Kilo cycle scope. On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Ekaterina Chernova efedor...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi all! Recently we have discussed the log and exception translations and have not come to a decision. I've made some research and found a useful documents: - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/LoggingStandards#Log_Translation - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Translations Here two main points, that I can highlight * *Exception text should **not** be marked for translation,* because if an exception occurs there is no guarantee that the translation machinery will be functional. ** Debug level log messages are not translated* Some projects do not follow these rules, but I suggest to take them into consideration and perform the following actions: - First of all, we should remove gettext utils usage and replace it with oslo.i18n; - Remove exception messages translation; - Add log translation to info, warn and error log level (and log.exception which creates log.error message). Note, that different log levels can be separated to different files. It's also supported to have different log files for different languages. What do you think? __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon][keystone] SSO
SSO (Single sign-on) is great. There are some problems, though: 1) If the cloud is private without Internet access, then a private SSO service should be up and runnning 2) There is no such a thing as OpenStack ID. Should we use Launchpad? Facebook login? Twitter? 3) Technical difficulties embedding SSO into website. As SSO service is often located on the different domain, the browser opens a new window, then open the SSO page there, then redirects to our page that uses some cross domain messageing like postMessage to inform main page of login results. The main page closes the popup. The stuff is rather complex, Facebook and other social nets have SDKs that do all the stufff. That's certainly not an easy task to make an SSO service, implement SSO SDK and embed in into Horizon. Anton On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Tim Bell tim.b...@cern.ch wrote: From the sound of things, we’re not actually talking about SSO. If so, we would not be talking about the design of a login screen. An SSO application such as Horizon would not have a login page. If the user was logged in already through corporate/organisation SSO page, nothing would appear before the standard Horizon page. We strongly encourage our user community that if there is any web page asking for your credentials which is not the CERN standard SSO page, it is not authorised. Our SSO also supports Google/Twitter/Eduroam etc. logins. Some of these will be refused for OpenStack login so that having a twitter account alone does not get you access to CERN’s cloud resources (but this is an authorisation rather than authentication problem). Is there really the use case for a site where there is SSO from a corporate perspective but there is not a federated login SSO capability ? I don’t have a fundamental problem with the approach but we should position it with respect to the use case which is that I login in the morning and all applications I use (cloud and all) are able to recognise that. Tim *From:* Adam Young [mailto:ayo...@redhat.com] *Sent:* 06 February 2015 19:48 *To:* openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon][keystone] On 02/04/2015 03:54 PM, Thai Q Tran wrote: Hi all, I have been helping with the websso effort and wanted to get some feedback. Basically, users are presented with a login screen where they can select: credentials, default protocol, or discovery service. If user selects credentials, it works exactly the same way it works today. If user selects default protocol or discovery service, they can choose to be redirected to those pages. Keep in mind that this is a prototype, early feedback will be good. Here are the relevant patches: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/136177/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/136178/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/151842/ I have attached the files and present them below: Replace the dropdown with a specific link for each protocol type: SAML and OpenID are the only real contenders at the moment, but we will not likely have so many that it will clutter up the page. Thanks for doing this. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum
Thanks Sylvain, we did not work out the API requirement till now but I think the requirement should be similar with nova: we need select_destination to select the best target host based on filters and weights. There are also some discussions here https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/magnum-scheduler-for-docker Thanks! 2015-02-09 16:22 GMT+08:00 Sylvain Bauza sba...@redhat.com: Hi Magnum team, Le 07/02/2015 19:24, Steven Dake (stdake) a écrit : From: Eric Windisch e...@windisch.us Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 10:09 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum 1) Cherry pick scheduler code from Nova, which already has a working a filter scheduler design. The Gantt team explored that option by the Icehouse cycle and it failed with a lot of problems. I won't list all of those, but I'll just explain that we discovered how the Scheduler and the Nova compute manager were tighly coupled, which was meaning that a repository fork was really difficult to do without reducing the tech debt. That said, our concerns were far different from the Magnum team : it was about having feature parity and replacing the current Nova scheduler, while your team is just saying that they want to have something about containers. 2) Integrate swarmd to leverage its scheduler[2]. I see #2 as not an alternative but possibly an also. Swarm uses the Docker API, although they're only about 75% compatible at the moment. Ideally, the Docker backend would work with both single docker hosts and clusters of Docker machines powered by Swarm. It would be nice, however, if scheduler hints could be passed from Magnum to Swarm. Regards, Eric Windisch Adrian Eric, I would prefer to keep things simple and just integrate directly with swarm and leave out any cherry-picking from Nova. It would be better to integrate scheduling hints into Swarm, but I’m sure the swarm upstream is busy with requests and this may be difficult to achieve. I don't want to give my opinion about which option you should take as I don't really know your needs. If I understand correctly, this is about having a scheduler providing affinity rules for containers. Do you have a document explaining which interfaces you're looking for, which kind of APIs you're wanting or what's missing with the current Nova scheduler ? MHO is that the technology shouldn't drive your decision : whatever the backend is (swarmd or an inherited nova scheduler), your interfaces should be the same. -Sylvain Regards -steve __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribehttp://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Thanks, Jay Lau (Guangya Liu) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Mid-Cycle Meetup Planning
Adrian Otto wrote: Team, Our dates have been set as 2015-03-02 and 2015-03-03. Wiki (With location, map, calendar links, agenda planning link, and links to tickets): https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Magnum/Midcycle You can also add a line to the reference list at: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Sprints Cheers, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot.
On 9/26/2014 3:19 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400 Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote: I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group assignment in Neutron as well. Agree. However what do you think a user expects when he/she boots a vm (no matter providing port_id or just net_id) and specifies security_groups? I think the expectation should be that instance will become a member of the specified groups. Ignoring security_groups parameter in case port is provided (as it is now) seems completely unfair to me. One option would be to return a 400 if both port id and security_groups is supplied. Chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Coming back to this, we now have a change from Oleg [1] after an initial attempt that was reverted because it would break server creates if you specified a port (because the original change would blow up when the compute API added the 'default' security group to the request'). The new change doesn't add the 'default' security group to the request so if you specify a security group and port on the request, you'll now get a 400 error response. Does this break API compatibility? It seems this falls under the first bullet here [2], A change such that a request which was successful before now results in an error response (unless the success reported previously was hiding an existing error condition). Does that caveat in parenthesis make this OK? It seems like we've had a lot of talk about warts in the compute v2 API for cases where an operation is successful but didn't yield the expected result, but we can't change them because of API backwards compatibility concerns so I'm hesitant on this. We also definitely need a Tempest test here, which I'm looking into. I think I can work this into the test_network_basic_ops scenario test. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154068/ [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/APIChangeGuidelines#Generally_Not_Acceptable -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [mistral] Team meeting minutes/log - 02/09/2015
Thanks for joining us at our weekly meeting, Meeting minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/mistral/2015/mistral.2015-02-09-16.00.html http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/mistral/2015/mistral.2015-02-09-16.00.html Meeting full log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/mistral/2015/mistral.2015-02-09-16.00.html http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/mistral/2015/mistral.2015-02-09-16.00.html The next one will be on Feb 16. Renat Akhmerov @ Mirantis Inc. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] Incubation request
On 2/9/2015 9:36 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 8/11/2014 10:18 AM, Swartzlander, Ben wrote: I just saw the agenda for tomorrow’s TC meeting and we’re on it. I plan to be there. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings#Technical_Committee_meeting -Ben *From:*Swartzlander, Ben [mailto:ben.swartzlan...@netapp.com] *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 9:53 PM *To:* openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org *Subject:* [openstack-dev] [Manila] Incubation request Manila has come a long way since we proposed it for incubation last autumn. Below are the formal requests. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila/Incubation_Application https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila/Program_Application Anyone have anything to add before I forward these to the TC? -Ben Swartzlander ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Looks like Manila was accepted for incubation [1] but I don't see anything in the wiki [2] about Kilo. What's the latest status on this? [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113583/ [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila/Incubation_Application Oh right, incubation is not a thing anymore [1] due to big tent model etc etc. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/145740/ -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] Incubation request
On 8/11/2014 10:18 AM, Swartzlander, Ben wrote: I just saw the agenda for tomorrow’s TC meeting and we’re on it. I plan to be there. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings#Technical_Committee_meeting -Ben *From:*Swartzlander, Ben [mailto:ben.swartzlan...@netapp.com] *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 9:53 PM *To:* openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org *Subject:* [openstack-dev] [Manila] Incubation request Manila has come a long way since we proposed it for incubation last autumn. Below are the formal requests. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila/Incubation_Application https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila/Program_Application Anyone have anything to add before I forward these to the TC? -Ben Swartzlander ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Looks like Manila was accepted for incubation [1] but I don't see anything in the wiki [2] about Kilo. What's the latest status on this? [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113583/ [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila/Incubation_Application -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [mistral] mistral actions plugin architecture
Hi all, regarding to [1] there should be some plugin mechanism for custom actions in Mistral. I went through code and I found some introspection mechanism [2] generating mistral actions from methods on client classes for openstack core projects. E.g. it takes nova client class (python-novaclient) and introspects its methods and theirs parameters and creates corresponding actions with corresponding parameters. The same for other core projects like neutron, cinder, ... However the list of these client classes seems to be hardcoded [3]. So I am not sure whether this mechanism can be used for other projects like murano client to create murano related actions in mistral? Or is there any other pluggable mechanism to get murano actions into mistral without hardcoding in mistral project? [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Mistral/Blueprints/ActionsDesign#Plugin_Architecture [2] https://github.com/stackforge/mistral/blob/master/mistral/actions/openstack/action_generator/base.py#L91 [3] https://github.com/stackforge/mistral/blob/master/mistral/actions/generator_factory.py Regards Filip __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack Foundation] Finding people to work on the EC2 API in Nova
Hey M Ranga Swami Reddy (sorry, I'm not sure how to address you shorter :) ), After conversation in this mailing list with Michael Still I understood that I'll do the sub group and meetings stuff, since I lead the ec2-api in stackforge anyways. Of course I'm not that familiar with these processes in nova yet, so if you're sure that you want to take the lead for nova's part of EC2, I won't be objecting much. Please let me know what you think. Best regards, Alex Levine On 2/9/15 4:41 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: Hi All, I will be creating the a sub group in Nova for EC2 APIs and start the weekly meetings, reviews, code cleanup, etc tasks. Will update the same on wiki page also soon.. Thanks Swami On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:27 PM, David Kranz dkr...@redhat.com wrote: On 02/06/2015 07:49 AM, Sean Dague wrote: On 02/06/2015 07:39 AM, Alexandre Levine wrote: Rushi, We're adding new tempest tests into our stackforge-api/ec2-api. The review will appear in a couple of days. These tests will be good for running against both nova/ec2-api and stackforge/ec2-api. As soon as they are there, you'll be more than welcome to add even more. Best regards, Alex Levine Honestly, I'm more more pro having the ec2 tests in a tree that isn't Tempest. Most Tempest reviewers aren't familiar with the ec2 API, their focus has been OpenStack APIs. Having a place where there is a review team that is dedicated only to the EC2 API seems much better. -Sean +1 And once similar coverage to the current tempest ec2 tests is achieved, either by copying from tempest or creating anew, we should remove the ec2 tests from tempest. -David __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Feature Freeze Exception Request - bp/libvirt-kvm-systemz
On 2/9/2015 10:15 AM, Andreas Maier wrote: Hello, I would like to ask for the following feature freeze exceptions in Nova. The patch sets below are all part of this blueprint: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova +branch:master+topic:bp/libvirt-kvm-systemz,n,z and affect only the kvm/libvirt driver of Nova. The decision for merging these patch sets by exception can be made one by one; they are independent of each other. 1. https://review.openstack.org/149242 - FCP support Title: libvirt: Adjust Nova to support FCP on System z systems What it does: This patch set enables FCP support for KVM on System z. Impact if we don't get this: FCP attached storage does not work for KVM on System z. Why we need it: We really depend on this particular patch set, because FCP is our most important storage attachment. Additional notes: The code in the libvirt driver that is updated by this patch set is consistent with corresponding code in the Cinder driver, and it has seen review by the Cinder team. 2. https://review.openstack.org/150505 - Console support Title: libvirt: Enable serial_console feature for system z What it does: This patch set enables the backing support in Nova for the interactive console in Horizon. Impact if we don't get this: Console in Horizon does not work. The mitigation for a user would be to use the Log in Horizon (i.e. with serial_console disabled), or the virsh console command in an ssh session to the host Linux. Why we need it: We'd like to have console support. Also, because the Nova support for the Log in Horizon has been merged in an earlier patch set as part of this blueprint, this remaining patch set makes the console/log support consistent for KVM on System z Linux. 3. https://review.openstack.org/150497 - ISO/CDROM support Title: libvirt: Set SCSI as the default cdrom bus on System z What it does: This patch set enables that cdrom drives can be attached to an instance on KVM on System z. This is needed for example for cloud-init config files, but also for simply attaching ISO images to instances. The technical reason for this change is that the IDE attachment is not available on System z, and we need SCSI (just like Power Linux). Impact if we don't get this: - Cloud-init config files cannot be on a cdrom drive. A mitigation for a user would be to have such config files on a cloud-init server. - ISO images cannot be attached to instances. There is no mitigation. Why we need it: We would like to avoid having to restrict cloud-init configuration to just using cloud-init servers. We would like to be able to support ISO images. Additional notes: This patch is a one line change (it simply extends what is already done in a platform specific case for the Power platform, to be also used for System z). Andy Andreas Maier IBM Senior Technical Staff Member, Systems Management Architecture Design IBM Research Development Laboratory Boeblingen, Germany mai...@de.ibm.com, +49-7031-16-3654 IBM Deutschland Research Development GmbH Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: Boeblingen Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294 __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev FWIW, I'll sponsor these changes. I'm already +2 on one and have reviewed the other two which are very close to a +2 from me, just need a little more work (but not drastic changes). -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack Foundation] Finding people to work on the EC2 API in Nova
Hi Alex Levine (you can address me 'Swami'), Thank you. I have been working on this EC2 APIs quite some time. We will work closely together on this project for reviews, code cleanup, bug fixing and other critical items. Currently am looking for our sub team meeting slot. Once I get the meeting slot will update the wiki with meeting details along with the first meeting agenda. Please feel free to add more to the meeting agenda. Thanks Swami On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Alexandre Levine alev...@cloudscaling.com wrote: Hey M Ranga Swami Reddy (sorry, I'm not sure how to address you shorter :) ), After conversation in this mailing list with Michael Still I understood that I'll do the sub group and meetings stuff, since I lead the ec2-api in stackforge anyways. Of course I'm not that familiar with these processes in nova yet, so if you're sure that you want to take the lead for nova's part of EC2, I won't be objecting much. Please let me know what you think. Best regards, Alex Levine On 2/9/15 4:41 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: Hi All, I will be creating the a sub group in Nova for EC2 APIs and start the weekly meetings, reviews, code cleanup, etc tasks. Will update the same on wiki page also soon.. Thanks Swami On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:27 PM, David Kranz dkr...@redhat.com wrote: On 02/06/2015 07:49 AM, Sean Dague wrote: On 02/06/2015 07:39 AM, Alexandre Levine wrote: Rushi, We're adding new tempest tests into our stackforge-api/ec2-api. The review will appear in a couple of days. These tests will be good for running against both nova/ec2-api and stackforge/ec2-api. As soon as they are there, you'll be more than welcome to add even more. Best regards, Alex Levine Honestly, I'm more more pro having the ec2 tests in a tree that isn't Tempest. Most Tempest reviewers aren't familiar with the ec2 API, their focus has been OpenStack APIs. Having a place where there is a review team that is dedicated only to the EC2 API seems much better. -Sean +1 And once similar coverage to the current tempest ec2 tests is achieved, either by copying from tempest or creating anew, we should remove the ec2 tests from tempest. -David __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Feature Freeze Exception Request - bp/linux-systemz
Mike, A FFE for this has been submitted to Nova and is being sponsored by Matt Riedemann: [1] Assuming that goes through soon, can we please re-address? Thanks! Jay [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org/msg45430.html On 02/09/2015 12:23 PM, Mike Perez wrote: On 17:31 Mon 09 Feb , Andreas Maier wrote: Hello, I would like to ask for the following feature freeze exception in Cinder. Cinder is not in a feature freeze at the moment [1]. Additional notes: The code in Nova patch set https://review.openstack.org/149256 is consistent with this patch set, but a decision to include them in kilo can be made independently for each of the two patch sets: The Nova patch set enables FCP storage for a compute node with KVM on System z, while the Cinder patch set enables Cinder services to run on System z Linux. If it's not landing in Nova for Kilo [2], I'd rather not target it for Kilo in Cinder. We're already really packed for K-3, and it's not useful without the Nova piece. Please resubmit for L-1 in Cinder. [1] - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-January/055719.html [2] - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/libvirt-kvm-systemz __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] Create VM using port-create vs nova boot only?
There seemed to be two ways to create a VM via cli: 1) use neutron command to create a port first and then use nova command to attach the vm to that port(neutron port-create.. followed by nova boot --nic port-id=)2)Just use nova command and a port will implicitly be created for you(nova boot --nic net-id=net-uuid). My question is : is #2 sufficient enough to cover all the scenarios? In other words, if we are not allowed to use #1(can only use #2 to create vm), would we miss anything? Regards!Wanjing Xu__ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [api] Optional Properties in an Entity
On February 9, 2015 at 1:25:58 PM, Jay Pipes (jaypi...@gmail.com) wrote: On 01/20/2015 10:54 AM, Brian Rosmaita wrote: From: Kevin L. Mitchell [kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 4:54 PM When we look at consistency, we look at everything else in OpenStack. From the standpoint of the nova API (with which I am the most familiar), I am not aware of any property that is ever omitted from any payload without versioning coming in to the picture, even if its value is null. Thus, I would argue that we should encourage the first situation, where all properties are included, even if their value is null. That is not the case for the Images API v2: An image is always guaranteed to have the following attributes: id, status, visibility, protected, tags, created_at, file and self. The other attributes defined in the image schema below are guaranteed to be defined, but is only returned with an image entity if they have been explicitly set. [1] This was a mistake, IMHO. Having entirely extensible schemas means that there is little guaranteed consistency across implementations of the API. This is the same reason that I think API extensions are an abomination. This right here! +1. +more than +1 if I get more votes on this. Best, -jay __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [devstack] configuring https for glance client
On 2/9/2015 5:40 PM, Andrew Lazarev wrote: Hi Nova experts, Some time ago I figured out that devstack fails to stack with USE_SSL=True option because it doesn't configure nova to work with secured glace [1]. Support of secured glance was added to nova in Juno cycle [2], but it looks strange for me. Glance client takes settings form '[ssl]' section. The same section is used to set up nova server SSL settings. Other clients have separate sections in the config file (and switching to session use now), e.g. related code for cinder - [3]. I've created quick fix for the devstack - [4], but it would be nice to shed a light on nova plans around glance config before merging a workaround for devstack. So, the questions are: 1. Is it normal that glance client reads from '[ssl]' config section? 2. Is there a plan to move glance client to sessions use and move corresponding config section to '[glance]'? 3. Are any plans to run CI for USE_SSL=True use case? [1] - https://bugs.launchpad.net/devstack/+bug/1405484 [2] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/72974 [3] - https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/2015.1.0b2/nova/volume/cinder.py#L73 [4] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153737 Thanks, Andrew. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev This came up in another -dev thread at one point which prompted a series from Matthew Gilliard [1] to use [ssl] globally or project-specific options since both glance and keystone are currently getting their ssl options from the global [ssl] group in nova right now. I've been a bad citizen and haven't gotten back to the series review yet. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:ssl-config-options,n,z -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [KEYSTONE] debugging keystone code
If you are running keystone under apache, and just want to see what's going on: rpdb - https://pypi.python.org/pypi/rpdb/ Insert `import rpdb; rpdb.set_trace()` into your code, and in another prompt, type in `nc 127.0.0.1 ` If you are attempting to debug tests, use the debug environment: `tox -e debug test_case_name` Steve Abhishek Talwar/HYD/TCS abhishek.tal...@tcs.com wrote on 02/10/2015 12:45:53 AM: From: Abhishek Talwar/HYD/TCS abhishek.tal...@tcs.com To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: 02/10/2015 12:50 AM Subject: [openstack-dev] [KEYSTONE] debugging keystone code Hi All, I am working on bug on keystone (#1392035) and while debugging the code I am having problem. I have inserted pdb at both client side and server side. While it is allowing me to debug the code at client side, on server side it gives me a bdb quit error. So how can we debug the code for keystone server side. Kindly, help me regarding this. -- Thanks and Regards Abhishek Talwar Employee ID : 770072 Assistant System Engineer Tata Consultancy Services,Gurgaon India Contact Details : +918377882003 =-=-= Notice: The information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments to it may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use, review, distribution, printing or copying of the information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and immediately and permanently delete the message and any attachments. Thank you __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum
From: Jay Lau jay.lau@gmail.commailto:jay.lau@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Monday, February 9, 2015 at 11:31 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum Steve, So you mean we should focus on docker and k8s scheduler? I was a bit confused, why do we need to care k8s? As the k8s cluster was created by heat and once the k8s was created, the k8s has its own scheduler for creating pods/service/rcs. So seems we only need to care scheduler for native docker and ironic bay, comments? Ya scheduler only matters for native docker. Ironic bay can be k8s or docker+swarm or something similar. But yup, I understand your point. Thanks! 2015-02-10 12:32 GMT+08:00 Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.commailto:std...@cisco.com: From: Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.commailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Monday, February 9, 2015 at 6:41 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.commailto:std...@cisco.com wrote: On 2/9/15, 3:02 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.orgmailto:thie...@openstack.org wrote: Adrian Otto wrote: [...] We have multiple options for solving this challenge. Here are a few: 1) Cherry pick scheduler code from Nova, which already has a working a filter scheduler design. 2) Integrate swarmd to leverage its scheduler[2]. 3) Wait for the Gantt, when Nova Scheduler to be moved out of Nova. This is expected to happen about a year from now, possibly sooner. 4) Write our own filter scheduler, inspired by Nova. I haven't looked enough into Swarm to answer that question myself, but how much would #2 tie Magnum to Docker containers ? There is value for Magnum to support other container engines / formats (think Rocket/Appc) in the long run, so we should avoid early design choices that would prevent such support in the future. Thierry, Magnum has an object type of a bay which represents the underlying cluster architecture used. This could be kubernetes, raw docker, swarmd, or some future invention. This way Magnum can grow independently of the underlying technology and provide a satisfactory user experience dealing with the chaos that is the container development world :) While I don't disagree with anything said here, this does sound a lot like https://xkcd.com/927/ Andrew had suggested offering a unified standard user experience and API. I think that matches the 927 comic pretty well. I think we should offer each type of system using APIs that are similar in nature but that offer the native features of the system. In other words, we will offer integration across the various container landscape with OpenStack. We should strive to be conservative and pragmatic in our systems support and only support container schedulers and container managers that have become strongly emergent systems. At this point that is docker and kubernetes. Mesos might fit that definition as well. Swarmd and rocket are not yet strongly emergent, but they show promise of becoming so. As a result, they are clearly systems we should be thinking about for our roadmap. All of these systems present very similar operational models. At some point competition will choke off new system design placing an upper bound on the amount of systems we have to deal with. Regards -steve We will absolutely support relevant container technology, likely through new Bay formats (which are really just heat templates). Regards -steve -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribehttp://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribehttp://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe:
[openstack-dev] [nova] SR-IOV IRC meeting for 2/10
Hi, I won’t be able to make it for tomorrow’s meeting. But you guys are welcome to have the meeting without me. —Robert __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [api] Optional Properties in an Entity
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: On 01/20/2015 10:54 AM, Brian Rosmaita wrote: From: Kevin L. Mitchell [kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 4:54 PM When we look at consistency, we look at everything else in OpenStack. From the standpoint of the nova API (with which I am the most familiar), I am not aware of any property that is ever omitted from any payload without versioning coming in to the picture, even if its value is null. Thus, I would argue that we should encourage the first situation, where all properties are included, even if their value is null. That is not the case for the Images API v2: An image is always guaranteed to have the following attributes: id, status, visibility, protected, tags, created_at, file and self. The other attributes defined in the image schema below are guaranteed to be defined, but is only returned with an image entity if they have been explicitly set. [1] This was a mistake, IMHO. Having entirely extensible schemas means that there is little guaranteed consistency across implementations of the API. +1, Subtle hard to discover differences between clouds is a pain for interchangeability. This is the same reason that I think API extensions are an abomination. Best, -jay __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] release request for python-novaclient
On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:17, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: We haven't done a release of python-novaclient in awhile (2.20.0 was released on 2014-9-20 before the Juno release). It looks like there are some important feature adds and bug fixes on master so we should do a release, specifically to pick up the change for keystone v3 support [1]. So can this be done now or should this wait until closer to the Kilo release (library releases are cheap so I don't see why we'd wait). Thanks for bringing this up -- there are indeed a lot of important features and fixes on master. I agree we should do a release as soon as possible, and I don't think there's any reason to wait until closer to Kilo. melanie (melwitt) signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] nova api.fault notification isn't collected by ceilometer
On 2015年02月10日 05:12, gordon chung wrote: In nova api, a nova api.fault notification will be send out when the when there is en error. http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova/tree/nova/api/openstack/__init__.py#n119 but i couldn't find where they are processed in ceilometer, an error notification can be very desired to be collected, do we have plan to add this, shall i need a bp to do that ? there's a patch for review to store error info: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153362/ cheers, /gord/ Yep, that's what i'm looking for, thanks, another notification from nova that is missed in ceilometer is info from nova api: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/notifications.py#L64 this notify_decorator will decorate every nova/ec2 rest api and send out a notification for each api actions: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/utils.py#L526 from which will send out notification like: %s.%s.%s % (module, key, method) , and no notification plugin in ceilometer to deal with them. Let me know if i should file a bug for this. Thanks, -yuntong __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [gantt] Scheduler sub-group meeting agenda 2/3
Meeting on #openstack-meeting at 1500 UTC (8:00AM MST) 1) Remove direct nova DB/API access by Scheduler Filters - https://review.opernstack.org/138444/ 2) Status on cleanup work - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Gantt/kilo -- Don Dugger Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse. - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] release request for python-novaclient
The previous policy is that we do a release when requested or when a critical bug fix merges. I don't see any critical fixes awaiting release, but I am not opposed to a release. The reason I didn't do this yesterday is that Joe wanted some time to pin the stable requirements, which I believe he is still working on. Let's give him some time unless this is urgent. Michael On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:45 PM, melanie witt melwi...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:17, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: We haven't done a release of python-novaclient in awhile (2.20.0 was released on 2014-9-20 before the Juno release). It looks like there are some important feature adds and bug fixes on master so we should do a release, specifically to pick up the change for keystone v3 support [1]. So can this be done now or should this wait until closer to the Kilo release (library releases are cheap so I don't see why we'd wait). Thanks for bringing this up -- there are indeed a lot of important features and fixes on master. I agree we should do a release as soon as possible, and I don't think there's any reason to wait until closer to Kilo. melanie (melwitt) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Rackspace Australia __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron] Create VM using port-create vs nova boot only?
Hi When you create a port separately, you can specify additional fixed IPs, extra DHCP options. But with 'nova boot' you cannot. Also if you need an instance with several nics, and you want that each nic has its own set of security groups, you should create ports separately. Because 'nova boot --security-groups ggg' command sets specified security groups for an each port, which is created during the instance launch. On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Wanjing Xu wanjing...@hotmail.com wrote: There seemed to be two ways to create a VM via cli: 1) use neutron command to create a port first and then use nova command to attach the vm to that port(neutron port-create.. followed by nova boot --nic port-id=) 2)Just use nova command and a port will implicitly be created for you(nova boot --nic net-id=net-uuid). My question is : is #2 sufficient enough to cover all the scenarios? In other words, if we are not allowed to use #1(can only use #2 to create vm), would we miss anything? Regards! Wanjing Xu __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum
Thanks Steve, just want to discuss more for this. Then per Andrew's comments, we need a generic scheduling interface, but if our focus is native docker, then does this still needed? Thanks! 2015-02-10 14:52 GMT+08:00 Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.com: From: Jay Lau jay.lau@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Monday, February 9, 2015 at 11:31 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum Steve, So you mean we should focus on docker and k8s scheduler? I was a bit confused, why do we need to care k8s? As the k8s cluster was created by heat and once the k8s was created, the k8s has its own scheduler for creating pods/service/rcs. So seems we only need to care scheduler for native docker and ironic bay, comments? Ya scheduler only matters for native docker. Ironic bay can be k8s or docker+swarm or something similar. But yup, I understand your point. Thanks! 2015-02-10 12:32 GMT+08:00 Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.com: From: Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Monday, February 9, 2015 at 6:41 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.com wrote: On 2/9/15, 3:02 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote: Adrian Otto wrote: [...] We have multiple options for solving this challenge. Here are a few: 1) Cherry pick scheduler code from Nova, which already has a working a filter scheduler design. 2) Integrate swarmd to leverage its scheduler[2]. 3) Wait for the Gantt, when Nova Scheduler to be moved out of Nova. This is expected to happen about a year from now, possibly sooner. 4) Write our own filter scheduler, inspired by Nova. I haven't looked enough into Swarm to answer that question myself, but how much would #2 tie Magnum to Docker containers ? There is value for Magnum to support other container engines / formats (think Rocket/Appc) in the long run, so we should avoid early design choices that would prevent such support in the future. Thierry, Magnum has an object type of a bay which represents the underlying cluster architecture used. This could be kubernetes, raw docker, swarmd, or some future invention. This way Magnum can grow independently of the underlying technology and provide a satisfactory user experience dealing with the chaos that is the container development world :) While I don't disagree with anything said here, this does sound a lot like https://xkcd.com/927/ Andrew had suggested offering a unified standard user experience and API. I think that matches the 927 comic pretty well. I think we should offer each type of system using APIs that are similar in nature but that offer the native features of the system. In other words, we will offer integration across the various container landscape with OpenStack. We should strive to be conservative and pragmatic in our systems support and only support container schedulers and container managers that have become strongly emergent systems. At this point that is docker and kubernetes. Mesos might fit that definition as well. Swarmd and rocket are not yet strongly emergent, but they show promise of becoming so. As a result, they are clearly systems we should be thinking about for our roadmap. All of these systems present very similar operational models. At some point competition will choke off new system design placing an upper bound on the amount of systems we have to deal with. Regards -steve We will absolutely support relevant container technology, likely through new Bay formats (which are really just heat templates). Regards -steve -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [mistral] mistral actions plugin architecture
Hi, It’s pretty simple and described in http://mistral.readthedocs.org/en/master/developer/writing_a_plugin_action.html http://mistral.readthedocs.org/en/master/developer/writing_a_plugin_action.html. Renat Akhmerov @ Mirantis Inc. On 09 Feb 2015, at 21:43, Filip Blaha filip.bl...@hp.com wrote: Hi all, regarding to [1] there should be some plugin mechanism for custom actions in Mistral. I went through code and I found some introspection mechanism [2] generating mistral actions from methods on client classes for openstack core projects. E.g. it takes nova client class (python-novaclient) and introspects its methods and theirs parameters and creates corresponding actions with corresponding parameters. The same for other core projects like neutron, cinder, ... However the list of these client classes seems to be hardcoded [3]. So I am not sure whether this mechanism can be used for other projects like murano client to create murano related actions in mistral? Or is there any other pluggable mechanism to get murano actions into mistral without hardcoding in mistral project? [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Mistral/Blueprints/ActionsDesign#Plugin_Architecture [2] https://github.com/stackforge/mistral/blob/master/mistral/actions/openstack/action_generator/base.py#L91 [3] https://github.com/stackforge/mistral/blob/master/mistral/actions/generator_factory.py Regards Filip __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [cinder] Feature Freeze Exception Request - bp/linux-systemz
Hello, I would like to ask for the following feature freeze exception in Cinder. The patch set below is part of this blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/linux-systemz 1. https://review.openstack.org/149256 - FCP support for System z Title: Adjust Cinder to support FCP on System z systems What it does: This patch set enables FCP support when the Cinder services run on System z. Impact if we don't get this: Cinder services cannot run on Linux for System z. A mitigation is to run Cinder services in on x86 Linux (even in an OpenStack installation that includes compute nodes with KVM on System z). Why we need it: We'd like to be able to support OpenStack installations where Cinder services run on System z Linux, which is the case for example in an all-in-one topology. Additional notes: The code in Nova patch set https://review.openstack.org/149256 is consistent with this patch set, but a decision to include them in kilo can be made independently for each of the two patch sets: The Nova patch set enables FCP storage for a compute node with KVM on System z, while the Cinder patch set enables Cinder services to run on System z Linux. Andy Andreas Maier IBM Senior Technical Staff Member, Systems Management Architecture Design IBM Research Development Laboratory Boeblingen, Germany mai...@de.ibm.com, +49-7031-16-3654 IBM Deutschland Research Development GmbH Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: Boeblingen Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294 __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Mid-Cycle Meetup Planning
Thierry, Done! Thanks for the great suggestion. Cheers, Adrian On Feb 9, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote: Adrian Otto wrote: Team, Our dates have been set as 2015-03-02 and 2015-03-03. Wiki (With location, map, calendar links, agenda planning link, and links to tickets): https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Magnum/Midcycle You can also add a line to the reference list at: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Sprints Cheers, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [nova] Feature Freeze Exception Request - bp/libvirt-kvm-systemz
Hello, I would like to ask for the following feature freeze exceptions in Nova. The patch sets below are all part of this blueprint: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova +branch:master+topic:bp/libvirt-kvm-systemz,n,z and affect only the kvm/libvirt driver of Nova. The decision for merging these patch sets by exception can be made one by one; they are independent of each other. 1. https://review.openstack.org/149242 - FCP support Title: libvirt: Adjust Nova to support FCP on System z systems What it does: This patch set enables FCP support for KVM on System z. Impact if we don't get this: FCP attached storage does not work for KVM on System z. Why we need it: We really depend on this particular patch set, because FCP is our most important storage attachment. Additional notes: The code in the libvirt driver that is updated by this patch set is consistent with corresponding code in the Cinder driver, and it has seen review by the Cinder team. 2. https://review.openstack.org/150505 - Console support Title: libvirt: Enable serial_console feature for system z What it does: This patch set enables the backing support in Nova for the interactive console in Horizon. Impact if we don't get this: Console in Horizon does not work. The mitigation for a user would be to use the Log in Horizon (i.e. with serial_console disabled), or the virsh console command in an ssh session to the host Linux. Why we need it: We'd like to have console support. Also, because the Nova support for the Log in Horizon has been merged in an earlier patch set as part of this blueprint, this remaining patch set makes the console/log support consistent for KVM on System z Linux. 3. https://review.openstack.org/150497 - ISO/CDROM support Title: libvirt: Set SCSI as the default cdrom bus on System z What it does: This patch set enables that cdrom drives can be attached to an instance on KVM on System z. This is needed for example for cloud-init config files, but also for simply attaching ISO images to instances. The technical reason for this change is that the IDE attachment is not available on System z, and we need SCSI (just like Power Linux). Impact if we don't get this: - Cloud-init config files cannot be on a cdrom drive. A mitigation for a user would be to have such config files on a cloud-init server. - ISO images cannot be attached to instances. There is no mitigation. Why we need it: We would like to avoid having to restrict cloud-init configuration to just using cloud-init servers. We would like to be able to support ISO images. Additional notes: This patch is a one line change (it simply extends what is already done in a platform specific case for the Power platform, to be also used for System z). Andy Andreas Maier IBM Senior Technical Staff Member, Systems Management Architecture Design IBM Research Development Laboratory Boeblingen, Germany mai...@de.ibm.com, +49-7031-16-3654 IBM Deutschland Research Development GmbH Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: Boeblingen Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294 __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Theory of Testing Cross Project Spec
On 09/02/15 13:59, Sean Dague wrote: Comments are welcomed, please keep typos / grammar as '0' comments to separate them from -1 comments. Also, I ask any -1s to be extremely clear about the core concern of the -1 so we can figure out how to make progress. Incidentally, I think these are good guidelines for comments on all reviews. Matt -- Matthew Booth Red Hat Engineering, Virtualisation Team Phone: +442070094448 (UK) GPG ID: D33C3490 GPG FPR: 3733 612D 2D05 5458 8A8A 1600 3441 EA19 D33C 3490 __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum
From: Andrew Melton andrew.mel...@rackspace.commailto:andrew.mel...@rackspace.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Monday, February 9, 2015 at 10:38 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum I think Sylvain is getting at an important point. Magnum is trying to be as agnostic as possible when it comes to selecting a backend. Because of that, I think the biggest benefit to Magnum would be a generic scheduling interface that each pod type would implement. A pod type with a backend providing scheduling could implement a thin scheduler that simply translates the generic requests into something the backend can understand. And a pod type requiring outside scheduling could implement something more heavy. If we are careful to keep the heavy scheduling generic enough to be shared between backends requiring it, we could hopefully swap in an implementation using Gantt once that is ready. Great mid-cycle topic discussion topic. Can you add it to the planning etherpad? Thanks -steve --Andrew From: Jay Lau [jay.lau@gmail.commailto:jay.lau@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 4:36 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum Thanks Sylvain, we did not work out the API requirement till now but I think the requirement should be similar with nova: we need select_destination to select the best target host based on filters and weights. There are also some discussions here https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/magnum-scheduler-for-docker Thanks! 2015-02-09 16:22 GMT+08:00 Sylvain Bauza sba...@redhat.commailto:sba...@redhat.com: Hi Magnum team, Le 07/02/2015 19:24, Steven Dake (stdake) a écrit : From: Eric Windisch e...@windisch.usmailto:e...@windisch.us Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 10:09 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum 1) Cherry pick scheduler code from Nova, which already has a working a filter scheduler design. The Gantt team explored that option by the Icehouse cycle and it failed with a lot of problems. I won't list all of those, but I'll just explain that we discovered how the Scheduler and the Nova compute manager were tighly coupled, which was meaning that a repository fork was really difficult to do without reducing the tech debt. That said, our concerns were far different from the Magnum team : it was about having feature parity and replacing the current Nova scheduler, while your team is just saying that they want to have something about containers. 2) Integrate swarmd to leverage its scheduler[2]. I see #2 as not an alternative but possibly an also. Swarm uses the Docker API, although they're only about 75% compatible at the moment. Ideally, the Docker backend would work with both single docker hosts and clusters of Docker machines powered by Swarm. It would be nice, however, if scheduler hints could be passed from Magnum to Swarm. Regards, Eric Windisch Adrian Eric, I would prefer to keep things simple and just integrate directly with swarm and leave out any cherry-picking from Nova. It would be better to integrate scheduling hints into Swarm, but I’m sure the swarm upstream is busy with requests and this may be difficult to achieve. I don't want to give my opinion about which option you should take as I don't really know your needs. If I understand correctly, this is about having a scheduler providing affinity rules for containers. Do you have a document explaining which interfaces you're looking for, which kind of APIs you're wanting or what's missing with the current Nova scheduler ? MHO is that the technology shouldn't drive your decision : whatever the backend is (swarmd or an inherited nova scheduler), your interfaces should be the same. -Sylvain Regards -steve __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribemailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribehttp://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe:
Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] juno is fubar in the gate
On 2/9/2015 12:23 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: On Feb 9, 2015 10:04 AM, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com mailto:mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: There are at least two blocking bugs: 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/grenade/+bug/1419913 Sounds like jogo is working a javelin fix for this. I'm not aware of a patch to review though. We need to stop trying to install tempest in the same env as stable/* code. I should be able to revise/respond to comments shortly. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153080/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153702/ This is also blocking my effort to pin stable dependencies (Dean's devstack changes are needed before we can pin stable dependencies as well). 2. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+bug/1419919 I'm not sure yet what's going on with this one. -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Tracking etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/wedged-stable-gate-feb-2015 -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [oslo.messaging] Can RPCClient.call() be used with a subset of servers?
Hello, I want to use oslo.messaging.RPCClient.call() to invoke a method on multiple servers, but not all of them. Can this be done and how? I read the code documentation (client.py and target.py). I only saw either the call used for one server at a time, or for all of them using the fanout param. Neither options is exactly what I want. Any response/explanation would be highly appreciated. Regards, Julie Gravel __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum
Hi Magnum team, Le 07/02/2015 19:24, Steven Dake (stdake) a écrit : From: Eric Windisch e...@windisch.us mailto:e...@windisch.us Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 10:09 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum 1) Cherry pick scheduler code from Nova, which already has a working a filter scheduler design. The Gantt team explored that option by the Icehouse cycle and it failed with a lot of problems. I won't list all of those, but I'll just explain that we discovered how the Scheduler and the Nova compute manager were tighly coupled, which was meaning that a repository fork was really difficult to do without reducing the tech debt. That said, our concerns were far different from the Magnum team : it was about having feature parity and replacing the current Nova scheduler, while your team is just saying that they want to have something about containers. 2) Integrate swarmd to leverage its scheduler[2]. I see #2 as not an alternative but possibly an also. Swarm uses the Docker API, although they're only about 75% compatible at the moment. Ideally, the Docker backend would work with both single docker hosts and clusters of Docker machines powered by Swarm. It would be nice, however, if scheduler hints could be passed from Magnum to Swarm. Regards, Eric Windisch Adrian Eric, I would prefer to keep things simple and just integrate directly with swarm and leave out any cherry-picking from Nova. It would be better to integrate scheduling hints into Swarm, but I’m sure the swarm upstream is busy with requests and this may be difficult to achieve. I don't want to give my opinion about which option you should take as I don't really know your needs. If I understand correctly, this is about having a scheduler providing affinity rules for containers. Do you have a document explaining which interfaces you're looking for, which kind of APIs you're wanting or what's missing with the current Nova scheduler ? MHO is that the technology shouldn't drive your decision : whatever the backend is (swarmd or an inherited nova scheduler), your interfaces should be the same. -Sylvain Regards -steve __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum
I think it’s fair to assert that our generic scheduling interface should be based on Gantt. When that approaches a maturity point where it’s appropriate to leverage Gantt for container use cases, we should definitely consider switching to that. We should remain engaged in Gantt design decisions along the way to provide input. In the short term we want a solution that works nicely for our Docker handler, because that’s an obvious functionality gap. The k8s handler already has a scheduler, so it can remain unchanged. Let’s not fall into a trap of over-engineering the scheduler, as that can be very tempting but yield limited value. My suggestion is that we focus on the right solution for the Docker backend for now, and keep in mind that we want a general purpose scheduler in the future that could be adapted to work with a variety of container backends. I want to recognize that Andrew’s thoughts are well considered to avoid rework and remain agnostic about container backends. Further, I think resource scheduling is the sort of problem domain that would lend itself well to a common solution with numerous use cases. If you look at the various ones that exist today, there are lots of similarities. We will find a multitude of scheduling algorithms, but probably not uniquely innovative scheduling interfaces. The interface to a scheduler will be relatively simple, and we could afford to collaborate a bit with the Gantt team to get solid ideas on the table for that. Let’s table that pursuit for now, and re-engage at our Midcycle meetup to explore that topic further. In the mean time, I’d like us to iterate on a suitable point solution for the Docker backend. A final iteration of that work may be to yank it completely, and replace it with a common scheduler at a later point. I’m willing to accept that tradeoff for a quick delivery of a Docker specific scheduler that we can learn from and iterate. Cheers, Adrian On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:57 PM, Jay Lau jay.lau@gmail.commailto:jay.lau@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Steve, just want to discuss more for this. Then per Andrew's comments, we need a generic scheduling interface, but if our focus is native docker, then does this still needed? Thanks! 2015-02-10 14:52 GMT+08:00 Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.commailto:std...@cisco.com: From: Jay Lau jay.lau@gmail.commailto:jay.lau@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Monday, February 9, 2015 at 11:31 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum Steve, So you mean we should focus on docker and k8s scheduler? I was a bit confused, why do we need to care k8s? As the k8s cluster was created by heat and once the k8s was created, the k8s has its own scheduler for creating pods/service/rcs. So seems we only need to care scheduler for native docker and ironic bay, comments? Ya scheduler only matters for native docker. Ironic bay can be k8s or docker+swarm or something similar. But yup, I understand your point. Thanks! 2015-02-10 12:32 GMT+08:00 Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.commailto:std...@cisco.com: From: Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.commailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Monday, February 9, 2015 at 6:41 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.commailto:std...@cisco.com wrote: On 2/9/15, 3:02 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.orgmailto:thie...@openstack.org wrote: Adrian Otto wrote: [...] We have multiple options for solving this challenge. Here are a few: 1) Cherry pick scheduler code from Nova, which already has a working a filter scheduler design. 2) Integrate swarmd to leverage its scheduler[2]. 3) Wait for the Gantt, when Nova Scheduler to be moved out of Nova. This is expected to happen about a year from now, possibly sooner. 4) Write our own filter scheduler, inspired by Nova. I haven't looked enough into Swarm to answer that question myself, but how much would #2 tie Magnum to Docker containers ? There is value for Magnum to support other container engines / formats (think Rocket/Appc) in the long run, so we should avoid early design choices that would prevent such support in the future. Thierry, Magnum has an object type of a bay which represents the underlying cluster architecture used. This could be kubernetes, raw docker, swarmd, or some future invention. This way Magnum can grow
Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Feodor Tersin fter...@cloudscaling.com wrote: nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy this case is valid, right? I.e. i want to boot instance with two ports. The first port is specified, but the second one is created at network mapping stage. If i specify a security group as well, it will be used for the second port (if not - default group will): nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy --security-groups sg-1 Thus a port and a security group can be specified together. The question here is what do you expect for the existing port - it's security groups updated or not? Will it be ok to silently (or with warning in logs) ignore security groups for it? If it's ok then is it ok to do the same for: nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --security-groups sg-1 where the intention is clear enough? On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: On 9/26/2014 3:19 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400 Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote: I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group assignment in Neutron as well. Agree. However what do you think a user expects when he/she boots a vm (no matter providing port_id or just net_id) and specifies security_groups? I think the expectation should be that instance will become a member of the specified groups. Ignoring security_groups parameter in case port is provided (as it is now) seems completely unfair to me. One option would be to return a 400 if both port id and security_groups is supplied. Chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Coming back to this, we now have a change from Oleg [1] after an initial attempt that was reverted because it would break server creates if you specified a port (because the original change would blow up when the compute API added the 'default' security group to the request'). The new change doesn't add the 'default' security group to the request so if you specify a security group and port on the request, you'll now get a 400 error response. Does this break API compatibility? It seems this falls under the first bullet here [2], A change such that a request which was successful before now results in an error response (unless the success reported previously was hiding an existing error condition). Does that caveat in parenthesis make this OK? It seems like we've had a lot of talk about warts in the compute v2 API for cases where an operation is successful but didn't yield the expected result, but we can't change them because of API backwards compatibility concerns so I'm hesitant on this. We also definitely need a Tempest test here, which I'm looking into. I think I can work this into the test_network_basic_ops scenario test. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154068/ [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/APIChangeGuidelines# Generally_Not_Acceptable -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject: unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum
Thanks Adrian for the clear clarification, clear now. OK, we can focus on the right solution for the Docker back-end for now. 2015-02-10 15:35 GMT+08:00 Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com: I think it’s fair to assert that our generic scheduling interface should be based on Gantt. When that approaches a maturity point where it’s appropriate to leverage Gantt for container use cases, we should definitely consider switching to that. We should remain engaged in Gantt design decisions along the way to provide input. In the short term we want a solution that works nicely for our Docker handler, because that’s an obvious functionality gap. The k8s handler already has a scheduler, so it can remain unchanged. Let’s not fall into a trap of over-engineering the scheduler, as that can be very tempting but yield limited value. My suggestion is that we focus on the right solution for the Docker backend for now, and keep in mind that we want a general purpose scheduler in the future that could be adapted to work with a variety of container backends. I want to recognize that Andrew’s thoughts are well considered to avoid rework and remain agnostic about container backends. Further, I think resource scheduling is the sort of problem domain that would lend itself well to a common solution with numerous use cases. If you look at the various ones that exist today, there are lots of similarities. We will find a multitude of scheduling algorithms, but probably not uniquely innovative scheduling interfaces. The interface to a scheduler will be relatively simple, and we could afford to collaborate a bit with the Gantt team to get solid ideas on the table for that. Let’s table that pursuit for now, and re-engage at our Midcycle meetup to explore that topic further. In the mean time, I’d like us to iterate on a suitable point solution for the Docker backend. A final iteration of that work may be to yank it completely, and replace it with a common scheduler at a later point. I’m willing to accept that tradeoff for a quick delivery of a Docker specific scheduler that we can learn from and iterate. Cheers, Adrian On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:57 PM, Jay Lau jay.lau@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Steve, just want to discuss more for this. Then per Andrew's comments, we need a generic scheduling interface, but if our focus is native docker, then does this still needed? Thanks! 2015-02-10 14:52 GMT+08:00 Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.com: From: Jay Lau jay.lau@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Monday, February 9, 2015 at 11:31 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum Steve, So you mean we should focus on docker and k8s scheduler? I was a bit confused, why do we need to care k8s? As the k8s cluster was created by heat and once the k8s was created, the k8s has its own scheduler for creating pods/service/rcs. So seems we only need to care scheduler for native docker and ironic bay, comments? Ya scheduler only matters for native docker. Ironic bay can be k8s or docker+swarm or something similar. But yup, I understand your point. Thanks! 2015-02-10 12:32 GMT+08:00 Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.com: From: Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Monday, February 9, 2015 at 6:41 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.com wrote: On 2/9/15, 3:02 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote: Adrian Otto wrote: [...] We have multiple options for solving this challenge. Here are a few: 1) Cherry pick scheduler code from Nova, which already has a working a filter scheduler design. 2) Integrate swarmd to leverage its scheduler[2]. 3) Wait for the Gantt, when Nova Scheduler to be moved out of Nova. This is expected to happen about a year from now, possibly sooner. 4) Write our own filter scheduler, inspired by Nova. I haven't looked enough into Swarm to answer that question myself, but how much would #2 tie Magnum to Docker containers ? There is value for Magnum to support other container engines / formats (think Rocket/Appc) in the long run, so we should avoid early design choices that would prevent such support in the future. Thierry, Magnum has an object type of a bay which represents the underlying cluster architecture used. This could be kubernetes, raw docker, swarmd, or some future invention. This way Magnum can grow independently of the underlying technology and provide a satisfactory user
[openstack-dev] [stable] juno is fubar in the gate
There are at least two blocking bugs: 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/grenade/+bug/1419913 Sounds like jogo is working a javelin fix for this. I'm not aware of a patch to review though. 2. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+bug/1419919 I'm not sure yet what's going on with this one. -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] system information panel, update with heat-engine status
Hi, I am waiting for the approval for K-3 as on the heat side, this functionality already implemented. Could some please approve https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/heat-engine-status-report Thanks. Regards Kanagaraj M From: Manickam, Kanagaraj Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 11:13 PM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev][horizon] system information panel, update with heat-engine status Hello Horizon Cores, In K-2, Heat is enabled with new REST API to report the running heat-engine status, This is in-line with how nova reports nova-compute running status. To report this feature in horizon under 'System information panel', a new blueprint is created at https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/heat-engine-status-report Can one of you kindly approve it to target in K release, so that admin can view the currently running Heat-engine's status from horizon. Thanks. Regards Kanagaraj M __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all][oslo.db][nova] TL; DR Things everybody should know about Galera
- Original Message - From: Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, Pavel Kholkin pkhol...@mirantis.com Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2015 8:04:10 PM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][oslo.db][nova] TL; DR Things everybody should know about Galera On 02/04/2015 12:05 PM, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui wrote: On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 04:30:32PM +, Matthew Booth wrote: I've spent a few hours today reading about Galera, a clustering solution for MySQL. Galera provides multi-master 'virtually synchronous' replication between multiple mysql nodes. i.e. I can create a cluster of 3 mysql dbs and read and write from any of them with certain consistency guarantees. I am no expert[1], but this is a TL;DR of a couple of things which I didn't know, but feel I should have done. The semantics are important to application design, which is why we should all be aware of them. * Commit will fail if there is a replication conflict foo is a table with a single field, which is its primary key. A: start transaction; B: start transaction; A: insert into foo values(1); B: insert into foo values(1); -- 'regular' DB would block here, and report an error on A's commit A: commit; -- success B: commit; -- KABOOM Confusingly, Galera will report a 'deadlock' to node B, despite this not being a deadlock by any definition I'm familiar with. It is a failure to certify the writeset, which bubbles up as an InnoDB deadlock error. See my article here: http://www.joinfu.com/2015/01/understanding-reservations-concurrency-locking-in-nova/ Which explains this. I do not see why not to use `FOR UPDATE` even with multi-writer or Is the retry/swap way really solves anything here. Using 'FOR UPDATE' in with 'repeatable read' isolation level, seams still more efficient and has several advantages. * The SELECT with 'FOR UPDATE' will read the committed version, so you do not really need to worry about when the transaction actually started. You will get fresh data before you reaching the actual UPDATE. * In the article the example query will not return new version of data in the same transaction even if you are retrying, so you need to restart the transaction anyway. When you are using the 'FOR UPDATE' way if any other transaction successfully commits conflicting row on any other galera writer, your pending transaction will be rolled back at your next statement, WITHOUT spending any time in certificating that transaction. In this perspective the checking the number after the update `Compare and swap` or handling an exception does not makes any difference. * Using FOR UPDATE in a galera transaction (multi-writer) is not more evil than using UPDATE, concurrent commit invalidates both of them in the same way (DBDeadlock). * The 'FOR UPDATE' if you are using just a `single writer` does not lets other threads to do useless work while wasting resources. * The swap way also can be rolled back by galera almost anywhere (DBDeadLock). At the end the swap way looks like it just replaced the exception handling, with a return code check + manual transaction restart. Am I missed something ? Yes ! and if I can add more information and I hope I do not make mistake I think it's a know issue which comes from MySQL, that is why we have a decorator to do a retry and so handle this case here: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova/tree/nova/db/sqlalchemy/api.py#n177 It's not an issue with MySQL. It's an issue with any database code that is highly contentious. Almost all highly distributed or concurrent applications need to handle deadlock issues, and the most common way to handle deadlock issues on database records is using a retry technique. There's nothing new about that with Galera. The issue with our use of the @_retry_on_deadlock decorator is *not* that the retry decorator is not needed, but rather it is used too frequently. The compare-and-swap technique I describe in the article above dramatically* reduces the number of deadlocks that occur (and need to be handled by the @_retry_on_deadlock decorator) and dramatically reduces the contention over critical database sections. Best, -jay * My colleague Pavel Kholkin is putting together the results of a benchmark run that compares the compare-and-swap method with the raw @_retry_on_deadlock decorator method. Spoiler: the compare-and-swap method cuts the runtime of the benchmark by almost *half*. Essentially, anywhere that a regular DB would block, Galera will not block transactions on different nodes. Instead, it will cause one of the transactions to fail on commit. This is still ACID, but the semantics are quite different. The impact of this is that code which makes correct use of locking may still fail with a 'deadlock'. The solution to this is to either fail the
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Feature Freeze Exception Request - bp/linux-systemz
On 17:31 Mon 09 Feb , Andreas Maier wrote: Hello, I would like to ask for the following feature freeze exception in Cinder. Cinder is not in a feature freeze at the moment [1]. Additional notes: The code in Nova patch set https://review.openstack.org/149256 is consistent with this patch set, but a decision to include them in kilo can be made independently for each of the two patch sets: The Nova patch set enables FCP storage for a compute node with KVM on System z, while the Cinder patch set enables Cinder services to run on System z Linux. If it's not landing in Nova for Kilo [2], I'd rather not target it for Kilo in Cinder. We're already really packed for K-3, and it's not useful without the Nova piece. Please resubmit for L-1 in Cinder. [1] - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-January/055719.html [2] - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/libvirt-kvm-systemz -- Mike Perez __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] juno is fubar in the gate
On Feb 9, 2015 10:04 AM, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: There are at least two blocking bugs: 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/grenade/+bug/1419913 Sounds like jogo is working a javelin fix for this. I'm not aware of a patch to review though. We need to stop trying to install tempest in the same env as stable/* code. I should be able to revise/respond to comments shortly. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153080/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153702/ This is also blocking my effort to pin stable dependencies (Dean's devstack changes are needed before we can pin stable dependencies as well). 2. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+bug/1419919 I'm not sure yet what's going on with this one. -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum
I think Sylvain is getting at an important point. Magnum is trying to be as agnostic as possible when it comes to selecting a backend. Because of that, I think the biggest benefit to Magnum would be a generic scheduling interface that each pod type would implement. A pod type with a backend providing scheduling could implement a thin scheduler that simply translates the generic requests into something the backend can understand. And a pod type requiring outside scheduling could implement something more heavy. If we are careful to keep the heavy scheduling generic enough to be shared between backends requiring it, we could hopefully swap in an implementation using Gantt once that is ready. --Andrew From: Jay Lau [jay.lau@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 4:36 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum Thanks Sylvain, we did not work out the API requirement till now but I think the requirement should be similar with nova: we need select_destination to select the best target host based on filters and weights. There are also some discussions here https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/magnum-scheduler-for-docker Thanks! 2015-02-09 16:22 GMT+08:00 Sylvain Bauza sba...@redhat.commailto:sba...@redhat.com: Hi Magnum team, Le 07/02/2015 19:24, Steven Dake (stdake) a écrit : From: Eric Windisch e...@windisch.usmailto:e...@windisch.us Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 10:09 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum 1) Cherry pick scheduler code from Nova, which already has a working a filter scheduler design. The Gantt team explored that option by the Icehouse cycle and it failed with a lot of problems. I won't list all of those, but I'll just explain that we discovered how the Scheduler and the Nova compute manager were tighly coupled, which was meaning that a repository fork was really difficult to do without reducing the tech debt. That said, our concerns were far different from the Magnum team : it was about having feature parity and replacing the current Nova scheduler, while your team is just saying that they want to have something about containers. 2) Integrate swarmd to leverage its scheduler[2]. I see #2 as not an alternative but possibly an also. Swarm uses the Docker API, although they're only about 75% compatible at the moment. Ideally, the Docker backend would work with both single docker hosts and clusters of Docker machines powered by Swarm. It would be nice, however, if scheduler hints could be passed from Magnum to Swarm. Regards, Eric Windisch Adrian Eric, I would prefer to keep things simple and just integrate directly with swarm and leave out any cherry-picking from Nova. It would be better to integrate scheduling hints into Swarm, but I’m sure the swarm upstream is busy with requests and this may be difficult to achieve. I don't want to give my opinion about which option you should take as I don't really know your needs. If I understand correctly, this is about having a scheduler providing affinity rules for containers. Do you have a document explaining which interfaces you're looking for, which kind of APIs you're wanting or what's missing with the current Nova scheduler ? MHO is that the technology shouldn't drive your decision : whatever the backend is (swarmd or an inherited nova scheduler), your interfaces should be the same. -Sylvain Regards -steve __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribemailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribehttp://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Thanks, Jay Lau (Guangya Liu) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot.
nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy this case is valid, right? I.e. i want to boot instance with two ports. The first port is specified, but the second one is created at network mapping stage. If i specify a security group as well, it will be used for the second port (if not - default group will): nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy --security-groups sg-1 Thus a port and a security group can be specified together. On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: On 9/26/2014 3:19 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400 Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote: I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group assignment in Neutron as well. Agree. However what do you think a user expects when he/she boots a vm (no matter providing port_id or just net_id) and specifies security_groups? I think the expectation should be that instance will become a member of the specified groups. Ignoring security_groups parameter in case port is provided (as it is now) seems completely unfair to me. One option would be to return a 400 if both port id and security_groups is supplied. Chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Coming back to this, we now have a change from Oleg [1] after an initial attempt that was reverted because it would break server creates if you specified a port (because the original change would blow up when the compute API added the 'default' security group to the request'). The new change doesn't add the 'default' security group to the request so if you specify a security group and port on the request, you'll now get a 400 error response. Does this break API compatibility? It seems this falls under the first bullet here [2], A change such that a request which was successful before now results in an error response (unless the success reported previously was hiding an existing error condition). Does that caveat in parenthesis make this OK? It seems like we've had a lot of talk about warts in the compute v2 API for cases where an operation is successful but didn't yield the expected result, but we can't change them because of API backwards compatibility concerns so I'm hesitant on this. We also definitely need a Tempest test here, which I'm looking into. I think I can work this into the test_network_basic_ops scenario test. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154068/ [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/APIChangeGuidelines# Generally_Not_Acceptable -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] juno is fubar in the gate
On 2/9/2015 12:03 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: There are at least two blocking bugs: 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/grenade/+bug/1419913 Sounds like jogo is working a javelin fix for this. I'm not aware of a patch to review though. 2. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+bug/1419919 I'm not sure yet what's going on with this one. Looks like the versions haven't been bumped for the integrated release projects on stable/juno yet so I did that here: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/Ib8a29258d99de75b49a9b19aef36bb99bc5fcac0,n,z -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Why not allow deleting volume from a CG ?
On 16:34 Mon 09 Feb , Nilesh P Bhosale wrote: Adding an ability to Add/Remove existing volumes to/from CG looks fine. But, it does not help the use-case where one would want to directly delete a volume from CG. Why do we force him to first remove a volume from CG and then delete? Xing and I have already explained the reasons for this decision previously in the thread. Besides it being an accident, you're making an assumption that all backends will handle directly removing a volume from a consistency group the same. I see a few ways they can handle it: 1) The backend errors on this, and the end user will never see the error, because it just goes to Cinder logs from the Cinder volume service. 2) The backend allows it, but they still see that volume part of the consistency group, even if it was deleted. Leaving things in a weird state. 3) The backend allows the delete and updates the consistency group accordingly. With 72 different drivers, you can't make an assumption here. As CG goes along with replication and backends creating a separate pool per CG, removing a volume from CG, just to be able to delete it in the next step, may be an unnecessary expensive operation. Can you explain more how this is expensive? I would argue making a mistake in deleting a volume that's part of a consistency group on accident would be an expensive mistake. In fact, I think whatever decision user takes, even to delete a normal volume, is treated as his conscious decision. We're humans, we make mistakes. I work on an interface that assumes this. -- Mike Perez __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [barbican][grenade][tempest][qa][ceilometer] Database Upgrade Testing for Incubated Projects
Hello folks, (Apologies for the numerous tags, but my question straddles multiple areas I believe) I’m a core developer on the Barbican team and we are interested in database upgrade testing via Grenade. In addition to Grenade documentation I’ve looked at two blueprints [1][2] the Ceilometer project merged in last year, and the CRs created for them. It would appear that in order to utilize Grenade testing for Barbican, we would need submit CRs to both Grenade (to add an ‘update-barbican’ script) and to Tempest (to add Barbican-centric resources to the javeline.py module). As Barbican is not yet out of incubation, would such Grenade and Tempest CRs need to wait until we are out of incubation? If we do have to wait, is anyone aware of an alternative method of such upgrade testing without need to submit changes to Grenade and Tempest (similar to the DevStack gate hook back to the project)? [1] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ceilometer-specs/specs/juno/grenade-upgrade-testing.html [2] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ceilometer-specs/specs/juno/grenade-resource-survivability.html Thanks in advance!, John __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all][oslo.db][nova] TL; DR Things everybody should know about Galera
On 02/09/2015 01:02 PM, Attila Fazekas wrote: I do not see why not to use `FOR UPDATE` even with multi-writer or Is the retry/swap way really solves anything here. snip Am I missed something ? Yes. Galera does not replicate the (internal to InnnoDB) row-level locks that are needed to support SELECT FOR UPDATE statements across multiple cluster nodes. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/codership-team/Au1jVFKQv8o/QYV_Z_t5YAEJ Best, -jay __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] juno is fubar in the gate
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Alan Pevec ape...@gmail.com wrote: Tracking etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/wedged-stable-gate-feb-2015 BTW there is a tracking etherpad updated by https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StableBranch#Stable_branch_champions https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/stable-tracker linked in https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StableBranch#Gate_Status and announced on this list http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-January/05.html From crossed items in Recently closed section you can see that branch champions have been busy. There are two main audiences for stable branches: * Downstream consumers. * Upstream developers working on master who need a working stable branch. I cannot comment on how well the first group is being supported. But as a member of the second group, I am constantly frustrated by how frequently broken stable branches ruin my day. You are missing the fact that a bunch of us (Matt Treinish, myself and others) are frustrated by the fact that we end up fixing stable branches whenever they break because we touch tempest, grenade and other projects that require working stable branches. But we do not want to be working on stable branches ourselves. I begrudgingly stepped up to work on pinning all requirements on stable branches, to reduce the number of times stable branches break and ruin my day. But my plan to cap dependencies has been delayed several times by stable branches breaking again and again, along with unwinding undesired behaviors in our testing harnesses. Most recently, stable/juno grenade broke on February 4th (due to the release of tempest-lib 0.2.0). This caused bug So that's a change in tooling, not stable branch itself. Idea when 15 months for Icehouse was discussed was that branchless Tempest would make it easier, but now it turns out that's making both tooling and stable branch unhappy. I don't think its reasonable to assume maintaining the stable/branch excludes actively supporting and improving are testing harness and related tooling. Our tooling is constantly changing and supporting stable branches means working on our tooling to make sure its functioning as expected for stable branches. Also cutting a new release of a library is not a 'change in tooling'. What I expect to happen when issues like this arise is interested parties work together to fix things and be proactive and make stable testing more robust. Instead we currently have people who have no desire to work on stable branches maintaining them. At least parts of stable team have been pro-active (see above etherpad) but I guess we have a communication issue here: has anyonetried to contact stable branch champions (juno=Adam, icehouse=Ihar) and what exactly do you expect stable team to do? AFAICT these are all changes in tooling where stable-maint is not core (devstack, tempest)... Where is it documented that Adam is the Juno branch champion and Ihar is Icehouse's? I didn't see it anywhere in the wiki. If something breaks in stable/juno and grenade on master seizes up, what should we do? When issues are blocking development we should not have to wait for any one person to respond -- single points of failure are bad. So I don't think 'has anyone tried to contact us' is the right question to ask. A better question to ask is 'have stable branches recently prevented development' So who should I contact to help me freeze all stable/* dependencies? Or better yet, someone to drive the effort instead. BTW Icehouse 2014.1.4 was planned[*] for Feb 19 with freeze starting on Feb 12, I'll delay it for now until we sort the current situation out. Cheers, Alan [*] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StableBranchRelease#Planned_stable.2Ficehouse_releases __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Manila]Question about gateway-mediated-with-ganesha
Hi list, I'm trying to understand how manila use NFS-Ganesha, and hope to figure out what I need to do to use it if all patches been merged (only one patch is under reviewing, right ?). I have read: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila/Networking/Gateway_mediated https://blueprints.launchpad.net/manila/+spec/gateway-mediated-with-ganesha From documents, it is said, within Ganesha, multi-tenancy would be supported: And later the Ganesha core would be extended to use the infrastructure used by generic driver to provide network separated multi-tenancy. The core would manage Ganesha service running in the service VMs, and the VMs themselves that reside in share networks. ð it is said : extended to use the infrastructure used by generic driver to provide network separated multi-tenancy So, when user create a share, a VM (share-server) would be created to run Ganesha-server. ð I assume this VM should connect the 2 networks : user's share-network and the network where Glusterfs cluster is running. But, in generic driver, it create a manila service network at beginning. When user create a share, a subnet would be created in manila service network corresponding to each user's share-network: This means every VM(share-server) generic driver has created are living in different subnets, they're not able to connect to each other. If my understanding here is correct, the VMs that running Ganesha are living the different subnets too. ð Here is my question: How VMs(share-servers) running Ganesha be able to connect to the single Glusterfs cluster ? Looking forward to hear from you. Thanks. -chen __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] release request for python-novaclient
On Feb 9, 2015, at 19:55, Michael Still mi...@stillhq.com wrote: The previous policy is that we do a release when requested or when a critical bug fix merges. I don't see any critical fixes awaiting release, but I am not opposed to a release. That's right. I think the keystone v3 support is important and worth putting out there. The reason I didn't do this yesterday is that Joe wanted some time to pin the stable requirements, which I believe he is still working on. Let's give him some time unless this is urgent. Yes, of course. I should have been clearer. I meant after that's done, we should do a release. melanie (melwitt) signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum
Steve, So you mean we should focus on docker and k8s scheduler? I was a bit confused, why do we need to care k8s? As the k8s cluster was created by heat and once the k8s was created, the k8s has its own scheduler for creating pods/service/rcs. So seems we only need to care scheduler for native docker and ironic bay, comments? Thanks! 2015-02-10 12:32 GMT+08:00 Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.com: From: Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Monday, February 9, 2015 at 6:41 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.com wrote: On 2/9/15, 3:02 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote: Adrian Otto wrote: [...] We have multiple options for solving this challenge. Here are a few: 1) Cherry pick scheduler code from Nova, which already has a working a filter scheduler design. 2) Integrate swarmd to leverage its scheduler[2]. 3) Wait for the Gantt, when Nova Scheduler to be moved out of Nova. This is expected to happen about a year from now, possibly sooner. 4) Write our own filter scheduler, inspired by Nova. I haven't looked enough into Swarm to answer that question myself, but how much would #2 tie Magnum to Docker containers ? There is value for Magnum to support other container engines / formats (think Rocket/Appc) in the long run, so we should avoid early design choices that would prevent such support in the future. Thierry, Magnum has an object type of a bay which represents the underlying cluster architecture used. This could be kubernetes, raw docker, swarmd, or some future invention. This way Magnum can grow independently of the underlying technology and provide a satisfactory user experience dealing with the chaos that is the container development world :) While I don't disagree with anything said here, this does sound a lot like https://xkcd.com/927/ Andrew had suggested offering a unified standard user experience and API. I think that matches the 927 comic pretty well. I think we should offer each type of system using APIs that are similar in nature but that offer the native features of the system. In other words, we will offer integration across the various container landscape with OpenStack. We should strive to be conservative and pragmatic in our systems support and only support container schedulers and container managers that have become strongly emergent systems. At this point that is docker and kubernetes. Mesos might fit that definition as well. Swarmd and rocket are not yet strongly emergent, but they show promise of becoming so. As a result, they are clearly systems we should be thinking about for our roadmap. All of these systems present very similar operational models. At some point competition will choke off new system design placing an upper bound on the amount of systems we have to deal with. Regards -steve We will absolutely support relevant container technology, likely through new Bay formats (which are really just heat templates). Regards -steve -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Thanks, Jay Lau (Guangya Liu) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Ironic] Weekly subteam status report
Hi, Following is the subteam report for Ironic. As usual, this is pulled directly from the Ironic whiteboard[0] and formatted. Bugs (dtantsur) === (As of Mon, 02 Feb 15:00 UTC) Open: 127 (+5). 5 new (+1), 36 in progress (+4), 1 critical (0), 14 high (-2) and 7 incomplete (+1) (As of Mon, 09 Feb 15:30 UTC) Open: 133 (+6). 9 new (+4), 34 in progress (-2), 0 critical (-1), 17 high (+3) and 7 incomplete (0) Drivers === IPA (jroll/JayF/JoshNang) --- IPA broke the gate 2/6/2015; the method IPA was using to reload partitions apparently doesn't work in the gate, so we replaced partprobe with partx -u $device. We should dig deeper later to see why partprobe didn't work. -JayF iLO (wanyen) --- Submitted FFE request for passing flavor in capabilities to Ironic : https://review.openstack.org/141012. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-February/056256.html Several Ironic Kilo features including secure boot, trusted boot, local boot support with partition image, and support of mulitple node capabilities are depending on this feature. It also has impact on iLO driver’s hardware property introspection feature. Code changes to support this spec in Nova ironic virt driver is very small- only 31 lines of code (including comments) in nova/virt/ironic/patcher.py, and 22 lines of code in test_patcher.py. Still need review and approval for several specs (iLO node cleaning and zapping specs, secure boot management interface, RAID driver interface, in-band RAID configuration, get/set boot mode management interface, per driver sensors, iLO health metrics) iRMC (naohirot) For the mid cycle sprint in S.F. this week, iRMC management driver code and iRMC deploy driver spec are ready for core team's review and approval. Toward kilo-3, iRMC deploy driver code is solicited for core team's review, and currently good progress in testing the code. Until next week, --ruby Apologies. Due to a technical glitch, reports for the previous 2 weeks are unavailable. *[0] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/IronicWhiteBoard https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/IronicWhiteBoard* __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] juno is fubar in the gate
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Matthew Treinish mtrein...@kortar.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 01:24:34PM -0600, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 2/9/2015 12:23 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: On Feb 9, 2015 10:04 AM, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com mailto:mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: There are at least two blocking bugs: 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/grenade/+bug/1419913 Sounds like jogo is working a javelin fix for this. I'm not aware of a patch to review though. We need to stop trying to install tempest in the same env as stable/* code. I should be able to revise/respond to comments shortly. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153080/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153702/ This is also blocking my effort to pin stable dependencies (Dean's devstack changes are needed before we can pin stable dependencies as well). 2. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+bug/1419919 I'm not sure yet what's going on with this one. Tracking etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/wedged-stable-gate-feb-2015 So I think it's time we called the icehouse branch and marked it EOL. We originally conditioned the longer support window on extra people stepping forward to keep things working. I believe this latest issue is just the latest indication that this hasn't happened. Issue 1 listed above is being caused by the icehouse branch during upgrades. The fact that a stable release was pushed at the same time things were wedged on the juno branch is just the latest evidence to me that things aren't being maintained as they should be. Looking at the #openstack-qa irc log from today or the etherpad about trying to sort this issue should be an indication that no one has stepped up to help with the maintenance and it shows given the poor state of the branch. If I'm not mistaken with our original support window lengths Icehouse would be EOL'd around now. So it's time we stopped pretending we'll be maintaining this branch for several more months and just go through the normal EOL procedure. Was this serious? I mean, we just say; 'sorry, yes we said support until X; but now it's hard so we're going to drop it'. Tell me I'm missing something here? -Matt Treinish __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [api] Optional Properties in an Entity
On 01/20/2015 10:54 AM, Brian Rosmaita wrote: From: Kevin L. Mitchell [kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 4:54 PM When we look at consistency, we look at everything else in OpenStack. From the standpoint of the nova API (with which I am the most familiar), I am not aware of any property that is ever omitted from any payload without versioning coming in to the picture, even if its value is null. Thus, I would argue that we should encourage the first situation, where all properties are included, even if their value is null. That is not the case for the Images API v2: An image is always guaranteed to have the following attributes: id, status, visibility, protected, tags, created_at, file and self. The other attributes defined in the image schema below are guaranteed to be defined, but is only returned with an image entity if they have been explicitly set. [1] This was a mistake, IMHO. Having entirely extensible schemas means that there is little guaranteed consistency across implementations of the API. This is the same reason that I think API extensions are an abomination. Best, -jay __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [api] Optional Properties in an Entity
On 01/19/2015 02:55 PM, Douglas Mendizabal wrote: Hi API WG, I’m curious about something that came up during a bug discussion in one of the Barbican weekly meetings. The question is about optional properties in an entity. e.g. We have a Secret entity that has some properties that are optional, such as the Secret’s name. We were split on what the best approach for returning the secret representation would be when an optional property is not set. In one camp, some developers would like to see the properties returned no matter what. That is to say, the Secret dictionary would include a key for “name” set to null every single time. i.e. { … “secret”: { “name”: null, … } ... } On the other camp, some developers would like to see optional properties omitted if they were not set by the user. The advantage of always returning the property is that the response is easier to parse, since you don’t have to check for the existence of the optional keys. The argument against it is that it makes the API more rigid, and clients more fragile. I was wondering what the API Working Group’s thoughts are on this? My opinion is that attributes should always be in the returned result (that corresponds to a particular version of an API), set to null when there is no value set. Best, -jay __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] juno is fubar in the gate
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 01:24:34PM -0600, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 2/9/2015 12:23 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: On Feb 9, 2015 10:04 AM, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com mailto:mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: There are at least two blocking bugs: 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/grenade/+bug/1419913 Sounds like jogo is working a javelin fix for this. I'm not aware of a patch to review though. We need to stop trying to install tempest in the same env as stable/* code. I should be able to revise/respond to comments shortly. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153080/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153702/ This is also blocking my effort to pin stable dependencies (Dean's devstack changes are needed before we can pin stable dependencies as well). 2. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+bug/1419919 I'm not sure yet what's going on with this one. Tracking etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/wedged-stable-gate-feb-2015 So I think it's time we called the icehouse branch and marked it EOL. We originally conditioned the longer support window on extra people stepping forward to keep things working. I believe this latest issue is just the latest indication that this hasn't happened. Issue 1 listed above is being caused by the icehouse branch during upgrades. The fact that a stable release was pushed at the same time things were wedged on the juno branch is just the latest evidence to me that things aren't being maintained as they should be. Looking at the #openstack-qa irc log from today or the etherpad about trying to sort this issue should be an indication that no one has stepped up to help with the maintenance and it shows given the poor state of the branch. If I'm not mistaken with our original support window lengths Icehouse would be EOL'd around now. So it's time we stopped pretending we'll be maintaining this branch for several more months and just go through the normal EOL procedure. -Matt Treinish pgpwWu0TsiRvn.pgp Description: PGP signature __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo.messaging] Can RPCClient.call() be used with a subset of servers?
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015, at 02:40 PM, Gravel, Julie Chongcharoen wrote: Hello, I want to use oslo.messaging.RPCClient.call() to invoke a method on multiple servers, but not all of them. Can this be done and how? I read the code documentation (client.py and target.py). I only saw either the call used for one server at a time, or for all of them using the fanout param. Neither options is exactly what I want. Any response/explanation would be highly appreciated. This isn't a pattern that has come up before. Before we talk about adding it, I'd like to understand more about your use case. How do you know which servers should receive the call, for example? And are you actually calling and expecting a response, or do you just need to send a message to those servers? Doug Regards, Julie Gravel __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] nova api.fault notification isn't collected by ceilometer
In nova api, a nova api.fault notification will be send out when the when there is en error. http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova/tree/nova/api/openstack/__init__.py#n119 but i couldn't find where they are processed in ceilometer, an error notification can be very desired to be collected, do we have plan to add this, shall i need a bp to do that ?there's a patch for review to store error info: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153362/ cheers, gord __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all][oslo.db][nova] TL; DR Things everybody should know about Galera
On 02/09/2015 03:10 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2015-02-09 10:15:10 -0800: On 02/09/2015 01:02 PM, Attila Fazekas wrote: I do not see why not to use `FOR UPDATE` even with multi-writer or Is the retry/swap way really solves anything here. snip Am I missed something ? Yes. Galera does not replicate the (internal to InnnoDB) row-level locks that are needed to support SELECT FOR UPDATE statements across multiple cluster nodes. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/codership-team/Au1jVFKQv8o/QYV_Z_t5YAEJ Attila acknowledged that. What Attila was saying was that by using it with Galera, the box that is doing the FOR UPDATE locks will simply fail upon commit because a conflicting commit has already happened and arrived from the node that accepted the write. Further what Attila is saying is that this means there is not such an obvious advantage to the CAS method, since the rollback and the # updated rows == 0 are effectively equivalent at this point, seeing as the prior commit has already arrived and thus will not need to wait to fail certification and be rolled back. No, that is not correct. In the case of the CAS technique, the frequency of rollbacks due to certification failure is demonstrably less than when using SELECT FOR UPDATE and relying on the certification timeout error to signal a deadlock. I am not entirely certain that is true though, as I think what will happen in sequential order is: writer1: UPDATE books SET genre = 'Scifi' WHERE genre = 'sciencefiction'; writer1: -- send in-progress update to cluster writer2: SELECT FOR UPDATE books WHERE id=3; writer1: COMMIT writer1: -- try to certify commit in cluster ** Here is where I stop knowing for sure what happens ** writer2: certifies writer1's transaction or blocks? It will certify writer1's transaction. It will only block another thread hitting writer2 requesting write locks or write-intent read locks on the same records. writer2: UPDATE books SET genre = 'sciencefiction' WHERE id=3; writer2: COMMIT -- One of them is rolled back. So, at that point where I'm not sure (please some Galera expert tell me): If what happens is as I suggest, writer1's transaction is certified, then that just means the lock sticks around blocking stuff on writer2, but that the data is updated and it is certain that writer2's commit will be rolled back. However, if it blocks waiting on the lock to resolve, then I'm at a loss to determine which transaction would be rolled back, but I am thinking that it makes sense that the transaction from writer2 would be rolled back, because the commit is later. That is correct. writer2's transaction would be rolled back. The difference is that the CAS method would NOT trigger a ROLLBACK. It would instead return 0 rows affected, because the UPDATE statement would instead look like this: UPDATE books SET genre = 'sciencefiction' WHERE id = 3 AND genre = 'SciFi'; And the return of 0 rows affected would trigger a simple retry of the read and then update attempt on writer2 instead of dealing with ROLLBACK semantics on the transaction. Note that in the CAS method, the SELECT statement and the UPDATE are in completely different transactions. This is a very important thing to keep in mind. All this to say that usually the reason for SELECT FOR UPDATE is not to only do an update (the transactional semantics handle that), but also to prevent the old row from being seen again, which, as Jay says, it cannot do. So I believe you are both correct: * Attila, yes I think you're right that CAS is not any more efficient at replacing SELECT FOR UPDATE from a blocking standpoint. It is more efficient because there are far fewer ROLLBACKs of transactions occurring in the system. If you look at a slow query log (with a 0 slow query time) for a MySQL Galera server in a multi-write cluster during a run of Tempest or Rally, you will notice that the number of ROLLBACK statements is extraordinary. AFAICR, when Peter Boros and I benchmarked a Rally launch and delete 10K VM run, we saw nearly 11% of *total* queries executed against the server were ROLLBACKs. This, in my opinion, is the main reason that the CAS method will show as more efficient. * Jay, yes I think you're right that SELECT FOR UPDATE is not the right thing to use to do such reads, because one is relying on locks that are meaningless on a Galera cluster. Where I think the CAS ends up being the preferred method for this sort of thing is where one consideres that it won't hold a meaningless lock while the transaction is completed and then rolled back. CAS is preferred because it is measurably faster and more obstruction-free than SELECT FOR UPDATE. A colleague of mine is almost ready to publish documentation showing a benchmark of this that shows nearly a 100% decrease in total amount of lock/wait time using CAS versus waiting for the coarser-level certification timeout to retry the transactions. As
Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] juno is fubar in the gate
On 2/9/2015 2:56 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote: On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 01:24:34PM -0600, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 2/9/2015 12:23 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: On Feb 9, 2015 10:04 AM, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com mailto:mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: There are at least two blocking bugs: 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/grenade/+bug/1419913 Sounds like jogo is working a javelin fix for this. I'm not aware of a patch to review though. We need to stop trying to install tempest in the same env as stable/* code. I should be able to revise/respond to comments shortly. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153080/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153702/ This is also blocking my effort to pin stable dependencies (Dean's devstack changes are needed before we can pin stable dependencies as well). 2. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+bug/1419919 I'm not sure yet what's going on with this one. Tracking etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/wedged-stable-gate-feb-2015 So I think it's time we called the icehouse branch and marked it EOL. We originally conditioned the longer support window on extra people stepping forward to keep things working. I believe this latest issue is just the latest indication that this hasn't happened. Issue 1 listed above is being caused by the icehouse branch during upgrades. The fact that a stable release was pushed at the same time things were wedged on the juno branch is just the latest evidence to me that things aren't being maintained as they should be. Looking at the #openstack-qa irc log from today or the etherpad about trying to sort this issue should be an indication that no one has stepped up to help with the maintenance and it shows given the poor state of the branch. If I'm not mistaken with our original support window lengths Icehouse would be EOL'd around now. So it's time we stopped pretending we'll be maintaining this branch for several more months and just go through the normal EOL procedure. -Matt Treinish __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Until we've figured out what's going on and how to unwind it (maybe it's just jogo's changes that are blocked right now due to wedged stable/icehouse), I'd -1 this. I think branchless tempest is definitely running into some issues here with requirements being uncapped and that's throwing a huge wrench into things and EOL'ing stable/icehouse at this point kind of gives an easy out w/o first have the full picture of what's busted and why we can't work out of it. -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [nailgun] [UI] network_check_status fleild for environments
On 02/07/2015 12:09 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh vkramsk...@mirantis.com mailto:vkramsk...@mirantis.com wrote: I want to discuss possibility to add network verification status field for environments. There are 2 reasons for this: 1) One of the most frequent reasons of deployment failure is wrong network configuration. In the current UI network verification is completely optional and sometimes users are even unaware that this feature exists. We can warn the user before the start of deployment if network check failed of wasn't performed. 2) Currently network verification status is partially tracked by status of the last network verification task. Sometimes its results become stale, and the UI removes the task. There are a few cases when the UI does this, like changing network settings, adding a new node, etc (you can grep removeFinishedNetworkTasks to see all the cases). This definitely should be done on backend. Additional field on cluster like network_check_status? When it will be populated with result? I think it will simply duplicate task.status with network_verify name Network check is not a single task.. Right now there is two, and probably we will need one more right in this release (setup public network and ping gateway). And AFAIK there is a need for other pre deployment verifications.. I would prefer to make a separate tab with pre_deployment verifications, similar to ostf. But if you guys want to make smth right now, compute status of network verification based on task with name network_verify, if you deleted this task from UI (for some reason) just add warning that verification wasnt performed. If there is more than one task with network_verify for any given cluster - pick latest one. Well, there are some problems with this solution: 1. No 'pick latest one with filtering to network_verify' handler is available currently. 2. Tasks are ephemeral entities -- they get deleted here and there. Look at nailgun/task/manager.py for example -- lines 83-88 or lines 108-120 and others 3. Just having network verification status as ready is NOT enough. From the UI you can fire off network verification for unsaved changes. Some JSON request is made, network configuration validated by tasks and RPC call made returing that all is OK for example. But if you haven't saved your changes then in fact you haven't verified your current configuration, just some other one. So in this case task status 'ready' doesn't mean that current cluster config is valid. What do you propose in this case? Fail the task on purpose? I only see a solution to this by introducting a new flag and network_check_status seems to be an appropriate one. P. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][nova] GRE Performance Problem, Multi-queue and Bridge MTUs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/06/2015 06:47 PM, Eren Türkay wrote: Hello, I was having serious network issues using GRE and I have been tracking it for a few weeks. Finally, I solved the issue but it needs a proper fix. To summarize, I need a way to set MTU settings of br-int and br-tun interfaces, enable MQ support in libvirt, and run ethtool -L eth0 combined N command in VMs. The detailed bug report and the explanation for the issue is here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1419069 There is a blueprint [0] on MQ support but it wasn't accepted. What can we do about this performance problem and a possible fix? Most people complain about GRE/VXLAN performance and the solution appears to be working. I created a bug report and let the list know to work on a better, flexible, and working solution. Please ignore the ugly patches as they are just proof of concept. Regards, Eren [0] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/libvirt-virtio-net-multiqueue I guess the MTU part should be fixed in Kilo as part of: https://github.com/openstack/neutron-specs/blob/master/specs/kilo/mtu-selection-and-advertisement.rst /Ihar -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU2J47AAoJEC5aWaUY1u57JYMH/jnYCmYfcw/ilQKaF3oCyoM/ WF8leZOCuxWFNenBcJin8rrmyrF+L1Sxvcn5tsFpPOXPcDz0d2NnX4wNDoeyVlUR ss6TVk+cTvJF73QsxvVaTxwcTIwUad7GYNCyosiAelKVYad7nc7s/M6lZf3mNum9 StsokTnpuPI5Gm+CAKlgDYLVF62+HbZuSnnSbRCUKB4hpa0kNVLG1tTHgSbhdC72 IlAOzh07YItw1jsVw/5SQRJGGTabuZRGdgnJbawFJEG9ZjghFIS3qHFY9nIujXgg xqIdUGMjIa7c5c9mKLCdpPE63WwgSFPtC0afT8MSvsyAK8gsb93Rd37jB8ae37Y= =US4b -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] BUG in OpenVSwitch Version ovs-vswitchd (Open vSwitch) 1.4.6
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/07/2015 05:09 AM, masoom alam wrote: Hi every one, Can any one spot why the following bug will appear in Openstack leaving all services of Neutron to unusable state? To give you an idea that I was trying: I tried to configure 173.39.237.0 ip to a VM, with the CIDR 173.39.236.0/23 http://173.39.236.0/23, however the OVS gave error and now all the neutron services are completely unusable 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent Traceback (most recent call last): 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent File /opt/stack/neutron/neutron/plugins/openvswitch/agent/ovs_neutron_agent.py, line 1197, in rpc_loop 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent port_info = self.scan_ports(ports, updated_ports_copy) 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent File /opt/stack/neutron/neutron/plugins/openvswitch/agent/ovs_neutron_agent.py, line 821, in scan_ports 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent updated_ports.update(self.check_changed_vlans(registered_ports)) 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent File /opt/stack/neutron/neutron/plugins/openvswitch/agent/ovs_neutron_agent.py, line 848, in check_changed_vlans 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent port_tags = self.int_br.get_port_tag_dict() 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent File /opt/stack/neutron/neutron/agent/linux/ovs_lib.py, line 394, in get_port_tag_dict 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent result = self.run_vsctl(args, check_error=True) 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent File /opt/stack/neutron/neutron/agent/linux/ovs_lib.py, line 67, in run_vsctl 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent return utils.execute(full_args, root_helper=self.root_helper) 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent File /opt/stack/neutron/neutron/agent/linux/utils.py, line 75, in execute 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent raise RuntimeError(m) 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent RuntimeError: 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent Command: ['sudo', '/usr/local/bin/neutron-rootwrap', '/etc/neutron/rootwrap.conf', 'ovs-vsctl', '--timeout=10', '--format=json', '--', '--columns=name,tag', 'list', 'Port'] 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent Exit code: 1 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent Stdout: '' 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent Stderr: 'Traceback (most recent call last):\n File /usr/local/bin/neutron-rootwrap, line 4, in module\n __import__(\'pkg_resources\').require(\'neutron==2013.2.4.dev32\')\n File /usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py, line 3018, in module\nworking_set = WorkingSet._build_master()\n File /usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py, line 614, in _build_master\nreturn cls._build_from_requirements(__requires__)\n File /usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py, line 627, in _build_from_requirements\ndists = ws.resolve(reqs, Environment())\n File /usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py, line 805, in resolve\nraise DistributionNotFound(req)\npkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: alembic0.6.4,=0.4.1\n' 2015-02-04 05:25:06.993 TRACE neutron.plugins.openvswitch.agent.ovs_neutron_agent It seems you're using Neutron Havana. It's not supported anymore. Also, I would recommend you to upgrade your openvswitch version since 1.4.6 sounds very old to me. There were huge performance optimizations in recent version of OVS. /Ihar -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU2J70AAoJEC5aWaUY1u57VwwIAMBZPH9D0cHUUzdjrhie4dYx dXTKuo5gAS2FTtsQVjgycmoskft9TX1FGrfHrMg8VEg0m3XnpgCCWD7R7AaTftCA vfSsNEZJ64mXvjwIBmsQfsX3Ic0mWZQckv2J2ftQ0slXgjhN8cyDiujv6f5Lxav0 yUaSPQpNqmL+bDyxof7YVFjRlq6OlFcnw9SA/9GZvlQhWoBTybVsbdGi161778dT UyVtv6DvuwPVotZzlWVfhCEkKlHcTN2U+K9O3eHdNrNFYAK3Bznu9zFN7xQOEOKe YteMU8yWILmA4R4aB8Uir0x0ugOWB5jgmsEMFFTNfPPXR60pkKTtpkF8I2os5nk= =YVoH -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe:
Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum
Adrian Otto wrote: [...] We have multiple options for solving this challenge. Here are a few: 1) Cherry pick scheduler code from Nova, which already has a working a filter scheduler design. 2) Integrate swarmd to leverage its scheduler[2]. 3) Wait for the Gantt, when Nova Scheduler to be moved out of Nova. This is expected to happen about a year from now, possibly sooner. 4) Write our own filter scheduler, inspired by Nova. I haven't looked enough into Swarm to answer that question myself, but how much would #2 tie Magnum to Docker containers ? There is value for Magnum to support other container engines / formats (think Rocket/Appc) in the long run, so we should avoid early design choices that would prevent such support in the future. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Why not allow deleting volume from a CG ?
Adding an ability to Add/Remove existing volumes to/from CG looks fine. But, it does not help the use-case where one would want to directly delete a volume from CG. Why do we force him to first remove a volume from CG and then delete? As CG goes along with replication and backends creating a separate pool per CG, removing a volume from CG, just to be able to delete it in the next step, may be an unnecessary expensive operation. I think, we can allow removing volume from a CG with something like '--force' option, so that user consciously makes that decision. In fact, I think whatever decision user takes, even to delete a normal volume, is treated as his conscious decision. Thanks, Nilesh From: yang, xing xing.y...@emc.com To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: 02/07/2015 01:54 AM Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Why not allow deleting volume from a CG ? As Mike said, allowing deletion of a single volume from a CG is error prone. User could be deleting a single volume without knowing that it is part of a CG. The new Modify CG feature for Kilo allows you to remove a volume from CG and you can delete it as a separate operation. When user removes a volume from a CG, at least he/she is making a conscious decision knowing that the volume is currently part of the CG. Thanks, Xing -Original Message- From: Mike Perez [mailto:thin...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 1:47 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Why not allow deleting volume from a CG ? On 15:51 Fri 06 Feb , Nilesh P Bhosale wrote: snip I understand this is as per design, but curious to understand logic behind this. snip Why not allow deletion of volumes form the CG? at least when there are no dependent snapshots. From the review [1], this is because allowing a volume that's part of a consistency group to be deleted is error prone for both the user and the storage backend. It assumes the storage backend will register the volume not being part of the consistency group. It also assumes the user is keeping tracking of what's part of a consistency group. With the current implementation, only way to delete the volume is to delete the complete CG, deleting all the volumes in that, which I feel is not right. The plan in Kilo is to allow adding/removing volumes from a consistency group [2][3]. The user now has to explicitly remove the volume from a consistency group, which in my opinion is better than implicit with delete. I'm open to rediscussing this issue with vendors and seeing about making sure things in the backend to be cleaned up properly, but I think this solution helps prevent the issue for both users and backends. [1] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/149095/ [2] - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/consistency-groups-kilo-update [3] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/144561/ -- Mike Perez __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Why not allow deleting volume from a CG ?
On 9 February 2015 at 13:04, Nilesh P Bhosale nilesh.bhos...@in.ibm.com wrote: Adding an ability to Add/Remove existing volumes to/from CG looks fine. But, it does not help the use-case where one would want to directly delete a volume from CG. Why do we force him to first remove a volume from CG and then delete? Because the risk of a user accidentally deleting a volume that is part of a CG and making their CG useless was considered greater than the cost of having to make two API calls. This was discussed during the design phase of CGs, at length. Many things are possible, be are trying to choose a subset that can be: - Implemented on as many different backends as possible - Don't limit backend architectures from doing novel new things - Allow a rich tenant experience - Guide a tenant away from operating in a high-risk manner -- Duncan Thomas __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [nailgun] [UI] network_check_status fleild for environments
On 02/09/2015 12:06 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Przemyslaw Kaminski pkamin...@mirantis.com mailto:pkamin...@mirantis.com wrote: Well, there are some problems with this solution: 1. No 'pick latest one with filtering to network_verify' handler is available currently. Well i think there should be finished_at field anyway, why not to add it for this purpose? So you're suggesting to add another column and modify all tasks for this one feature? 2. Tasks are ephemeral entities -- they get deleted here and there. Look at nailgun/task/manager.py for example -- lines 83-88 or lines 108-120 and others I dont actually recall what was the reason to delete them, but if it happens imo it is ok to show right now that network verification wasnt performed. Is this how one does predictible and easy to understand software? Sometimes we'll say that verification is OK, othertimes that it wasn't performed? 3. Just having network verification status as ready is NOT enough. From the UI you can fire off network verification for unsaved changes. Some JSON request is made, network configuration validated by tasks and RPC call made returing that all is OK for example. But if you haven't saved your changes then in fact you haven't verified your current configuration, just some other one. So in this case task status 'ready' doesn't mean that current cluster config is valid. What do you propose in this case? Fail the task on purpose? I only see a solution to this by introducting a new flag and network_check_status seems to be an appropriate one. My point that it has very limited UX. Right now network check is: - l2 with vlans verication - dhcp verification When we will have time we will add: - multicast routing verification - public gateway Also there is more stuff that different users was asking about. Then i know that vmware team also wants to implement pre_deployment verifications. So what this net_check_status will refer to at that point? Issue #3 I described is still valid -- what is your solution in this case? If someone implements pre-deployment network verifications and doesn't add the procedures to network verification task then really no solution can prevent the user from being able to deploy a cluster with some invalid configuration. It's not an issue with providing info that network checks were or weren't made. As far as I understand, there's one supertask 'verify_networks' (called in nailgu/task/manager.py line 751). It spawns other tasks that do verification. When all is OK verify_networks calls RPC's 'verify_networks_resp' method and returns a 'ready' status and at that point I can inject code to also set the DB column in cluster saying that network verification was OK for the saved configuration. Adding other tasks should in no way affect this behavior since they're just subtasks of this task -- or am I wrong? P. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [nailgun] [UI] network_check_status fleild for environments
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Przemyslaw Kaminski pkamin...@mirantis.com wrote: Well, there are some problems with this solution: 1. No 'pick latest one with filtering to network_verify' handler is available currently. Well i think there should be finished_at field anyway, why not to add it for this purpose? 2. Tasks are ephemeral entities -- they get deleted here and there. Look at nailgun/task/manager.py for example -- lines 83-88 or lines 108-120 and others I dont actually recall what was the reason to delete them, but if it happens imo it is ok to show right now that network verification wasnt performed. 3. Just having network verification status as ready is NOT enough. From the UI you can fire off network verification for unsaved changes. Some JSON request is made, network configuration validated by tasks and RPC call made returing that all is OK for example. But if you haven't saved your changes then in fact you haven't verified your current configuration, just some other one. So in this case task status 'ready' doesn't mean that current cluster config is valid. What do you propose in this case? Fail the task on purpose? I only see a solution to this by introducting a new flag and network_check_status seems to be an appropriate one. My point that it has very limited UX. Right now network check is: - l2 with vlans verication - dhcp verification When we will have time we will add: - multicast routing verification - public gateway Also there is more stuff that different users was asking about. Then i know that vmware team also wants to implement pre_deployment verifications. So what this net_check_status will refer to at that point? __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [all] Theory of Testing Cross Project Spec
Culminating many many email threads and discussions over the last year, I'm trying to boil down the overall OpenStack philosophy of testing into a single cross project spec - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150653 This is an attempt to both provide a current baseline of where we are, and a future view of where we should get to. This is extremely important as the current co-gate everything model does not scale beyond where we currently stand with number of projects involved. Comments are welcomed, please keep typos / grammar as '0' comments to separate them from -1 comments. Also, I ask any -1s to be extremely clear about the core concern of the -1 so we can figure out how to make progress. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum
On 2/9/15, 3:02 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote: Adrian Otto wrote: [...] We have multiple options for solving this challenge. Here are a few: 1) Cherry pick scheduler code from Nova, which already has a working a filter scheduler design. 2) Integrate swarmd to leverage its scheduler[2]. 3) Wait for the Gantt, when Nova Scheduler to be moved out of Nova. This is expected to happen about a year from now, possibly sooner. 4) Write our own filter scheduler, inspired by Nova. I haven't looked enough into Swarm to answer that question myself, but how much would #2 tie Magnum to Docker containers ? There is value for Magnum to support other container engines / formats (think Rocket/Appc) in the long run, so we should avoid early design choices that would prevent such support in the future. Thierry, Magnum has an object type of a bay which represents the underlying cluster architecture used. This could be kubernetes, raw docker, swarmd, or some future invention. This way Magnum can grow independently of the underlying technology and provide a satisfactory user experience dealing with the chaos that is the container development world :) We will absolutely support relevant container technology, likely through new Bay formats (which are really just heat templates). Regards -steve -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [nailgun] [UI] network_check_status fleild for environments
Hi, my opinion on this: Yes, it is technically possible to implement this feature using only tasks. This may require adding new field to tasks to distinguish whether task was run for saved or unsaved changes. But I'm against this approach because: 1) It will require handling more than 1 task of a single type which automatically leads to increase of complexity of the code. We will need 2 tasks in the following case: there are 1 task for unsaved data and 1 for saved. We need to show result of the first task on the network tab and use status of the second task to determine whether the network check was performed. 2) We have 2 similar tasks: for deploying a cluster and settings up a release. Both cluster and release models have status field which represent status of these entities so we don't perform complex checks with tasks. So I think the same approach should be used for network verification status. As for tasks deletion, there are 2 reasons for this: 1) If we don't delete old tasks, it increases the traffic between backend and UI. There are still no way to fetch the latest task or 2 latest tasks using our API. 2) We delete tasks manually when their results are not needed anymore or become invalid. For example, when user adds another node, we remove network check task as its result is not valid anymore. Yet another example - when user clicks X button on the message with deployment result, we remove this task so it won't be shown anymore. If you want us not to delete these tasks, please provide us with another way to cover these cases. 2015-02-09 15:51 GMT+03:00 Przemyslaw Kaminski pkamin...@mirantis.com: On 02/09/2015 01:18 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Przemyslaw Kaminski pkamin...@mirantis.com mailto:pkamin...@mirantis.com wrote: Well i think there should be finished_at field anyway, why not to add it for this purpose? So you're suggesting to add another column and modify all tasks for this one feature? Such things as time stamps should be on all tasks anyway. I dont actually recall what was the reason to delete them, but if it happens imo it is ok to show right now that network verification wasnt performed. Is this how one does predictible and easy to understand software? Sometimes we'll say that verification is OK, othertimes that it wasn't performed? In my opinion the questions that needs to be answered - what is the reason or event to remove verify_networks tasks history? 3. Just having network verification status as ready is NOT enough. From the UI you can fire off network verification for unsaved changes. Some JSON request is made, network configuration validated by tasks and RPC call made returing that all is OK for example. But if you haven't saved your changes then in fact you haven't verified your current configuration, just some other one. So in this case task status 'ready' doesn't mean that current cluster config is valid. What do you propose in this case? Fail the task on purpose? Issue #3 I described is still valid -- what is your solution in this case? Ok, sorry. What do you think if in such case we will remove old tasks? It seems to me that is correct event in which old verify_networks is invalid anyway, and there is no point to store history. Well, not exactly. Configure networks, save settings, do network check all assume that all went fine. Now change one thing without saving, check settings, didn't pass but it doesn't affect the flag because that's some different configuration from the saved one. And your original cluster is OK still. So in this case user will have to yet again run the original check. The plus of the network_check_status column is actually you don't need to store any history -- task can be deleted or whatever and still last checked saved configuration matters. User can perform other checks 'for free' and is not required to rerun the working configuration checks. With data depending on tasks you actually have to store a lot of history because you need to keep last working saved configuration -- otherwise user will have to rerun original configuration. So from usability point of view this is a worse solution. As far as I understand, there's one supertask 'verify_networks' (called in nailgu/task/manager.py line 751). It spawns other tasks that do verification. When all is OK verify_networks calls RPC's 'verify_networks_resp' method and returns a 'ready' status and at that point I can inject code to also set the DB column in cluster saying that network verification was OK for the saved configuration. Adding other tasks should in no way affect this behavior since they're just subtasks of this task -- or am I wrong? It is not that smooth, but in general yes - it can be done when state of verify_networks is changed. But lets say we have some_settings_verify task? Would be it valid to add one more field
[openstack-dev] [magnum][heat] resourcegroup not behaving as expected during update
Hongbin Lars, I spoke with Steve Hardy from Heat, who has been deep into improving resource groups. He indicated the problem Hongbin saw, where the resource group kills all Vms and then restarts them on a stack update to the count in a resource group is fixed in master and stable/juno. See reviews: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/141820/ More important is this review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/131538/ Which implies a replace policy of auto is required for ports, or the vms could potentially be ripped out. A good thread about why that is needed: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-October/049376.html I think adding the replacement_policy:auto for ports should do the trick, but read through the thread and the last review to make your own conclusions. Thanks shardy for providing all the info in this email (I am just documenting) Regards -steve __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [nova] Feature Freeze Exception Request (libvirt vhostuser vif driver)
Hi, I would like to request FFE for vhostuser vif driver. 2 reviews : https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:bp/libvirt-vif-vhost-user,n,z BP: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/libvirt-vif-vhost-user Spec: https://review.openstack.org/138736 Blueprint was approved but it's status was changed because of FF. Vhostuser is a Qemu feature that allows fastpath into the VM for userspace vSwitches. The changes are small and mostly contained to libvirt driver. Vhostuser support was proposed for Juno by Snabb switch guys but didn't make it, this implementation supports their usecase as well . Thanks Przemek __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all][oslo.db][nova] TL; DR Things everybody should know about Galera
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2015-02-09 12:36:45 -0800: CAS is preferred because it is measurably faster and more obstruction-free than SELECT FOR UPDATE. A colleague of mine is almost ready to publish documentation showing a benchmark of this that shows nearly a 100% decrease in total amount of lock/wait time using CAS versus waiting for the coarser-level certification timeout to retry the transactions. As mentioned above, I believe this is due to the dramatic decrease in ROLLBACKs. I think the missing piece of the puzzle for me was that each ROLLBACK is an expensive operation. I figured it was like a non-local return (i.e. 'raise' in python or 'throw' in java) and thus not measurably different. But now that I think of it, there is likely quite a bit of optimization around the query path, and not so much around the rollback path. The bottom of this rabbit hole is simply exquisite, isn't it? :) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] juno is fubar in the gate
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:02 PM, John Griffith john.griffi...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Matthew Treinish mtrein...@kortar.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 01:24:34PM -0600, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 2/9/2015 12:23 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: On Feb 9, 2015 10:04 AM, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com mailto:mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: There are at least two blocking bugs: 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/grenade/+bug/1419913 Sounds like jogo is working a javelin fix for this. I'm not aware of a patch to review though. We need to stop trying to install tempest in the same env as stable/* code. I should be able to revise/respond to comments shortly. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153080/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153702/ This is also blocking my effort to pin stable dependencies (Dean's devstack changes are needed before we can pin stable dependencies as well). 2. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+bug/1419919 I'm not sure yet what's going on with this one. Tracking etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/wedged-stable-gate-feb-2015 So I think it's time we called the icehouse branch and marked it EOL. We originally conditioned the longer support window on extra people stepping forward to keep things working. I believe this latest issue is just the latest indication that this hasn't happened. Issue 1 listed above is being caused by the icehouse branch during upgrades. The fact that a stable release was pushed at the same time things were wedged on the juno branch is just the latest evidence to me that things aren't being maintained as they should be. Looking at the #openstack-qa irc log from today or the etherpad about trying to sort this issue should be an indication that no one has stepped up to help with the maintenance and it shows given the poor state of the branch. If I'm not mistaken with our original support window lengths Icehouse would be EOL'd around now. So it's time we stopped pretending we'll be maintaining this branch for several more months and just go through the normal EOL procedure. Was this serious? I mean, we just say; 'sorry, yes we said support until X; but now it's hard so we're going to drop it'. Tell me I'm missing something here? You are missing the fact that a bunch of us (Matt Treinish, myself and others) are frustrated by the fact that we end up fixing stable branches whenever they break because we touch tempest, grenade and other projects that require working stable branches. But we do not want to be working on stable branches ourselves. I begrudgingly stepped up to work on pinning all requirements on stable branches, to reduce the number of times stable branches break and ruin my day. But my plan to cap dependencies has been delayed several times by stable branches breaking again and again, along with unwinding undesired behaviors in our testing harnesses. Note: At least 3 of us just spent most of the day working on this instead of working on developing on other things. Most recently, stable/juno grenade broke on February 4th (due to the release of tempest-lib 0.2.0). This caused bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/grenade/+bug/1419913 https://bugs.launchpad.net/grenade/+bug/1419913 ( pkg_resources.ContextualVersionConflict: (oslo.config 1.4.0 (/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages), Requirement.parse('oslo.config=1.6.0'), set(['tempest-lib'])). This specific bug is caused because we install master tempest (due to branchless tempest) on stable/icehouse and sync in stable/icehouse global requirements which not surprisingly has a conflict with tempest's requirements. So the solution here is stop installing tempest and requiring it to work with stable/icehouse, stable/juno and master's version of global-requirements. But that doesn't work because master tempest has an uncapped version of boto but nova stable/icehouse only works with the capped version of Icehouse. So we get this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154217/1/. So now we are exploring dropping the EC2 tests on stable/icehouse. If that works, we still need to land roughly 4 more patches to unwedge this stable/juno grenade and prevent this type of issue from happening in the future. Lets say we EOL Icehouse, we stop running grenade on stable/juno patches. Meaning this bug goes away all together and stable/juno is unwedged and I can move forward with pinning all stable/juno requirements. What I expect to happen when issues like this arise is interested parties work together to fix things and be proactive and make stable testing more robust. Instead we currently have people who have no desire to work on stable branches maintaining them. Pinning all direct stable/* requirements isn't enough to make sure
Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo.messaging] Can RPCClient.call() be used with a subset of servers?
On 02/09/2015 04:04 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2015, at 02:40 PM, Gravel, Julie Chongcharoen wrote: Hello, I want to use oslo.messaging.RPCClient.call() to invoke a method on multiple servers, but not all of them. Can this be done and how? I read the code documentation (client.py and target.py). I only saw either the call used for one server at a time, or for all of them using the fanout param. Neither options is exactly what I want. Any response/explanation would be highly appreciated. This isn't a pattern that has come up before. Before we talk about adding it, I'd like to understand more about your use case. How do you know which servers should receive the call, for example? And are you actually calling and expecting a response, or do you just need to send a message to those servers? If no response is needed, you might be able to use whatever is done for notifications. Notifications are sent out to a topic, and N servers may be subscribed to receive those notifications. IIRC, that isn't done through the RPC classes, but would result in the pattern desired here. -- Russell Bryant __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] juno is fubar in the gate
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:02 PM, John Griffith john.griffi...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Matthew Treinish mtrein...@kortar.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 01:24:34PM -0600, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 2/9/2015 12:23 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: On Feb 9, 2015 10:04 AM, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com mailto:mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: There are at least two blocking bugs: 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/grenade/+bug/1419913 Sounds like jogo is working a javelin fix for this. I'm not aware of a patch to review though. We need to stop trying to install tempest in the same env as stable/* code. I should be able to revise/respond to comments shortly. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153080/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153702/ This is also blocking my effort to pin stable dependencies (Dean's devstack changes are needed before we can pin stable dependencies as well). 2. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+bug/1419919 I'm not sure yet what's going on with this one. Tracking etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/wedged-stable-gate-feb-2015 So I think it's time we called the icehouse branch and marked it EOL. We originally conditioned the longer support window on extra people stepping forward to keep things working. I believe this latest issue is just the latest indication that this hasn't happened. Issue 1 listed above is being caused by the icehouse branch during upgrades. The fact that a stable release was pushed at the same time things were wedged on the juno branch is just the latest evidence to me that things aren't being maintained as they should be. Looking at the #openstack-qa irc log from today or the etherpad about trying to sort this issue should be an indication that no one has stepped up to help with the maintenance and it shows given the poor state of the branch. If I'm not mistaken with our original support window lengths Icehouse would be EOL'd around now. So it's time we stopped pretending we'll be maintaining this branch for several more months and just go through the normal EOL procedure. Was this serious? I mean, we just say; 'sorry, yes we said support until X; but now it's hard so we're going to drop it'. Tell me I'm missing something here? You are missing the fact that a bunch of us (Matt Treinish, myself and others) are frustrated by the fact that we end up fixing stable branches whenever they break because we touch tempest, grenade and other projects that require working stable branches. But we do not want to be working on stable branches ourselves. I begrudgingly stepped up to work on pinning all requirements on stable branches, to reduce the number of times stable branches break and ruin my day. But my plan to cap dependencies has been delayed several times by stable branches breaking again and again, along with unwinding undesired behaviors in our testing harnesses. Most recently, stable/juno grenade broke on February 4th (due to the release of tempest-lib 0.2.0). This caused bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/grenade/+bug/1419913 https://bugs.launchpad.net/grenade/+bug/1419913 ( pkg_resources.ContextualVersionConflict: (oslo.config 1.4.0 (/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages), Requirement.parse('oslo.config=1.6.0'), set(['tempest-lib'])). This specific bug is caused because we install master tempest (due to branchless tempest) on stable/icehouse and sync in stable/icehouse global requirements which not surprisingly has a conflict with tempest's requirements. So the solution here is stop installing tempest and requiring it to work with stable/icehouse, stable/juno and master's version of global-requirements. But that doesn't work because master tempest has an uncapped version of boto but nova stable/icehouse only works with the capped version of Icehouse. So we get this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154217/1/. So now we are exploring dropping the EC2 tests on stable/icehouse. If that works, we still need to land roughly 4 more patches to unwedge this stable/juno grenade and prevent this type of issue from happening in the future. Lets say we EOL Icehouse, we stop running grenade on stable/juno patches. Meaning this bug goes away all together and stable/juno is unwedged and I can move forward with pinning all stable/juno requirements. What I expect to happen when issues like this arise is interested parties work together to fix things and be proactive and make stable testing more robust. Instead we currently have people who have no desire to work on stable branches maintaining them. Pinning all direct stable/* requirements isn't enough to make sure stable/* doesn't break. There are transitive dependencies that can change (I have a plan on how to pin those too, but it will take time and I can use some help), and changing packages etc. can break things as well. Having a reactive stable
Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] JavaScript docs?
On 02/05/2015 06:20 PM, Matthew Farina wrote: I'd like to step back for a moment as to the purpose of different kinds of documentation. Sphinx is great and it provides some forms of documentation. But, why do we document methods, classes, or functions in python? Should we drop that and rely on Sphinx? I don't think anyone would argue for that. We actually rely on Sphinx for documenting methods, classes or functions. Not sure what your point is here. -- Radomir Dopieralski __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Fuel] fuel-client and Nailgun API
Hello colleagues, They say, there is some kind of holywar around the topic on if fuel-client tests should rely on working Nailgun API without mocking it. This is also connected with API stabilizing and finally moving fuel-client to a separate library which may be used by any third-party projects. I just wanted to start this thread so everyone can share his opinion on both Nailgun API stabilizing and further fate of fuel-client as a separate library (how they do it in OpenStack projects). Everyone is welcome to participate. -- Best regards, Nick Markov __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] fuel-client and Nailgun API
Hi all, I don't know nothing about 'holywar' so I'm interested where it had place. According to the fuel-client tests I think that it will be good idea to run some integration tests on nailgun API to check if client really works with nailgun and if it works as expected, but unit test can have mocks if it is necessary. If we will have test run on nailgun we can be sure that even if responses has been changed, client can still work or when we add new API our client realy works with API, not only with mocked responses. Best regards, Kamil Sambor On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Nikolay Markov nmar...@mirantis.com wrote: Hello colleagues, They say, there is some kind of holywar around the topic on if fuel-client tests should rely on working Nailgun API without mocking it. This is also connected with API stabilizing and finally moving fuel-client to a separate library which may be used by any third-party projects. I just wanted to start this thread so everyone can share his opinion on both Nailgun API stabilizing and further fate of fuel-client as a separate library (how they do it in OpenStack projects). Everyone is welcome to participate. -- Best regards, Nick Markov __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] fuel-client and Nailgun API
Actually it was not a hollywar but a small discussion which get no continuation due to low priority and some technical problems. The point is that ATM unit tests in python-fuelclient act like integration tests because they require a live instance of the Nailgun API and certain data in Nailgun’s DB. The straightforward solution is of course to mock everything and pretend to be happy. However, being happy wont last for too long because once Nailgun’s API is changed, the tests will start returning false-positive results. Mocking all invocations ATM will require someone to sit and watch for any changes to Nailgun API and update mocks. Basically I stand for simplification of unit testing in python-fuelclient so standard python-jobs will be able to run them. However, two things should be done in order to do painless mocking of API calls: - Nailgun should have a precisely documented API, probably in machine-readable format. - There should be a precisely defined mechanism of changing and versioning Nailgun API. Before that is done I see no point in mocking API calls in unit-tests. - romcheg 9 лют. 2015 о 14:03 Sebastian Kalinowski skalinow...@mirantis.com написав(ла): Hi, 2015-02-09 13:57 GMT+01:00 Nikolay Markov nmar...@mirantis.com: They say, there is some kind of holywar around the topic on if fuel-client tests should rely on working Nailgun API without mocking it. Could you point us where was such hollywar was, so we could get some background on the topic? Best, Sebastian __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack Foundation] Finding people to work on the EC2 API in Nova
Hi All, I will be creating the a sub group in Nova for EC2 APIs and start the weekly meetings, reviews, code cleanup, etc tasks. Will update the same on wiki page also soon.. Thanks Swami On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:27 PM, David Kranz dkr...@redhat.com wrote: On 02/06/2015 07:49 AM, Sean Dague wrote: On 02/06/2015 07:39 AM, Alexandre Levine wrote: Rushi, We're adding new tempest tests into our stackforge-api/ec2-api. The review will appear in a couple of days. These tests will be good for running against both nova/ec2-api and stackforge/ec2-api. As soon as they are there, you'll be more than welcome to add even more. Best regards, Alex Levine Honestly, I'm more more pro having the ec2 tests in a tree that isn't Tempest. Most Tempest reviewers aren't familiar with the ec2 API, their focus has been OpenStack APIs. Having a place where there is a review team that is dedicated only to the EC2 API seems much better. -Sean +1 And once similar coverage to the current tempest ec2 tests is achieved, either by copying from tempest or creating anew, we should remove the ec2 tests from tempest. -David __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Infra] Meeting Tuesday February 10th at 19:00 UTC
Hi everyone, The OpenStack Infrastructure (Infra) team is having our next weekly meeting on Tuesday February 10th, at 19:00 UTC in #openstack-meeting Meeting agenda available here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/InfraTeamMeeting (anyone is welcome to to add agenda items) Everyone interested in infrastructure and process surrounding automated testing and deployment is encouraged to attend. And in case you missed it or would like a refresher, meeting logs and minutes from our last meeting are available here: Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/infra/2015/infra.2015-02-03-19.01.html Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/infra/2015/infra.2015-02-03-19.01.txt Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/infra/2015/infra.2015-02-03-19.01.log.html -- Elizabeth Krumbach Joseph || Lyz || pleia2 __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo.messaging] Can RPCClient.call() be used with a subset of servers?
On Monday, February 9, 2015, Gravel, Julie Chongcharoen julie.gra...@hp.com wrote: Hello, I want to use oslo.messaging.RPCClient.call() to invoke a method on multiple servers, but not all of them. Can this be done and how? I read the code documentation (client.py and target.py). I only saw either the call used for one server at a time, or for all of them using the fanout param. Neither options is exactly what I want. Any response/explanation would be highly appreciated. Hello, I would say that there's no need to have such ability since since oslo.messaging is unaware of your servers, so everything you need is to write your own code to accomplish your mission. Even if you want to execute call procedures at the same time you can parallelize your code. Would that work for you? Regards, Julie Gravel Kind regards, DenisM. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all][oslo.db][nova] TL; DR Things everybody should know about Galera
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2015-02-09 10:15:10 -0800: On 02/09/2015 01:02 PM, Attila Fazekas wrote: I do not see why not to use `FOR UPDATE` even with multi-writer or Is the retry/swap way really solves anything here. snip Am I missed something ? Yes. Galera does not replicate the (internal to InnnoDB) row-level locks that are needed to support SELECT FOR UPDATE statements across multiple cluster nodes. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/codership-team/Au1jVFKQv8o/QYV_Z_t5YAEJ Attila acknowledged that. What Attila was saying was that by using it with Galera, the box that is doing the FOR UPDATE locks will simply fail upon commit because a conflicting commit has already happened and arrived from the node that accepted the write. Further what Attila is saying is that this means there is not such an obvious advantage to the CAS method, since the rollback and the # updated rows == 0 are effectively equivalent at this point, seeing as the prior commit has already arrived and thus will not need to wait to fail certification and be rolled back. I am not entirely certain that is true though, as I think what will happen in sequential order is: writer1: UPDATE books SET genre = 'Scifi' WHERE genre = 'sciencefiction'; writer1: -- send in-progress update to cluster writer2: SELECT FOR UPDATE books WHERE id=3; writer1: COMMIT writer1: -- try to certify commit in cluster ** Here is where I stop knowing for sure what happens ** writer2: certifies writer1's transaction or blocks? writer2: UPDATE books SET genre = 'sciencefiction' WHERE id=3; writer2: COMMIT -- One of them is rolled back. So, at that point where I'm not sure (please some Galera expert tell me): If what happens is as I suggest, writer1's transaction is certified, then that just means the lock sticks around blocking stuff on writer2, but that the data is updated and it is certain that writer2's commit will be rolled back. However, if it blocks waiting on the lock to resolve, then I'm at a loss to determine which transaction would be rolled back, but I am thinking that it makes sense that the transaction from writer2 would be rolled back, because the commit is later. All this to say that usually the reason for SELECT FOR UPDATE is not to only do an update (the transactional semantics handle that), but also to prevent the old row from being seen again, which, as Jay says, it cannot do. So I believe you are both correct: * Attila, yes I think you're right that CAS is not any more efficient at replacing SELECT FOR UPDATE from a blocking standpoint. * Jay, yes I think you're right that SELECT FOR UPDATE is not the right thing to use to do such reads, because one is relying on locks that are meaningless on a Galera cluster. Where I think the CAS ends up being the preferred method for this sort of thing is where one consideres that it won't hold a meaningless lock while the transaction is completed and then rolled back. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [nova] [devstack] configuring https for glance client
Hi Nova experts, Some time ago I figured out that devstack fails to stack with USE_SSL=True option because it doesn't configure nova to work with secured glace [1]. Support of secured glance was added to nova in Juno cycle [2], but it looks strange for me. Glance client takes settings form '[ssl]' section. The same section is used to set up nova server SSL settings. Other clients have separate sections in the config file (and switching to session use now), e.g. related code for cinder - [3]. I've created quick fix for the devstack - [4], but it would be nice to shed a light on nova plans around glance config before merging a workaround for devstack. So, the questions are: 1. Is it normal that glance client reads from '[ssl]' config section? 2. Is there a plan to move glance client to sessions use and move corresponding config section to '[glance]'? 3. Are any plans to run CI for USE_SSL=True use case? [1] - https://bugs.launchpad.net/devstack/+bug/1405484 [2] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/72974 [3] - https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/2015.1.0b2/nova/volume/cinder.py#L73 [4] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153737 Thanks, Andrew. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [nova] [devstack] configuring https for glance client
Hi Nova experts, Some time ago I figured out that devstack fails to stack with USE_SSL=True option because it doesn't configure nova to work with secured glace [1]. Support of secured glance was added to nova in Juno cycle [2], but it looks strange for me. Glance client takes settings form '[ssl]' section. The same section is used to set up nova server SSL settings. Other clients have separate sections in the config file (and switching to session use now), e.g. related code for cinder - [3]. I've created quick fix for the devstack - [4], but it would be nice to shed a light on nova plans around glance config before merging a workaround for devstack. So, the questions are: 1. Is it normal that glance client reads from '[ssl]' config section? 2. Is there a plan to move glance client to sessions use and move corresponding config section to '[glance]'? 3. Are any plans to run CI for USE_SSL=True use case? [1] - https://bugs.launchpad.net/devstack/+bug/1405484 [2] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/72974 [3] - https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/2015.1.0b2/nova/volume/cinder.py#L73 [4] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153737 Thanks, Andrew. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum
Steve, On Feb 9, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) std...@cisco.commailto:std...@cisco.com wrote: From: Andrew Melton andrew.mel...@rackspace.commailto:andrew.mel...@rackspace.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Monday, February 9, 2015 at 10:38 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum I think Sylvain is getting at an important point. Magnum is trying to be as agnostic as possible when it comes to selecting a backend. Because of that, I think the biggest benefit to Magnum would be a generic scheduling interface that each pod type would implement. A pod type with a backend providing scheduling could implement a thin scheduler that simply translates the generic requests into something the backend can understand. And a pod type requiring outside scheduling could implement something more heavy. If we are careful to keep the heavy scheduling generic enough to be shared between backends requiring it, we could hopefully swap in an implementation using Gantt once that is ready. Great mid-cycle topic discussion topic. Can you add it to the planning etherpad? Yes, it was listed as #5 here: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/magnum-midcycle-topics We will arrange that further up the priority list as soon as we feel that list is complete, and ready for sorting. Adrian Thanks -steve --Andrew From: Jay Lau [jay.lau@gmail.commailto:jay.lau@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 4:36 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum Thanks Sylvain, we did not work out the API requirement till now but I think the requirement should be similar with nova: we need select_destination to select the best target host based on filters and weights. There are also some discussions here https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/magnum-scheduler-for-docker Thanks! 2015-02-09 16:22 GMT+08:00 Sylvain Bauza sba...@redhat.commailto:sba...@redhat.com: Hi Magnum team, Le 07/02/2015 19:24, Steven Dake (stdake) a écrit : From: Eric Windisch e...@windisch.usmailto:e...@windisch.us Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 10:09 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum 1) Cherry pick scheduler code from Nova, which already has a working a filter scheduler design. The Gantt team explored that option by the Icehouse cycle and it failed with a lot of problems. I won't list all of those, but I'll just explain that we discovered how the Scheduler and the Nova compute manager were tighly coupled, which was meaning that a repository fork was really difficult to do without reducing the tech debt. That said, our concerns were far different from the Magnum team : it was about having feature parity and replacing the current Nova scheduler, while your team is just saying that they want to have something about containers. 2) Integrate swarmd to leverage its scheduler[2]. I see #2 as not an alternative but possibly an also. Swarm uses the Docker API, although they're only about 75% compatible at the moment. Ideally, the Docker backend would work with both single docker hosts and clusters of Docker machines powered by Swarm. It would be nice, however, if scheduler hints could be passed from Magnum to Swarm. Regards, Eric Windisch Adrian Eric, I would prefer to keep things simple and just integrate directly with swarm and leave out any cherry-picking from Nova. It would be better to integrate scheduling hints into Swarm, but I’m sure the swarm upstream is busy with requests and this may be difficult to achieve. I don't want to give my opinion about which option you should take as I don't really know your needs. If I understand correctly, this is about having a scheduler providing affinity rules for containers. Do you have a document explaining which interfaces you're looking for, which kind of APIs you're wanting or what's missing with the current Nova scheduler ? MHO is that the technology shouldn't drive your decision : whatever the backend is (swarmd or an inherited nova scheduler), your interfaces should be the same. -Sylvain Regards -steve __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe:
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] fuel-client and Nailgun API
Hi, 2015-02-09 13:57 GMT+01:00 Nikolay Markov nmar...@mirantis.com: They say, there is some kind of holywar around the topic on if fuel-client tests should rely on working Nailgun API without mocking it. Could you point us where was such hollywar was, so we could get some background on the topic? Best, Sebastian __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [nailgun] [UI] network_check_status fleild for environments
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Przemyslaw Kaminski pkamin...@mirantis.com wrote: Well i think there should be finished_at field anyway, why not to add it for this purpose? So you're suggesting to add another column and modify all tasks for this one feature? Such things as time stamps should be on all tasks anyway. I dont actually recall what was the reason to delete them, but if it happens imo it is ok to show right now that network verification wasnt performed. Is this how one does predictible and easy to understand software? Sometimes we'll say that verification is OK, othertimes that it wasn't performed? In my opinion the questions that needs to be answered - what is the reason or event to remove verify_networks tasks history? 3. Just having network verification status as ready is NOT enough. From the UI you can fire off network verification for unsaved changes. Some JSON request is made, network configuration validated by tasks and RPC call made returing that all is OK for example. But if you haven't saved your changes then in fact you haven't verified your current configuration, just some other one. So in this case task status 'ready' doesn't mean that current cluster config is valid. What do you propose in this case? Fail the task on purpose? Issue #3 I described is still valid -- what is your solution in this case? Ok, sorry. What do you think if in such case we will remove old tasks? It seems to me that is correct event in which old verify_networks is invalid anyway, and there is no point to store history. As far as I understand, there's one supertask 'verify_networks' (called in nailgu/task/manager.py line 751). It spawns other tasks that do verification. When all is OK verify_networks calls RPC's 'verify_networks_resp' method and returns a 'ready' status and at that point I can inject code to also set the DB column in cluster saying that network verification was OK for the saved configuration. Adding other tasks should in no way affect this behavior since they're just subtasks of this task -- or am I wrong? It is not that smooth, but in general yes - it can be done when state of verify_networks is changed. But lets say we have some_settings_verify task? Would be it valid to add one more field on cluster model, like some_settings_status? __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [nailgun] [UI] network_check_status fleild for environments
On 02/09/2015 01:18 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Przemyslaw Kaminski pkamin...@mirantis.com mailto:pkamin...@mirantis.com wrote: Well i think there should be finished_at field anyway, why not to add it for this purpose? So you're suggesting to add another column and modify all tasks for this one feature? Such things as time stamps should be on all tasks anyway. I dont actually recall what was the reason to delete them, but if it happens imo it is ok to show right now that network verification wasnt performed. Is this how one does predictible and easy to understand software? Sometimes we'll say that verification is OK, othertimes that it wasn't performed? In my opinion the questions that needs to be answered - what is the reason or event to remove verify_networks tasks history? 3. Just having network verification status as ready is NOT enough. From the UI you can fire off network verification for unsaved changes. Some JSON request is made, network configuration validated by tasks and RPC call made returing that all is OK for example. But if you haven't saved your changes then in fact you haven't verified your current configuration, just some other one. So in this case task status 'ready' doesn't mean that current cluster config is valid. What do you propose in this case? Fail the task on purpose? Issue #3 I described is still valid -- what is your solution in this case? Ok, sorry. What do you think if in such case we will remove old tasks? It seems to me that is correct event in which old verify_networks is invalid anyway, and there is no point to store history. Well, not exactly. Configure networks, save settings, do network check all assume that all went fine. Now change one thing without saving, check settings, didn't pass but it doesn't affect the flag because that's some different configuration from the saved one. And your original cluster is OK still. So in this case user will have to yet again run the original check. The plus of the network_check_status column is actually you don't need to store any history -- task can be deleted or whatever and still last checked saved configuration matters. User can perform other checks 'for free' and is not required to rerun the working configuration checks. With data depending on tasks you actually have to store a lot of history because you need to keep last working saved configuration -- otherwise user will have to rerun original configuration. So from usability point of view this is a worse solution. As far as I understand, there's one supertask 'verify_networks' (called in nailgu/task/manager.py line 751). It spawns other tasks that do verification. When all is OK verify_networks calls RPC's 'verify_networks_resp' method and returns a 'ready' status and at that point I can inject code to also set the DB column in cluster saying that network verification was OK for the saved configuration. Adding other tasks should in no way affect this behavior since they're just subtasks of this task -- or am I wrong? It is not that smooth, but in general yes - it can be done when state of verify_networks is changed. But lets say we have some_settings_verify task? Would be it valid to add one more field on cluster model, like some_settings_status? Well, why not? Cluster deployment is a task and it's status is saved in cluster colum and not fetched from tasks. As you see the logic of network task verification is not simply based on ready/error status reading but more subtle. What other settings you have in mind? I guess when we have more of them one can create a separate table to keep them, but for now I don't see a point in doing this. P. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] fuel-client and Nailgun API
Sebastian, it was mostly on some internal meetings. I think Roman Prykhodchenko was going to participate and shine some light on topic. On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski skalinow...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi, 2015-02-09 13:57 GMT+01:00 Nikolay Markov nmar...@mirantis.com: They say, there is some kind of holywar around the topic on if fuel-client tests should rely on working Nailgun API without mocking it. Could you point us where was such hollywar was, so we could get some background on the topic? Best, Sebastian __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Best regards, Nick Markov __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [stable] juno is fubar in the gate
Tracking etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/wedged-stable-gate-feb-2015 BTW there is a tracking etherpad updated by https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StableBranch#Stable_branch_champions https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/stable-tracker linked in https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StableBranch#Gate_Status and announced on this list http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-January/05.html From crossed items in Recently closed section you can see that branch champions have been busy. You are missing the fact that a bunch of us (Matt Treinish, myself and others) are frustrated by the fact that we end up fixing stable branches whenever they break because we touch tempest, grenade and other projects that require working stable branches. But we do not want to be working on stable branches ourselves. I begrudgingly stepped up to work on pinning all requirements on stable branches, to reduce the number of times stable branches break and ruin my day. But my plan to cap dependencies has been delayed several times by stable branches breaking again and again, along with unwinding undesired behaviors in our testing harnesses. Most recently, stable/juno grenade broke on February 4th (due to the release of tempest-lib 0.2.0). This caused bug So that's a change in tooling, not stable branch itself. Idea when 15 months for Icehouse was discussed was that branchless Tempest would make it easier, but now it turns out that's making both tooling and stable branch unhappy. What I expect to happen when issues like this arise is interested parties work together to fix things and be proactive and make stable testing more robust. Instead we currently have people who have no desire to work on stable branches maintaining them. At least parts of stable team have been pro-active (see above etherpad) but I guess we have a communication issue here: has anyonetried to contact stable branch champions (juno=Adam, icehouse=Ihar) and what exactly do you expect stable team to do? AFAICT these are all changes in tooling where stable-maint is not core (devstack, tempest)... BTW Icehouse 2014.1.4 was planned[*] for Feb 19 with freeze starting on Feb 12, I'll delay it for now until we sort the current situation out. Cheers, Alan [*] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StableBranchRelease#Planned_stable.2Ficehouse_releases __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev