[Openstack-operators] [Neutron] User feedback track: end user and operator pain points - report

Hi all, We had a productive session with operators at the summit [1]. I wanted to be sure to go over the notes while they were fresh in my mind. Some of the issues still need some discussion... Probably the most contentious issue was that of creating HA routers when there aren't enough agents

Re: [Openstack-operators] Anyone else use vendordata_driver in nova.conf?

For a tenant though, I may not want to have to write user-data to bind every thing I launch through horizon's nova workflow, heat, sahara, etc. Just having one place to put the hook and its always called has some major advantages. Thanks, Kevin From:

Re: [Openstack-operators] Anyone else use vendordata_driver in nova.conf?

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > > I think I see at least one use case for minimum 2 hooks... > > Cloud provider wants to inject some stuff. > > Cloud tenant wants their own hook called to inject stuff to point to the > Config Management server in their

[Openstack-operators] [nova][scheduler] please review nova sched logging proposal

Hi all, There's a proposal for improving the nova scheduler logs up at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/306647/ If you would like to be able to more easily determine why no valid host was found, please review the proposal and leave feedback. Thanks, Chris

Re: [Openstack-operators] Anyone else use vendordata_driver in nova.conf?

Depends on what its used for... I can see it potentially being used with Chef or Puppet, for calling hooks into AD to bind to a domain. etc. Probably at the same time. We use it with our keyserver (something similar to Barbican but created before Barbican was a thing) to relay trust info

Re: [Openstack-operators] Anyone else use vendordata_driver in nova.conf?

Hey, I just wanted to let people know that the review is progressing, but we have a question. Do operators really need to call more than one external REST service to collect vendordata? We can implement that in nova, but it would be nice to reduce the complexity to only having one external REST

Re: [Openstack-operators] User Survey usage of QEMU (as opposed to KVM) ?

On 3 May 2016 at 10:01, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > Hello Operators, > > One of the things that constantly puzzles me when reading the user > survey results wrt hypervisor is the high number of respondants > claiming to be using QEMU (as distinct from KVM). > > As a

Re: [Openstack-operators] User Survey usage of QEMU (as opposed to KVM) ?

what you should be looking for is hvm. On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Maish Saidel-Keesing wrote: > I would think that the problem is that OpenStack does not really report > back that you are using KVM - it reports that you are using QEMU. > > Even when in nova.conf I have

Re: [Openstack-operators] User Survey usage of QEMU (as opposed to KVM) ?

I would think that the problem is that OpenStack does not really report back that you are using KVM - it reports that you are using QEMU. Even when in nova.conf I have configured virt_type=kvm, when I run nova hypervisor-show XXX | grep hypervisor_type I am presented with the following |

Re: [Openstack-operators] Debug logging

As Matt discussed, there is a push to better identify debug messages (and the packages) that are important to operators. In a subsequent session it was discussed about creating etherpads to make it easier to identify DEBUG messages that are in use and important for analysis, and for ease of

Re: [Openstack-operators] User Survey usage of QEMU (as opposed to KVM) ?

So forgive my lack of kvm/qemu knowledge but I couldn’t find anything on Google on this. If you deployed an instance of a different architecture than the physical CPU, wouldn’t qemu just emulate the processor (if you were in virt_type=kvm) mode, or would libvirt throw some error? Thanks, Jared

[Openstack-operators] [osops] OSOps Meeting - Tomorrow 2016-05-04 1900 UTC

Everyone, The OSOps group will be having their next meeting tomorrow May 4th, 2016 at 1900 UTC. It will be hosted in the #openstack-meeting-4 room. The agenda has been added to the etherpad and wiki. You can find that here. [1] The primary goal is to follow-up on the discussions that we had at

Re: [Openstack-operators] User Survey usage of QEMU (as opposed to KVM) ?

On 5/3/2016 10:01 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: Hello Operators, One of the things that constantly puzzles me when reading the user survey results wrt hypervisor is the high number of respondants claiming to be using QEMU (as distinct from KVM). As a reminder, in Nova saying virt_type=qemu

Re: [Openstack-operators] User Survey usage of QEMU (as opposed to KVM) ?

The only reason I can think of is that they are doing nested VMs and don't have the right nesting flag enabled in their base flag. On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > Hello Operators, > > One of the things that constantly puzzles me when reading the

[Openstack-operators] User Survey usage of QEMU (as opposed to KVM) ?

Hello Operators, One of the things that constantly puzzles me when reading the user survey results wrt hypervisor is the high number of respondants claiming to be using QEMU (as distinct from KVM). As a reminder, in Nova saying virt_type=qemu causes Nova to use plain QEMU with pure CPU emulation

[Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators] [fuel] fuel-mirror

Hello world! Using FUEL release 8 and in specific fuel-mirror to create a local Ubuntu & OpenStack repository. Is there a feature which can validate that all mandatory packages have been downloaded successfully and that a new IaaS can be commissioned without any issue? Or any other solution -

[Openstack-operators] [puppet] complete this 1 minute survey if you're Puppet OpenStack user

http://goo.gl/forms/7VYibKHx1c We would like to gather feedback of what our users are running, so we can improve our CI and update the versions of Puppet / Ruby / Operating Systems that we're gating. Thanks a lot for your time, -- Emilien Macchi ___

Re: [Openstack-operators] Swift ACL's together with Keystone (v3) integration

Hi Saverio, Yes, in the end I was able to get it working! The issue was related to my proxy server pipeline config (filter:authtoken). I did not find pointers to updated documentation though. When I had updated the [filter:authtoken] configuration in /etc/swift/proxy-server.conf,

Re: [Openstack-operators] Swift ACL's together with Keystone (v3) integration

Hello Pieter, I did run into the same problem today. Did you find pointers to more updated documentation ? Were you able to configure the cross tenant read ACL ? thank you Saverio 2016-04-20 13:48 GMT+02:00 Wijngaarden, Pieter van : > Hi all, > > I’m

Re: [Openstack-operators] [scientific][accounting] Resource management

Thanks Tim, this is a great read and sets out CERN’s experience and use cases for enhanced accounting very well. Best wishes, Stig > On 2 May 2016, at 18:02, Tim Bell wrote: > > > Following the discussions last week, I have put down a blog on how CERN does > it’s resource