Matt-
Yeah, clearly other projects have the same issuethis blueprint is
trying to solve in nova. I think the idea is that, once the
infrastructure is in place and nova has demonstrated the concept, other
projects can climbaboard.
It's conceivable that the new get_service_url() method could be
moved to a more common lib (ksaor os-client-config perhaps) in the
future to facilitate this.
Eric (efried)
On 05/01/2017 09:17 AM, Matthew Treinish wrote:
> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 05:00:17AM -0700, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>> On 28/04/17 11:19 -0500, Eric Fried wrote:
>>> If it's *just* glance we're making an exception for, I prefer #1 (don't
>>> deprecate/remove [glance]api_servers). It's way less code &
>>> infrastructure, and it discourages others from jumping on the
>>> multiple-endpoints bandwagon. If we provide endpoint_override_list
>>> (handwave), people will think it's okay to use it.
>>>
>>> Anyone aware of any other services that use multiple endpoints?
>> Probably a bit late but yeah, I think this makes sense. I'm not aware of
>> other
>> projects that have list of api_servers.
> I thought it was just nova too, but it turns out cinder has the same exact
> option as nova: (I hit this in my devstack patch trying to get glance deployed
> as a wsgi app)
>
> https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/d47eda3a3ba9971330b27beeeb471e2bc94575ca/cinder/common/config.py#L51-L55
>
> Although from what I can tell you don't have to set it and it will fallback to
> using the catalog, assuming you configured the catalog info for cinder:
>
> https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/19d07a1f394c905c23f109c1888c019da830b49e/cinder/image/glance.py#L117-L129
>
>
> -Matt Treinish
>
>
>>> On 04/28/2017 10:46 AM, Mike Dorman wrote:
>>>> Maybe we are talking about two different things here? I’m a bit confused.
>>>>
>>>> Our Glance config in nova.conf on HV’s looks like this:
>>>>
>>>> [glance]
>>>> api_servers=http://glance1:9292,http://glance2:9292,http://glance3:9292,http://glance4:9292
>>>> glance_api_insecure=True
>>>> glance_num_retries=4
>>>> glance_protocol=http
>>
>> FWIW, this feature is being used as intended. I'm sure there are ways to
>> achieve
>> this using external tools like haproxy/nginx but that adds an extra burden to
>> OPs that is probably not necessary since this functionality is already there.
>>
>> Flavio
>>
>>>> So we do provide the full URLs, and there is SSL support. Right? I am
>>>> fairly certain we tested this to ensure that if one URL fails, nova goes
>>>> on to retry the next one. That failure does not get bubbled up to the
>>>> user (which is ultimately the goal.)
>>>>
>>>> I don’t disagree with you that the client side choose-a-server-at-random
>>>> is not a great load balancer. (But isn’t this roughly the same thing that
>>>> oslo-messaging does when we give it a list of RMQ servers?) For us it’s
>>>> more about the failure handling if one is down than it is about actually
>>>> equally distributing the load.
>>>>
>>>> In my mind options One and Two are the same, since today we are already
>>>> providing full URLs and not only server names. At the end of the day, I
>>>> don’t feel like there is a compelling argument here to remove this
>>>> functionality (that people are actively making use of.)
>>>>
>>>> To be clear, I, and I think others, are fine with nova by default getting
>>>> the Glance endpoint from Keystone. And that in Keystone there should
>>>> exist only one Glance endpoint. What I’d like to see remain is the
>>>> ability to override that for nova-compute and to target more than one
>>>> Glance URL for purposes of fail over.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/28/17, 8:20 AM, "Monty Taylor" <mord...@inaugust.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you both for your feedback - that's really helpful.
>>>>
>>>> Let me say a few more words about what we're trying to accomplish here
>>>> overall so that maybe we can figure out what the right way forward is.
>>>> (it may be keeping the glance api servers setting, but let me at least
>>>> make the case real quick)
>>>>
>>>> From a 10,000 foot view, the thing we're trying to do is to get nova's
>>>> consumption of all of the OpenStack services it uses to be less
>>>> special.
>>>>
>>>> The clouds have catalogs which list information about the services -
>>>> public, admin and internal endpoints and whatnot - and then we're
>>>> asking
>>>> admins to not only register that information with the catalog, but to
>>>> also put it into the nova.conf. That means that any updating of that
>>>> info needs to be an API call to keystone and also a change to
>>>> nova.conf.
>>>> If we, on the other hand, use the catalog, then nova can pick up
>>>> changes
>>>> in real time as they're rolled out to the cloud - and there is
>>>> hopefully
>>>> a sane set of defaults we could choose (based on operator feedback like
>>>> what you've given) so that in most cases you don't have to tell nova
>>>> where to find glance _at_all_ becuase the cloud already knows where it
>>>> is. (nova would know to look in the catalog for the interal interface
>>>> of
>>>> the image service - for instance - there's no need to ask an operator
>>>> to
>>>> add to the config "what is the service_type of the image service we
>>>> should talk to" :) )
>>>>
>>>> Now - glance, and the thing you like that we don't - is especially
>>>> hairy
>>>> because of the api_servers list. The list, as you know, is just a list
>>>> of servers, not even of URLs. This means it's not possible to
>>>> configure
>>>> nova to talk to glance over SSL (which I know you said works for you,
>>>> but we'd like for people to be able to choose to SSL all their things)
>>>> We could add that, but it would be an additional pile of special
>>>> config.
>>>> Because of all of that, we also have to attempt to make working URLs
>>>> from what is usually a list of IP addresses. This is also clunky and
>>>> prone to failure.
>>>>
>>>> The implementation on the underside of the api_servers code is the
>>>> world's dumbest load balancer. It picks a server from the list at
>>>> random and uses it. There is no facility for dealing with a server in
>>>> the list that stops working or for allowing rolling upgrades like there
>>>> would with a real load-balancer across the set. If one of the API
>>>> servers goes away, we have no context to know that, so just some of
>>>> your
>>>> internal calls to glance fail.
>>>>
>>>> Those are the issues - basically:
>>>> - current config is special and fragile
>>>> - impossible to SSL
>>>> - unflexible/unpowerful de-facto software loadbalancer
>>>>
>>>> Now - as is often the case - it turns out the combo of those things is
>>>> working very well for you -so we need to adjust our thinking on the
>>>> topic a bit. Let me toss out some alternatives and see what you think:
>>>>
>>>> Alternative One - Do Both things
>>>>
>>>> We add the new "consume from catalog" and make it default. (and make it
>>>> default to consuming the internal interface by default) We have to do
>>>> that in parallel with the current glance api_servers setting anyway,
>>>> because of deprecation periods, so the code to support both approaches
>>>> will exist. Instead of then deprecating the api_servers list, we keep
>>>> it- but add a big doc warning listing the gotchas and limitations - but
>>>> for those folks for whom they are not an issue, you've got an out.
>>>>
>>>> Alternative Two - Hybrid Approach - optional list of URLs
>>>>
>>>> We go ahead and move to service config being the standard way one lists
>>>> how to consume a service from the catalog. One of the standard options
>>>> for consuming services is "endpoint_override" - which is a way an API
>>>> user can say "hi, please to ignore the catalog and use this endpoint
>>>> I've given you instead". The endpoint in question is a full URL, so
>>>> https/http and ports and whatnot are all handled properly.
>>>>
>>>> We add, in addition, an additional option "endpoint_override_list"
>>>> which
>>>> allows you to provide a list of URLs (not API servers) and if you
>>>> provide that option, we'll keep the logic of choosing one at random at
>>>> API call time. It's still a poor load balancer, and we'll still put
>>>> warnings in the docs about it not being a featureful load balancing
>>>> solution, but again would be available if needed.
>>>>
>>>> Alternative Three - We ignore you and give you docs
>>>>
>>>> I'm only including this because in the name of completeness. But we
>>>> could write a bunch of docs about a recommended way of putting your
>>>> internal endpoints in a load balancer and registering that with the
>>>> internal endpoint in keystone. (I would prefer to make the operators
>>>> happy, so let's say whatever vote I have is not for this option)
>>>>
>>>> Alternative Four - We update client libs to understand multiple values
>>>> from keystone for endpoints
>>>>
>>>> I _really_ don't like this one - as I think us doing dumb software
>>>> loadbalancing client side is prone to a ton of failures. BUT - right
>>>> now
>>>> the assumption when consuming endpoints from the catalog is that one
>>>> and
>>>> only one endpoint will be returned for a given
>>>> service_type/service_name/interface. Rather than special-casing the
>>>> url roundrobin in nova, we could move that round-robin to be in the
>>>> base
>>>> client library, update api consumption docs with round-robin
>>>> recommendations and then have you register the list of endpoints with
>>>> keystone.
>>>>
>>>> I know the keystone team has long been _very_ against using keystone as
>>>> a list of all the endpoints, and I agree with them. Putting it here for
>>>> sake of argument.
>>>>
>>>> Alternative Five - We update keystone to round-robin lists of endpoints
>>>>
>>>> Potentially even worse than four and even more unlikely given the
>>>> keystone team's feelings, but we could have keystone continue to only
>>>> return one endpoint, but have it do the round-robin selection at
>>>> catalog
>>>> generation time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry - you caught me in early morning brainstorm mode.
>>>>
>>>> I am neither nova core nor keystone core. BUT:
>>>>
>>>> I think honestly if adding a load balancer in front of your internal
>>>> endpoints is an undue burden and/or the usefulness of the lists
>>>> outweighs the limitations they have, we should go with One or Two. (I
>>>> think three through five are all terrible)
>>>>
>>>> My personal preference would be for Two - the round-robin code winds up
>>>> being the same logic in both cases, but at least in Two folks who want
>>>> to SSL all the way _can_, and it shouldn't be an undue extra burden on
>>>> those of you using the api_servers now. We also don't have to do the
>>>> funky things we currently have to do to turn the api_severs list into
>>>> workable URLs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 04/27/2017 11:50 PM, Blair Bethwaite wrote:
>>>> > We at Nectar are in the same boat as Mike. Our use-case is a little
>>>> > bit more about geo-distributed operations though - our Cells are in
>>>> > different States around the country, so the local glance-apis are
>>>> > particularly important for caching popular images close to the
>>>> > nova-computes. We consider these glance-apis as part of the
>>>> underlying
>>>> > cloud infra rather than user-facing, so I think we'd prefer not to
>>>> see
>>>> > them in the service-catalog returned to users either... is there
>>>> going
>>>> > to be a (standard) way to hide them?
>>>> >
>>>> > On 28 April 2017 at 09:15, Mike Dorman <mdor...@godaddy.com> wrote:
>>>> >> We make extensive use of the [glance]/api_servers list. We
>>>> configure that on hypervisors to direct them to Glance servers which are
>>>> more “local” network-wise (in order to reduce network traffic across
>>>> security zones/firewalls/etc.) This way nova-compute can fail over in
>>>> case one of the Glance servers in the list is down, without putting them
>>>> behind a load balancer. We also don’t run https for these “internal”
>>>> Glance calls, to save the overhead when transferring images.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> End-user calls to Glance DO go through a real load balancer and
>>>> then are distributed out to the Glance servers on the backend. From the
>>>> end-user’s perspective, I totally agree there should be one, and only one
>>>> URL.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> However, we would be disappointed to see the change you’re
>>>> suggesting implemented. We would lose the redundancy we get now by
>>>> providing a list. Or we would have to shunt all the calls through the
>>>> user-facing endpoint, which would generate a lot of extra traffic (in
>>>> places where we don’t want it) for image transfers.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>> >> Mike
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 4/27/17, 4:02 PM, "Matt Riedemann" <mriede...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 4/27/2017 4:52 PM, Eric Fried wrote:
>>>> >> > Y'all-
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > TL;DR: Does glance ever really need/use multiple endpoint
>>>> URLs?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > I'm working on bp use-service-catalog-for-endpoints[1],
>>>> which intends
>>>> >> > to deprecate disparate conf options in various groups, and
>>>> centralize
>>>> >> > acquisition of service endpoint URLs. The idea is to
>>>> introduce
>>>> >> > nova.utils.get_service_url(group) -- note singular 'url'.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > One affected conf option is [glance]api_servers[2], which
>>>> currently
>>>> >> > accepts a *list* of endpoint URLs. The new API will only
>>>> ever return *one*.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Thus, as planned, this blueprint will have the side effect
>>>> of
>>>> >> > deprecating support for multiple glance endpoint URLs in
>>>> Pike, and
>>>> >> > removing said support in Queens.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Some have asserted that there should only ever be one
>>>> endpoint URL for
>>>> >> > a given service_type/interface combo[3]. I'm fine with that
>>>> - it
>>>> >> > simplifies things quite a bit for the bp impl - but wanted to
>>>> make sure
>>>> >> > there were no loudly-dissenting opinions before we get too
>>>> far down this
>>>> >> > path.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > [1]
>>>> >> >
>>>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/use-service-catalog-for-endpoints
>>>> >> > [2]
>>>> >> >
>>>> https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/7e7bdb198ed6412273e22dea72e37a6371fce8bd/nova/conf/glance.py#L27-L37
>>>> >> > [3]
>>>> >> >
>>>> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-keystone/%23openstack-keystone.2017-04-27.log.html#t2017-04-27T20:38:29
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Thanks,
>>>> >> > Eric Fried (efried)
>>>> >> > .
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>> >> > 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-operators
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Matt
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>> >> 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-operators mailing list
>>>> >> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>>>> >>
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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-operators mailing list
>>> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>> --
>> @flaper87
>> Flavio Percoco
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
