settingsLogin | Registersettings

[openstack-dev] [ironic] inclusion of openstack/networking-generic-switch project under OpenStack baremetal program

0 votes

Hi all,

as this topic it was recently brought up in ironic IRC meeting, I'd like to
start a discussion on the subject.

A quick recap - networking-generic-switch project (n-g-s) was born out of
necessity to do two things:

  • test the "network isolation for baremetal nodes" (a.k.a. multi-tenancy)
    feature of ironic on upstream gates in virtualized environment and
  • do the same on cheap/simple/dumb hardware switches that are not supported
    by other various openstack/networking-* projects.

Back when it was created AFAIR neutron governance (neutron stadium) was
under some changes, so in the end n-g-s ended up not belonging to any
official program.

Over time n-g-s grew to be an essential part of ironic gate testing
(similar to virtualbmc). What's more, we have reports that it is already
being used in production.

Currently the core reviewers team of n-g-s consists of 4 people (2 of those
are currently core reviewers in ironic too), all of them are working for
the same company (Mirantis). This poses some risk as companies and people
come and go, plus since some voting ironic gate jobs depend on n-g-s
stability, a more diverse group of core reviewers from baremetal program
might be beneficial to be able to land patches in case of severe gate
troubles.

Currently I know of 3 proposed ways to change the current situation:

1) include n-g-s under ironic (OpenStack Baremetal program) governance,
effectively including ironic-core team to the core team of n-g-s similar
to how ironic-inspector currently governed (keeping an extended sub-core
team). Reasoning for addition is the same as with virtualbmc/sushy
projects, with the debatable difference that the actual scope of n-g-s is
quite bigger and apparently includes production use-cases;

2) keep things as they are now, just add ironic-stable-maint team to the
n-g-s core reviewers to decrease low diversity risks;

3) merge the code from n-g-s into networking-baremetal project which is
already under ironic governance.

As a core in n-g-s myself I'm happy with either 1) or 2), but not really
fond of 3) as it kind of stretches the networking-baremetal scope too much
IMHO.

Eager to hear your comments and proposals.

Cheers,
--
Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy
Senior Software Engineer
Mirantis Inc
www.mirantis.com


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
asked Nov 14, 2017 in openstack-dev by Pavlo_Shchelokovskyy (4,760 points)   3 4

4 Responses

0 votes

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy
pshchelokovskyy@mirantis.com wrote:
As a core in n-g-s myself I'm happy with either 1) or 2), but not really
fond of 3) as it kind of stretches the networking-baremetal scope too much
IMHO.

Personally, I'm happy with 1 or 2. I personally think we might as well
lean towards 1 from a standpoint that we've had operators bring up
using n-g-s, and while we as a community predicate that it is not
intended for production use, and they are aware of that, they need
something that works for their baremetal deployment scenario. Given
the common usage, it just seems logical to me that we go for option 1.
Especially since we already have a fairly good practice in Ironic of
not approving things in sub-project that we do not understand.

-Julia


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Nov 14, 2017 by Julia_Kreger (1,460 points)   3
0 votes

Hi!

Thanks for raising this.

On 11/14/2017 05:16 PM, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote:
Hi all,

as this topic it was recently brought up in ironic IRC meeting, I'd like to
start a discussion on the subject.

A quick recap - networking-generic-switch project (n-g-s) was born out of
necessity to do two things:

-  test the "network isolation for baremetal nodes" (a.k.a. multi-tenancy)
feature of ironic on upstream gates in virtualized environment and
- do the same on cheap/simple/dumb hardware switches that are not supported by
other various openstack/networking-* projects.

Back when it was created AFAIR neutron governance (neutron stadium) was under
some changes, so in the end n-g-s ended up not belonging to any official program.

Over time n-g-s grew to be an essential part of ironic gate testing (similar to
virtualbmc). What's more, we have reports that it is already being used in
production.

Currently the core reviewers team of n-g-s consists of 4 people (2 of those are
currently core reviewers in ironic too), all of them are working for the same
company (Mirantis). This poses some risk as companies and people come and go,
plus since some voting ironic gate jobs depend on n-g-s stability, a more
diverse group of core reviewers from baremetal program might be beneficial to be
able to land patches in case of severe gate troubles.

++++

Currently I know of 3 proposed ways to change the current situation:

1) include n-g-s under ironic (OpenStack Baremetal program) governance,
effectively including ironic-core team to the core team of  n-g-s similar to how
ironic-inspector currently governed (keeping an extended sub-core team).
Reasoning for addition is the same as with virtualbmc/sushy projects, with the
debatable difference that the actual scope of n-g-s is quite bigger and
apparently includes production use-cases;

Some time ago I would go for option (2), now I guess I'm more with option (1). I
think we have to recognize that certain things we don't target for production
(yet or at all) end up in production. We cannot hide from this fact.

Furthermore, not all productions are the same. While networking-generic-switch
certainly has (probably addressable) problems, it may be just enough for many
cases, especially for people just starting with ironic. This is the key point
that makes me prefer this option - we always need to work on an easier start.

2) keep things as they are now, just add ironic-stable-maint team to the n-g-s
core reviewers to decrease low diversity risks;

This would work, but I think it hides the problem instead of fixing it - see above.

3) merge the code from n-g-s into networking-baremetal project which is already
under ironic governance.

Well.. projects are cheap, let's have more of them :) Seriously though, I
sometimes feel that networking-baremetal already does too many unrelated
things. Let's not add to it.

As a core in n-g-s myself I'm happy with either 1) or 2), but not really fond of
3) as it kind of stretches the networking-baremetal scope too much IMHO.

TL;DR I vote for (1) with properly documenting the scope and limitations.

Dmitry

Eager to hear your comments and proposals.

Cheers,
--
Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy
Senior Software Engineer
Mirantis Inc
www.mirantis.com


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Nov 14, 2017 by Dmitry_Tantsur (18,080 points)   2 3 4
0 votes

Thanks for sending this out.

I would vote for Option 1.

Thanks,
John

From: Pavlo Shchelokovskyy [mailto:pshchelokovskyy@mirantis.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:16 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] [ironic] inclusion of openstack/networking-generic-switch project under OpenStack baremetal program

Hi all,

as this topic it was recently brought up in ironic IRC meeting, I'd like to start a discussion on the subject.

A quick recap - networking-generic-switch project (n-g-s) was born out of necessity to do two things:

  • test the "network isolation for baremetal nodes" (a.k.a. multi-tenancy) feature of ironic on upstream gates in virtualized environment and
  • do the same on cheap/simple/dumb hardware switches that are not supported by other various openstack/networking-* projects.

Back when it was created AFAIR neutron governance (neutron stadium) was under some changes, so in the end n-g-s ended up not belonging to any official program.

Over time n-g-s grew to be an essential part of ironic gate testing (similar to virtualbmc). What's more, we have reports that it is already being used in production.

Currently the core reviewers team of n-g-s consists of 4 people (2 of those are currently core reviewers in ironic too), all of them are working for the same company (Mirantis). This poses some risk as companies and people come and go, plus since some voting ironic gate jobs depend on n-g-s stability, a more diverse group of core reviewers from baremetal program might be beneficial to be able to land patches in case of severe gate troubles.

Currently I know of 3 proposed ways to change the current situation:

1) include n-g-s under ironic (OpenStack Baremetal program) governance, effectively including ironic-core team to the core team of n-g-s similar to how ironic-inspector currently governed (keeping an extended sub-core team). Reasoning for addition is the same as with virtualbmc/sushy projects, with the debatable difference that the actual scope of n-g-s is quite bigger and apparently includes production use-cases;

2) keep things as they are now, just add ironic-stable-maint team to the n-g-s core reviewers to decrease low diversity risks;

3) merge the code from n-g-s into networking-baremetal project which is already under ironic governance.

As a core in n-g-s myself I'm happy with either 1) or 2), but not really fond of 3) as it kind of stretches the networking-baremetal scope too much IMHO.

Eager to hear your comments and proposals.

Cheers,
--
Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy
Senior Software Engineer
Mirantis Inc
www.mirantis.com


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Nov 14, 2017 by Villalovos,_John_L (580 points)   1
0 votes

Thank you. I too vote for 'Option 1'.

Thanks and Regards
Shiv

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Villalovos, John L <
john.l.villalovos@intel.com> wrote:

Thanks for sending this out.

I would vote for Option 1.

Thanks,

John

From: Pavlo Shchelokovskyy [mailto:pshchelokovskyy@mirantis.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:16 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: [openstack-dev] [ironic] inclusion of
openstack/networking-generic-switch project under OpenStack baremetal
program

Hi all,

as this topic it was recently brought up in ironic IRC meeting, I'd like
to start a discussion on the subject.

A quick recap - networking-generic-switch project (n-g-s) was born out of
necessity to do two things:

  • test the "network isolation for baremetal nodes" (a.k.a. multi-tenancy)
    feature of ironic on upstream gates in virtualized environment and

  • do the same on cheap/simple/dumb hardware switches that are not
    supported by other various openstack/networking-* projects.

Back when it was created AFAIR neutron governance (neutron stadium) was
under some changes, so in the end n-g-s ended up not belonging to any
official program.

Over time n-g-s grew to be an essential part of ironic gate testing
(similar to virtualbmc). What's more, we have reports that it is already
being used in production.

Currently the core reviewers team of n-g-s consists of 4 people (2 of
those are currently core reviewers in ironic too), all of them are working
for the same company (Mirantis). This poses some risk as companies and
people come and go, plus since some voting ironic gate jobs depend on n-g-s
stability, a more diverse group of core reviewers from baremetal program
might be beneficial to be able to land patches in case of severe gate
troubles.

Currently I know of 3 proposed ways to change the current situation:

1) include n-g-s under ironic (OpenStack Baremetal program) governance,
effectively including ironic-core team to the core team of n-g-s similar
to how ironic-inspector currently governed (keeping an extended sub-core
team). Reasoning for addition is the same as with virtualbmc/sushy
projects, with the debatable difference that the actual scope of n-g-s is
quite bigger and apparently includes production use-cases;

2) keep things as they are now, just add ironic-stable-maint team to the
n-g-s core reviewers to decrease low diversity risks;

3) merge the code from n-g-s into networking-baremetal project which is
already under ironic governance.

As a core in n-g-s myself I'm happy with either 1) or 2), but not really
fond of 3) as it kind of stretches the networking-baremetal scope too much
IMHO.

Eager to hear your comments and proposals.

Cheers,

--

Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy

Senior Software Engineer

Mirantis Inc

www.mirantis.com


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Nov 15, 2017 by Shivanand_Tendulker (360 points)   1
...