| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-09-20 | |||
| 12:07:51 | gibi | bauzas: thanks but lower constraints fix will be still be needed | |
| 12:07:56 | gibi | as the job will time out | |
| 12:08:01 | gibi | I'm working on it | |
| 12:08:17 | bauzas | gibi: ack thanks | |
| 12:08:25 | bauzas | gibi: what is the change ? | |
| 12:08:46 | gibi | lower constraint bump on master first | |
| 12:08:50 | gibi | as it effects master | |
| 12:09:23 | gibi | then we can lament on either we bump lower on stable/xena too, or look into somehow pinning setuptools version on stable branches | |
| 12:10:01 | gibi | the thing is that we dont pin setuptools coming from virtualenv package on stable so we use basically the latest on every stable | |
| 12:10:40 | gibi | an the latest setuptools removed support for some features old packages are depends on | |
| 12:10:55 | bauzas | (14:08:46) gibi: lower constraint bump on master first | |
| 12:10:58 | bauzas | can't see it | |
| 12:11:03 | gibi | haven't proposed yet | |
| 12:11:09 | bauzas | oh ok | |
| 12:11:15 | gibi | 14:08 < gibi> I'm working on it | |
| 12:11:16 | gibi | 14:08 < gibi> I'm working on it | |
| 12:11:20 | gibi | 14:08 < gibi> I'm working on it | |
| 12:11:24 | gibi | ups | |
| 12:11:26 | gibi | sorry | |
| 12:15:16 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/placement master: Bump min decorator to 4.0.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/810001 | |
| 12:15:23 | gibi | bauzas: now here it is | |
| 12:15:28 | bauzas | gibi: heh sorry | |
| 12:15:37 | gibi | I was lost couple of hour figuring out what happened | |
| 12:15:53 | gibi | especially as I don't like the ide to bump a lower constraint on stable branch | |
| 12:16:01 | gibi | s/ide/idea/ | |
| 12:16:07 | bauzas | agreed | |
| 12:16:29 | bauzas | taxying | |
| 12:18:23 | gibi | as like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardassian ? :) | |
| 12:18:48 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Update master for stable/xena https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/809761 | |
| 12:19:42 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Add Python3 yoga unit tests https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/809762 | |
| 12:20:20 | gibi | interestingly nova stable/xena is not effected | |
| 12:22:59 | gibi | hm in nova we already have decorator >= 4.1.0 since https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/744506/2/lower-constraints.txt#20 | |
| 12:52:21 | belmoreira | Hi, I need your help to understand if I'm missing something in the new vnc configuration | |
| 12:52:29 | belmoreira | I can finally move nova to "train" release and I'm digging again into the vncproxy changes that were introduced by this time. The vncproxy does now the token validation from the cell DB. In stein I'm running with "workarounds/enable_consoleauth" | |
| 12:53:02 | belmoreira | Currently, I have the same vncproxy for all cells. Means that the user gets the same console_url and I only need to open 1 port in the firewall. Also, haproxy configuration is trivial | |
| 12:53:16 | belmoreira | With the new arch, the console_url needs to be redirected to the vncproxy of the cell for the token validation | |
| 12:53:42 | belmoreira | This means that deployments with a large number of cells need to be creative in the way they expose the different console_urls (per cell) | |
| 12:53:53 | belmoreira | maybe I'm missing something something here... | |
| 15:11:26 | bauzas | belmoreira: sorry, I saw your pings but I don't know how to help you | |
| 15:18:02 | belmoreira | Hi bauzas. Thanks, to me this new approach seems really heavy for deployments with a lot cells. For now I'm hacking something similar to [1] to not have a vncproxy per cell. | |
| 15:18:10 | belmoreira | [1] https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/0bd61915ee1d96ca339f342a190e395a39afbcf9/nova/api/openstack/compute/console_auth_tokens.py#L42 | |
| 15:18:30 | belmoreira | maybe we can discuss this in the PTG | |
| 15:26:51 | dansmith | it seems strange to me that someone with lots of cells would want to *not* shard that service across cells | |
| 15:27:04 | dansmith | especially with geo-distributed cells | |
| 15:31:35 | bauzas | agreed with dansmith | |
| 15:31:45 | dansmith | (he dropped) | |
| 15:32:04 | bauzas | hah, my internal meeting trampled this discussion | |
| 15:32:25 | bauzas | -ETOOMANYMEETINHS | |
| 15:32:29 | bauzas | :) | |
| 15:57:20 | kashyap | bauzas: Drop the needless ones on the floor like hot potatoes. And embrace JOMO (joy of missing out) | |
| 15:59:06 | bauzas | hah | |
| 15:59:20 | bauzas | nah, I'm still digesting my Friday-late meeting :p | |
| 16:06:51 | sean-k-mooney | if the central site has direct connectivity to the edge site then you could just centralise the novnc proxy instnace | |
| 16:07:03 | sean-k-mooney | but ya i would have assumed you would want them at each edge site too | |
| 16:07:11 | sean-k-mooney | well each cell | |
| 16:07:15 | sean-k-mooney | not nessisarly edge | |
| 16:08:04 | sean-k-mooney | i was assuming you would run the novnc proxy on the same host as the cell conductor | |
| 16:09:19 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: I think the change he's referring to was one to make the service only look in one cell, which means you can centralize services, but not unify them (i.e. you need multiple ports and endpoints, regardless of where they are) | |
| 16:13:53 | sean-k-mooney | ah i see | |
| 16:14:51 | sean-k-mooney | unless we moved this to the api db, or allowed the proxy to connect to multiple cell dbs im not sure how we would adress that | |
| 16:15:06 | dansmith | it used to I think, that's the point | |
| 16:15:24 | dansmith | IIRC we removed that ability when we eliminated the consoleauth service | |
| 16:15:55 | melwitt | it (nova-consoleauth) used to use memcache (one instance) to store token auths for the entire deployment | |
| 16:16:08 | dansmith | I imagine that we could add back in just the api db lookup part (like metadata) but I think the expectation was was to make it shard, which I think is a better design, personally | |
| 16:16:12 | dansmith | ah right | |
| 16:18:02 | sean-k-mooney | so really without some way to pass the cell mapping info to a web server there is really no way to use a reverse proxy to expose it over one port/endpoint now | |
| 16:18:12 | melwitt | but yeah, adding a console_auth_token_mappings table would be one way to make it so you only need one console proxy | |
| 16:18:46 | sean-k-mooney | how i would proably try and set it up personaly is have it use a subdomain per cell in the url and have a reverse proxy bind to the single port | |
| 16:18:50 | dansmith | oh, do we not get the instance id as well? | |
| 16:18:53 | sean-k-mooney | then have it delegate to the correct backedn | |
| 16:18:58 | dansmith | that would suck to have to add another mapping :/ | |
| 16:18:59 | melwitt | no we don't, token only | |
| 16:19:10 | dansmith | well then I'm pretty -1 on that plan | |
| 16:19:19 | sean-k-mooney | we dont need to add anything in nova | |
| 16:19:29 | dansmith | you could scatter/gather to find it | |
| 16:19:47 | sean-k-mooney | to find the inial url | |
| 16:19:53 | sean-k-mooney | ya you could | |
| 16:19:54 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: that's not necessary, because we given them the url from the proxy anyway | |
| 16:20:04 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: belmiro just doesn't want that | |
| 16:20:26 | dansmith | presumably because he doesn't want to run multiple services and have multiple firewall rules | |
| 16:20:29 | melwitt | oh yeah, I guess he said as much already (scatter gather) | |
| 16:21:03 | sean-k-mooney | ya if he does not want to run multiple proxy instances | |
| 16:21:10 | dansmith | melwitt: ah, I hadn't even clicked the link, but yeah | |
| 16:21:52 | melwitt | we could add another config option! for choosing whether you want a central console auth | |
| 16:21:55 | dansmith | melwitt: I think we'd want that as a toggle | |
| 16:21:57 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 16:22:11 | dansmith | because if you want most efficient and least-shared, you don't want it doing that | |
| 16:22:18 | melwitt | yeah | |
| 18:47:16 | belmoreira | bauzas dansmith melwitt sean-k-mooney I see that you discussed the vncproxy topic. Sorry I needed to leave the office (end of the working day here). | |
| 18:48:03 | sean-k-mooney | no worries. did you add it to the ptg adgenda | |
| 18:48:47 | belmoreira | not yet | |
| 18:48:55 | sean-k-mooney | was dansmith correct when ne assumed you did not want to run multiple novnc proxy instance (1 per cell) | |
| 18:49:22 | belmoreira | let me explain my concern. | |
| 18:49:27 | sean-k-mooney | or are you just concerned about how many port you need to open in the fire wall | |
| 18:49:29 | sean-k-mooney | sure | |
| 18:49:42 | belmoreira | having the vncproxy per cell in theory is good, because we are sharding the service per cell. But it depends in the deployment... For deployments that only expose the console_url in the internal network is ok. | |
| 18:50:05 | belmoreira | However, in my case I need to expose the vncproxy externally. Having only one set os vncproxies allow me to open only one port in the external firewall and have only one console_url address masked by the load balancer. | |
| 18:50:27 | belmoreira | The current approach of having a vncproxy per cell, means that I will have a different console_url per cell. Mapping this with the LB I will need at least to have a different frontend per cell. If I do it per port is a lot of open ports... | |
| 18:50:38 | sean-k-mooney | well you could | |
| 18:50:49 | sean-k-mooney | you can use a reverse proxy instead of a loadblance | |