[Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators] Ops Midcycle March 2017 Results

[Melvin Hillsman]

Hey everyone!

We want to thank all of you who took time to submit your opinion for the 
upcoming Ops Mid-cycle in March 2017. We left the decision up to the 
community - as we should - and you all decided that Milano, Italy is it! 
Results are as follows: [ http://doodle.com/poll/e7fcfhsf4s8cupyi ]



Tokyo, JapanMilano, Italy
Yes
58
66
Ifneedbe
10
7
No
55
50

We had quite a bit more response than from the last meetup and are glad 
to see the growth in participation. We will be providing more details in 
the coming days so please be sure to be on the lookout for updates. 
Thank you all again on behalf of the Ops Meetups Team! 
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Ops_Meetups_Team


--
Kind regards,

Melvin Hillsman
Ops Technical Lead
OpenStack Innovation Center
 
mrhills...@gmail.com

mobile: (210) 413-1659
office: (210) 312-1267
Learner | Ideation | Belief | Responsibility | Command
http://osic.org

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

[Openstack-operators] [telecom-nfv] Meeting #13 tomorrow

[Curtis]

Hi All,

Our 13th meeting will be tomorrow at 15:00 UTC. We'll talk about and
firm up some actions in terms of what we discussed last week, and
anything else we need to get done. :)

Hope to see you there!

Feel free to add to the agenda [1].

Thanks,
Curtis.

[1]: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ops-telco-nfv-meeting-agenda

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [publicClouds-wg] Public Cloud Working Group

[James Dempsey]

Sign me up.

-James

On 15/11/16 23:43, matt Jarvis wrote:
> So after input from a variety of sources over the last few weeks, I'd
> very much like to try and put together a public cloud working group,
> with the very high level goal of representing the interests of the
> public cloud provider community around the globe. 
> 
> I'd like to propose that, in line with the new process for creation of
> working groups, we set up some initial IRC meetings for all interested
> parties. The goals for these initial meetings would be :
> 
> 1. Define the overall scope and mission statement for the working group
> 2. Set out the constituency for the group - communication methods,
> definitions of public clouds, meeting schedules, chairs etc.
> 3. Identify areas of interest - eg. technical issues, collaboration
> opportunities
> 
> Before I go ahead and schedule first meetings, I'd very much like to
> gather input from the community on interested parties, and if this seems
> like a reasonable first step forward. My thought initially was to
> schedule a first meeting on #openstack-operators and then decide on best
> timings, locations and communication methods from there, but again I'd
> welcome input. 
> 
> At this point it would seem to me that one of the key metrics for this
> working group to be successful is participation as widely as possible
> within the public cloud provider community, currently approximately 21
> companies globally according
> to https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/public-clouds/. If we could get
> representation from all of those companies in any potential working
> group, then that would clearly be the best outcome, although that may be
> optimistic ! As has become clear at recent Ops events, it may be that
> not all of those companies are represented on these lists, so I'd
> welcome any input on the best way to reach out to those folks. 
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> 

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [publicClouds-wg] Public Cloud Working Group

[Matthew Czajka]

I as well would be pretty interested

-Matt

On 2016-11-15, 7:41 AM, "Tobias Schön"  wrote:

>This sounds very interesting indeed, i'll join up on that aswell!
>
>//Tobias
>
>-Ursprungligt meddelande-
>Från: Mohammed Naser [mailto:mna...@vexxhost.com]
>Skickat: den 15 november 2016 16:30
>Till: m...@mattjarvis.org.uk
>Kopia: OpenStack Operators; user-committee
>Ämne: Re: [Openstack-operators] [publicClouds-wg] Public Cloud Working
>Group
>
>This sounds very interesting, put us down! :)
>
>On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:43 AM, matt Jarvis 
>wrote:
>> So after input from a variety of sources over the last few weeks, I'd
>> very much like to try and put together a public cloud working group,
>> with the very high level goal of representing the interests of the
>> public cloud provider community around the globe.
>>
>> I'd like to propose that, in line with the new process for creation of
>> working groups, we set up some initial IRC meetings for all interested
>> parties. The goals for these initial meetings would be :
>>
>> 1. Define the overall scope and mission statement for the working
>> group 2. Set out the constituency for the group - communication
>> methods, definitions of public clouds, meeting schedules, chairs etc.
>> 3. Identify areas of interest - eg. technical issues, collaboration
>> opportunities
>>
>> Before I go ahead and schedule first meetings, I'd very much like to
>> gather input from the community on interested parties, and if this
>> seems like a reasonable first step forward. My thought initially was
>> to schedule a first meeting on #openstack-operators and then decide on
>> best timings, locations and communication methods from there, but again
>>I'd welcome input.
>>
>> At this point it would seem to me that one of the key metrics for this
>> working group to be successful is participation as widely as possible
>> within the public cloud provider community, currently approximately 21
>> companies globally according to
>>https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/public-clouds/.
>> If we could get representation from all of those companies in any
>> potential working group, then that would clearly be the best outcome,
>> although that may be optimistic ! As has become clear at recent Ops
>> events, it may be that not all of those companies are represented on
>> these lists, so I'd welcome any input on the best way to reach out to
>>those folks.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operator
>> s
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Mohammed Naser ‹ vexxhost
>-
>D. 514-316-8872
>D. 800-910-1726 ext. 200
>E. mna...@vexxhost.com
>W. http://vexxhost.com
>
>___
>OpenStack-operators mailing list
>OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>___
>OpenStack-operators mailing list
>OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators


___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

[Openstack-operators] Using Openstack-ansible to deploy hosts on mutliple br-vxlan/br-vlan/br-provider/br-mgmt l3 networks

[bpetit]

Hi,

I would like to deploy OpenStack (newton) on multiple management, 
overlay and vlan/uplink l3 networks, thanks to Openstack-Ansible.
In other words, I would like to deploy Openstack on multiple compute and 
controller nodes that are on different subnets, assuming I do the 
routing configuration to permit to management network 1 to communicate 
with management network n, overlay network 1 to overlay network n, 
etc...


I attached a sample schema to illustrate my statement.

To sum up, in this case a compute or controller node which is on 
management network 10.0.1.0/24 via br-mgmt can communicate with br-mgmt 
of another compute node on management network 10.1.1.0/24. The same is 
true from overlay network 10.0.2.0/24 to overlay network 10.1.2.0/24, 
etc...


Am I wrong if I understand that OSA is designed to handle only 1 
mangement subnet, 1 overlay subnet, etc... (storage subnet, ...) ?


During my tests, specifying compute hosts in different networks, in 
openstack_user_config.yml, results in the apparently correct setup of 
the compute host "compute3" (Having previously setup correct static 
route on each hypervisors):


compute_hosts:
  compute1:
ip: 10.0.1.4
  compute2:
ip: 10.0.1.5
  compute3:
ip: 10.1.1.4

However, how to deal with it in cidr_networks: ? (I assume I can't now). 
During my tests, an example of what's lacking was that I had to manually 
configure static routes in the neutron_agents_container lxc provisionned 
by OSA.


Is that kind of deployment possible ? If not possible, is this or could 
this be in the roadmap of the project ?


Thanks,

Benoit Petit


___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [publicClouds-wg] Public Cloud Working Group

[Tobias Schön]

This sounds very interesting indeed, i'll join up on that aswell!

//Tobias

-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Mohammed Naser [mailto:mna...@vexxhost.com] 
Skickat: den 15 november 2016 16:30
Till: m...@mattjarvis.org.uk
Kopia: OpenStack Operators; user-committee
Ämne: Re: [Openstack-operators] [publicClouds-wg] Public Cloud Working Group

This sounds very interesting, put us down! :)

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:43 AM, matt Jarvis  wrote:
> So after input from a variety of sources over the last few weeks, I'd 
> very much like to try and put together a public cloud working group, 
> with the very high level goal of representing the interests of the 
> public cloud provider community around the globe.
>
> I'd like to propose that, in line with the new process for creation of 
> working groups, we set up some initial IRC meetings for all interested 
> parties. The goals for these initial meetings would be :
>
> 1. Define the overall scope and mission statement for the working 
> group 2. Set out the constituency for the group - communication 
> methods, definitions of public clouds, meeting schedules, chairs etc.
> 3. Identify areas of interest - eg. technical issues, collaboration 
> opportunities
>
> Before I go ahead and schedule first meetings, I'd very much like to 
> gather input from the community on interested parties, and if this 
> seems like a reasonable first step forward. My thought initially was 
> to schedule a first meeting on #openstack-operators and then decide on 
> best timings, locations and communication methods from there, but again I'd 
> welcome input.
>
> At this point it would seem to me that one of the key metrics for this 
> working group to be successful is participation as widely as possible 
> within the public cloud provider community, currently approximately 21 
> companies globally according to 
> https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/public-clouds/.
> If we could get representation from all of those companies in any 
> potential working group, then that would clearly be the best outcome, 
> although that may be optimistic ! As has become clear at recent Ops 
> events, it may be that not all of those companies are represented on 
> these lists, so I'd welcome any input on the best way to reach out to those 
> folks.
>
> Matt
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operator
> s
>



--
Mohammed Naser — vexxhost
-
D. 514-316-8872
D. 800-910-1726 ext. 200
E. mna...@vexxhost.com
W. http://vexxhost.com

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [publicClouds-wg] Public Cloud Working Group

[Mohammed Naser]

This sounds very interesting, put us down! :)

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:43 AM, matt Jarvis  wrote:
> So after input from a variety of sources over the last few weeks, I'd very
> much like to try and put together a public cloud working group, with the
> very high level goal of representing the interests of the public cloud
> provider community around the globe.
>
> I'd like to propose that, in line with the new process for creation of
> working groups, we set up some initial IRC meetings for all interested
> parties. The goals for these initial meetings would be :
>
> 1. Define the overall scope and mission statement for the working group
> 2. Set out the constituency for the group - communication methods,
> definitions of public clouds, meeting schedules, chairs etc.
> 3. Identify areas of interest - eg. technical issues, collaboration
> opportunities
>
> Before I go ahead and schedule first meetings, I'd very much like to gather
> input from the community on interested parties, and if this seems like a
> reasonable first step forward. My thought initially was to schedule a first
> meeting on #openstack-operators and then decide on best timings, locations
> and communication methods from there, but again I'd welcome input.
>
> At this point it would seem to me that one of the key metrics for this
> working group to be successful is participation as widely as possible within
> the public cloud provider community, currently approximately 21 companies
> globally according to https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/public-clouds/.
> If we could get representation from all of those companies in any potential
> working group, then that would clearly be the best outcome, although that
> may be optimistic ! As has become clear at recent Ops events, it may be that
> not all of those companies are represented on these lists, so I'd welcome
> any input on the best way to reach out to those folks.
>
> Matt
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>



-- 
Mohammed Naser — vexxhost
-
D. 514-316-8872
D. 800-910-1726 ext. 200
E. mna...@vexxhost.com
W. http://vexxhost.com

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

[Openstack-operators] [Performance] No meeting today

[Dina Belova]

Folks,

sadly I have to cancel today's Performance Team meeting. The next one will
be held next week on Tuesday (at usual time

).

Sorry for inconvenience.

Cheers,
Dina

-- 
*Dina Belova*
*Senior Software Engineer*
Mirantis, Inc.
525 Almanor Avenue, 4th Floor
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
*Email: dbel...@mirantis.com *
www.mirantis.com

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][openstack-dev][openstack-ansible]deploying mutli-node openstack on baremetal nodes

[Andy McCrae]

Hi Akshay,

If I understand correctly, you're looking to deploy the services on metal
hosts (rather than in containers) - in that case you would need to adjust
the env.d/*.yml (service files) to set the property "is_metal: True".
The second query regarding multiple VLans - if you are using pre-existing
hosts, you would pre-configure those with the appropriate network/IPs etc -
per host, and then specify them in your user_config.yml.

If you're running into problems or need more information (which I'm sure
you do!), jump into the #openstack-ansible channel on freenode IRC, it's a
lot easier to offer help there (and there are quite a few people who are
usually around and willing to help). It's difficult to understand your full
use-case and what you're trying to achieve from a single email.

Cheers,
Andy

On 15 November 2016 at 11:09, Akshay Kumar Sanghai <
akshaykumarsang...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> I want to deploy openstack using openstack-ansilbe. I am having difficulty
> in understanding where to define baremetal host deployment and how to
> define multiple vlans that can be used to separate the networks(mgmt,
> tunnel, external). I went through  http://docs.openstack.org/
> developer/openstack-ansible/install-guide/app-custom-
> layouts.html#deploy-existing-components-on-dedicated-hosts
>
> Do i have to create service.yml for all services to specify them to
> directly run on hosts?
>
> Thanks
> AKshay
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

[Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][openstack-dev][openstack-ansible]deploying mutli-node openstack on baremetal nodes

[Akshay Kumar Sanghai]

Hi,
I want to deploy openstack using openstack-ansilbe. I am having difficulty
in understanding where to define baremetal host deployment and how to
define multiple vlans that can be used to separate the networks(mgmt,
tunnel, external). I went through
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/openstack-ansible/install-guide/app-custom-layouts.html#deploy-existing-components-on-dedicated-hosts

Do i have to create service.yml for all services to specify them to
directly run on hosts?

Thanks
AKshay
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

[Openstack-operators] [publicClouds-wg] Public Cloud Working Group

[matt Jarvis]

So after input from a variety of sources over the last few weeks, I'd very
much like to try and put together a public cloud working group, with the
very high level goal of representing the interests of the public cloud
provider community around the globe.

I'd like to propose that, in line with the new process for creation of
working groups, we set up some initial IRC meetings for all interested
parties. The goals for these initial meetings would be :

1. Define the overall scope and mission statement for the working group
2. Set out the constituency for the group - communication methods,
definitions of public clouds, meeting schedules, chairs etc.
3. Identify areas of interest - eg. technical issues, collaboration
opportunities

Before I go ahead and schedule first meetings, I'd very much like to gather
input from the community on interested parties, and if this seems like a
reasonable first step forward. My thought initially was to schedule a first
meeting on #openstack-operators and then decide on best timings, locations
and communication methods from there, but again I'd welcome input.

At this point it would seem to me that one of the key metrics for this
working group to be successful is participation as widely as possible
within the public cloud provider community, currently approximately 21
companies globally according to
https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/public-clouds/. If we could get
representation from all of those companies in any potential working group,
then that would clearly be the best outcome, although that may be
optimistic ! As has become clear at recent Ops events, it may be that not
all of those companies are represented on these lists, so I'd welcome any
input on the best way to reach out to those folks.

Matt
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

[Openstack-operators] [ops-meetups] Weekly meeting reminder

[matt Jarvis]

Just a reminder our regular weekly meeting will be at 1400 UTC in
#openstack-operators. If you want to get involved in organising the Ops
MidCycles, join us there ! Also a final reminder that if you want to vote
on the location for the next MidCycle, the doodle poll will close today so
get voting ! http://doodle.com/poll/e7fcfhsf4s8cupyi

Matt
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators