Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][manila] Ganesha deployment

2017-04-13 Thread Jan Provaznik
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Ben Nemec  wrote:
>
>
> On 04/11/2017 02:00 PM, Giulio Fidente wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 16:50 +0200, Jan Provaznik wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Ben Nemec 
>>> wrote:

 On 04/10/2017 03:22 AM, Jan Provaznik wrote:
 Well, on second thought it might be possible to make the Storage
 network
 only routable within overcloud Neutron by adding a bridge mapping
 for the
 Storage network and having the admin configure a shared Neutron
 network for
 it.  That would be somewhat more secure since it wouldn't require
 the
 Storage network to be routable by the world.  I also think this
 would work
 today in TripleO with no changes.

>>>
>>> This sounds interesting, I was searching for more info how bridge
>>> mapping should be done in this case and how specific setup steps
>>> should look like, but the process is still not clear to me, I would
>>> be
>>> grateful for more details/guidance with this.
>>
>>
>> I think this will be represented in neutron as a provider network,
>> which has to be created by the overcloud admin, after the overcloud
>> deployment is finished
>>
>> While based on Kilo, this was one of the best docs I could find and it
>> includes config examples [1]
>>
>> It assumes that the operator created a bridge mapping for it when
>> deploying the overcloud
>>
 I think the answer here will be the same as for vanilla Ceph.  You
 need to
 make the network routable to instances, and you'd have the same
 options as I
 discussed above.

>>>
>>> Yes, it seems that using the mapping to provider network would solve
>>> the existing problem when using ceph directly and when using ganesha
>>> servers in future (it would be just matter of to which network is
>>> exposed).
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> regarding the composability questions, I think this represents a
>> "composable HA" scenario where we want to manage a remote service with
>> pacemaker using pacemaker-remote
>>
>> yet at this stage I think we want to add support for new services by
>> running them in containers first (only?) and pacemaker+containers is
>> still a work in progress so there aren't easy answers
>>
>> containers will have access to the host networks though, so the case
>> for a provider network in the overcloud remains valid
>>
>> 1. https://docs.openstack.org/kilo/networking-guide/scenario_provider_o
>> vs.html
>>
>
> I think there are three major pieces that would need to be in place to have
> a storage provider network:
>
> 1) The storage network must be bridged in the net-iso templates.  I don't
> think our default net-iso templates do that, but there are examples of
> bridged networks in them:
> https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/blob/master/network/config/multiple-nics/compute.yaml#L121
> For the rest of the steps I will assume the bridge was named br-storage.
>
> 2) Specify a bridge mapping when deploying the overcloud.  The environment
> file would look something like this (datacentre is the default value, so I'm
> including it too):
>
> parameter_defaults:
>   NeutronBridgeMappings: 'datacentre:br-ex,storage:br-storage'
>
> 3) Create a provider network after deployment as described in the link
> Giulio provided.  The specific command will depend on the network
> architecture, but it would need to include "--provider:physical_network
> storage".
>
> We might need to add the ability to do 3 as part of the deployment,
> depending what is needed for the Ganesha deployment itself.  We've typically
> avoided creating network resources like this in the deployment because of
> the huge variations in what people want, but this might be an exceptional
> case since the network will be a required part of the overcloud.
>
>

Thank you both for your help, based on steps suggested above I was
able to mount ceph volume in user instance when Overcloud was deployed
with net-iso with net-single-nic-with-vlans (which is the easiest one
I can deploy in my virtualenv). For net-single-nic-with-vlans I
skipped creation of additional bridge (since single bridge is used for
all networks in this case) and deployed OC as usually, then I
configured networking:
neutron net-create storage --shared --provider:physical_network
datacentre --provider:network_type vlan --provider:segmentation_id 30
neutron subnet-create --name storage-subnet --allocation-pool
start=172.16.1.100,end=172.16.1.120--enable-dhcp storage
172.16.1.0/24

and created user instance with tenant and storage network:
| f7d4e619-c8f5-4de3-a4c3-4120eea818d1 | Server1 | ACTIVE | -
| Running | default-net=192.168.2.107, 192.168.24.100;
storage=172.16.1.110 |

The obstacle I'm hitting though is that the second interface with
storage network doesn't come up automatically on instance boot:
3: eth1:  mtu 1500 qdisc noop state DOWN group
default qlen 1000
link/ether 

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][manila] Ganesha deployment

2017-04-11 Thread Ben Nemec



On 04/11/2017 02:00 PM, Giulio Fidente wrote:

On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 16:50 +0200, Jan Provaznik wrote:

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Ben Nemec 
wrote:

On 04/10/2017 03:22 AM, Jan Provaznik wrote:
Well, on second thought it might be possible to make the Storage
network
only routable within overcloud Neutron by adding a bridge mapping
for the
Storage network and having the admin configure a shared Neutron
network for
it.  That would be somewhat more secure since it wouldn't require
the
Storage network to be routable by the world.  I also think this
would work
today in TripleO with no changes.



This sounds interesting, I was searching for more info how bridge
mapping should be done in this case and how specific setup steps
should look like, but the process is still not clear to me, I would
be
grateful for more details/guidance with this.


I think this will be represented in neutron as a provider network,
which has to be created by the overcloud admin, after the overcloud
deployment is finished

While based on Kilo, this was one of the best docs I could find and it
includes config examples [1]

It assumes that the operator created a bridge mapping for it when
deploying the overcloud


I think the answer here will be the same as for vanilla Ceph.  You
need to
make the network routable to instances, and you'd have the same
options as I
discussed above.



Yes, it seems that using the mapping to provider network would solve
the existing problem when using ceph directly and when using ganesha
servers in future (it would be just matter of to which network is
exposed).


+1

regarding the composability questions, I think this represents a
"composable HA" scenario where we want to manage a remote service with
pacemaker using pacemaker-remote

yet at this stage I think we want to add support for new services by
running them in containers first (only?) and pacemaker+containers is
still a work in progress so there aren't easy answers

containers will have access to the host networks though, so the case
for a provider network in the overcloud remains valid

1. https://docs.openstack.org/kilo/networking-guide/scenario_provider_o
vs.html



I think there are three major pieces that would need to be in place to 
have a storage provider network:


1) The storage network must be bridged in the net-iso templates.  I 
don't think our default net-iso templates do that, but there are 
examples of bridged networks in them: 
https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/blob/master/network/config/multiple-nics/compute.yaml#L121 
 For the rest of the steps I will assume the bridge was named br-storage.


2) Specify a bridge mapping when deploying the overcloud.  The 
environment file would look something like this (datacentre is the 
default value, so I'm including it too):


parameter_defaults:
  NeutronBridgeMappings: 'datacentre:br-ex,storage:br-storage'

3) Create a provider network after deployment as described in the link 
Giulio provided.  The specific command will depend on the network 
architecture, but it would need to include "--provider:physical_network 
storage".


We might need to add the ability to do 3 as part of the deployment, 
depending what is needed for the Ganesha deployment itself.  We've 
typically avoided creating network resources like this in the deployment 
because of the huge variations in what people want, but this might be an 
exceptional case since the network will be a required part of the overcloud.


__
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] [tripleo][manila] Ganesha deployment

2017-04-11 Thread Giulio Fidente
On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 16:50 +0200, Jan Provaznik wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Ben Nemec 
> wrote:
> > On 04/10/2017 03:22 AM, Jan Provaznik wrote:
> > Well, on second thought it might be possible to make the Storage
> > network
> > only routable within overcloud Neutron by adding a bridge mapping
> > for the
> > Storage network and having the admin configure a shared Neutron
> > network for
> > it.  That would be somewhat more secure since it wouldn't require
> > the
> > Storage network to be routable by the world.  I also think this
> > would work
> > today in TripleO with no changes.
> > 
> 
> This sounds interesting, I was searching for more info how bridge
> mapping should be done in this case and how specific setup steps
> should look like, but the process is still not clear to me, I would
> be
> grateful for more details/guidance with this.

I think this will be represented in neutron as a provider network,
which has to be created by the overcloud admin, after the overcloud
deployment is finished

While based on Kilo, this was one of the best docs I could find and it
includes config examples [1]

It assumes that the operator created a bridge mapping for it when
deploying the overcloud

> > I think the answer here will be the same as for vanilla Ceph.  You
> > need to
> > make the network routable to instances, and you'd have the same
> > options as I
> > discussed above.
> > 
> 
> Yes, it seems that using the mapping to provider network would solve
> the existing problem when using ceph directly and when using ganesha
> servers in future (it would be just matter of to which network is
> exposed).

+1

regarding the composability questions, I think this represents a
"composable HA" scenario where we want to manage a remote service with
pacemaker using pacemaker-remote

yet at this stage I think we want to add support for new services by
running them in containers first (only?) and pacemaker+containers is
still a work in progress so there aren't easy answers

containers will have access to the host networks though, so the case
for a provider network in the overcloud remains valid

1. https://docs.openstack.org/kilo/networking-guide/scenario_provider_o
vs.html
-- 
Giulio Fidente
GPG KEY: 08D733BA

__
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] [tripleo][manila] Ganesha deployment

2017-04-11 Thread Jan Provaznik
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Ben Nemec  wrote:
> I'm not really an expert on composable roles so I'll leave that to someone
> else, but see my thoughts inline on the networking aspect.
>
> On 04/10/2017 03:22 AM, Jan Provaznik wrote:
>>
>> 2) define a new VIP (for IP failover) and 2 networks for NfsStorage role:
>> a) a frontend network between users and ganesha servers (e.g.
>> NfsNetwork name), used by tenants to mount nfs shares - this network
>> should be accessible from user instances.
>
>
> Adding a new network is non-trivial today, so I think we want to avoid that
> if possible.  Is there a reason the Storage network couldn't be used for
> this?  That is already present on compute nodes by default so it would be
> available to user instances, and it seems like the intended use of the
> Storage network matches this use case.  In a Ceph deployment today that's
> the network which exposes data to user instances.
>

Access to the ceph public network (StorageNetwork) is a big privilege
(from discussing this with ceph team), bigger than accessing only
ganesha nfs servers, so StorageNetwork should be exposed only when
really necessary.

>> b) a backend network between ganesha servers ans ceph cluster -
>> this could just map to the existing StorageNetwork I think.
>
>
> This actually sounds like a better fit for StorageMgmt to me.  It's
> non-user-facing storage communication, which is what StorageMgmt is used for
> in the vanilla Ceph case.
>

If StorageMgmt is used for replication and internal ceph nodes
communication, I wonder if it's not too permissive access? Ganesha
servers should need access ti ceph public network only.

>> What i'm not sure at all is how network definition should look like.
>> There are following Overcloud deployment options:
>> 1) no network isolation is used - then both direct ceph mount and
>> mount through ganesha should work because StorageNetwork and
>> NfsNetwork are accessible from user instances (there is no restriction
>> in accessing other networks it seems).
>
>
> There are no other networks without network-isolation.  Everything runs over
> the provisioning network.  The network-isolation templates should mostly
> handle this for you though.
>
>> 2) network isolation is used:
>> a) ceph is used directly - user instances need access to the ceph
>> public network (which is StorageNetwork in Overcloud) - how should I
>> enable access to this network? I filled a bug for this deployment
>> variant here [3]
>
>
> So does this mean that the current manila implementation is completely
> broken in network-isolation?  If so, that's rather concerning.
>

This affects deployments of manila with internal (=deployed by
TripleO) ceph backend.

> If I'm understanding correctly, it sounds like what needs to happen is to
> make the Storage network routable so it's available from user instances.
> That's not actually something TripleO can do, it's an underlying
> infrastructure thing.  I'm not sure what the security implications of it are
> either.
>
> Well, on second thought it might be possible to make the Storage network
> only routable within overcloud Neutron by adding a bridge mapping for the
> Storage network and having the admin configure a shared Neutron network for
> it.  That would be somewhat more secure since it wouldn't require the
> Storage network to be routable by the world.  I also think this would work
> today in TripleO with no changes.
>

This sounds interesting, I was searching for more info how bridge
mapping should be done in this case and how specific setup steps
should look like, but the process is still not clear to me, I would be
grateful for more details/guidance with this.

> Alternatively I guess you could use ServiceNetMap to move the public Ceph
> traffic to the public network, which has to be routable.  That seems like it
> might have a detrimental effect on the public network's capacity, but it
> might be okay in some instances.
>

I would rather avoid this option (both because of network traffic and
because of exposing ceph public network to everybody).

>> b) ceph is used through ganesha - user instances need access to
>> ganesha servers (NfsNetwork in previous paragraph) - how should I
>> enable access to this network?
>
>
> I think the answer here will be the same as for vanilla Ceph.  You need to
> make the network routable to instances, and you'd have the same options as I
> discussed above.
>

Yes, it seems that using the mapping to provider network would solve
the existing problem when using ceph directly and when using ganesha
servers in future (it would be just matter of to which network is
exposed).

>>
>> The ultimate (and future) plan is to deploy ganesha-nfs in VMs (which
>> will run in Overcloud, probably managed by manila ceph driver), in
>> this deployment mode a user should have access to ganesha servers and
>> only ganesha server VMs should have access to ceph public network.
>> Ganesha VMs 

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][manila] Ganesha deployment

2017-04-10 Thread Ben Nemec
I'm not really an expert on composable roles so I'll leave that to 
someone else, but see my thoughts inline on the networking aspect.


On 04/10/2017 03:22 AM, Jan Provaznik wrote:

2) define a new VIP (for IP failover) and 2 networks for NfsStorage role:
a) a frontend network between users and ganesha servers (e.g.
NfsNetwork name), used by tenants to mount nfs shares - this network
should be accessible from user instances.


Adding a new network is non-trivial today, so I think we want to avoid 
that if possible.  Is there a reason the Storage network couldn't be 
used for this?  That is already present on compute nodes by default so 
it would be available to user instances, and it seems like the intended 
use of the Storage network matches this use case.  In a Ceph deployment 
today that's the network which exposes data to user instances.



b) a backend network between ganesha servers ans ceph cluster -
this could just map to the existing StorageNetwork I think.


This actually sounds like a better fit for StorageMgmt to me.  It's 
non-user-facing storage communication, which is what StorageMgmt is used 
for in the vanilla Ceph case.



What i'm not sure at all is how network definition should look like.
There are following Overcloud deployment options:
1) no network isolation is used - then both direct ceph mount and
mount through ganesha should work because StorageNetwork and
NfsNetwork are accessible from user instances (there is no restriction
in accessing other networks it seems).


There are no other networks without network-isolation.  Everything runs 
over the provisioning network.  The network-isolation templates should 
mostly handle this for you though.



2) network isolation is used:
a) ceph is used directly - user instances need access to the ceph
public network (which is StorageNetwork in Overcloud) - how should I
enable access to this network? I filled a bug for this deployment
variant here [3]


So does this mean that the current manila implementation is completely 
broken in network-isolation?  If so, that's rather concerning.


If I'm understanding correctly, it sounds like what needs to happen is 
to make the Storage network routable so it's available from user 
instances.  That's not actually something TripleO can do, it's an 
underlying infrastructure thing.  I'm not sure what the security 
implications of it are either.


Well, on second thought it might be possible to make the Storage network 
only routable within overcloud Neutron by adding a bridge mapping for 
the Storage network and having the admin configure a shared Neutron 
network for it.  That would be somewhat more secure since it wouldn't 
require the Storage network to be routable by the world.  I also think 
this would work today in TripleO with no changes.


Alternatively I guess you could use ServiceNetMap to move the public 
Ceph traffic to the public network, which has to be routable.  That 
seems like it might have a detrimental effect on the public network's 
capacity, but it might be okay in some instances.



b) ceph is used through ganesha - user instances need access to
ganesha servers (NfsNetwork in previous paragraph) - how should I
enable access to this network?


I think the answer here will be the same as for vanilla Ceph.  You need 
to make the network routable to instances, and you'd have the same 
options as I discussed above.




The ultimate (and future) plan is to deploy ganesha-nfs in VMs (which
will run in Overcloud, probably managed by manila ceph driver), in
this deployment mode a user should have access to ganesha servers and
only ganesha server VMs should have access to ceph public network.
Ganesha VMs would run in a separate tenant so I wonder if it's
possible to manage access to the ceph public network (StorageNetwork
in Overcloud) on per-tenant level?


This would suggest that the bridged Storage network approach is the 
best.  In that case access to the ceph public network is controlled by 
the overcloud Neutron, so you would just need to only give access to it 
to the tenant running the Ganesha VMs.  User VMs would only get access 
to a separate shared network providing access to the public Ganesha API, 
and the Ganesha VMs would straddle both networks.




Any thoughts and hints?

Thanks, Jan

[1] https://github.com/nfs-ganesha/nfs-ganesha/wiki
[2] https://github.com/ceph/ceph-ansible/tree/master/roles/ceph-nfs
[3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/tripleo/+bug/1680749


__
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