Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove ctlplane_vip from undercloud control plane bridge #2651

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ciecierski
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@ciecierski ciecierski requested a review from a team as a code owner January 16, 2025 09:17
@github-actions github-actions bot marked this pull request as draft January 16, 2025 09:17
Copy link

Thanks for the PR! ❤️
I'm marking it as a draft, once your happy with it merging and the PR is passing CI, click the "Ready for review" button below.

Copy link

Build failed (check pipeline). Post recheck (without leading slash)
to rerun all jobs. Make sure the failure cause has been resolved before
you rerun jobs.

https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/rdoproject.org/buildset/8fa369cf49ad45428bd9d5d15e1a5623

✔️ openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider SUCCESS in 1h 35m 07s
✔️ podified-multinode-edpm-deployment-crc SUCCESS in 1h 12m 58s
cifmw-crc-podified-edpm-baremetal RETRY_LIMIT in 13m 41s
✔️ noop SUCCESS in 0s
✔️ cifmw-pod-ansible-test SUCCESS in 7m 45s
✔️ cifmw-pod-pre-commit SUCCESS in 7m 49s
✔️ build-push-container-cifmw-client SUCCESS in 37m 45s

@ciecierski
Copy link
Contributor Author

recheck

@ciecierski ciecierski marked this pull request as ready for review January 16, 2025 12:17
Copy link
Collaborator

@frenzyfriday frenzyfriday left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I do not have the context behind why ctlplane_vip is removed but lgtm as per the commit msg + sanity check (it is not being used anywhere else)
/lgtm

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 28, 2025

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 28, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from frenzyfriday. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 28, 2025

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 28, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from frenzyfriday. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Copy link

Build failed (check pipeline). Post recheck (without leading slash)
to rerun all jobs. Make sure the failure cause has been resolved before
you rerun jobs.

https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/rdoproject.org/buildset/ac480681042f42a59314ed60fffe3817

✔️ openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider SUCCESS in 1h 51m 10s
podified-multinode-edpm-deployment-crc FAILURE in 1h 27m 12s
cifmw-crc-podified-edpm-baremetal FAILURE in 1h 37m 38s
✔️ noop SUCCESS in 0s
✔️ cifmw-pod-ansible-test SUCCESS in 8m 31s
✔️ cifmw-pod-pre-commit SUCCESS in 7m 51s
✔️ build-push-container-cifmw-client SUCCESS in 17m 11s

Copy link
Contributor

@hjensas hjensas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I do not agree with this change. The undercloud should have two VIPs.
The issue here is conflicting addresses used in openstack-k8s-operators/data-plane-adoption HCI scenarion.

[1] Is the undercloud's VIP on the ctlplane network.
[2] Is the overcloud's VIP on the ctlplane network.

These addresses cannot be the same, the undercloud VIP is hosted on the undercloud node. The overcloud VIP is controlled by pacemaker cluster on the overcloud nodes.

In the uni01alpha scenario in data-plane-adoption you will see that undercloud ctlplane VIP is 192.168.122.101 and overcloud VIP is 192.168.122.99 - to avoid the overlap.

The VIP's on the undercloud is controller by undercloud.conf options:
undercloud_public_host, undercloud_admin_host. Looking at [3] it seems these are set to nthhost(122) and nthhost(123) - which does not match what we define as VIP in data-plane-adoption scenario.

[1] https://github.com/openstack-k8s-operators/data-plane-adoption/blob/main/scenarios/hci.yaml#L24
[2] https://github.com/openstack-k8s-operators/data-plane-adoption/blob/main/scenarios/hci/vips_data.yaml#L20
[3] https://github.com/openstack-k8s-operators/ci-framework/blob/6295c4e3f419db89bbccef61eddebecfaaf37161/roles/adoption_osp_deploy/tasks/prepare_undercloud.yml#L137C1-L142C69

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants