Skip to content

kolla: Use OSISM's Gnocchi pool name - #333

Merged
berendt merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
kolla-gnocchi-pool-name
Oct 18, 2026
Merged

berendt merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
kolla-gnocchi-pool-name

Conversation

@ideaship

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

When OSISM deploys Ceph, it creates the Gnocchi pool as metrics (openstack_gnocchi_pool in 099-ceph.yml) and grants client.gnocchi access to that pool only. Kolla renders gnocchi.conf's ceph_pool from ceph_gnocchi_pool_name, whose upstream default (mirrored in 001-ceph.yml) is gnocchi. So unless the configuration repository overrides the name, Gnocchi points at a pool OSISM does not create and its key cannot access. It is the only one of the five OpenStack pools whose names differ. cfg-cookiecutter has carried ceph_gnocchi_pool_name: "metrics" since 2020 to cover this, and configuration repositories copy it.

This derives ceph_gnocchi_pool_name from openstack_gnocchi_pool.name when OSISM deploys Ceph, using the same signal as the Ceph mgr exporter (a non-empty ceph-mgr group). With an external Ceph cluster OSISM creates no pools, so the name stays at upstream's gnocchi.

Repositories generated from cfg-cookiecutter already set metrics, so their effective value does not change. Once a release carries this, the template line is a restatement and can go.

Testing

  • Resolved with ansible against this tree: metrics with a ceph-mgr host, gnocchi with an empty ceph-mgr group. A site's own ceph_gnocchi_pool_name, or a renamed openstack_gnocchi_pool, wins in both cases.
  • On a 2026.1 cluster that deploys Ceph with cephadm, with the configuration repository's ceph_gnocchi_pool_name removed: osism apply -a config gnocchi renders ceph_pool = gnocchi with the previous defaults and ceph_pool = metrics with this change.
  • Checks: yamllint passes, and the kolla drift detector reports nothing to act on.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

When OSISM deploys Ceph, it creates the Gnocchi pool as "metrics"
(openstack_gnocchi_pool in 099-ceph.yml) and grants client.gnocchi
access to that pool only. Kolla renders gnocchi.conf's ceph_pool from
ceph_gnocchi_pool_name, whose upstream default (mirrored in
001-ceph.yml) is "gnocchi". Gnocchi on Ceph therefore points at a pool
OSISM does not create and its key cannot access, unless the
configuration repository overrides the name. It is the only one of
the five OpenStack pools whose names differ. cfg-cookiecutter has
carried ceph_gnocchi_pool_name: "metrics" since 2020 to cover this,
and configuration repositories copy it.

Derive ceph_gnocchi_pool_name from openstack_gnocchi_pool.name when
OSISM deploys Ceph, using the same signal as the Ceph mgr exporter
(a non-empty ceph-mgr group). With an external Ceph cluster OSISM
creates no pools, so the name stays at upstream's "gnocchi".

Resolved with ansible against this tree: "metrics" with a ceph-mgr
host, "gnocchi" with an empty ceph-mgr group, and a site's own
ceph_gnocchi_pool_name or renamed openstack_gnocchi_pool wins in both
cases. The kolla drift detector reports nothing to act on.

Checked on a 2026.1 cluster that deploys Ceph with cephadm, with the
configuration repository's ceph_gnocchi_pool_name removed: osism apply
-a config gnocchi renders ceph_pool = gnocchi with the previous
defaults and ceph_pool = metrics with this change.

Repositories generated from cfg-cookiecutter already set "metrics",
so the effective value does not change for them. Once a release
carries this, the template line is a restatement and can go.

Assisted-by: Claude:claude-opus-5-5
Signed-off-by: Roger Luethi <luethi@osism.tech>
@ideaship ideaship self-assigned this Oct 18, 2026
@ideaship
ideaship marked this pull request as ready for review October 18, 2026 10:37
@ideaship
ideaship requested a review from berendt October 18, 2026 10:37
@berendt
berendt merged commit 83a8e10 into main Oct 18, 2026
3 checks passed
@berendt
berendt deleted the kolla-gnocchi-pool-name branch October 18, 2026 13:25
@github-project-automation github-project-automation Bot moved this from New to Done in Human Board Oct 18, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants