| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-01-16 | |||
| 21:49:23 | openstackgerrit | OpenStack Proposal Bot proposed openstack/nova: Updated from global requirements https://review.openstack.org/420844 | |
| 21:50:12 | melwitt | it uses the get_current() context from TLS, so that implies my target_cell modified context isn't in get_current(). makes sense because I don't think anything about target_cell saves the new targeted context to TLS | |
| 22:00:03 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova: Fanout the db sync to all cells if --local_cell is False https://review.openstack.org/420973 | |
| 22:03:32 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova: Fix the generated cell0 default database name https://review.openstack.org/420439 | |
| 22:03:32 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova: Add some cellsv2 setup docs https://review.openstack.org/420198 | |
| 22:04:15 | mriedem | dansmith: had to remove the dependencies on that bottom change b/c the stable/newton backports for the devstack/grenade changes were keeping it from merging | |
| 22:12:17 | dansmith | mriedem: ack, thansk | |
| 22:12:39 | mriedem | man the db sync stuff in devstack is getting a bit crazy | |
| 22:12:59 | dansmith | sync, sync, sync again, sure one more why not | |
| 22:13:19 | mriedem | and if we're counting, we'll have 4 dbs in the multinode job: nova_api, nova_cell0, nova (cell1), nova_subnode_cell (cell2) | |
| 22:13:34 | dansmith | well, four dbs for a multi-cell cloud.. not bad :) | |
| 22:13:44 | mriedem | and in pike we'll have the placement db :) | |
| 22:13:55 | mriedem | but at that point it's no longer nova so not our fault | |
| 22:15:48 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 22:17:06 | mriedem | ok here is the devstack change of doom https://review.openstack.org/420976 | |
| 22:17:19 | mriedem | i would be amazed if that worked on the first try | |
| 22:18:03 | dansmith | mriedem: well, we need the late discover_hosts even without trying to create another cell | |
| 22:18:06 | dansmith | don't you want to separate those/ | |
| 22:18:38 | mriedem | i could | |
| 22:18:52 | mriedem | and get less cute with the list_cells awk | |
| 22:19:36 | mriedem | yeah let me separate that quick, basically just if n-cpu; then discover_hosts | |
| 22:19:46 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 22:21:13 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova: WIP Move instance creation to conductor https://review.openstack.org/319379 | |
| 22:28:24 | mriedem | ok done | |
| 22:28:39 | mriedem | dansmith: here is the change you'll need https://review.openstack.org/#/c/420981/1 | |
| 22:29:00 | dansmith | thanks | |
| 22:36:54 | mriedem | jaypipes: +2 on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/398473/ now | |
| 22:36:55 | mriedem | thanks | |
| 22:50:45 | mriedem | alright apparently i'm going to die in an ice storm and should head home, so doing that now, will be back online later | |
| 23:07:53 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova: WIP Move instance creation to conductor https://review.openstack.org/319379 | |
| 23:10:07 | openstackgerrit | Gage Hugo proposed openstack/nova: Fixed warning messages when building docs https://review.openstack.org/420990 | |
| 23:35:28 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova: api-ref: Fix deprecated proxy API parameters https://review.openstack.org/416882 | |
| 23:44:59 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova: Multicell support for instance listing https://review.openstack.org/396775 | |
| 23:45:00 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova: WIP Move instance creation to conductor https://review.openstack.org/319379 | |
| 23:45:00 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova: Make api_samples tests use simple cell environment https://review.openstack.org/410473 | |
| 23:53:03 | mriedem | hmm, wtf is the difference between gate-tempest-dsvm-multinode-full-ubuntu-xenial-nv and gate-tempest-dsvm-neutron-multinode-full-ubuntu-xenial-nv now that both are running neutron | |
| 23:56:14 | mriedem | heh, turns out, not a gd thing | |
| #openstack-nova - 2017-01-17 | |||
| 00:04:16 | mriedem | i farqed up the discover_hosts devstack patch, update coming | |
| 00:05:09 | mikal | mriedem: what does it mean to have an instance mapping in a cell with no hosts? | |
| 00:05:27 | mriedem | mikal: mayhem is what | |
| 00:05:56 | mriedem | mikal: context? | |
| 00:05:59 | mikal | mriedem: see comment on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/420451 | |
| 00:06:13 | mikal | mriedem: you check if there are any hosts, and only if there are none do you check if there are any instances | |
| 00:06:18 | mikal | mriedem: which seems... redundant to me | |
| 00:06:24 | mikal | mriedem: but also not the end of the world | |
| 00:06:43 | mriedem | good question | |
| 00:06:49 | dansmith | they're different things, and if we had a host_map delete command, | |
| 00:06:56 | dansmith | then you'd still need to check that there aren't any instances | |
| 00:07:06 | dansmith | this delete command is to let you delete cells you created and didn't setup | |
| 00:07:25 | dansmith | since you can't really have multiple real cells yet, we don't likely need more of the delete commands just yet | |
| 00:07:31 | mikal | dansmith: but doesn't no hosts imply no instances? | |
| 00:07:36 | dansmith | no | |
| 00:07:45 | dansmith | I mean, I know what you're saying, | |
| 00:07:49 | mikal | dansmith: right, explain that bit in small words for me | |
| 00:07:56 | dansmith | but if you had deleted a host you would still have some instance mappings | |
| 00:08:16 | mikal | So deleting the host which has the instances on it doesn't cascade the delete to the instances? | |
| 00:08:17 | dansmith | there is no foreign key constraint on that stuff, | |
| 00:08:22 | dansmith | so you could have nuked some things | |
| 00:08:33 | dansmith | you can't delete a host yet, so .. no :) | |
| 00:09:03 | mikal | Heh | |
| 00:09:30 | mriedem | like today you can delete a compute node in the db by deleting the nova-compute service for that host | |
| 00:09:44 | mriedem | and i'm pretty sure that doesn't mean you can't still have instnaces in the db pointing at that node | |
| 00:09:48 | dansmith | right | |
| 00:09:52 | mikal | That's a fair point | |
| 00:09:56 | dansmith | just sanity checking | |
| 00:10:01 | mikal | I don't feel we need to hold the new thing to a higher standard than what we have now | |
| 00:14:18 | mriedem | mikal: i'm failing to pick up on sarcasm there | |
| 00:19:00 | mikal | mriedem: Oh, sorry | |
| 00:19:19 | mikal | mriedem: I am glad the new code is consistent in its level of terrible with the old | |
| 00:19:23 | mikal | mgood enough? | |
| 00:19:49 | Kevin_Zheng | Hi cores, any particular reason that we have limited the length of instance tag to be 60 but created a db model with max length of 80? | |
| 00:22:22 | Kevin_Zheng | http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova/tree/nova/db/sqlalchemy/models.py#n1456 db model | |
| 00:22:56 | mriedem | Kevin_Zheng: hmm, probably a question for jaypipes | |
| 00:23:31 | Kevin_Zheng | mriedm: hmm ok | |
| 00:24:10 | mriedem | my guess is the 60 number in the API comes from the spec https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/liberty/approved/tag-instances.html#data-model-impact | |
| 00:24:37 | Kevin_Zheng | http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova/tree/nova/objects/tag.py#n18 FYI | |
| 00:24:50 | Kevin_Zheng | yeah, but why 80 in db model :) | |
| 00:25:00 | jaypipes | Kevin_Zheng: no idea... probably just an oversight. | |
| 00:25:22 | mriedem | snikitin: ^ | |
| 00:27:20 | mriedem | the db model change was https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97168/ | |
| 00:27:25 | mriedem | which was a long long slog | |
| 00:27:32 | mriedem | so my guess would be, the db model stuff merged, | |
| 00:27:40 | mriedem | and then a release or more later the REST API change merged | |
| 00:27:45 | Kevin_Zheng | maybe we can expand limit to 80? as we already created 80 in db | |
| 00:27:49 | mriedem | at which point we'd totally forgotten what we were doing | |
| 00:27:58 | Kevin_Zheng | haha | |
| 00:30:52 | mriedem | yeah even looking at patch set 1 of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/128940/127/nova/objects/tag.py | |
| 00:30:57 | Kevin_Zheng | looks like it start with 80 in the initial patch and nobody asked about it | |
| 00:30:59 | Kevin_Zheng | yeah | |
| 00:31:00 | mriedem | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/128940/1/nova/api/openstack/compute/schemas/v2/instance_tags.py | |
| 00:31:02 | mriedem | it was 60 | |
| 00:31:10 | mriedem | ^ had 127 patch sets | |
| 00:31:34 | mriedem | i don't know if the 60 vs 80 has anything to do with unicode? | |
| 00:32:02 | Kevin_Zheng | ah maybe, he said something about converting in spec | |
| 00:32:10 | mriedem | Kevin_Zheng: i assume you're asking because you need to know the schema for booting an instance with tags right? | |
| 00:32:41 | mriedem | snikitin would be the person to ask if he remembers a good reason for it | |
| 00:34:17 | Kevin_Zheng | ah, good, thanks, will try to catch him | |
| 00:35:09 | openstackgerrit | Claudiu Belu proposed openstack/nova: Adds CPUFeaturesField to ImageMetaProps https://review.openstack.org/420960 | |
| 00:35:47 | jaypipes | mriedem: no, 60 vs. 80 has nothing to do with unicode. | |
| 00:39:21 | Kevin_Zheng | jaypipes: so is it just an oversight or do we have any particular reason? | |