Re: [Openstack] 答复: RFC: Rewritten libvirt driver XML generation

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:52:21AM +0800, wangsuyi640 wrote:
> Hi all:
> I tried kvm on my openstack on ubuntu11.10  with the libvirt.xml file as
> follows:

> Howerver, I want change the remote access method by spice, I simply changed
> the libvirt.xml as follows:
> 

[snip]

>  listen='0.0.0.0'/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, I just change  keymap='en-us' listen='0.0.0.0'/> to  autoport='yes' keymap='en-us' listen='0.0.0.0'/>   ,   But it called the
> error as follows:
> 
> libvirtError: internal error Process exited while reading console log
> output: char device redirected to /dev/pts/12
> TRACE: do_spice_init: starting 0.8.1
> TRACE: do_spice_init: statistics shm_open failed, Permission denied
> 
> I wish someone can give me some help! Thanks!

This problem is unrelated to the changes I made. If I had to guess
I'd say perhaps the AppArmour profile is not allowing QEMU to use SHM.
This is something you should probably report to the Ubuntu bug tracker
for QEMU

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com  -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org   -o-   http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Libvirt Snapshots

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 06:02:54PM -0800, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
> So I could use some specific feedback from kvm/libvirt folks on the following 
> questions:
> 
> a) is it safe to use qemu-img to create/delete a snapshot in a disk file that 
> libvirt is writing to.
> if not:
> b) is it safe to use qemu-img to delete a snapshot in a disk file that 
> libvirt is writing to but not actively using.
> if not:
> c) is it safe to use qemu-img to create/delete a snapshot in a disk file that 
> libvirt has an open file handle to.

Sadly, the answer is no to all those questions. For Qcow2 files, using
internal snapshots, you cannot make *any* changes to the qcow2 file,
while QEMU has it open. The reasons are that QEMU may have metadata
changes pending to the file which have not yet flushed to disk, and
second, creating/deleteing the snapshot with qemu-img may cause
metadat changes that QEMU won't be aware of. Either way you will likely
cause corruption of the qcow2 file.

For these reasons, QEMU provides monitor commands for snapshotting,
that libvirt uses whenever the guest is running. Libvirt will only
use qemu-img, if the the guest is offline.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com  -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org   -o-   http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] [CHEF] How to structure upstream OpenStack cookbooks?

[Rafael Durán Castañeda]

Hi,

Bearing in mind I'm no really a Chef expert:

On 03/09/2012 04:58 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:

Hi Stackers,

Specifically, these are the questions I'd like to discuss and get 
consensus on:


1) Do resources that set up non-production environments such as Swift 
All-in-One belong in the OpenStack Chef upstream cookbooks?
I think this kind of recipes help a lot new stackers and I can't see any 
reason for not include them.


2) Should the cookbook be called "swift" instead of "swift-aio", with 
the idea that the cookbook should be the top-most container of 
resources involved with a specific project?

I think so


3) Is it possible to have a "swift" cookbook and have resources 
underneath that allow a user to deploy either SAIO *or* into a 
multi-node production environment? If so, would the best practice be 
to create recipes for SAIO and recipes for each of the individual 
Swift servers (proxy, object, etc) that would be used in a production 
configuration?
I think if you split your cookbooks on small reusable components you can 
combine them so you get a SAIO, proxy, whatever with little or not 
extra effort


4) Instead of having an SAIO recipe in a swift cookbook, is it more 
appropriate to make a Chef *role* called swift-aio that would have a 
run list that contained a number of recipes in the swift cookbook for 
all the Swift servers plus rsync, loopback, etc?
I think this is good practice. As I said before having small reusable 
components you can combine them getting all what you need, and probably 
the best place for combining them is roles. You can of course include 
smaller cookbooks into bigger ones and get the same result, but I prefer 
role based.


HTH,
Rafael

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Openstack] speed up unittest in Nova

[Hengqing Hu]

Hi,

May not be the proper time to throw this out, but ...

Last few weeks I spend some time to speed up unittest in Nova.
Made some progress but need your help to improve.
Currently with the speed up, it takes 197 seconds for the whole unittest,
ideally it will take about 60 seconds.
Because there are some test cases that are not re-entrant for 
parellelized testing

that could be divide and conquered.

The idea behind these changes is to use bug-fixed multiprocess(a nose 
plugin)

for parrellelized testing.

Here are the changes:
https://review.openstack.org/5137
https://review.openstack.org/5138
https://review.openstack.org/5139


Paste shows the speed up(Test host is a virtual machine with 8 cpus):
original:
http://paste.openstack.org/show/7724/
boosted:
http://paste.openstack.org/show/7725/

Best Regards
Hengqing Hu

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Ubuntu 12.04 B1, Keystone (redux) + Service Catalogs

[Kevin Jackson]

Ah, sorry - didn't make myself clear.

I tried both token and user/pass approaches separately to see if one
approach worked and not another.  They were giving the same response.

Bug is https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/949904

Regards,

Kev

On 8 March 2012 19:09, Adam Gandelman  wrote:

>  Hey Kevin-
>
> Some stuff in-line
>
>
> On 03/08/2012 06:08 AM, Kevin Jackson wrote:
>
> Dear all,
> I've just installed Ubuntu 12.04 B1 with OpenStack from the Ubuntu repos.
>
>  I've set up keystone as per:
> https://github.com/uksysadmin/OpenStackInstaller/blob/essex/keystone-services.sh(which
>  I based on the
> keystone.openstack.org docs)
>
>
> Thanks for the handy script!
>
>
>
>  I have raised a bug under Keystone (though more than likely this could
> be a Ubuntu specific bug from this version), but reading on the mailing
> list, hints that others have gotten further perhaps.
>
>
> Bug #?
>
>
>
>  On setting up my environment vars (SERVICE_ENDPOINT, SERVICE_TOKEN) and
> trying --username and --password based auth to keystone I can view my
> endpoints, list users, roles, etc.
>
>
> I think you're confusing the two sets of credentials.  Currently,
> SERVICE_ENDPOINT + SERVICE_TOKEN are used to run admin commands against
> keystone (user-list, endpoint-create, etc)  With these set, all commands
> are run in admin context against the admin URL (ks_host:35357/v2.0/)
> User-level commands (catalog, token-get, discover, etc) require regular
> user credentials passed and auth_url set to the :5000/v2.0/ URL.  I believe
> the SERVICE_ENDPOINT + SERVICE_TOKEN environment variables override
> user-level credentials in keystone client, so if you're setting both you'll
> be hitting the admin URL which does not support the user-level stuff.
>
> I used your script to bootstrap a fresh keystone and things worked as
> expected as long as the two user environments are kept isolated.
>
> HTH,
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>  On trying to do the following I get problems:
>
>  $ keystone discover
>  root@openstack2:/etc/keystone# keystone discover
> No handlers could be found for logger "keystoneclient.client"
> No Keystone-compatible endpoint found
>
>  root@openstack2:/etc/keystone# keystone token-get
> 'Client' object has no attribute 'service_catalog'
>
>  root@openstack2:/etc/keystone# keystone catalog
> 'Client' object has no attribute 'service_catalog'
>
>  Any pointers in what I've done wrong will be super.
>
>  Cheers,
>
>  Kev
> --
> Kevin Jackson
> @itarchitectkev
>
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>


-- 
Kevin Jackson
@itarchitectkev
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Openstack] Doesn't service(endpoint) in keystone Essex4 associate with user(role)

[Han Chen]

Hi,

I am puzzled by the question described in the subject of the mail.

>From the DB in keystone E4,the table structure is shown as below.

service Field
-
id
type
extra


endpoint Field
-
id
region
service_id
extra


Obviously except for the field extra , service_id is the only association
between service and endpoint.
If there are others association between service&endpoint and user&role, the
ties shoud be stored in field extra.
But from the resource in official docs,I can not find it.
The extra in service table stores contents like "description", "name";
And the extra in endpoint table is like "adminurl", "internalurl",
"publicurl".

In fact  is it true that there is no association between service(endpoint)
and user(role)?
Can the extra field store contents different from above?

Will anyone help me or give me some hint?

Thanks.


Chen Han
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Google Summer of Code-2012

[hitesh wadekar]

Thanks Anne.

I will fill it and it looks cool.

Thanks,
Hitesh Wadekar



On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Anne Gentle  wrote:

> Thanks mentors for your ideas. I've compiled them into an ideas page
> that still needs more details including where the code lives and
> prerequisite knowledge so the students can make good decisions.
>
> http://wiki.openstack.org/GSoC2012/Ideas
>
> Russell and I are meeting tomorrow morning to complete the application.
>
> Please fill in the details in the above page prior to about 24 hours from
> now.
>
> Let's make it happen!
>
> Anne
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Russell Bryant  wrote:
> > On 03/06/2012 03:52 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >> Russell Bryant wrote:
> >>> On 03/05/2012 02:17 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
>  Okay, looks like the Mentoring organization application deadline is
>  this Friday, March 9th.
> 
>  What needs to be done in time to make this important deadline and how
>  can I help?
> >>>
> >>> We need some minimum number of mentors to volunteer to make the
> overhead
> >>> of participating in the program worthwhile.  That number is subjective
> >>> ... I'd say it would be nice to have at least 4 or 5 mentors volunteer.
> >>
> >> Yes, I think if we don't have at least 4 mentors and ~10 proposed ideas
> >> by Thursday morning, it's not worth rushing our application in.
> >
> > 6 mentors have signed up, so I think we should proceed.
> >
> > Anne and I can work on the application.  The other thing that should be
> > done is updating the existing wiki page to be the ideas page for
> > interested students.  Feel free to add any information that you think
> > interested students should know about working with OpenStack.
> >
> > --
> > Russell Bryant
> >
> > ___
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> > Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Openstack] Openstack with Xen

[Eduardo Nunes]

i want to use the another hypervisor, so i decide use Xen, how i can do
this?
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Openstack with Xen

[John Garbutt]

Hopefully this will help:
http://wiki.openstack.org/XenXCPAndXenServer

You can get started using DevStack:
http://wiki.openstack.org/XenServer/DevStack

Thanks,
John

From: openstack-bounces+john.garbutt=eu.citrix@lists.launchpad.net 
[mailto:openstack-bounces+john.garbutt=eu.citrix@lists.launchpad.net] On 
Behalf Of Eduardo Nunes
Sent: 09 March 2012 14:13
To: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: [Openstack] Openstack with Xen

i want to use the another hypervisor, so i decide use Xen, how i can do this?
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Openstack] Swift 1.4.7 released

[John Dickinson]

I'm happy to announce swift 1.4.7 has been released today.

Changelog: 


Full set of commits since the last release: 


Launchpad tracking page: 

A few important highlights for this release:

 - swift-stats-* tools have been fully depricated and removed in this release. 
They were renamed to swift-dispersion-* shortly after the openstack bexar 
release (in swift 1.4.0).
 - there are some bug fixes in this release that solve a problem of durability 
in large accounts and containers
 - the swift CLI tool now supports the common openstack command line arguments 
for auth

As always, you can upgrade running clusters to this release with now downtime 
or customer impact.

--John

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Libvirt Snapshots

[Soren Hansen]

2012/3/9 Vishvananda Ishaya :
> OPTION B --> libvirt 9.5 snapshots
>
> This method uses the newer snapshot xml in libvirt 9.5 to snapshot only the
> root disk.
>
> Pros:
> plays nicely with libvirt, so the vm is only paused for the minimum amount
> of time
> Cons:
> requires libvirt 9.5, which doesn't exist in oneiric

Oneiric is old hat. I'm cool with 0.9.5. If someone wants to spend
time building an inferior (i.e. that requires more downtime during
snapshotting) implementation that works with older versions of
libvirt, that's fine, but as a project, my view is: There's excellent
free software available that enables us to build cooler things faster.
We should use it.

Besides, libvirt 0.9.5 has been out for over 6 months. It's not *that* new.

-- 
Soren Hansen             | http://linux2go.dk/
Senior Software Engineer | http://www.cisco.com/
Ubuntu Developer         | http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer      | http://www.openstack.org/

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Keystone database (using latest devstack)

[Jason Hedden]

On Mar 8, 2012, at 10:01 PM, Deepak Garg wrote:

> I have also been trying to find a cli to get a user's role in a
> particular tenant.
> I could not do that even with db tables mapping. Following are the fields
> in the tables:
> 
> tenant table  -> tenant_Id, name, extras
> user_tenant_membership  -> user_id, tenant_id
> user table  -> id, name, extra
> role table -> id, name
> 
> So when we bind a user to a tenant with a particular role. How do we
> store the data in the db so that its possible to verify it and may be
> retrieve it using cli (when it gets implemented) ?

The data is stored in a python dictionary, inside of the metadata table.  You 
will not be able to use SQL without an unwieldy wildcard search.  IMO this 
seems overly complicated for a core function of the tool, and possibly the 
reason why listing user/tenant roles hasn't been implemented.

Jason


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Keystone database (using latest devstack)

[Jay Pipes]

On 03/09/2012 10:23 AM, Jason Hedden wrote:

On Mar 8, 2012, at 10:01 PM, Deepak Garg wrote:


I have also been trying to find a cli to get a user's role in a
particular tenant.
I could not do that even with db tables mapping. Following are the fields
in the tables:

tenant table  ->  tenant_Id, name, extras
user_tenant_membership  ->  user_id, tenant_id
user table  ->  id, name, extra
role table ->  id, name

So when we bind a user to a tenant with a particular role. How do we
store the data in the db so that its possible to verify it and may be
retrieve it using cli (when it gets implemented) ?


The data is stored in a python dictionary, inside of the metadata table.  You 
will not be able to use SQL without an unwieldy wildcard search.  IMO this 
seems overly complicated for a core function of the tool, and possibly the 
reason why listing user/tenant roles hasn't been implemented.


++

I suspect the existing SQL schema has more to do with the default of 
using a key-value store until recently.


I think that storing in the roles relationships in the "extra" column is 
a bit of premature optimization that is a little ill-conceived at this 
point -- it sacrifices functionality for a perceived performance 
improvement. I don't believe there's any evidence that the join to a 
roles table (or two joins for a mapping many-to-many relationship table) 
had an adverse impact on performance in the legacy Keystone.


-jay

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] [CHEF] How to structure upstream OpenStack cookbooks?

[Matt Ray]

I agree with some of the replies from Rafael, but I have a few
suggestions (inline).

2012/3/9 Rafael Durán Castañeda :
> Hi,
>
> Bearing in mind I'm no really a Chef expert:
>
> On 03/09/2012 04:58 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stackers,
>>
>> Specifically, these are the questions I'd like to discuss and get
>> consensus on:
>>
>> 1) Do resources that set up non-production environments such as Swift
>> All-in-One belong in the OpenStack Chef upstream cookbooks?
>
> I think this kind of recipes help a lot new stackers and I can't see any
> reason for not include them.

If the openstack-chef cookbooks are going to be examples for
implementations, including SAIO makes sense.

>> 2) Should the cookbook be called "swift" instead of "swift-aio", with the
>> idea that the cookbook should be the top-most container of resources
>> involved with a specific project?
>
> I think so

If there's not a lot of overlap or shared attributes between the
multi-node Swift cookbook and the SAIO cookbook, having them separate
makes more sense so it's easier to maintain them separately.

>> 3) Is it possible to have a "swift" cookbook and have resources underneath
>> that allow a user to deploy either SAIO *or* into a multi-node production
>> environment? If so, would the best practice be to create recipes for SAIO
>> and recipes for each of the individual Swift servers (proxy, object, etc)
>> that would be used in a production configuration?
>
> I think if you split your cookbooks on small reusable components you can
> combine them so you get a SAIO, proxy, whatever with little or not extra
> effort

For the Nova cookbooks I've written (haven't done Swift yet), I had a
role for 'nova-single-machine' that was just a special case of
multi-node and reused all the multi-node recipes. I would propose
including the 'swift-aio' as a separate cookbook for now and have the
goal of ensuring that there is a 'swift-single-machine' role that
works with the 'swift' cookbook. This might take some additional work,
so keep both sets of cookbooks for now in case it doesn't get the
attention it needs.

>> 4) Instead of having an SAIO recipe in a swift cookbook, is it more
>> appropriate to make a Chef *role* called swift-aio that would have a run
>> list that contained a number of recipes in the swift cookbook for all the
>> Swift servers plus rsync, loopback, etc?
>
> I think this is good practice. As I said before having small reusable
> components you can combine them getting all what you need, and probably the
> best place for combining them is roles. You can of course include smaller
> cookbooks into bigger ones and get the same result, but I prefer role based.

See my previous comment. I too prefer role-based.

>
> HTH,
> Rafael
>
>

Thanks,
Matt Ray
Senior Technical Evangelist | Opscode Inc.
m...@opscode.com | (512) 731-2218
Twitter, IRC, GitHub: mattray

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] cfg usage - option registration, global objects

[Mark McLoughlin]

Hey,

On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 14:44 -0800, Andy Smith wrote:
> This is going to be a somewhat verbose reply.

Positively terse by my standards :)

> TL;DR:
> 
> Summary, I'd like cfg.py to be config.py (pipe dream, I'm sure, but I
> don't really agree with the abbreviation), to provide a global
> configuration object, and to have shortcuts for registration of
> options, that projects should standardize on. And I'm willing to help
> make those changes.

AFAICT, the only real issue here is the use of a global object.

Personally, I think such global objects are in very poor taste.

But this isn't so much about my taste as agreeing on a pattern which all
projects are happy to follow. If I thought there was consensus around
using a global object, I'd happily grit my teeth and make it happen.

Here's the problem, though - I can't imagine glance-core folks welcoming
a patch to adopt a global config object. it seems like a completely
backwards move. Maybe that's just me?

> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Mark McLoughlin  wrote:
> 
> > Hey,
> >
> > The original cfg design[1] assumed certain usage patterns that I hoped
> > would be adopted by all projects using it. In gerrit, we're debating a
> > set of patch to make keystone use these patterns:
> >
> >  https://review.openstack.org/4547
[..]
> >  1) We stop using global objects like FLAGS or CONF and instead pass
> > the config object to code which uses it.
> >
> > On an evilness scale, these global objects may be relatively
> > benign but they do still harm modularity. Any module that depends
> > on these global objects cannot be re-used without ensuring the
> > global object exists in the user e.g. doing this:
> >
> >   from nova import flags
> >
> >   FLAGS = flags.FLAGS
> >
> > is a nice way of ensuring code is nova specific, even if there is
> > no other reason for it to be tied to nova.
> >
> 
> 
> This is not true if the cfg stuff is providing the global object,
> as then it will be provided by the library rather than the project.

Making the library provide a global object is certainly a great way of
ratcheting up the evilness :)

Say I've two independent modules in the same process which want to parse
two separate config files? One of them uses the global object and the
other does something different? How about if the author of the both
modules never considered that it would be combined in the same process
with other cfg using code?

I could see us wanting to do something like this with the keystone auth
middleware, for example.

[..]
> > Also, these global objects force us to do a bunch of hacks in unit
> > tests. We need to do tricks to ensure the object is initialized as
> > we want. We also need to save and restore its state between runs.
> >
> 
> I don't agree with the statement that they force "a bunch of hacks,"
> clearing state is a perfectly normal thing to do, it is done for any
> servers that get started, any mocks that are made, and every test
> database. Making sure that modifications to a configuration object are
> cleaned up is no different: there is no "save and restore" just always
> start from a blank slate and set things as required, same as in the
> non-global model.

Creating mocks, DB connection objects or re-starting servers on each
test run is different from trying to restore a global object to its
state before a test run.

The CONF object is initialized the first time the config module is
imported. Each test run you need to attempt to reset the object back to
its original pristine state. Compared to just creating a config object
for each run, I do think that's a hack.

> > Subtle mistakes here might mean that a test passes when all the
> > tests are run together, but fail when run individually[2].
> >
> >
> Subtle mistakes are still subtle mistakes, though the commit you
> reference was really a pretty large one (and the solution is incorrect
> as well).

The issue was subtle enough that it went unnoticed for 3.5 months. And
previously, before the code was moved out of test_servers.py, there was
an even hackier attempt to restore the allow_admin_api flag after each
test. The global object has quite clearly been a source of confusion and
subtle brokenness.

[Snip discussion of tearDown() method strategies which I don't disagree
with]

> On the benefits of using global configuration:
> 
>  - simple to use, easy concept

Simple or not, global objects are probably only second to goto
statements in "considered harmful"[1] stakes.

Like goto statements, they can be an elegant solution in certain
restricted cases - e.g. goto can be good for error handling, globals can
be good for constants - but I think this case definitely crosses the
line over into evilness.

>  - different components do not get different configurations

Different components may want different configurations.

>  - more concise
>  - no additional patterns required besides standard top-of-file boilerplate

The top-o

Re: [Openstack] Libvirt Snapshots

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 03:57:30PM +0100, Soren Hansen wrote:
> 2012/3/9 Vishvananda Ishaya :
> > OPTION B --> libvirt 9.5 snapshots
> >
> > This method uses the newer snapshot xml in libvirt 9.5 to snapshot only the
> > root disk.
> >
> > Pros:
> > plays nicely with libvirt, so the vm is only paused for the minimum amount
> > of time
> > Cons:
> > requires libvirt 9.5, which doesn't exist in oneiric
> 
> Oneiric is old hat. I'm cool with 0.9.5. If someone wants to spend
> time building an inferior (i.e. that requires more downtime during
> snapshotting) implementation that works with older versions of
> libvirt, that's fine, but as a project, my view is: There's excellent
> free software available that enables us to build cooler things faster.
> We should use it.
> 
> Besides, libvirt 0.9.5 has been out for over 6 months. It's not *that* new.

And it possible for people to build any new libvirt release for
any old Ubuntu release they desire to support. So if someone really
wants to use new OpenStack on older distros they aren't locked out.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com  -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org   -o-   http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Keystone database (using latest devstack)

[Dolph Mathews]

Proposed fix: https://review.openstack.org/#change,5153

Usage:
$ keystone role-list --user= --tenant_id=

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Deepak Garg wrote:

> I have also been trying to find a cli to get a user's role in a
> particular tenant.
> I could not do that even with db tables mapping. Following are the fields
> in the tables:
>
> tenant table  -> tenant_Id, name, extras
> user_tenant_membership  -> user_id, tenant_id
> user table  -> id, name, extra
> role table -> id, name
>
> So when we bind a user to a tenant with a particular role. How do we
> store the data in the db so that its possible to verify it and may be
> retrieve it using cli (when it gets implemented) ?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Deepak
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Jason Hedden  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mar 8, 2012, at 6:12 PM, Andy Smith  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I came across this while trying to list the roles assigned to users,
> which
> >> I still don't know how to do via the keystone client utility. Is this
> even
> >> possible?
> >
> >
> > Well, to clarify that statement a bit, roles exist on user-tenant pairs,
> so
> > you would list the roles for a user-tenant pair.
> >
> >
> > How?  I wasn't able to find a way using the keystone client tools.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jason
> >
> > ___
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> > Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Keystone database (using latest devstack)

[Michael Basnight]

So disregarding the talk of optimization (much smarter people than i can argue 
that), is what you guys need as simple as listing the roles for a user? 
Keystone itself provides the curl stmt below. Seems very easy to add into 
keystone client if this is all you need.

http://localhost:35357/v2.0/users/UserID/roleRefs

(where for me UserID is f4d42fa3fb9946d084299d3e867bda41 in my devstack install 
for admin)

returning something like below.

{
"roles": [
{
"id": 
"roleId=e6b1d3ee035d4f50a7757a03535d959b&userId=f4d42fa3fb9946d084299d3e867bda41&tenantId=885883dd827d4c90a3740562d7a3630b",
 
"roleId": "e6b1d3ee035d4f50a7757a03535d959b", 
"tenantId": "885883dd827d4c90a3740562d7a3630b", 
"userId": "f4d42fa3fb9946d084299d3e867bda41"
}, 
{
"id": 
"roleId=c30c5ea15e514caf81ea8dc08be69792&userId=f4d42fa3fb9946d084299d3e867bda41&tenantId=885883dd827d4c90a3740562d7a3630b",
 
"roleId": "c30c5ea15e514caf81ea8dc08be69792", 
"tenantId": "885883dd827d4c90a3740562d7a3630b", 
"userId": "f4d42fa3fb9946d084299d3e867bda41"
}, 
{
"id": 
"roleId=1fd81b77f7f64b97b053986ec3004c70&userId=f4d42fa3fb9946d084299d3e867bda41&tenantId=885883dd827d4c90a3740562d7a3630b",
 
"roleId": "1fd81b77f7f64b97b053986ec3004c70", 
"tenantId": "885883dd827d4c90a3740562d7a3630b", 
"userId": "f4d42fa3fb9946d084299d3e867bda41"
}, 
{
"id": 
"roleId=c30c5ea15e514caf81ea8dc08be69792&userId=f4d42fa3fb9946d084299d3e867bda41&tenantId=b8504cc7c5a24b8b80f05065a80abf36",
 
"roleId": "c30c5ea15e514caf81ea8dc08be69792", 
"tenantId": "b8504cc7c5a24b8b80f05065a80abf36", 
"userId": "f4d42fa3fb9946d084299d3e867bda41"
}
]
}

On Mar 8, 2012, at 7:48 PM, Jason Hedden wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 6:12 PM, Andy Smith  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I came across this while trying to list the roles assigned to users, which I 
>> still don't know how to do via the keystone client utility. Is this even 
>> possible?
>> 
>> Well, to clarify that statement a bit, roles exist on user-tenant pairs, so 
>> you would list the roles for a user-tenant pair.
> 
> How?  I wasn't able to find a way using the keystone client tools.
> 
> Thanks, 
> Jason
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] [GLANCE] owner: name vs id

[Kevin L. Mitchell]

On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 00:40 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
> So... the solution, I think, is to patch the glance_auth_token 
> middleware in Keystone to use the value of the X_TENANT_ID header, not 
> X_TENANT, and write some sort of data migration script to address the 
> problem of stored owner_id values being name and not ID of tenant.

Yeah, it's the problem of migration that caused me to use the tenant
name as opposed to the tenant ID, with the knowledge that we needed to
address this in the future.  (The change that caused use of the tenant
name was due to a bug reported on glance having to do with the lack of
migration.)
-- 
Kevin L. Mitchell 


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Libvirt Snapshots

[Justin Santa Barbara]

Pedantry: It's QEMU/KVM, not libvirt, that holds the disks open.  The
pedantry does make a difference here I think...

A more sustainable option than being on the bleeding edge of libvirt
may be to try to bypass libvirt and issue those safe QEMU monitor
commands directly.  Libvirt would normally prevent this, but it looks
like there is a QEMU monitor command built into libvirt:
http://blog.vmsplice.net/2011/03/how-to-access-qemu-monitor-through.html

So what does a libvirt snapshot actually do?  Here's the code:
http://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt.git;a=blob;f=src/qemu/qemu_driver.c;h=be678f36527fd7918a1aaa69f54a6c939f258714;hb=HEAD

qemuDomainSnapshotCreateXML is the main function; it looks like we
want to pass in VIR_DOMAIN_SNAPSHOT_CREATE_DISK_ONLY
That calls qemuDomainSnapshotCreateDiskActive, which then pauses the
VM, snapshots each disk in series using the QEMU monitor, and then
resumes the VM.

We should do the same thing, but better:

Suspend the domain using libvirt
Snapshot each disk we want to snapshot _in parallel_, by using the
libvirt QEMU monitor pass-through.  Remote volumes could use the
correct driver so that e.g. a SAN disk could make use of a hardware
snapshot,
Resume the domain using libvirt

For essex, it  sounds like step 2 probably means "snapshot the root
volume only" using qemu, and don't snapshot remote volumes.

Post Essex:
We could try to avoid suspending / resuming the domain, by using a
filesystem thaw.  It looks like libvirt has some (very new) support
for this, but as this relies on a QEMU guest agent, I suspect we'd do
better to roll our own here that could be cross-hypervisor
We can allow selective snapshotting of disks.  On a database, for
example, you really do want to snapshot all the disks together.
We could also support "optimistiic" snapshots, which just do a
snapshot without suspending anything.  The use-case is that the caller
issues a filesystem thaw e.g. over SSH,  then requests a snapshot on
each disk that they care about though Openstack, then resumes normal
operation over SSH.

I actually like that third option the best.  I'd like to be able to
snapshot the root volume like I do any other volume, and I'd like to
be in control of the suspension mechanism.  Suspending the entire VM
is a little extreme, particularly if I'm using a
filesystem/application that offers me a lower-impact alternative!
However, an easy way to "just snapshot everything" with a single call
is also attractive, and I'd imagine people using OpenStack directly
(rather than though code) would definitely use that.

Justin


On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Daniel P. Berrange  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 06:02:54PM -0800, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
> > So I could use some specific feedback from kvm/libvirt folks on the 
> > following questions:
> >
> > a) is it safe to use qemu-img to create/delete a snapshot in a disk file 
> > that libvirt is writing to.
> > if not:
> > b) is it safe to use qemu-img to delete a snapshot in a disk file that 
> > libvirt is writing to but not actively using.
> > if not:
> > c) is it safe to use qemu-img to create/delete a snapshot in a disk file 
> > that libvirt has an open file handle to.
>
> Sadly, the answer is no to all those questions. For Qcow2 files, using
> internal snapshots, you cannot make *any* changes to the qcow2 file,
> while QEMU has it open. The reasons are that QEMU may have metadata
> changes pending to the file which have not yet flushed to disk, and
> second, creating/deleteing the snapshot with qemu-img may cause
> metadat changes that QEMU won't be aware of. Either way you will likely
> cause corruption of the qcow2 file.
>
> For these reasons, QEMU provides monitor commands for snapshotting,
> that libvirt uses whenever the guest is running. Libvirt will only
> use qemu-img, if the the guest is offline.
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
> --
> |: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
> |: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
> |: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
> |: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Libvirt Snapshots

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 08:13:06AM -0800, Justin Santa Barbara wrote:
> Pedantry: It's QEMU/KVM, not libvirt, that holds the disks open.  The
> pedantry does make a difference here I think...
> 
> A more sustainable option than being on the bleeding edge of libvirt
> may be to try to bypass libvirt and issue those safe QEMU monitor
> commands directly.  Libvirt would normally prevent this, but it looks
> like there is a QEMU monitor command built into libvirt:
> http://blog.vmsplice.net/2011/03/how-to-access-qemu-monitor-through.html

The command line and monitor passthrough capability is there as a means
to perform short term workarounds/hacks on a specific version of libvirt,
for functionality not already available via a supported API.

We make absolutely no guarentee that usage of passthrough capabilities
will continue to work correctly if you upgrade to a newer libvirt. As
such it is not something you really want to use as the basis for a
production release of OpenStack that expects compatibility with future
libvirt releases

http://berrange.com/posts/2011/12/19/using-command-line-arg-monitor-command-passthrough-with-libvirt-and-kvm/

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com  -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org   -o-   http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Libvirt Snapshots

[rbabu]

Even though it's more of a libvirt question since the topic of snapshot is 
being discussed, thought of asking it. Does libvirt 0.95 uses the backing file 
concept? or is that the same thing that Vish mentioned as option 1

Ranga

On Mar 9, 2012, at 10:06 AM, "Daniel P. Berrange"  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 03:57:30PM +0100, Soren Hansen wrote:
>> 2012/3/9 Vishvananda Ishaya :
>>> OPTION B --> libvirt 9.5 snapshots
>>> 
>>> This method uses the newer snapshot xml in libvirt 9.5 to snapshot only the
>>> root disk.
>>> 
>>> Pros:
>>> plays nicely with libvirt, so the vm is only paused for the minimum amount
>>> of time
>>> Cons:
>>> requires libvirt 9.5, which doesn't exist in oneiric
>> 
>> Oneiric is old hat. I'm cool with 0.9.5. If someone wants to spend
>> time building an inferior (i.e. that requires more downtime during
>> snapshotting) implementation that works with older versions of
>> libvirt, that's fine, but as a project, my view is: There's excellent
>> free software available that enables us to build cooler things faster.
>> We should use it.
>> 
>> Besides, libvirt 0.9.5 has been out for over 6 months. It's not *that* new.
> 
> And it possible for people to build any new libvirt release for
> any old Ubuntu release they desire to support. So if someone really
> wants to use new OpenStack on older distros they aren't locked out.
> 
> Regards,
> Daniel
> -- 
> |: http://berrange.com  -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
> |: http://libvirt.org  -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
> |: http://autobuild.org   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
> |: http://entangle-photo.org   -o-   http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
> 
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Libvirt Snapshots

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:43:35AM -0600, rb...@hexagrid.com wrote:
> Even though it's more of a libvirt question since the topic of snapshot
> is being discussed, thought of asking it. Does libvirt 0.95 uses the
> backing file concept? or is that the same thing that Vish mentioned 
> as option 1

The latest snapshot APIs in libvirt are broadly configurable by passing
in suitable XML. So if you want to take snapshots on the SAN, or using
LVM or backing files, they can all be made to fit in with libvirt's
new APIs. I'm not entirely familiar with how to use it, so if you want
fine details head over to the libvirt mailing lists where the authors
of the libvirt snapshot code will be able to assist.

Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com  -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org   -o-   http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Openstack] GSoC 2012 Organization Application

[Russell Bryant]

Greetings,

Anne and I just completed the organization application.  The list of
accepted organizations will be announced on March 16 [1].  The
applications will be reviewed next week.  Prior to Monday, here's what
needs to be done:

1) Update the ideas page with more detail about each idea:

http://wiki.openstack.org/GSoC2012/Ideas

2) Review the student application template.  If you have any suggested
additions or removals from this template, feel free to make the edits here:

http://wiki.openstack.org/GSoC2012/ApplicationTemplate

Thanks,

-- 
Russell Bryant

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Libvirt Snapshots

[Justin Santa Barbara]

Thanks for the background.  My thoughts:

* Telling a user to build from source isn't a great option for them -
it's painful, they don't get updates automatically etc.  Are we going
to start distributing packages again?

* I can't imagine any open source project removing functionality like
the QEMU pass-through - those sort of tactics are confined to
commercial products that are trying to lock you in, in my experience.
I'm sure libvirt would never try that, and if they did I'm sure it
would rapidly be forked.

* I can imagine that libvirt might switch to the JSON QEMU monitor
protocol (I don't understand why it isn't already, I'm probably wrong
here?).  Thankfully the QEMU JSON protocol also has a pass-through,
but we would ideally switch to the better protocol when/if libvirt
switches over.

* It sounds like this is the exact use-case for which the pass-through
functionality was designed - libvirt doesn't support what we need (at
least in commonly-utilized versions), we have some additional
potential roadmap features that may not be supported, so we _should_
use the pass-through.


Once commonly distributed versions of libvirt have the functionality
we need, then we can remove this functionality from OpenStack, but we
do have to fix this for Essex.  Hopefully this can continue long-term:
OpenStack can develop the functionality that clouds need that libvirt
is missing, in Python instead of in C, and then libvirt can
incorporate this functionality where you want to.

Justin


> The command line and monitor passthrough capability is there as a means
> to perform short term workarounds/hacks on a specific version of libvirt,
> for functionality not already available via a supported API.
>
> We make absolutely no guarentee that usage of passthrough capabilities
> will continue to work correctly if you upgrade to a newer libvirt. As
> such it is not something you really want to use as the basis for a
> production release of OpenStack that expects compatibility with future
> libvirt releases
>
> http://berrange.com/posts/2011/12/19/using-command-line-arg-monitor-command-passthrough-with-libvirt-and-kvm/
>
...
>
> And it possible for people to build any new libvirt release for
> any old Ubuntu release they desire to support. So if someone really
> wants to use new OpenStack on older distros they aren't locked out.
>
> Regards,
> Daniel

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Openstack] Kernel not found for image.

[Guilherme Birk]

I'm trying to create a new instance with curl, but I'm getting this error: 
"{"badRequest": {"message": "Cannot find requested image 36: Kernel not found 
for image 36.", "code": 400}}"
When I use euca-run-instance I don't get this error.
My image was published with cloud-publish-tarball using the option "--kernel 
none"

The data that I'm sending in the curl requisition are:
Headers:
-Token
-Content Type
-Content Length
-Accept

Body:
-Server name
-Image reference
-Flavor reference
-Key name

Should I send something else on my curl command, saying that this image doesn't 
have a kernel ? I didn't find anything related to this.

Thanks !  ___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Libvirt Snapshots

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:21:59AM -0800, Justin Santa Barbara wrote:
> Thanks for the background.  My thoughts:
> 
> * Telling a user to build from source isn't a great option for them -
> it's painful, they don't get updates automatically etc.  Are we going
> to start distributing packages again?
> 
> * I can't imagine any open source project removing functionality like
> the QEMU pass-through - those sort of tactics are confined to
> commercial products that are trying to lock you in, in my experience.
> I'm sure libvirt would never try that, and if they did I'm sure it
> would rapidly be forked.

It is not that we would intentionally remove the functionality. It
is more a problem that libvirt or QEMU changes the way they behave,
and this breaks some assumptions that are being relied upon by the
user of the passthrough. For example, in the past we have changed
the way we configure networks, and changed the way we configure
disks several times. Both those cases would have broken apps if
they had been using the passthrough feature.

I can't guarentee that if you use passthrough for managing snapshots,
that you won't get broken by future libvirt, because libvirt's
support for snapshots is under active development both at the libvirt
and QEMU layers. So an assumption that works today, may not work in
the future.

> * I can imagine that libvirt might switch to the JSON QEMU monitor
> protocol (I don't understand why it isn't already, I'm probably wrong
> here?).  Thankfully the QEMU JSON protocol also has a pass-through,
> but we would ideally switch to the better protocol when/if libvirt
> switches over.

We already use the JSON monitor protocol, if enabled at build time,
but it is configurable by the packager, so you can't neccessarily
predict it.

> * It sounds like this is the exact use-case for which the pass-through
> functionality was designed - libvirt doesn't support what we need (at
> least in commonly-utilized versions), we have some additional
> potential roadmap features that may not be supported, so we _should_
> use the pass-through.

The only safe way to use the passthrough, is to limit it to precise
versions. ie, you would want to default to using the modern libvirt
APIs, and *only* fallback to using pasthrough on older versions. That
should be reasonably safe, since old code doesn't often change itself :-)
So basically you'd be writing two version of the openstack snapshot
code, and hopefully throw away the pasthrough version in a couple of
releases time.

Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com  -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org   -o-   http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Openstack] doubt about documentation

[Eduardo Nunes]

on the  http://wiki.openstack.org/XenServerDevelopment, in some point ,
it's mentione " XenServer  requires a
nova-compute domU" what is nova-compute domU, and where i can find
documentation about it?
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Openstack] Openstack with Xen

[Eduardo Nunes]

There is a documentation of openstack with the opensorce XEN  XCP
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Openstack with Xen

[Renuka Apte]

Xenserver is the better tested path, so it might make more sense to try that 
first. You can get a free license for Xenserver. Follow the instructions on 
this page for installation: http://wiki.openstack.org/XenServer/Install
Once you have a trial version, you can obtain the free license by signing up 
for a new account at citrix.com

This page, towards the end, points you to some links that users have documented 
for XCP: http://wiki.openstack.org/XenXCPAndXenServer

Thanks,
Renuka.

From: Eduardo Nunes mailto:eduardo.ke...@gmail.com>>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 09:55:59 -0800
To: "openstack@lists.launchpad.net" 
mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net>>
Subject: [Openstack] Openstack with Xen

There is a documentation of openstack with the opensorce XEN  XCP
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] [GLANCE] owner: name vs id

[Dolph Mathews]

The glance auth middleware also references X_USER & X_ROLE which were
deprecated similarly to X_TENANT in favor of X_USER_ID,  X_USER_NAME, and
X_ROLES.

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell <
kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 00:40 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
> > So... the solution, I think, is to patch the glance_auth_token
> > middleware in Keystone to use the value of the X_TENANT_ID header, not
> > X_TENANT, and write some sort of data migration script to address the
> > problem of stored owner_id values being name and not ID of tenant.
>
> Yeah, it's the problem of migration that caused me to use the tenant
> name as opposed to the tenant ID, with the knowledge that we needed to
> address this in the future.  (The change that caused use of the tenant
> name was due to a bug reported on glance having to do with the lack of
> migration.)
> --
> Kevin L. Mitchell 
>
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] [GLANCE] owner: name vs id

[Jay Pipes]

Ah, OK, good to know. Thanks Dolph!

-jay

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Dolph Mathews  wrote:
> The glance auth middleware also references X_USER & X_ROLE which were
> deprecated similarly to X_TENANT in favor of X_USER_ID,  X_USER_NAME, and
> X_ROLES.
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell
>  wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 00:40 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> > So... the solution, I think, is to patch the glance_auth_token
>> > middleware in Keystone to use the value of the X_TENANT_ID header, not
>> > X_TENANT, and write some sort of data migration script to address the
>> > problem of stored owner_id values being name and not ID of tenant.
>>
>> Yeah, it's the problem of migration that caused me to use the tenant
>> name as opposed to the tenant ID, with the knowledge that we needed to
>> address this in the future.  (The change that caused use of the tenant
>> name was due to a bug reported on glance having to do with the lack of
>> migration.)
>> --
>> Kevin L. Mitchell 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> Post to     : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Keystone database (using latest devstack)

[Maru Newby]

On 2012-03-09, at 7:52 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:

>> The data is stored in a python dictionary, inside of the metadata table.  
>> You will not be able to use SQL without an unwieldy wildcard search.  IMO 
>> this seems overly complicated for a core function of the tool, and possibly 
>> the reason why listing user/tenant roles hasn't been implemented.
> 
> ++
> 
> I suspect the existing SQL schema has more to do with the default of using a 
> key-value store until recently.
> 
> I think that storing in the roles relationships in the "extra" column is a 
> bit of premature optimization that is a little ill-conceived at this point -- 
> it sacrifices functionality for a perceived performance improvement. I don't 
> believe there's any evidence that the join to a roles table (or two joins for 
> a mapping many-to-many relationship table) had an adverse impact on 
> performance in the legacy Keystone.
> 
> -jay


++

Storing data in a non-relational way when it is useful to access it in a 
relational way is doubleplusungood.  If a cache in the "extra" column is needed 
for performance it can always be maintained in addition to a table with 
transactional updates.

Thanks,


Maru
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Openstack] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

[Joshua McKenty]

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a diplomatic person. When we were 
launching OpenStack, this was a bit of an advantage (if we had waited for 
permission before releasing the Nova source code, we'd still be waiting) - but 
since the first summit, the community has grown so quickly, and become so 
diverse, that I have tried to leave discussions of governance, foundation 
structure, dispute resolution, and most particularly monetary corporate 
contributions, to others with more... tact.

But now I feel I have no choice but to speak up; I'm deeply concerned.  

The biggest, splashiest openstack stories of the past two years have all had 
the names of huge, multi-national corporations in them - names like IBM, AT&T, 
Dell, HP, and CISCO. And while their participation has been tremendously 
positive for the project (with Quantum and Crowbar standing as examples of 
this), I see things trending in a direction that makes me nervous for the 
smaller players - for the startups who will live or die on the strength of the 
OpenStack project. Like Piston Cloud.

The current official proposal for the foundation creates a new class of 
super-members - with a sticker price of $2.5M (due up front) that puts it out 
of reach of all but a small handful of organizations. 

This is not a new idea - it was the first structural proposal for the 
foundation that I heard from the organizing team, and I have argued against it 
(at times seemingly successfully) continuously since last fall.

I understand why it is appealing; it creates a small and manageable board of 
directors, with a large pool of resources, who shouldn't have too much trouble 
guiding and directing the outcomes of OpenStack. But it's not a structure that 
represents or embodies the principles that OpenStack was founded upon, and I 
think that while it may offer some short-term benefits, it may be damaging to 
the long-term health of the project because it strangles the ecosystem of 
contributing companies we've worked so hard to create. 
 
The "right" structure is a much harder thing to organize:
 - It recognizes and requires project contribution (code, tests, docs, bugs and 
evangelism) along with cash
 - It has a single class of corporate member, a level playing field
 - It has room for non-corporate members in the meaningful governance bodies 
(not tucked away in 'advisory' boards)
 - It aggressively and publicly resolves the conflict-of-interest between the 
'company hat' and the 'project hat'

My understanding of the key challenges of this foundation board are the 
following:
 - Keep it small enough to be manageable (21 directors or less)
 - Supply enough funding to carry on with most of the current project support 
activities
 - Ensure representation of the diversity of the OpenStack community
 - Provide a mechanism for "industry luminaries" as well as OpenStack users and 
consumers to provide input and feedback

The target budget of the Foundation is around $3M per year. Without getting 
into a discussion about whether that's reasonable or not, I'd like to 
brainstorm how we could reach that goal in a way that better reflects our goals 
for an open and democratic community. How's this for a proposal:

 - One class of corporate member
 - Provide reasonable evidence of 2 FTE (full time equivalents) working on 
OpenStack in some capacity
 - Commit to 2 years of sponsorship, on an evergreen basis, but paid annually
 - Individual members, if there are any, cannot be employed by a corporate 
member

My rough calculation, having a reasonably good grasp of the interests and level 
of engagement of the various corporations in the OpenStack ecosystem, is that 
we could expect around 15 of the 150 companies involved to meet these 
requirements. $3M divided by 15 = $200,000. 

It's a high playing field, but at least it's a level one. It doesn't change the 
structure or composition of the technical committee, and it doesn't limit the 
ability of the foundation to raise money in other ways (sell sponsorships for 
events, charge admission for conferences, even license the use of the trademark 
for training or certification). 

If we have a simple pay-to-play model, then we can trust market economics and 
enforce transparency of spending. If we have a simple "meritocracy", then we 
can expect the most skilled and dedicated to rise to the top, provided we're 
extremely careful about how we measure skill and dedication. If we blend the 
two, I'm deeply concerned that we'll see the worst of both systems play out 
over time - the selfishness of market-driven economics dominating our decisions 
with the petulant moralism of the meritocracy. Hoping for any other outcome is, 
in my opinion, foolish optimism. 

At the core of OpenStack is the idea that a single project could address the 
needs of ALL of our organizations - large, small, producers, consumers, 
non-profits and tool makers. We need to guard that vision, and protect it from 
our best intentions. No one in the

Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

[Joshua McKenty]

Dumping this back onto the lists... 

I believe the primary challenge with the Apache foundation is that it's not 
structured well to fund marketing or evangelism activities, nor is it designed 
to take in new members that are primarily interested in a single project. 
OpenStack is large enough to justify its own organization, and I don't think 
anyone objects to that foundation being "friendly" to commercial activities - 
that's part of why we're Apache2 licensed. We just need to balance the 
commercial mechanics with the community mechanics.

This is a hard problem - I don't believe ANY open source project has ever had 
this much commercial involvement, and certainly not this early in its 
evolution. But if we want to continue to have a community that's supportive of 
participation by a diverse set of stakeholders, we all need to speak up.  

On Friday, March 9, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Thor Wolpert wrote:

> Joshua:
> 
> I have not been following this, but had thought that the Foundation
> was being modelled on the Apache Group. I did ask a couple of times,
> and did get responses that this was the case. What it sounds like is
> it continues to stray from that, and that could be the desire of some
> special interest groups.
> 
> I thought a Foundation that paid for legal, marketing and core
> services; along with a hosted set of projects whose membership was
> based upon meritocracy was the model.
> 
> It is sounding like that is not going to be the case. Maybe starting
> a new Foundation wasn't the right way to go and asking instead to be a
> sub-project of the Apache Group, added in through the incubator
> would've been better?
> 
> 
> > 
> > With (attempted) diplomacy,
> > 
> > Joshua
> > 
> > --
> > Joshua McKenty
> > Co-Founder, OpenStack
> > CEO, Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
> > w: (650) 24-CLOUD
> > m: (650) 283-6846
> > http://www.pistoncloud.com
> > 
> > "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
> > "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > Foundation mailing list
> > foundat...@lists.openstack.org (mailto:foundat...@lists.openstack.org)
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> > 
> 
> 
> 


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

[Robbie Williamson]

On 03/09/2012 02:38 PM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
> I don't believe ANY open source project has ever had this much
> commercial involvement, and certainly not this early in its evolution.

I suspect Linus might disagree with the first part.

-- 
Robbie Williamson 
robbiew[irc.freenode.net]

"Don't make me angry...you wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
 -Bruce Banner

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

[Joshua McKenty]

Really? Linux was postcard-ware for the first... what, two years? 

--
Joshua McKenty, CEO
Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
w: (650) 24-CLOUD
m: (650) 283-6846
http://www.pistoncloud.com

"Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
"Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."


On Friday, March 9, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Robbie Williamson wrote:

> On 03/09/2012 02:38 PM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
> > I don't believe ANY open source project has ever had this much
> > commercial involvement, and certainly not this early in its evolution.
> > 
> 
> 
> I suspect Linus might disagree with the first part.
> 
> -- 
> Robbie Williamson mailto:rob...@ubuntu.com)>
> robbiew[irc.freenode.net (http://irc.freenode.net)]
> 
> "Don't make me angry...you wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
> -Bruce Banner
> ___
> Foundation mailing list
> foundat...@lists.openstack.org (mailto:foundat...@lists.openstack.org)
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> 
> 


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Openstack with Xen

[Thomas Goirand]

- Original message -
> Xenserver is the better tested path, so it might make more sense to try
> that first.

PLEASE, don't recommend to others to use XenServer
instead of XCP (eg, Kronos). I have spent enough
time with Mike on packaging XCP in Debian so that
the latest (version 1.3.2-2) is in SID since few
days. If everyone is pushing away users, then we
will *never* have feedback!

> You can get a free license for Xenserver. Follow the
> instructions on this page for installation:
> http://wiki.openstack.org/XenServer/Install Once you have a trial
> version, you can obtain the free license by signing up for a new account
> at citrix.com

Which is not needed. Please use the latest SID,
and do:

apt-get install xcp-xapi

then read the README.Debian

Thomas


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] cfg usage - option registration, global objects

[Mark Washenberger]

Really not trying to derail, but

"Mark McLoughlin"  said:
> 
> [..]
>> > Also, these global objects force us to do a bunch of hacks in unit
>> > tests. We need to do tricks to ensure the object is initialized as
>> > we want. We also need to save and restore its state between runs.
>> >
>>
>> I don't agree with the statement that they force "a bunch of hacks,"
>> clearing state is a perfectly normal thing to do, it is done for any
>> servers that get started, any mocks that are made, and every test
>> database. Making sure that modifications to a configuration object are
>> cleaned up is no different: there is no "save and restore" just always
>> start from a blank slate and set things as required, same as in the
>> non-global model.
> 
> Creating mocks, DB connection objects or re-starting servers on each
> test run is different from trying to restore a global object to its
> state before a test run.
> 
> The CONF object is initialized the first time the config module is
> imported. Each test run you need to attempt to reset the object back to
> its original pristine state. Compared to just creating a config object
> for each run, I do think that's a hack.
> 

While I agree with what Mark is saying above, I really must
point out that any significant shared state among unit tests is
either a hack, or a smell, or most charitably, the wrong kind of
test to run with unit tests.

Any teardown that isn't just handled by the garbage collector is
a good clue that we're doing something suboptimally.


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

[Jonathan Bryce]

> On Friday, March 9, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Thor Wolpert wrote:
> 
>> I thought a Foundation that paid for legal, marketing and core
>> services; along with a hosted set of projects whose membership was
>> based upon meritocracy was the model.

That is and always has been the plan and can be seen in the existing detailed 
structure proposal: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/Structure

I think Josh is really focusing more on the details of membership on the Board, 
which is separate from the the governance and membership of the projects.___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Enabling data deduplication on Swift

[Caitlin Bestler]

Paulo,

I believe you'll find that we're thinking along the same lines. Please review 
my proposal at http://etherpad.openstack.org/P9MMYSWE6U

One quick observation is that SHA-1 is totally inadequate for fingerprinting 
objects in a public object store. An attacker could easily
predict the fingerprint of content likely to be posted, generate alternate 
content that had the same SHA-1 fingerprint and pre-empt
the signature. For example: an ISO of an open source OS distribution. If I get 
my false content with the same fingerprint into the
repository first then everyone who downloads that ISO will get my altered copy.

SHA-256 is really needed to make this type of attack infeasible.

I also think that distributed deduplication works very well with object 
versioning. Your comments on the proposal cited above
would be great to hear.

From: openstack-bounces+caitlin.bestler=nexenta@lists.launchpad.net 
[mailto:openstack-bounces+caitlin.bestler=nexenta@lists.launchpad.net] On 
Behalf Of Paulo Ricardo Motta Gomes
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 1:19 PM
To: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: [Openstack] Enabling data deduplication on Swift

Hello everyone,

I'm a student of the European Master in Distributed Computing (EMDC) currently 
working on my master thesis on distributed content-addressable 
storage/deduplication.

I'm happy to announce I will be contributing the outcome of my thesis work to 
OpenStack by enabling both object-level and block-level deduplication 
functionality on Swift (https://answers.launchpad.net/swift/+question/156862).

I have written a detailed blog post where I describe the initial architecture 
of my solution: 
http://paulormg.com/2012/03/05/enabling-deduplication-in-a-distributed-object-storage/

Feedback from the OpenStack/Swift community would be very appreciated.

Cheers,

Paulo

--
European Master in Distributed Computing - 
www.kth.se/emdc
Royal Institute of Technology - KTH
Instituto Superior Técnico - IST
http://paulormg.com
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

[Boris Renski Jr.]

While I like the simplicity and elegance of the newly proposed structure, I 
don’t see how it does away with the evils of the pay-to-play model…. Which is 
what you purport we are striving to achieve. What you, Josh, proposed is a 
simplified pay-to-play that arguably embraces the evils for the “market driven 
selfishness” in an even more obvious way than the model before it. In your 
case, all the seats are simply purchased for a fixed price of $200K. 

 

In my view the price tag for the sponsorship and the ultimate means for raising 
the money is not what drives OpenStack’s vendor independence principles. What 
matters the most is the degree of decoupling between the front-end, marketing  
and the technical governance. Much of the OpenStack current momentum is due to 
this fairly unique way of doing open source where on one end you have an open, 
meritocracy-based technology community and, on the other – structured 
commercial interest that evangelizes it. As long as the two sides remain 
sufficiently decoupled (as they have been so far) – no OpenStack principles 
will be compromised. 

 

I think that the community needs to do away with this geek, open source 
mentality of “all corporations are evil” and harness the value in strong 
commercial forces evangelizing and battling for the interest of the independent 
technology community. This is what got OpenStack to where it is now. So far the 
line between technology and marketing been well maintained. The bottom line is 
that a) technical committee must be elected and driven by meritocracy; b) 
foundation board should have virtually no influence (which is the case in the 
current structure) on the technical committee. Everything else is noise. 

 

Once we accept this, the question of structuring the board really becomes the 
question of how does one raise the maximum amount of money to continue to have 
a centralized body with a mission to evangelize the project. You can structure 
it by tiers to let the bigger guys pay more and get a bigger logo on the 
homepage. You can do a flat structure like Josh proposed. You can auction off 
the board seats etc. 

 

The one thing I would do away with is the “elected board members” in favor of 
more associate member seats. This almost feels like a way to compensate the 
technology side for giving the marketing side leverage over the former. If we 
feel that this is necessary, it is a symptom of presence of 
technology-commercial coupling and we need to fix something else. All technical 
members should be elected based on merit. All board members – appointed based 
on monetary/evangelism contribution. Decoupling between technology direction 
and purchasing power should be rock solid. 

 

-Boris 

 

 

 

 

 

From: foundation-boun...@lists.openstack.org 
[mailto:foundation-boun...@lists.openstack.org] On Behalf Of Joshua McKenty
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 11:20 AM
To: OpenStack; foundat...@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

 

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a diplomatic person. When we were 
launching OpenStack, this was a bit of an advantage (if we had waited for 
permission before releasing the Nova source code, we'd still be waiting) - but 
since the first summit, the community has grown so quickly, and become so 
diverse, that I have tried to leave discussions of governance, foundation 
structure, dispute resolution, and most particularly monetary corporate 
contributions, to others with more... tact.

 

But now I feel I have no choice but to speak up; I'm deeply concerned.  

 

The biggest, splashiest openstack stories of the past two years have all had 
the names of huge, multi-national corporations in them - names like IBM, AT&T, 
Dell, HP, and CISCO. And while their participation has been tremendously 
positive for the project (with Quantum and Crowbar standing as examples of 
this), I see things trending in a direction that makes me nervous for the 
smaller players - for the startups who will live or die on the strength of the 
OpenStack project. Like Piston Cloud.

 

The current official proposal for the foundation creates a new class of 
super-members - with a sticker price of $2.5M (due up front) that puts it out 
of reach of all but a small handful of organizations. 

 

This is not a new idea - it was the first structural proposal for the 
foundation that I heard from the organizing team, and I have argued against it 
(at times seemingly successfully) continuously since last fall.

 

I understand why it is appealing; it creates a small and manageable board of 
directors, with a large pool of resources, who shouldn't have too much trouble 
guiding and directing the outcomes of OpenStack. But it's not a structure that 
represents or embodies the principles that OpenStack was founded upon, and I 
think that while it may offer some short-term benefits, it may be damaging to 
the long-term health of the project because it strangles 

Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

[Ben Cherian]

Josh,

Good work on the alternate proposal.

Mark, Jonathan,

Thanks for the quick response.

I tend to prefer a simpler approach to membership classes and I like the
idea of only having one corporate class. The only real difference between
the associate member and the strategic member is the amount of money they
put in and that paying more money guarantees them a position on the board.

Here's another idea: What if we decouple the fundraising from the board
membership? I think there are enough benefits that companies would want to
pay the foundation for like:

- Logo and trademark usage
- Access to benchmarks, best practices, and other intelligent materials
- And most important, IMO, having the foundation defend the member in cause
of a legal threat or patent issue

Most companies building businesses around OpenStack would pay for
protection.

Then, you can decide who is on the Foundation board without thinking about
how much they're corporation paid and rather elect people based on value
and merit.

Thoughts?

- Ben


On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Mark Collier  wrote:

> Josh,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to consider the proposed structure and provide
> your thoughts on it.  I don't think your concerns are very far off from
> what we are wanting to address with the Associate Member category, which
> allows more companies to be represented at a lower price point.  The
> current funding proposal is on the wiki for reference:
> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/Funding
>
> Let me address a few of your points regarding the proposed plan:
>
> *Accessibility*:  Associate Member fees start at $50k/year which is
> substantially lower than a $200k/year flat fee model.  The members will
> elect resprenstatives as a class to the Board.  Those Board members will
> have the same roles and responsibilities as any other Board member.
> Additionally, companies who wish to show their support for OpenStack may
> also become a sponsor without paying the full Associate Member fee.
> Sponsor levels have not been worked out, but I suspect they will start in
> the 20k/year range.
>
> *Board Size*:  My sense is that with a flat fee of 200k/year, we 
> wouldstillget many more than 15-20 interested parties, which would quickly 
> overwhelm
> the board, making it unmanageable.  The Associate Member concept mitigates
> this issue by allowing the class to grow (for accessibility), without the
> seats balooning, by having elected representatives.  It also reduces the
> risk of shaking up the board makeup and size through acquisition.
>
> *Strategic Member fees*:  One small clarification: the proposal calls for
> Strategic Members to make a commitment of $500k/year for 5 years, paid
> annually (not up front). This figure was driven primarily by the need to
> arrive at a reasonable board size, while also raising substantial funds for
> foundation operations.
>
> *Strategic Member dominance*:  Board members who are appointed by
> Strategic Members will make up only 1/3 of the board, and will have the
> same roles and responsibilties as the other board members.
>
> *Requirement** for **S**trategic **M**embers** to have full time staff*:
> The current structure proposal states that Strategic Members must "Provide
> dedicated resources (e.g. developers, legal resources)" and the funding
> proposal states that "...the general expectation is a resource commitment
> that is consistent with staffing two full time equivalents" so it looks
> like we are on the same page re: 2 FTE requirement.
>
> I hope many other folks take the opporunity to weigh in, both on this
> mailing list as well as in the webinars we'll be holding next week and in
> any other forum that suits your fancy.  I'll also try to keep up with all
> of the blogging and tweeting, as if that's possible!
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> From: Joshua McKenty 
> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:20:17 -0800
> To: OpenStack , <
> foundat...@lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative
>
>  I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a diplomatic person. When we
> were launching OpenStack, this was a bit of an advantage (if we had waited
> for permission before releasing the Nova source code, we'd still be
> waiting) - but since the first summit, the community has grown so quickly,
> and become so diverse, that I have tried to leave discussions of
> governance, foundation structure, dispute resolution, and most particularly
> monetary corporate contributions, to others with more... tact.
>
> But now I feel I have no choice but to speak up; I'm deeply concerned.
>
> The biggest, splashiest openstack stories of the past two years have all
> had the names of huge, multi-national corporations in them - names like
> IBM, AT&T, Dell, HP, and CISCO. And while their participation has been
> tremendously positive for the project (with Quantum and Crowbar standing as
> examples of this), I see things trending in a direction that makes me
> nervous for the smal

Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

[Devin Carlen]

Mark, one thing that I am curious about - there doesn't seem to be language in 
the foundation structure document that would prevent "individual" members from 
organizations that are also "strategic" members from also being on the board.   
Is there any language that prevents board stacking? 

Devin 


On Friday, March 9, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Mark Collier wrote:

> Josh,
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to consider the proposed structure and provide 
> your thoughts on it.  I don't think your concerns are very far off from what 
> we are wanting to address with the Associate Member category, which allows 
> more companies to be represented at a lower price point.  The current funding 
> proposal is on the wiki for reference: 
> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/Funding
> 
> Let me address a few of your points regarding the proposed plan:
> 
> Accessibility:  Associate Member fees start at $50k/year which is 
> substantially lower than a $200k/year flat fee model.  The members will elect 
> resprenstatives as a class to the Board.  Those Board members will have the 
> same roles and responsibilities as any other Board member. Additionally, 
> companies who wish to show their support for OpenStack may also become a 
> sponsor without paying the full Associate Member fee.  Sponsor levels have 
> not been worked out, but I suspect they will start in the 20k/year range.
> 
> Board Size:  My sense is that with a flat fee of 200k/year, we would still 
> get many more than 15-20 interested parties, which would quickly overwhelm 
> the board, making it unmanageable.  The Associate Member concept mitigates 
> this issue by allowing the class to grow (for accessibility), without the 
> seats balooning, by having elected representatives.  It also reduces the risk 
> of shaking up the board makeup and size through acquisition.
> 
> Strategic Member fees:  One small clarification: the proposal calls for 
> Strategic Members to make a commitment of $500k/year for 5 years, paid 
> annually (not up front). This figure was driven primarily by the need to 
> arrive at a reasonable board size, while also raising substantial funds for 
> foundation operations.
> 
> Strategic Member dominance:  Board members who are appointed by Strategic 
> Members will make up only 1/3 of the board, and will have the same roles and 
> responsibilties as the other board members.  
> 
> Requirement for Strategic Members to have full time staff:  The current 
> structure proposal states that Strategic Members must "Provide dedicated 
> resources (e.g. developers, legal resources)" and the funding proposal states 
> that "...the general expectation is a resource commitment that is consistent 
> with staffing two full time equivalents" so it looks like we are on the same 
> page re: 2 FTE requirement.
> 
> I hope many other folks take the opporunity to weigh in, both on this mailing 
> list as well as in the webinars we'll be holding next week and in any other 
> forum that suits your fancy.  I'll also try to keep up with all of the 
> blogging and tweeting, as if that's possible!
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> From: Joshua McKenty mailto:jos...@pistoncloud.com)>
> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:20:17 -0800
> To: OpenStack  (mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net)>,  (mailto:foundat...@lists.openstack.org)>
> Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative
> 
> I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a diplomatic person. When we were 
> launching OpenStack, this was a bit of an advantage (if we had waited for 
> permission before releasing the Nova source code, we'd still be waiting) - 
> but since the first summit, the community has grown so quickly, and become so 
> diverse, that I have tried to leave discussions of governance, foundation 
> structure, dispute resolution, and most particularly monetary corporate 
> contributions, to others with more... tact.
> 
> But now I feel I have no choice but to speak up; I'm deeply concerned.  
> 
> The biggest, splashiest openstack stories of the past two years have all had 
> the names of huge, multi-national corporations in them - names like IBM, 
> AT&T, Dell, HP, and CISCO. And while their participation has been 
> tremendously positive for the project (with Quantum and Crowbar standing as 
> examples of this), I see things trending in a direction that makes me nervous 
> for the smaller players - for the startups who will live or die on the 
> strength of the OpenStack project. Like Piston Cloud.
> 
> The current official proposal for the foundation creates a new class of 
> super-members - with a sticker price of $2.5M (due up front) that puts it out 
> of reach of all but a small handful of organizations. 
> 
> This is not a new idea - it was the first structural proposal for the 
> foundation that I heard from the organizing team, and I have argued against 
> it (at times seemingly successfully) continuously since last fall.
> 
> I understand why it is appealing; it creates a small an

Re: [Openstack] Libvirt Snapshots

[Vishvananda Ishaya]

On Mar 9, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:43:35AM -0600, rb...@hexagrid.com wrote:
>> Even though it's more of a libvirt question since the topic of snapshot
>> is being discussed, thought of asking it. Does libvirt 0.95 uses the
>> backing file concept? or is that the same thing that Vish mentioned 
>> as option 1
> 
> The latest snapshot APIs in libvirt are broadly configurable by passing
> in suitable XML. So if you want to take snapshots on the SAN, or using
> LVM or backing files, they can all be made to fit in with libvirt's
> new APIs. I'm not entirely familiar with how to use it, so if you want
> fine details head over to the libvirt mailing lists where the authors
> of the libvirt snapshot code will be able to assist.

So far my experiments with the newer code in libvirt have been unsuccessful, so 
we may have to just go with the older version that does a managed save in 
between.

Using the external snapshot creates a backing file which it seems to be 
impossible to remove. I can extract the snapshot but attempting to delete it 
gives me:

libvirtError: unsupported configuration: deletion of 1 external disk snapshots 
not supported yet

I can't seem to do an internal only snapshot of just the disk.  Doing it while 
the machine is running gives me:

libvirtError: unsupported configuration: active qemu domains require external 
disk snapshots; disk vda requested internal

and using managed save first:

libvirtError: unsupported configuration: disk snapshots of inactive domains not 
implemented yet

Unless there is some magic incantation to allow me to create an external 
snapshot and then later remove it so I don't leave a chain of backing files 
around I think we have to go with the compatibility version.



___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

[William L. Franklin]

Josh et al:

Cloudscaling agrees that we need an open dialog about the formation of 
the foundation.  Save the one open meetup during CloudConnect in early 
February I am unaware of any other open discussions.


Please read
http://www.cloudscaling.com/blog/cloud-computing/open-communities-deserve-open-communication/

Bill Franklin
VP of Engineering
Cloudscaling


On 3/9/12 11:38 AM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a diplomatic person. When we 
were launching OpenStack, this was a bit of an advantage (if we had 
waited for permission before releasing the Nova source code, we'd 
still be waiting) - but since the first summit, the community has 
grown so quickly, and become so diverse, that I have tried to leave 
discussions of governance, foundation structure, dispute resolution, 
and most particularly monetary corporate contributions, to others with 
more... tact.


But now I feel I have no choice but to speak up; I'm deeply concerned.

The biggest, splashiest openstack stories of the past two years have 
all had the names of huge, multi-national corporations in them - names 
like IBM, AT&T, Dell, HP, and CISCO. And while their participation has 
been tremendously positive for the project (with Quantum and Crowbar 
standing as examples of this), I see things trending in a direction 
that makes me nervous for the smaller players - for the startups who 
will live or die on the strength of the OpenStack project. Like Piston 
Cloud.


The current official proposal for the foundation creates a new class 
of super-members - with a sticker price of $2.5M (due up front) that 
puts it out of reach of all but a small handful of organizations.


This is not a new idea - it was the first structural proposal for the 
foundation that I heard from the organizing team, and I have argued 
against it (at times seemingly successfully) continuously since last fall.


I understand why it is appealing; it creates a small and manageable 
board of directors, with a large pool of resources, who shouldn't have 
too much trouble guiding and directing the outcomes of OpenStack. But 
it's not a structure that represents or embodies the principles that 
OpenStack was founded upon, and I think that while it may offer some 
short-term benefits, it may be damaging to the long-term health of the 
project because it strangles the ecosystem of contributing companies 
we've worked so hard to create.

The "right" structure is a much harder thing to organize:
 - It recognizes and requires project contribution (code, tests, docs, 
bugs and evangelism) along with cash

 - It has a single class of corporate member, a level playing field
 - It has room for non-corporate members in the meaningful governance 
bodies (not tucked away in 'advisory' boards)
 - It aggressively and publicly resolves the conflict-of-interest 
between the 'company hat' and the 'project hat'


My understanding of the key challenges of this foundation board are 
the following:

 - Keep it small enough to be manageable (21 directors or less)
 - Supply enough funding to carry on with most of the current project 
support activities

 - Ensure representation of the diversity of the OpenStack community
 - Provide a mechanism for "industry luminaries" as well as OpenStack 
users and consumers to provide input and feedback


The target budget of the Foundation is around $3M per year. Without 
getting into a discussion about whether that's reasonable or not, I'd 
like to brainstorm how we could reach that goal in a way that better 
reflects our goals for an open and democratic community. How's this 
for a proposal:


 - One class of corporate member
 - Provide reasonable evidence of 2 FTE (full time equivalents) 
working on OpenStack in some capacity
 - Commit to 2 years of sponsorship, on an evergreen basis, but paid 
annually
 - Individual members, if there are any, cannot be employed by a 
corporate member


My rough calculation, having a reasonably good grasp of the interests 
and level of engagement of the various corporations in the OpenStack 
ecosystem, is that we could expect around 15 of the 150 companies 
involved to meet these requirements. $3M divided by 15 = $200,000.


It's a high playing field, but at least it's a level one. It doesn't 
change the structure or composition of the technical committee, and it 
doesn't limit the ability of the foundation to raise money in other 
ways (sell sponsorships for events, charge admission for conferences, 
even license the use of the trademark for training or certification).


If we have a simple pay-to-play model, then we can trust market 
economics and enforce transparency of spending. If we have a simple 
"meritocracy", then we can expect the most skilled and dedicated to 
rise to the top, provided we're extremely careful about how we measure 
skill and dedication. If we blend the two, I'm deeply concerned that 
we'll see the worst of both systems play out over time - the 
selfishness of market-dri

Re: [Openstack] Openstack with Xen

[Armando M.]

XCP *is* XenServer: the OpenStack virt driver (xenapi) is the same
regardless. Kronos (i.e. port of XenAPI toolstack to Debian/Ubuntu) is yet
again XenServer/XCP, and the only difference is in how you deploy the
management stack and can test/access the virtualization platform (i.e. more
like KVM). Kronos is still accessible via the xenapi virt driver.

I think Renuka meant to suggest to use the xenapi driver rather then
libvirt/xen one.

Kronos is pretty new so it's far to say that XenServer/XCP is the well
tested path.

Kronos is great for developers in that it gives them the ability to play
with OpenStack and XenServer without the need of external hardware (perfect
for the road warrior with a beefy laptop). However, suggesting Kronos to
people looking to set up small OpenStack pilots is plain wrong.

So In the end it is about making the users informed of what their options
are; they can then choose based on the above considerations, and on what
it's available on the wiki: http://wiki.openstack.org/XenServer

Cheers,
Armando

On 9 March 2012 21:09, Thomas Goirand  wrote:

>
> - Original message -
> > Xenserver is the better tested path, so it might make more sense to try
> > that first.
>
> PLEASE, don't recommend to others to use XenServer
> instead of XCP (eg, Kronos). I have spent enough
> time with Mike on packaging XCP in Debian so that
> the latest (version 1.3.2-2) is in SID since few
> days. If everyone is pushing away users, then we
> will *never* have feedback!
>
> > You can get a free license for Xenserver. Follow the
> > instructions on this page for installation:
> > http://wiki.openstack.org/XenServer/Install Once you have a trial
> > version, you can obtain the free license by signing up for a new account
> > at citrix.com
>
> Which is not needed. Please use the latest SID,
> and do:
>
> apt-get install xcp-xapi
>
> then read the README.Debian
>
> Thomas
>
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

[Sean Roberts]

This is me speaking up.
There are enough open issues on the board structure and funding that warrant a 
meeting. Representatives of companies interested in being board members would 
discuss unresolved issues. Consider it to be a pre-drafting meeting.  The 
results of this meeting would be openly discussed with the community at large.
I am asking for this meeting to take place as soon as possible and definitely 
before anything final is agreed to.

~sean roberts, strategic yahoo

On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "Joshua McKenty" 
mailto:jos...@pistoncloud.com>> wrote:

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a diplomatic person. When we were 
launching OpenStack, this was a bit of an advantage (if we had waited for 
permission before releasing the Nova source code, we'd still be waiting) - but 
since the first summit, the community has grown so quickly, and become so 
diverse, that I have tried to leave discussions of governance, foundation 
structure, dispute resolution, and most particularly monetary corporate 
contributions, to others with more... tact.

But now I feel I have no choice but to speak up; I'm deeply concerned.

The biggest, splashiest openstack stories of the past two years have all had 
the names of huge, multi-national corporations in them - names like IBM, AT&T, 
Dell, HP, and CISCO. And while their participation has been tremendously 
positive for the project (with Quantum and Crowbar standing as examples of 
this), I see things trending in a direction that makes me nervous for the 
smaller players - for the startups who will live or die on the strength of the 
OpenStack project. Like Piston Cloud.

The current official proposal for the foundation creates a new class of 
super-members - with a sticker price of $2.5M (due up front) that puts it out 
of reach of all but a small handful of organizations.

This is not a new idea - it was the first structural proposal for the 
foundation that I heard from the organizing team, and I have argued against it 
(at times seemingly successfully) continuously since last fall.

I understand why it is appealing; it creates a small and manageable board of 
directors, with a large pool of resources, who shouldn't have too much trouble 
guiding and directing the outcomes of OpenStack. But it's not a structure that 
represents or embodies the principles that OpenStack was founded upon, and I 
think that while it may offer some short-term benefits, it may be damaging to 
the long-term health of the project because it strangles the ecosystem of 
contributing companies we've worked so hard to create.

The "right" structure is a much harder thing to organize:
 - It recognizes and requires project contribution (code, tests, docs, bugs and 
evangelism) along with cash
 - It has a single class of corporate member, a level playing field
 - It has room for non-corporate members in the meaningful governance bodies 
(not tucked away in 'advisory' boards)
 - It aggressively and publicly resolves the conflict-of-interest between the 
'company hat' and the 'project hat'

My understanding of the key challenges of this foundation board are the 
following:
 - Keep it small enough to be manageable (21 directors or less)
 - Supply enough funding to carry on with most of the current project support 
activities
 - Ensure representation of the diversity of the OpenStack community
 - Provide a mechanism for "industry luminaries" as well as OpenStack users and 
consumers to provide input and feedback

The target budget of the Foundation is around $3M per year. Without getting 
into a discussion about whether that's reasonable or not, I'd like to 
brainstorm how we could reach that goal in a way that better reflects our goals 
for an open and democratic community. How's this for a proposal:

 - One class of corporate member
 - Provide reasonable evidence of 2 FTE (full time equivalents) working on 
OpenStack in some capacity
 - Commit to 2 years of sponsorship, on an evergreen basis, but paid annually
 - Individual members, if there are any, cannot be employed by a corporate 
member

My rough calculation, having a reasonably good grasp of the interests and level 
of engagement of the various corporations in the OpenStack ecosystem, is that 
we could expect around 15 of the 150 companies involved to meet these 
requirements. $3M divided by 15 = $200,000.

It's a high playing field, but at least it's a level one. It doesn't change the 
structure or composition of the technical committee, and it doesn't limit the 
ability of the foundation to raise money in other ways (sell sponsorships for 
events, charge admission for conferences, even license the use of the trademark 
for training or certification).

If we have a simple pay-to-play model, then we can trust market economics and 
enforce transparency of spending. If we have a simple "meritocracy", then we 
can expect the most skilled and dedicated to rise to the top, provided we're 
extremely careful about how we measure skill and ded

Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

[Jonathan Bryce]

On Mar 9, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Devin Carlen wrote:
> Mark, one thing that I am curious about - there doesn't seem to be language 
> in the foundation structure document that would prevent "individual" members 
> from organizations that are also "strategic" members from also being on the 
> board.   Is there any language that prevents board stacking?
> 
> Devin

We hadn't put language in the overall structure summary around this, but have 
mentioned that this was something the Bylaws would probably cover. Setting the 
specific limitations is probably somewhat dependent on the Board size. I think 
it makes sense to have some limit (one company cannot employ more than X 
percentage of the Board members), but not say that it can only be one per 
company. If there are really good candidates who happen to share an employer, 
eliminating them completely could be counterproductive. Also, Individual Member 
seats would be tied to the individual instead of an organization, meaning the 
member would retain the seat even if he or she changed employers.


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

[Joshua McKenty]

This is great!   

Jonathan, do you think a completely-elected board is something that the larger 
corporations would go along with? Ben's suggestion to that effect certainly 
seems to be the simplest model, since we can scale the membership, deliver 
specific value for cash contributions, and still manage the size of the board.

Regarding the "Individual Member" seats - I would like to echo Devin's concerns 
about stacking by strategic members. If these are truly independent, meaning 
that they're not employees of the corporate members, then I think it's a great 
benefit to have them be part of the board! I'm imagining folks like Tim Bell 
(CERN), Peter Mell (NIST) or Vint Cerf on there.  

Boris, I completely agree with decoupling of the "business side" of OpenStack 
from the technical side, and I think managing two separate organizations would 
be one way to achieve this. My concerns are solely on the business side right 
now. I've spent a lot of time chatting with the PTLs today, and I have 
confidence that they can hold the technical community to a meritocratic 
standard. I think the proposal to vote for seats on the foundation board is 
more about managing board size, than any crossover of technical community 
management.  

Having said that, I'm still concerned with the idea that we would "let the 
bigger guys pay more and get a bigger logo on the homepage". If we're going to 
"sell" OpenStack privileges, I think we need to do it ala-cart, and explicitly. 
 

Some examples (echoing Ben Cherian's comments) might be:  
 - Use of the trademark (for products, training, or certification)
 - Sponsorship of openstack events
 - Priority registration for summits and conferences (not necessarily in favor 
of this one...)

While I was drafting this up, I saw Sean Robert's email suggesting that we meet 
face-to-face and work through some of this together - it seems like a fantastic 
plan to me, and I'll bump everything else from my schedule to make it happen if 
others are interested. What do you guys think?  


--
Joshua McKenty, CEO
Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
w: (650) 24-CLOUD
m: (650) 283-6846
http://www.pistoncloud.com

"Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
"Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."


On Friday, March 9, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:

> On Mar 9, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Boris Renski Jr. wrote:
> > The one thing I would do away with is the “elected board members” in favor 
> > of more associate member seats. This almost feels like a way to compensate 
> > the technology side for giving the marketing side leverage over the former. 
> > If we feel that this is necessary, it is a symptom of presence of 
> > technology-commercial coupling and we need to fix something else. All 
> > technical members should be elected based on merit. All board members – 
> > appointed based on monetary/evangelism contribution. Decoupling between 
> > technology direction and purchasing power should be rock solid.
>  
>  
> Thanks for the thoughts, Boris. One point I'd make: the Individual Member 
> seats are not just about compensating the technology side. It gives an 
> opportunity for the entire community to elect representatives. These could be 
> some of the "luminaries" Josh spoke of or others unaffiliated with any 
> corporate member. Individual Membership is not limited solely to developers 
> who are contributing code, but would include users, deployers, translators, 
> marketers and people with all sorts of involvement in the community. 
> Individual Membership is free and a great place for participants academic 
> institutions, non-profits, etc. to participate with no price tag.
>  
> Jonathan.  

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Help, How to restore existing vms after host reboot?

[Vishvananda Ishaya]

I think that this branch should make reboot work:

https://review.openstack.org/#change,5177

It looks like we should also make sync_power_states run more frequently.  It 
currently runs every 6 minutes by default.

On Mar 8, 2012, at 6:27 PM, DeadSun wrote:

> As we all know, if host reboot since of some failure or hardware problem, the 
> vms will actually shutoff. But after host up, info in nova db show vm state 
> are "active", and using "nova list" return the same.
> 
> Now how to start the vms. In Daiblo, I always just using "nova reboot", it 
> works.But in essex version, it seems cannot use "nova reboot" in an inactive 
> domain. I see there is "nova host-action" command, but it not always make vm 
> start.
> 
> Another way, I can use "virsh start" a domain, but if the vm attach a volume, 
> it doesn't work. "nova volume-detach" cannot detach a volume in an inactive 
> domain. 
> 
> Is there a normal way to resolve this case?
> 
> -- 
> 非淡薄无以明志，非宁静无以致远
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

[Lloyd Dewolf]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Mark Collier  wrote:
>
> Strategic Member fees:  One small clarification: the proposal calls for
> Strategic Members to make a commitment of $500k/year for 5 years, paid
> annually (not up front). This figure was driven primarily by the need to
> arrive at a reasonable board size, while also raising substantial funds for
> foundation operations.

What do you do if more than than 5 companies pony up? What a good
problem to have! ;-)

Although 5 years align to ensure the longevity of the project, the
project is too young to sell away 5 years at this critical time in
strengthening the direction.

It should be desirable for the young companies who's success is
accelerating and are making an all-in strategic investment to be able
to make the same strategic contributions with the same benefits each
year --- natural incentives. This young blood shouldn't have to jockey
for two thirds of the remaining seats. With the success of OpenStack,
our foundations coffers will fill each year.

Joshua's proposal, our proposal (Piston Cloud), provides OpenStack
much more guaranteed resources as each of the say 15 members would be
providing 2 FTE = ~30, and the same financial characteristics. This
in-house investment formalizes the good behavior of committed
participants and brings home the OpenStack hats.

In this model seats are more easily lotteried each year among those
that are making the strategic investment, and we eliminate the unique
timing of the opportunity.

Better yet decouple the board all together from the benefits of
strategic membership -- why restrict full meritocracy to the
technical.


Thank you,
--
@lloyddewolf
http://www.pistoncloud.com/

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

[Stefano Maffulli]

On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 15:04 -0800, William L. Franklin wrote:
> Cloudscaling agrees that we need an open dialog about the formation of
> the foundation.  

Bill, there is and there have been quite many discussions on the public
mailing list dedicated to the topic.

The list is there, with public archives and open subscriptions. I advice
you and Randy to join it:

 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Cheers,
stef


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

[Mark Collier]

I'm all for face to face meet ups, and love that so many people have offered to 
hop on a plane to meet in the next week.  Let's do it.

However, I would say that this very list is, in fact, an open discussion that 
we're having right now regrading the proposals posted openly on the wiki :)  I 
did noticed that your note was posted to the openstack mailing list -- Perhaps 
you aren't aware of the Foundation mailing list and have missed the discussion 
there?  foundat...@lists.openstack.org

We've also had a couple of online meetings and have 2 more planned for next 
week.  And if there is another forum we should add, let's do that too.



From: "William L. Franklin" 
mailto:w...@cloudscaling.com>>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 15:04:20 -0800
To: mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net>>
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

Josh et al:

Cloudscaling agrees that we need an open dialog about the formation of the 
foundation.  Save the one open meetup during CloudConnect in early February I 
am unaware of any other open discussions.

Please read
http://www.cloudscaling.com/blog/cloud-computing/open-communities-deserve-open-communication/

Bill Franklin
VP of Engineering
Cloudscaling


On 3/9/12 11:38 AM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a diplomatic person. When we were 
launching OpenStack, this was a bit of an advantage (if we had waited for 
permission before releasing the Nova source code, we'd still be waiting) - but 
since the first summit, the community has grown so quickly, and become so 
diverse, that I have tried to leave discussions of governance, foundation 
structure, dispute resolution, and most particularly monetary corporate 
contributions, to others with more... tact.

But now I feel I have no choice but to speak up; I'm deeply concerned.

The biggest, splashiest openstack stories of the past two years have all had 
the names of huge, multi-national corporations in them - names like IBM, AT&T, 
Dell, HP, and CISCO. And while their participation has been tremendously 
positive for the project (with Quantum and Crowbar standing as examples of 
this), I see things trending in a direction that makes me nervous for the 
smaller players - for the startups who will live or die on the strength of the 
OpenStack project. Like Piston Cloud.

The current official proposal for the foundation creates a new class of 
super-members - with a sticker price of $2.5M (due up front) that puts it out 
of reach of all but a small handful of organizations.

This is not a new idea - it was the first structural proposal for the 
foundation that I heard from the organizing team, and I have argued against it 
(at times seemingly successfully) continuously since last fall.

I understand why it is appealing; it creates a small and manageable board of 
directors, with a large pool of resources, who shouldn't have too much trouble 
guiding and directing the outcomes of OpenStack. But it's not a structure that 
represents or embodies the principles that OpenStack was founded upon, and I 
think that while it may offer some short-term benefits, it may be damaging to 
the long-term health of the project because it strangles the ecosystem of 
contributing companies we've worked so hard to create.

The "right" structure is a much harder thing to organize:
 - It recognizes and requires project contribution (code, tests, docs, bugs and 
evangelism) along with cash
 - It has a single class of corporate member, a level playing field
 - It has room for non-corporate members in the meaningful governance bodies 
(not tucked away in 'advisory' boards)
 - It aggressively and publicly resolves the conflict-of-interest between the 
'company hat' and the 'project hat'

My understanding of the key challenges of this foundation board are the 
following:
 - Keep it small enough to be manageable (21 directors or less)
 - Supply enough funding to carry on with most of the current project support 
activities
 - Ensure representation of the diversity of the OpenStack community
 - Provide a mechanism for "industry luminaries" as well as OpenStack users and 
consumers to provide input and feedback

The target budget of the Foundation is around $3M per year. Without getting 
into a discussion about whether that's reasonable or not, I'd like to 
brainstorm how we could reach that goal in a way that better reflects our goals 
for an open and democratic community. How's this for a proposal:

 - One class of corporate member
 - Provide reasonable evidence of 2 FTE (full time equivalents) working on 
OpenStack in some capacity
 - Commit to 2 years of sponsorship, on an evergreen basis, but paid annually
 - Individual members, if there are any, cannot be employed by a corporate 
member

My rough calculation, having a reasonably good grasp of the interests and level 
of engagement of the various corporations in the OpenStack ecosystem, is that 
we could expect around 15 of the 150 companies involved to meet these 

[Openstack] OpenStack Community Newsletter –March 9, 2012

[Stefano Maffulli]

OpenStack Community Newsletter –March 9, 2012

HIGHLIGHTS


  * OpenStack community elected new PTLs and two members of PPB

http://www.openstack.org/blog/2012/03/openstack-governance-elections-spring-2012-results/
  * OpenStack effort to join Google Summer of Code
https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg08459.html
  * Swift 1.4.7 released
https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg08445.html
  * Results of OpenStack Documentation Day
https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg08403.html
  * Help needed to enable remote participation at Folsom Design
Summit https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg08360.html


EVENTS


  * Webinar: OpenStack Foundation update Mar 13, 2012 – Webinar
http://markcollier.enterthemeeting.com/m/EE23MEC8
  * Webinar: OpenStack Foundation update Mar 14, 2012 – Webinar
http://markcollier.enterthemeeting.com/m/3DP2HPKO
  * Australian OpenStack Users Group MeetUp Mar 26, 2012 – Sidney,
Australia http://aosug.openstack.org.au/events/49679462/
  * Lights, Camera, Stackers! Mar 29, 2012 – Los Angeles, CA
http://www.meetup.com/OpenStack-LA/events/54125632/
  * OpenStack Spring 2012 Design Summit Apr 16 – 18 and Conference
Apr 19-20 – San Francisco, California
http://openstack.org/conference/


OTHER NEWS


  * Preparing my first patch for OpenStack (by Doug Hellmann)

http://blog.doughellmann.com/2012/03/preparing-my-first-patch-for-openstack.html
  * Image registering in nova2ools (by GridDynamics)

http://openstackgd.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/image-registering-in-nova2ools/
  * OpenStack Wiki Recent Changes –
http://wiki.openstack.org/RecentChanges
  * Governance/Foundation/Structure
http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/Structure
  * Governance/Foundation/Funding
http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/Funding
  * Governance/Elections Spring2012/Post Mortem

http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/ElectionsSpring2012/PostMortem
  * GSoC2012/Ideas http://wiki.openstack.org/GSoC2012/Ideas 
  * XenServer http://wiki.openstack.org/XenServer
  * Project meeting
summary 
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-03-06-21.06.html


COMMUNITY STATISTICS


  *  Activity on the main branch of OpenStack repositories, lines of
code added and removed per developer during week 7 of 2012 (from
Mon Feb 27 00:00:00 UTC 2012 to Mon March 5 00:00:00 UTC 2012)

Changes to Glance project – week 09 2012
Changes to Glance project – week 09 2012 
Changes to Horizon project – week 09 2012
Changes to Horizon project – week 09 2012 
Changes to Keystone project – week 09 2012
Changes to Keystone project – week 09 2012 




Changes to Manuals project – week 09 2012
Changes to Manuals project – week 09 2012 
Changes to Nova project – week 09 2012
Changes to Nova project – week 09 2012 
Changes to Quantum project – week 09 2012
Changes to Quantum project – week 09 2012 




Changes to Swift project – week 09 2012
Changes to Swift project – week 09 2012 
Changes to Tempest project – week 09 2012
Changes to Tempest project – week 09 2012 






This weekly newsletter is a way for the community to learn about all the
various activities occurring on a weekly basis. If you would like to add
content to a weekly update or have an idea about this newsletter, please
leave a comment.

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Openstack] swift-get-nodes lies to me?

[Pete Zaitcev]

Dear All:

A strange thing seems to happen. It looks like this:

- I upload a key named "testdata"

[zaitcev@simbelmyne tests]$ /q/zaitcev/hail/swift-tip/bin/swift -A 
http://kvm-rei:5000/v1.0 -U zaitcev -K pass list test-1235163301
testdata
[zaitcev@simbelmyne tests]$ 

  I have a script that also finds size (104857600) and MD5
  (49289935f687585f5e95e94c7c1ec29d).

- Then, I run swift-get-node, on the node where proxy resides:

[root@kvm-rei zaitcev]# swift-get-nodes /etc/swift/object.ring.gz zaitcev 
test-1235163301 testdata

Account zaitcev 
Container   test-1235163301
Object  testdata


Partition   147444  
Hash8ffd13698cf92ef170db5db21f5efd9f

Server:Port Device  192.168.129.20:6010 vdb
Server:Port Device  192.168.129.18:6020 vdc
Server:Port Device  192.168.129.18:6010 vdb
Server:Port Device  192.168.129.20:6020 vdc  [Handoff]


curl -I -XHEAD 
"http://192.168.129.20:6010/vdb/147444/zaitcev/test-1235163301/testdata";
curl -I -XHEAD 
"http://192.168.129.18:6020/vdc/147444/zaitcev/test-1235163301/testdata";
curl -I -XHEAD 
"http://192.168.129.18:6010/vdb/147444/zaitcev/test-1235163301/testdata";
curl -I -XHEAD 
"http://192.168.129.20:6020/vdc/147444/zaitcev/test-1235163301/testdata"; # 
[Handoff]


ssh 192.168.129.20 "ls -lah 
/srv/node/vdb/objects/147444/d9f/8ffd13698cf92ef170db5db21f5efd9f/"
ssh 192.168.129.18 "ls -lah 
/srv/node/vdc/objects/147444/d9f/8ffd13698cf92ef170db5db21f5efd9f/"
ssh 192.168.129.18 "ls -lah 
/srv/node/vdb/objects/147444/d9f/8ffd13698cf92ef170db5db21f5efd9f/"
ssh 192.168.129.20 "ls -lah 
/srv/node/vdc/objects/147444/d9f/8ffd13698cf92ef170db5db21f5efd9f/" # [Handoff]
[root@kvm-rei zaitcev]# 

- Finally, I actually find the file and verify it:

[root@kvm-rei zaitcev]# find /srv/node/vdc -type f -a -size 104857600c
/srv/node/vdc/objects/221984/51c/d8c8047f0c10449d1a264371874f851c/1331343894.44919.data
[root@kvm-rei zaitcev]# md5sum 
/srv/node/vdc/objects/221984/51c/d8c8047f0c10449d1a264371874f851c/1331343894.44919.data
49289935f687585f5e95e94c7c1ec29d  
/srv/node/vdc/objects/221984/51c/d8c8047f0c10449d1a264371874f851c/1331343894.44919.data
[root@kvm-rei zaitcev]# 

The question is, why the discrepancy? Before I dive into the construction
of the ring, is this a known issue? Or do I do something obviously wrong
with arguments of swift-get-nodes?

Curious,
-- Pete

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

[Boris Renski Jr.]

I currently don’t see a meaningful path around selling board seats in some 
shape of form.

 

Having a single, structured body dedicated to project evangelism has been key 
to OpenStack success so far. It is important that the foundation is able to 
raise meaningful amounts of money to fund its operations, staff and PR 
activities. On the other hand, expecting companies to commit $50K - $500K / 
year to the foundation without offering the credibility and nominal influence 
that comes with the board seat is not likely to work IMHO. 

 

Selling board seats is like saying “thank you for your donation, we publically 
acknowledge your goodwill and commitment to the foundation – here is a board 
seat so you can supervise”

 

Selling rights to trademarks, training licenses and event sponsorships is like 
saying “bitch, we are important, if you want to benefit from OpenStack – pay us 
money”

 

One is about motivating donations…i.e. giving organizations a way to publically 
demonstrate their commitment to the good cause that is OpenStack; the other - 
about selling assets and milking the momentum of the brand. One has the 
“goodwill donation mentality”, the other – “extortion mentality.” I feel that 
fewer will favor the latter.

 

-Boris 

 

From: foundation-boun...@lists.openstack.org 
[mailto:foundation-boun...@lists.openstack.org] On Behalf Of Joshua McKenty
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 3:40 PM
To: Jonathan Bryce
Cc: ; OpenStack
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

 

This is great!  

 

Jonathan, do you think a completely-elected board is something that the larger 
corporations would go along with? Ben's suggestion to that effect certainly 
seems to be the simplest model, since we can scale the membership, deliver 
specific value for cash contributions, and still manage the size of the board.

 

Regarding the "Individual Member" seats - I would like to echo Devin's concerns 
about stacking by strategic members. If these are truly independent, meaning 
that they're not employees of the corporate members, then I think it's a great 
benefit to have them be part of the board! I'm imagining folks like Tim Bell 
(CERN), Peter Mell (NIST) or Vint Cerf on there. 

 

Boris, I completely agree with decoupling of the "business side" of OpenStack 
from the technical side, and I think managing two separate organizations would 
be one way to achieve this. My concerns are solely on the business side right 
now. I've spent a lot of time chatting with the PTLs today, and I have 
confidence that they can hold the technical community to a meritocratic 
standard. I think the proposal to vote for seats on the foundation board is 
more about managing board size, than any crossover of technical community 
management. 

 

Having said that, I'm still concerned with the idea that we would "let the 
bigger guys pay more and get a bigger logo on the homepage". If we're going to 
"sell" OpenStack privileges, I think we need to do it ala-cart, and explicitly. 

 

Some examples (echoing Ben Cherian's comments) might be: 

 - Use of the trademark (for products, training, or certification)

 - Sponsorship of openstack events

 - Priority registration for summits and conferences (not necessarily in favor 
of this one...)

 

While I was drafting this up, I saw Sean Robert's email suggesting that we meet 
face-to-face and work through some of this together - it seems like a fantastic 
plan to me, and I'll bump everything else from my schedule to make it happen if 
others are interested. What do you guys think? 

 

 

--

Joshua McKenty, CEO

Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
w: (650) 24-CLOUD

m: (650) 283-6846
http://www.pistoncloud.com

 

"Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
"Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."

 

On Friday, March 9, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:

On Mar 9, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Boris Renski Jr. wrote:

The one thing I would do away with is the “elected board members” in favor of 
more associate member seats. This almost feels like a way to compensate the 
technology side for giving the marketing side leverage over the former. If we 
feel that this is necessary, it is a symptom of presence of 
technology-commercial coupling and we need to fix something else. All technical 
members should be elected based on merit. All board members – appointed based 
on monetary/evangelism contribution. Decoupling between technology direction 
and purchasing power should be rock solid.

 

Thanks for the thoughts, Boris. One point I'd make: the Individual Member seats 
are not just about compensating the technology side. It gives an opportunity 
for the entire community to elect representatives. These could be some of the 
"luminaries" Josh spoke of or others unaffiliated with any corporate member. 
Individual Membership is not limited solely to developers who are contributing 
code, but would include users, deployers, translators, marketers and people 
with all sorts 

[Openstack] Spice on Openstack

[wangsuyi640]

Dear all:

The release of openstack on my server is D3. I tred to run ' qemu-kvm 
-hda /root/free.img -m 512 -vga qxl -spice port=5930,disable-ticketing '

without openstack , it worked well.

However,I have tried to modify the 
'/opt/stack/nova/nova/virt/libvirt.xml.template' in order to  let the spice 
work with the openstack. Then it failed.

Is there anyone tried this? Could you give me some help? Thanks.

Yours.

Suyi

 

发件人: openstack-bounces+wangsuyi640=gmail@lists.launchpad.net 
[mailto:openstack-bounces+wangsuyi640=gmail@lists.launchpad.net] 代表 Devin 
Carlen
发送时间: 2012年3月10日 7:00
收件人: Mark Collier
抄送: foundat...@lists.openstack.org; OpenStack
主题: Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

 

Mark, one thing that I am curious about - there doesn't seem to be language in 
the foundation structure document that would prevent "individual" members from 
organizations that are also "strategic" members from also being on the board.   
Is there any language that prevents board stacking? 

 

Devin

On Friday, March 9, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Mark Collier wrote:

Josh,

 

Thanks for taking the time to consider the proposed structure and provide your 
thoughts on it.  I don't think your concerns are very far off from what we are 
wanting to address with the Associate Member category, which allows more 
companies to be represented at a lower price point.  The current funding 
proposal is on the wiki for reference: 
http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/Funding

 

Let me address a few of your points regarding the proposed plan:

 

Accessibility:  Associate Member fees start at $50k/year which is substantially 
lower than a $200k/year flat fee model.  The members will elect resprenstatives 
as a class to the Board.  Those Board members will have the same roles and 
responsibilities as any other Board member. Additionally, companies who wish to 
show their support for OpenStack may also become a sponsor without paying the 
full Associate Member fee.  Sponsor levels have not been worked out, but I 
suspect they will start in the 20k/year range.

 

Board Size:  My sense is that with a flat fee of 200k/year, we would still get 
many more than 15-20 interested parties, which would quickly overwhelm the 
board, making it unmanageable.  The Associate Member concept mitigates this 
issue by allowing the class to grow (for accessibility), without the seats 
balooning, by having elected representatives.  It also reduces the risk of 
shaking up the board makeup and size through acquisition.

 

Strategic Member fees:  One small clarification: the proposal calls for 
Strategic Members to make a commitment of $500k/year for 5 years, paid annually 
(not up front). This figure was driven primarily by the need to arrive at a 
reasonable board size, while also raising substantial funds for foundation 
operations.

 

Strategic Member dominance:  Board members who are appointed by Strategic 
Members will make up only 1/3 of the board, and will have the same roles and 
responsibilties as the other board members.  

 

Requirement for Strategic Members to have full time staff:  The current 
structure proposal states that Strategic Members must "Provide dedicated 
resources (e.g. developers, legal resources)" and the funding proposal states 
that "...the general expectation is a resource commitment that is consistent 
with staffing two full time equivalents" so it looks like we are on the same 
page re: 2 FTE requirement.

 

I hope many other folks take the opporunity to weigh in, both on this mailing 
list as well as in the webinars we'll be holding next week and in any other 
forum that suits your fancy.  I'll also try to keep up with all of the blogging 
and tweeting, as if that's possible!

 

Mark

 

 

 

From: Joshua McKenty 
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:20:17 -0800
To: OpenStack , 
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

 

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a diplomatic person. When we were 
launching OpenStack, this was a bit of an advantage (if we had waited for 
permission before releasing the Nova source code, we'd still be waiting) - but 
since the first summit, the community has grown so quickly, and become so 
diverse, that I have tried to leave discussions of governance, foundation 
structure, dispute resolution, and most particularly monetary corporate 
contributions, to others with more... tact.

 

But now I feel I have no choice but to speak up; I'm deeply concerned.  

 

The biggest, splashiest openstack stories of the past two years have all had 
the names of huge, multi-national corporations in them - names like IBM, AT&T, 
Dell, HP, and CISCO. And while their participation has been tremendously 
positive for the project (with Quantum and Crowbar standing as examples of 
this), I see things trending in a direction that makes me nervous for the 
smaller players - for the startups who will live or die on the st

[Openstack] [NOVA] RC-1 Buglist

[Vishvananda Ishaya]

Hello Everyone,

We are very close on rc-1 bugs.  Virtually all of the important ones are in 
flight with code under review:

https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/essex-rc1

We could use reviews all of the outstanding branches so we can get them merged. 
 There are a few smallish bugs that I have marked wishlist that have no one 
assigned.  I'm ok with shipping rc-1 without those fixed, but they sure would 
be nice to have in. If anyone has time to take them and get a fix in that would 
be awesome.

I think with a concerted effort we could be ready to ship rc-1 by the release 
meeting on tuesday.

Happy Hacking!

Vish___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] Openstack with Xen

[Thomas Goirand]

- Original message -
> Kronos is great for developers

we didn't write the packaging for developers only!!!

> However, suggesting
> Kronos to people looking to set up small OpenStack pilots is plain wrong.

It is *not*, that is the only way to get things
tested and fixed before Wheezy. If anyone finds an
issue in the SID packages, I welcome them to use
reportbug and submit issues on the Debian bug
tracker, and we'll fix things asap. Cureently, we
had zero bugs sent by users... So it means that,
either because of silly suggestion that Kronos isn't
production ready (based on no real fact...) nobody
is testing it, or that the packages are perfect. :)

> So In the end it is about making the users informed of what their options
> are;

Maybe you'd better let them know that we will take
care of any issue that they might find, and that we
need some testers!!!

> they can then choose based on the above considerations

They will wrongly think that XCP/Kronos is buggy if
we continue this way. That's just plain wrong.

> and on what
> it's available on the wiki: http://wiki.openstack.org/XenServer

This wiki needs to be updated with more Kronos
stuff IMO.

Thomas


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Openstack] Cannot create instance by using my own image since of failure of "e2fsck"

[livemoon]

I always create my own image by the following simple steps:

1. using "qemu-img create" create a raw file
2. using "kvm" command to install vm os on raw file
3. using "glance" to upload raw file.

After uploading file, I can create instance using the image no problem. But
If I using resize instance( choose "10GB disk "flavor) , it will failed
since of "failure of e2fsck". I see the nova call "e2fsck" to check the
resized image.
I test my own image, they all output error using "e2fsck".

How can I create my own image correctly? And does "e2fsck" need?

-- 
非淡薄无以明志，非宁静无以致远
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Openstack] gerrit account help

[Michael Barton]

Can someone help me?  I think my gerrit account is boned.

redbo@ubuntu:~/swift$ git review
fatal:  A Contributor Agreement must be completed before uploading:

  http://wiki.openstack.org/HowToContribute

-- Mike

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp