Bug 2231120 - [OSP 16]Cannot force pacemaker containers to specific version when newer subversion exists in registry.
Summary: [OSP 16]Cannot force pacemaker containers to specific version when newer subv...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat OpenStack
Classification: Red Hat
Component: tripleo-ansible
Version: 16.2 (Train)
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
medium
high
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: OSP Team
QA Contact: Joe H. Rahme
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-08-10 16:16 UTC by Matt Flusche
Modified: 2023-08-11 14:07 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-08-11 14:07:38 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker OSP-27416 0 None None None 2023-08-10 16:18:04 UTC

Description Matt Flusche 2023-08-10 16:16:54 UTC
Description of problem:

Describing this issue with just a two containers but seems to impact all pacemaker containers.  All non-pacemaker containers are correctly forced to the version defined in images.yaml.

Registry contains the following containers:

openstack-ovn-northd:16.2.4-17
openstack-ovn-northd:16.2.4-17.1679573635
openstack-ovn-controller:16.2.4-17
openstack-ovn-controller:16.2.4-17.1679573638

However, the goal is to force to version: 16.2.4-17 with the following images.yaml in deployment.

parameter_defaults:
  [...]
  ContainerOvnDbsImage: registry.local:443/rhosp-rhel8/openstack-ovn-northd:16.2.4-17
  ContainerOvnControllerImage: registry.local:443/rhosp-rhel8/openstack-ovn-controller:16.2.4-17

With this config ovn-controller (not managed by pacemaker) will be deployed with the desired 16.2.4-17 version; however, openstack-ovn-northd (tagged as: cluster.common.tag/openstack-ovn-northd:pcmklatest) will be updated to the more current version: 16.2.4-17.1679573635

This seem to be related to how the container is tagged and setup for pacemaker; perhaps the tripleo-container-tag ansible playbook used for this.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rhosp 16.2.4


How reproducible:
See above

Comment 1 Brendan Shephard 2023-08-11 01:40:27 UTC
Pretty sure this is intentional to ensure stability. Those containers will only be changed during a minor update:
https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/blob/1393d39be367db3acb02508e0e858395a4e4fefa/deployment/ovn/ovn-dbs-pacemaker-puppet.yaml#L17-L24

They are tagged during update_tasks here:
https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/blob/1393d39be367db3acb02508e0e858395a4e4fefa/deployment/ovn/ovn-dbs-pacemaker-puppet.yaml#L315-L320


This wont happen outside of a update, so the only way you could achieve this without updating would be to manually pull the images, tag them and restart the pacemaker services. Whether pidone would support such a thing is another question. Adding pidone to review.

Comment 2 Luca Miccini 2023-08-11 06:12:37 UTC
Hey Matt, from our discussion on slack I thought we were going to use the minor update workflow? 
Brendan is correct, I don't think you can change bundle images during a stack update nowadays if you use the cluster common tag (https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/commit/8b8f103906843ab25e5b97a76253b6120aea1de3).
I would +1 the manual tagging of the images in case of emergency (production down, fix it quickly and run the minor update later).

Cheers,
Luca

Comment 3 Luca Miccini 2023-08-11 12:54:07 UTC
probably a duplicate of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215283

Comment 4 Matt Flusche 2023-08-11 14:07:38 UTC
(In reply to Luca Miccini from comment #2)
> Hey Matt, from our discussion on slack I thought we were going to use the
> minor update workflow? 
> Brendan is correct, I don't think you can change bundle images during a
> stack update nowadays if you use the cluster common tag
> (https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/commit/
> 8b8f103906843ab25e5b97a76253b6120aea1de3).
> I would +1 the manual tagging of the images in case of emergency (production
> down, fix it quickly and run the minor update later).
> 
> Cheers,
> Luca

Thanks for the clarification, I guess I didn't understand the full situation during the slack discussion and that minor update workflow was necessary (or manually tagging the images).

Sorry for being slow to understand, I'll close this one.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.