| opendevreview | OpenStack Proposal Bot proposed openstack/openstack-ansible master: Imported Translations from Zanata https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/954681 | 03:06 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Jonathan Rosser proposed openstack/ansible-role-pki master: Generate ca_bundle during cert creation for standalone backend https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-role-pki/+/954628 | 06:02 |
| opendevreview | Jonathan Rosser proposed openstack/ansible-role-pki master: Allow certificates to be installed by specifying them by name https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-role-pki/+/954239 | 06:02 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/openstack-ansible master: Imported Translations from Zanata https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/954681 | 07:29 |
| f0o | Hi, I'm poking around stabilizing IPv6 for tenant networks and I'm struggling wrapping my head around how to distribute the tenant networks onto the Top-Of-Rack switches. I figured as much that I need to use OVN-BGP for this but I'm a bit confused what is going to run the BGPD. Is it going to be only the hypervisors? only the gateway-hosts? Both? Also what's the state of | 08:45 |
| f0o | `enable_distributed_ipv6` in [ovn] ? | 08:45 |
| f0o | Feels like IPv6 is still very much experimental in OpenStack/Neutron for anything that isnt a vlan/flat network | 08:45 |
| f0o | or at least the documentation is very obscure about it. Showing a million ways how things *could* work but no clear indication of what is the preferred/reference way | 08:46 |
| noonedeadpunk | f0o: so I think there are 2 options available (at least) | 08:49 |
| noonedeadpunk | if we are not going back to discussion of ovn-bgp-agent (which we had somer time ago), I'd guess it's worth to rely on old bgp dragent | 08:49 |
| noonedeadpunk | so it would be quite same setup as for ovs afaik | 08:49 |
| noonedeadpunk | I have not tried that personally with OVN, but I heard miultople times that it just works | 08:50 |
| noonedeadpunk | we're having IPv6, but with OVN driver we do have ovn-bgp-agent | 08:50 |
| f0o | my main fear is the placement of a FRR instance on our gateway hosts which would break those as they host FRR themselves for their own connectivity to the rest of the fabric | 08:51 |
| noonedeadpunk | so ipv6 and ipv4 work quite alike, except that for IPv6 we do have subnet pool and allocations | 08:51 |
| noonedeadpunk | so frr should be placed on each gateway node | 08:52 |
| f0o | I have IPv6 working entirely fine without BGP by just using a flat-network'ed ovn-router which then ties into every tenant's vxlan network. But this puts an imense stress on the gateway host becoming a singular bottleneck obviously | 08:52 |
| noonedeadpunk | if gateway != compute ofc | 08:52 |
| f0o | ok that's very good to know | 08:52 |
| f0o | then regardless what I do, I need to move the gateway hosts away from the Top-Of-Rack routers | 08:53 |
| noonedeadpunk | so in our scenario we set FRR on just cvouple of nodes which act as a gateway | 08:53 |
| noonedeadpunk | well | 08:53 |
| noonedeadpunk | maybe you can continue doing the same way with flat network... not 100% sure.... | 08:54 |
| noonedeadpunk | but regardless of bgp, what would you need to do, is create an address scope and allocation pool with IPv6 subnet in it | 08:55 |
| noonedeadpunk | then you create an external network or add a subnet from this subnet pool to existing one (it can be same as for ipv4) | 08:56 |
| noonedeadpunk | and client routers should allocate an own /64 or smth from this same subnet pool and add them to there internal geneve/vxlan network | 08:56 |
| noonedeadpunk | while connect their router to the public subnet as external one, so that router would get ipv6 as well | 08:57 |
| noonedeadpunk | traffic would still come through the gateway, but you kinda not limited to single router, and they are spread across multiple ones. | 08:57 |
| f0o | The way Out is not the problem here | 08:58 |
| f0o | but the way back in | 08:58 |
| noonedeadpunk | well, thus we announce the router IP and tenant subnet with ovn bgp agent | 08:59 |
| f0o | if I have /48 on vlan123; and set an allocation pool to distribute /64 to tenants. Then I create a Tenant Router which sits on that vlan123 network as well as on the tenant's vxlan432 which now is in charge of 2001:db8:1::/64, how would I know that it is charge of it and route the traffic to that specific tenant router? | 08:59 |
| f0o | so regardless how I spin this, it seems I will always need ovn-bgp-agent in some form or shape to make that revpath available to my network infrastructure | 09:00 |
| noonedeadpunk | but bgp dragent should be announcing that as well | 09:00 |
| noonedeadpunk | at least we had exact same setup in OVS with it | 09:00 |
| noonedeadpunk | (and I heard it does work in OVN) | 09:00 |
| f0o | and since the agent needs to sit on the gateway hosts, I will need to migrate those out of the current ToR infrastructure and place them on some new dedicated machines somewhere | 09:01 |
| f0o | or am I thinking this wrong? | 09:01 |
| noonedeadpunk | I think for IPv6 you need BGP in some way or form, yes | 09:02 |
| noonedeadpunk | though this could be second option if not ovn-bgp-agent: https://docs.openstack.org/neutron/latest/admin/config-bgp-dynamic-routing.html | 09:02 |
| noonedeadpunk | as you would need to re-do ipv4 as well for it | 09:02 |
| f0o | trying to find a place to upload a diagram to show where my brain-knot is :D | 09:04 |
| f0o | https://imgur.com/a/VWnJ0Cg | 09:04 |
| f0o | so if those two links with `?` become "Gateway Hosts" and "OVN-BGP-Agent" then I know a path forward | 09:05 |
| noonedeadpunk | so with ovn-bgp-agent, vlan ext net is really a virtual vlan, which is present only inside of OVN | 09:05 |
| noonedeadpunk | while you don't need to have it on switches | 09:06 |
| f0o | I do for distributed_fip tho | 09:06 |
| noonedeadpunk | instead, you need to figure you a peering vlan or jsut use default route for that | 09:06 |
| noonedeadpunk | then, ovn-bgp-agent create a vrf on ovn gateway node, where fakes the vlan as noop device. And then frr picks up addresses from VRF for announcement | 09:07 |
| noonedeadpunk | so if you do distributed fip, then I guess you'd need that on all computes actually | 09:07 |
| noonedeadpunk | but also you may apply that not for all vlan networks... | 09:08 |
| noonedeadpunk | you still can have just regular vlans, and announce on others... | 09:08 |
| noonedeadpunk | but yeah | 09:08 |
| noonedeadpunk | btw, fip is not really applicable for ipv6... not helpful if you wanna have dual stack network though | 09:08 |
| f0o | I know but the fip stuff already made me span the vlan to all computes | 09:09 |
| noonedeadpunk | right... | 09:09 |
| f0o | the dragent; that just needs to run on *some* host and sets foreign next-hop like a route-server right? | 09:09 |
| noonedeadpunk | well, I mean. if it's only about ipv6, and you don't wanna touch ipv4 - I'd suggest really give old dragent a try | 09:10 |
| noonedeadpunk | I think it runs on neutron-api, but not 100% sure tbh.... | 09:10 |
| noonedeadpunk | maybe indeed on gateways... | 09:10 |
| f0o | yeah I'm reading the docs right now and I'm intruiged if it doesnt become it's own nexthop | 09:10 |
| f0o | if it can just announce the prefix with the OVN router's interface as next-hop directly then that would be absolutely ideal | 09:10 |
| noonedeadpunk | well, ovn router does not have directly exposed interface, does it? | 09:11 |
| f0o | it does because the extnet is a vlan | 09:12 |
| noonedeadpunk | oh, ok, yes... | 09:12 |
| f0o | so I can place the extnet's v6 subnet as linknet | 09:12 |
| noonedeadpunk | I don't think it does that though tbh... | 09:12 |
| noonedeadpunk | but not sure | 09:12 |
| f0o | then it and the switches (or even ToR) has direct L2 access | 09:12 |
| f0o | so if I had some BGP speaker that just tells me "2001:db:1::/48 next-hop 2001:db:0::12ab | 09:12 |
| f0o | where 2001:db:0::12ab is the IP from the tenant's router external interface | 09:13 |
| f0o | although in reality the linknet might just be a ULA instead of a GUA | 09:14 |
| f0o | doesnt really matter wther ULA or GUA in the end. IPv6 is free anyway heh | 09:14 |
| f0o | gonna take a look at the dragent codebase and investigate what it annunces as next-hop and if I can just patch it to do what I have in mind | 09:15 |
| f0o | thanks for the inputs! | 09:15 |
| f0o | will make a PR if there's anything of value coming out (but first walking the dog) | 09:16 |
| f0o | noonedeadpunk: okay it seems that dragent is spot-on what I want/need to get this to work for me | 10:11 |
| noonedeadpunk | okay, awesome then :) | 10:11 |
| noonedeadpunk | there's a code in osa to make it work, at least for OVS | 10:11 |
| f0o | You dont' happen to have a link to the OSA docs for it, do you? :D | 10:11 |
| noonedeadpunk | no idea about ovn to have that said | 10:11 |
| f0o | I mean if I can just recycle some of it, that would be good enough. The dragent itself doesnt seem to care about OVN/OVS | 10:12 |
| noonedeadpunk | I think it was it. but not sure: https://docs.openstack.org/openstack-ansible-os_neutron/latest/configure-network-services.html#bgp-dynamic-routing-service-optional | 10:12 |
| noonedeadpunk | looking at local config overrides - that indeed seems it | 10:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | and yeah, just this line triggers a lot of logic under the curttain: https://opendev.org/openstack/openstack-ansible-os_neutron/src/branch/master/vars/main.yml#L300 | 10:15 |
| f0o | gonna have to do some grep'ing | 10:16 |
| opendevreview | Jonathan Rosser proposed openstack/ansible-role-pki master: Allow certificates to be installed by specifying them by name https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-role-pki/+/954239 | 10:16 |
| noonedeadpunk | we just added `neutron_dynamic_routing.services.bgp.bgp_plugin.BgpPlugin` to `neutron_plugin_base` and that was it... | 10:16 |
| noonedeadpunk | and then adding speakers through API | 10:16 |
| f0o | yeah it doesnt seem to have any other relation to OVS/OVN in the role either | 10:17 |
| f0o | so that's cool | 10:17 |
| jrosser | i think we do the same, and took some care to ensure that the bgp session between the dragent and the upstream router happens over some interface/route that setup specifically for that | 10:19 |
| jrosser | usual business of not mixing up data plane and control planes | 10:19 |
| f0o | jrosser: yeah that's a given :) | 10:21 |
| f0o | need to grep for `network-agent_containers` to find what hosts map to it | 10:22 |
| f0o | but I seem to be too stupid today to find it. hound only shows it in inventory/env.d/neutron.yml where it is defined | 10:23 |
| noonedeadpunk | f0o: there should be no network-agent_containers for OVN by default.... | 10:35 |
| f0o | I'm struggling to connect the dots between neutron_bgp_dragent -> network-agent_containers -> network-agent_hosts; I see dragent belongs to agent_containers; but agent_containers and agent_hosts has no connection other than similar name. | 10:38 |
| noonedeadpunk | this indeed was group for ovs/lxb | 10:38 |
| noonedeadpunk | yeah, that's the name:) | 10:39 |
| noonedeadpunk | as it's split via [-|_]hosts$ | 10:39 |
| noonedeadpunk | same for containers | 10:39 |
| f0o | huh | 10:39 |
| f0o | that explains my brainknot | 10:40 |
| noonedeadpunk | dyumanic_inventory..... | 10:40 |
| noonedeadpunk | but it may add more things as well... | 10:40 |
| noonedeadpunk | (defining the group) | 10:40 |
| f0o | so safest is to create an own group that includes neutron_bgp_dragent and nothing else? | 10:41 |
| noonedeadpunk | yeah | 10:41 |
| f0o | or tbh I might just add neutron_bgp_dragent to the network-infra_containers group | 10:41 |
| f0o | because those would make the most sense to have them | 10:41 |
| noonedeadpunk | or that | 10:41 |
| noonedeadpunk | but it's lxc | 10:42 |
| noonedeadpunk | or well | 10:42 |
| noonedeadpunk | depending if you use lxc | 10:42 |
| f0o | current network-infra is also lxc | 10:42 |
| f0o | so should be fine | 10:42 |
| noonedeadpunk | I don't think it is? | 10:42 |
| noonedeadpunk | I mean 0- network-agent is not | 10:42 |
| f0o | network-infra_* is | 10:43 |
| noonedeadpunk | https://opendev.org/openstack/openstack-ansible/src/branch/master/inventory/env.d/neutron.yml#L72-L73 | 10:43 |
| noonedeadpunk | yes, but neutron_bgp_dragent was on agents | 10:43 |
| f0o | yeah but I can change that :D | 10:43 |
| noonedeadpunk | and agents are kind of gateway nodes on ovn | 10:43 |
| f0o | to infra | 10:43 |
| noonedeadpunk | unless it announces only what is locally served | 10:44 |
| noonedeadpunk | but dunno | 10:44 |
| f0o | I just re-re-reading the ovn-bgp-agent docs; not that I missed some detail last time. Because dragent also took me 2-3x reading carefully to realize it has correct next-hop (in the way that I want/need them) | 10:44 |
| f0o | specifically https://docs.openstack.org/ovn-bgp-agent/latest/contributor/drivers/bgp_mode_stretched_l2_design.html | 10:45 |
| f0o | because this reads very similar to dragent | 10:45 |
| noonedeadpunk | it probably is very similar | 10:47 |
| noonedeadpunk | the problem with that specific one, is that I think it's SB DB oriented | 10:47 |
| noonedeadpunk | and that is not really reliable, as ovn does not intend to sb db being directly used, so they tend to change api/behavior it without much of grace period | 10:48 |
| f0o | so I should aim for NB DB? | 10:49 |
| noonedeadpunk | with ovn-bgp-agent - yes | 10:50 |
| f0o | noonedeadpunk: https://imgur.com/a/8MCLvkh does this make sense? | 11:05 |
| f0o | it's getting messy with all the layers piled on top of eachother | 11:06 |
| f0o | maybe I should clarify internal and external IPs of the router right now it's mixed up | 11:07 |
| noonedeadpunk | eh, probably it makes... | 11:07 |
| noonedeadpunk | but I won't neither confirm or deny it, as I'm a bit afraid to mislead you now | 11:07 |
| f0o | :D | 11:08 |
| f0o | Although... TenantRouter will only ever use _1_ GatewayNode right? it doesnt do active-active DVR right? | 11:13 |
| noonedeadpunk | no, it does not | 11:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | so that is correct | 11:14 |
| f0o | v6 simplifies and complicates things so much | 11:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | oh yes | 11:14 |
| f0o | and I guess ovn-bgp-agent does not do ECMP? | 11:15 |
| f0o | so if I were to go full bloated ovn-bgp-agent with ripping out the gateway nodes; would they implement active-active DVR through ECMP? like how VARP works | 11:15 |
| f0o | because dragent might solve the flow but it pins it on one host which likely will just get overwhelmed eventually | 11:17 |
| f0o | so here i'm back at ovn-bgp-agent if that implements ecmp active-active flows as in all 3 gatewaynodes advertise the tenant network | 11:18 |
| noonedeadpunk | um. so OVN does do have some internal logic for distribution of routers across gateway hosts | 11:18 |
| noonedeadpunk | but if each compute would act as a gateway node - then it's unlikely kinda | 11:19 |
| f0o | I've seen vswitchd easily eat up 100% cpu a few times | 11:20 |
| f0o | feels like a bad idea to place this on compute nodes | 11:20 |
| f0o | just checked, 149% CPU for ovs-vswitchd on one GW Node | 11:21 |
| noonedeadpunk | huh | 11:22 |
| f0o | so while I would spread the routers out more, it still wouldnt reduce the load of vswitchd. I can say that this 150% is just one tenant router doing ~15Gbit/s | 11:22 |
| f0o | so this 150% would remain, just be unavailble to tenants and show as cpu-steal | 11:22 |
| f0o | ironically this is also 150% just in v6 traffic haha | 11:24 |
| f0o | which is why it's back on my prio list | 11:24 |
| noonedeadpunk | yeah, ok, we probably don't have such throughput by single customer | 11:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | likely due to QoS rules :D | 11:25 |
| f0o | at this point it feels like just making 2 interfaces, one tenant-networked' for v4 and fips; one public vlan-networked' for v6 is the most scalable approach | 11:29 |
| f0o | because then the switches do all the routing and the can do (W)ECMP :| | 11:29 |
| f0o | but that's horrible UX | 11:30 |
| f0o | and here I am back at the beginning circling around | 11:30 |
| f0o | oh well, Friday 1:30pm in the swedish summer. Might as well just finish up and call it a day in a few to grab a beer with the others | 11:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | oh yes, it's almost midsommar | 11:32 |
| f0o | Midsommar was three-ish weeks ago | 11:33 |
| f0o | idk if that's the same as the meteorological one | 11:34 |
| f0o | or is it astronimical? too many words | 11:34 |
| opendevreview | Jonathan Rosser proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-os_glance master: Use 'name' to specify SSL certificates to the PKI role https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-os_glance/+/954269 | 11:43 |
| noonedeadpunk | ah, doh, indeed | 11:48 |
| noonedeadpunk | anyway time of 5week vacations is already started :D | 11:49 |
| f0o | indeed | 11:49 |
| f0o | there's nobody around the office anymore | 11:49 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/openstack-ansible-ceph_client master: tox: Remove ineffective ignore_basepython_conflict and bump minimum version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-ceph_client/+/952292 | 11:53 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/openstack-ansible-ceph_client master: [doc] correct using of code-block directive https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-ceph_client/+/954199 | 11:53 |
| f0o | noonedeadpunk: do you still have a half a braincell? I have tossed the whole ovn-bgp documentation through an LLM and it came up with something that I need to have double checked because it sounds `too good to be true` but also somewhat contradicts to what I believed how OVN handled router ports | 12:10 |
| f0o | https://paste.opendev.org/show/bT8xvJ1UW4aUSU4CcwCg/ | 12:11 |
| f0o | because this claims that I can get ECMP _ingress_ by default with the ovn-bgp-agent as it announces each gateway node as a potential target; and I can get _egress_ ECMP by simply attaching the Extnet multiple times | 12:13 |
| f0o | I can live with this | 12:13 |
| noonedeadpunk | eh | 12:15 |
| f0o | I know right :D | 12:15 |
| noonedeadpunk | So, I am not sure about all drivers/exposure methods | 12:16 |
| noonedeadpunk | but what ovn-bgp-agent generally does, is it checks where port is binded, and announce it only from this node | 12:16 |
| noonedeadpunk | I think that this is the part you can't really do? | 12:17 |
| noonedeadpunk | `Your tenant router (`TenRt`) must be configured with multiple gateway ports scheduled across your three gateway nodes` | 12:17 |
| f0o | right but if I can get each GatewayNode to host a port for the Tenant Router by allegedly just giving it multiple ExtNet interfaces, then it should be fine right? | 12:17 |
| noonedeadpunk | as yes, if there will be 3 external gatway ports, each of them will be annouunced | 12:17 |
| noonedeadpunk | but neutron api regasrding multiple external gauytways on router is completely borked right now | 12:18 |
| f0o | oh | 12:18 |
| f0o | so it's a "yes in theory but not right now" kind of thing? | 12:18 |
| noonedeadpunk | and even then I'm not sure if it would be 3 ports | 12:18 |
| noonedeadpunk | and then there's no way to ensure these ports would be on different gateway nodes | 12:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | as with ovn-controller stop/start they would be shuffled... | 12:19 |
| f0o | :/ | 12:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | well.. you can of drop other nodes for the target list with ovn-nbctl... | 12:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | as you don't need it to be moved... | 12:20 |
| noonedeadpunk | but dunno | 12:20 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-ceph_client master: Remove outdate file manual-test.rc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-ceph_client/+/954202 | 12:20 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-ceph_client master: Remove outdate file manual-test.rc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-ceph_client/+/954202 | 12:20 |
| noonedeadpunk | so like in theory you might be able to get to a point of it working... | 12:21 |
| noonedeadpunk | but it would not be api-driven for sure at this point | 12:21 |
| noonedeadpunk | imo | 12:21 |
| f0o | sad | 12:21 |
| f0o | would be great to hear from somebody who runs v6 in openstack at scale to see what the heck they do... because it seems like every supported way has their own set of scaling problems | 12:22 |
| noonedeadpunk | we unfortunatelly or fortunatelly don't have that much traffic from single tenant, so yeah :( | 12:23 |
| f0o | I'm just thinking, how do you even go about handling upwards of 100G in this situation | 12:24 |
| f0o | we do 30G+ of v4 no problem but 10-15G of v6 clogs the gatewaynode the router happens to be assigned to | 12:25 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-haproxy_server master: Remove outdate file manual-test.rc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-haproxy_server/+/954720 | 12:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | f0o: I'm frankly confused of why this happens | 12:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | as ipv4 should be waaaaaay more havy in terms of CPU | 12:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | as you need to do nat | 12:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | while ipv6 is routing, which should be very fast | 12:26 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-haproxy_server master: Remove outdate file manual-test.rc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-haproxy_server/+/954720 | 12:26 |
| f0o | v4 is just dropped from the compute node onto the vlan-extnet and from there the switch just handles it | 12:26 |
| noonedeadpunk | oh, ok, so it's ipv4 without FIPs and router in between, I see | 12:26 |
| f0o | but v6 is moved to the gatewaynode and then idk what it does before it puts it on the wire | 12:26 |
| f0o | is there an ovs-ctl command I can run to see what is consuming CPU? | 12:27 |
| noonedeadpunk | like in OVN ideally there's jsut 1 route which propogates to openflow | 12:27 |
| noonedeadpunk | it should be nothing for it.. | 12:27 |
| f0o | https://paste.opendev.org/show/bTK8LawWrDJWn27sfqpi/ only know this one | 12:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | um, not sure about such command | 12:28 |
| f0o | `ovs-appctl dpctl/dump-conntrack | grep 2a0d:bbc7 | wc -l` => 23621 | 12:30 |
| f0o | excluding 2a0d:bbc7 (our v6) => 72656 | 12:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | well - kinda not that much? | 12:34 |
| noonedeadpunk | or well, 25%, which I think is fair distribution? | 12:34 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create master: Remove outdate file manual-test.rc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create/+/954721 | 12:35 |
| f0o | noonedeadpunk: so I have the same numbers on rt2 but there ovs-vswitchd runs at 10% CPU | 12:36 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create master: Remove outdate file manual-test.rc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create/+/954721 | 12:36 |
| f0o | 9.4% even | 12:36 |
| f0o | but on rt1 with similar conntrack is at 150% | 12:36 |
| f0o | probably because it is running most openstack routers | 12:36 |
| f0o | yeah `ovs-appctl coverage/show | grep -e put -e xlate` shows barely any translations happening on rt2 | 12:37 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create master: Remove outdate task - Create container (cow) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create/+/954725 | 13:01 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create master: wip https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create/+/954725 | 13:01 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create master: wip https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create/+/954725 | 13:02 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_hosts master: Remove outdate file manual-test.rc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_hosts/+/954726 | 13:04 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_hosts master: Remove outdate file manual-test.rc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_hosts/+/954726 | 13:11 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-memcached_server master: Remove outdate file manual-test.rc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-memcached_server/+/954728 | 13:18 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-memcached_server master: Remove outdate file manual-test.rc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-memcached_server/+/954728 | 13:19 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-memcached_server master: tox: Remove ineffective ignore_basepython_conflict and bump minimum version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-memcached_server/+/954729 | 13:20 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-memcached_server master: tox: Remove ineffective ignore_basepython_conflict and bump minimum version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-memcached_server/+/954729 | 13:22 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_hosts master: tox: Remove ineffective ignore_basepython_conflict and bump minimum version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_hosts/+/954730 | 13:23 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_hosts master: tox: Remove ineffective ignore_basepython_conflict and bump minimum version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_hosts/+/954730 | 13:24 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_hosts master: tox: Drop basepython (used only python3) and bump minimum version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_hosts/+/954730 | 13:25 |
| f0o | noonedeadpunk: If I add more Gateway Nodes, is that a seamless experience or do I need to do something for them to start taking workloads? | 13:26 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create master: tox: Remove ineffective ignore_basepython_conflict and bump minimum version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create/+/954731 | 13:26 |
| f0o | because i'm thinking of adding 3 and removing the 2 that I have now. I dont want to end in a situation where the current LRPs are not being assigned to the 3 new nodes when both old ones vanish | 13:27 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create master: tox: Remove ineffective ignore_basepython_conflict and bump minimum version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create/+/954731 | 13:27 |
| noonedeadpunk | eh | 13:27 |
| f0o | I have a dejavu about having asked this before... | 13:27 |
| noonedeadpunk | I'd guess it should be just added... but that is a good question | 13:27 |
| noonedeadpunk | as once you asked that - I realized I don't know for sure | 13:28 |
| f0o | heh | 13:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | as we did not have a need to scale our OVN region yet | 13:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | and indeed, mapping of gateway nodes to lrps is stored in nb db | 13:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | the new node should be trivial to add ofc... | 13:29 |
| noonedeadpunk | but it that would be handled by neutron - no idea | 13:29 |
| f0o | guess I'll find out | 13:29 |
| f0o | I faintly remember how to add chassis to LRPs manually | 13:30 |
| f0o | should have a virtual postit (AKA notepad tab) somewhere | 13:30 |
| noonedeadpunk | `ovn-nbctl lrp-set-gateway-chassis lrp-$uid $chassis $prio` | 13:30 |
| f0o | YAS! | 13:31 |
| f0o | <3 | 13:31 |
| f0o | will just add the new gateways, then just stop ovs-vswitchd on the old ones and see what breaks | 13:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | you can also find all lrp binded to existing chassis like this: ovn-sbctl --no-leader-only --format json --columns=options find Port_Binding chassis=${CHASSIS} | jq -r '.data[][][1][] | select(.[0] == "distributed-port") | .[1]' | 13:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | then with a bit of bash.... | 13:31 |
| f0o | TIL that ovn-sbctl can provide JSON | 13:32 |
| noonedeadpunk | yeah, they can | 13:32 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_hosts master: Remove outdate file manual-test.rc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_hosts/+/954732 | 13:32 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_hosts master: Remove outdate file manual-test.rc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_hosts/+/954732 | 13:32 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_hosts master: tox: Remove ineffective ignore_basepython_conflict and bump minimum version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_hosts/+/954733 | 13:33 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_hosts master: tox: Remove ineffective ignore_basepython_conflict and bump minimum version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_hosts/+/954733 | 13:38 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_openrc master: Remove outdate file manual-test.rc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_openrc/+/954734 | 13:41 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_openrc master: Remove outdate file manual-test.rc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_openrc/+/954734 | 13:41 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_openrc master: tox: Remove ineffective ignore_basepython_conflict and bump minimum version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_openrc/+/954735 | 13:43 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_openrc master: tox: Remove ineffective ignore_basepython_conflict and bump minimum version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_openrc/+/954735 | 13:44 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-repo_server master: Remove outdate file manual-test.rc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-repo_server/+/954736 | 13:49 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-repo_server master: Remove outdate file manual-test.rc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-repo_server/+/954736 | 13:49 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-repo_server master: tox: Remove ineffective ignore_basepython_conflict and bump minimum version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-repo_server/+/954737 | 13:50 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-repo_server master: tox: Remove ineffective ignore_basepython_conflict and bump minimum version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-repo_server/+/954737 | 13:51 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-plugins master: Remove outdate file manual-test.rc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-plugins/+/953969 | 13:53 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-plugins master: tox: Remove ineffective ignore_basepython_conflict and bump minimum version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-plugins/+/954740 | 13:54 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-plugins master: tox: Remove ineffective ignore_basepython_conflict and bump minimum version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-plugins/+/954740 | 13:55 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create master: wip https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create/+/954725 | 14:57 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create master: wip https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create/+/954725 | 17:12 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create master: wip https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create/+/954725 | 17:14 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create master: B flag replaced to backingstorage https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_container_create/+/954725 | 20:51 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.0.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!