| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-01-19 | |||
| 14:43:21 | sdague | mriedem: I was doing that right now | |
| 14:44:29 | sdague | mriedem: you need the block, otherwise this is going to be broken within an hour with updates | |
| 14:44:41 | sdague | mriedem: https://review.openstack.org/422656 instead | |
| 14:46:24 | bhagyashris | jaypipes: cdent: Hi | |
| 14:49:58 | mriedem | need a +W on this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/421482/ so oslo.serialization can get their final release in for ocata today | |
| 14:51:01 | mriedem | harlowja: ^ it is done | |
| 14:52:26 | vladikr | mriedem, could you please remove your -2 from https://review.openstack.org/#/c/405951 ? - It's all rewritten now | |
| 14:52:51 | mriedem | done | |
| 14:53:00 | vladikr | mriedem, thanks | |
| 14:53:08 | mriedem | vladikr: so you were able to condense that whole series into 2 changes now? | |
| 14:53:53 | vladikr | mriedem, looks like it. removing all the classes in the middle, there is not much left | |
| 14:54:15 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova: Introduce base PowerVM driver (disk drv) https://review.openstack.org/409401 | |
| 14:57:48 | bauzas | sdague: got a sec for a problem related to the placement call from the scheduler ? | |
| 14:58:14 | bauzas | sdague: it seems we default calling the placement service from the reportclient by not using the latest microversion | |
| 14:58:16 | bauzas | http://logs.openstack.org/61/417961/10/check/gate-tempest-dsvm-cells-ubuntu-xenial/8a974f7/logs/screen-n-sch.txt.gz?level=TRACE#_2017-01-19_14_17_38_980 | |
| 14:58:47 | bauzas | sdague: since cdent is on PTO today, do you know how could I add this header ? | |
| 15:00:12 | bauzas | sdague: I mean, in https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/client/report.py#L172 | |
| 15:00:57 | mriedem | bauzas: jaypipes has a patch that does that, sec | |
| 15:01:10 | bauzas | mriedem: oh cool | |
| 15:01:25 | mriedem | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/407309/13/nova/scheduler/client/report.py | |
| 15:01:32 | mriedem | the problem there is he's requesting 'latest', | |
| 15:01:49 | mriedem | we don't want the report client to request 'latest', we want a specific version that we're opting into | |
| 15:02:02 | mriedem | because at some point latest in pike might break an ocata client | |
| 15:02:52 | bauzas | mriedem: I can try to amend that patch | |
| 15:03:11 | bauzas | mriedem: we're having a max version for our novaclient, right? | |
| 15:03:19 | mriedem | bauzas: yes | |
| 15:03:27 | mriedem | there is a max version in novaclient for what it knows how to understand | |
| 15:03:45 | bauzas | yeah, I remember | |
| 15:03:48 | mriedem | by default the python api in novaclient always requests the minimum | |
| 15:03:49 | bauzas | and a min one too | |
| 15:04:16 | bauzas | yeah, unless you're specifically asking for another version in your resource call | |
| 15:04:23 | bauzas | I remember that too | |
| 15:05:28 | bauzas | mriedem: I could be doing that, like calling MIN_VERSION by default and just ask for 1.4 for my placement call in the scheduler | |
| 15:05:37 | mriedem | bauzas: looks like you can just past the headers kwarg to session.get() https://github.com/openstack/keystoneauth/blob/master/keystoneauth1/session.py#L485 | |
| 15:05:49 | mriedem | *pass | |
| 15:06:10 | bauzas | yeah | |
| 15:06:12 | bauzas | saw that | |
| 15:06:20 | mriedem | the question is what if the minimum available isn't new enough for what you need? | |
| 15:06:21 | bauzas | but I'd prefer to have our reportclient having that | |
| 15:07:05 | bauzas | mriedem: I think the safe_connect deco should say sorry then | |
| 15:07:05 | mriedem | now that i'm thinking about this, don't people usually upgrade the api last? | |
| 15:07:21 | mriedem | yeah but what does that mean for the filter scheduler? | |
| 15:07:25 | openstackgerrit | Sam Betts proposed openstack/nova: Change order of _cleanup_deploy and _unprovision in Ironic virt https://review.openstack.org/422678 | |
| 15:07:57 | bauzas | mriedem: it would mean that you'd have to run the Ocata placement service before upgrading nova-scheduler | |
| 15:08:10 | bauzas | EmilienM: ^ | |
| 15:09:00 | EmilienM | bauzas: that kind of orchestration is not easy to do, specially when you deploy in production | |
| 15:09:09 | bauzas | I know | |
| 15:09:40 | mriedem | bauzas: but that also means upgrading nova-api to ocata doesn't it? unless you package them as separate services | |
| 15:10:52 | mriedem | do i need to start a ML thread to think this through? | |
| 15:10:53 | bauzas | mriedem: that indeed depends on how it is packed | |
| 15:10:59 | bauzas | mriedem: that looks important | |
| 15:11:09 | bauzas | and we're 1 week away from FF | |
| 15:11:13 | bauzas | which makes me nervous | |
| 15:11:39 | mriedem | well let me start a thread first and we can stew in there | |
| 15:12:33 | mriedem | johnthetubaguy: keep me honest about the order of upgrade, with n-api coming last | |
| 15:12:55 | mriedem | it seems this changes every time i talk about it, might be n-cond -> n-api -> n-cpus | |
| 15:13:05 | bauzas | in general yes | |
| 15:13:26 | mriedem | http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/upgrade.html | |
| 15:13:32 | mriedem | " It is safest to start nova-conductor first and nova-api last." | |
| 15:13:35 | bauzas | we did the modification with dan's change so that newton computes auto-heal once they find a placement service | |
| 15:13:47 | mriedem | yeah i'm not worried about n-cpu | |
| 15:13:59 | bauzas | but we haven't tell'm what version of placement they should expect | |
| 15:15:30 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: so it coming last is kind of a new thing | |
| 15:15:40 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: we used to do it first, then n-cpu last | |
| 15:16:40 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: so I should be clearer, it used to say turn off all non n-cpu, turn on the new ones, then restart the new n-cpu processes | |
| 15:17:02 | mriedem | but we've never been clear on n-api or n-sch having an order, | |
| 15:17:04 | mriedem | now it would | |
| 15:17:09 | mriedem | depending on how things are packaged | |
| 15:17:13 | mriedem | although, | |
| 15:17:26 | johnthetubaguy | yeah, I think before we were meaning, everything off, then everything back on | |
| 15:17:36 | mriedem | you could roll the new code, you just don't restart n-api until the end of the control services | |
| 15:17:42 | mriedem | you could still restart placement | |
| 15:18:15 | johnthetubaguy | oh, I see what you mean now | |
| 15:18:27 | johnthetubaguy | if you run placement on the same as n-api | |
| 15:18:32 | johnthetubaguy | its going to be really late | |
| 15:18:33 | bauzas | of course | |
| 15:18:58 | bauzas | but that still means we have an hard dependency on the restart conditions between placement and scheduler | |
| 15:19:13 | bauzas | you have to have the placement service be upgraded before n-sch | |
| 15:19:30 | johnthetubaguy | oh, scheduler hard depends on a new API microversion? | |
| 15:19:35 | bauzas | yup | |
| 15:19:40 | johnthetubaguy | dang | |
| 15:19:48 | jaypipes | johnthetubaguy: yep, absolutely. | |
| 15:19:53 | bauzas | because the resources field is a 1.4 microversion | |
| 15:20:16 | johnthetubaguy | its almost like it would be easier if its considered a separate project, that gets upgrade before nova | |
| 15:20:22 | bauzas | johnthetubaguy: jaypipes: proof here http://logs.openstack.org/61/417961/10/check/gate-tempest-dsvm-cells-ubuntu-xenial/8a974f7/logs/screen-n-sch.txt.gz?level=TRACE#_2017-01-19_14_17_38_980 | |
| 15:20:34 | bauzas | johnthetubaguy: too soon IMO | |
| 15:20:56 | bauzas | we're already having most of our operators trailing with deploying a placement service for ocata | |
| 15:21:01 | johnthetubaguy | bauzas: probably | |
| 15:21:14 | bauzas | we can't expect them to package and manage a totally separate service right now | |
| 15:21:25 | bauzas | even for pike | |
| 15:21:35 | johnthetubaguy | feels like we should really support N and N-1 placement | |
| 15:21:36 | edleafe | johnthetubaguy: separate project, eh? Now there's a novel approach! | |
| 15:21:39 | edleafe | :) | |
| 15:21:58 | bauzas | honestly, I don't want to go that way | |
| 15:22:07 | bauzas | we already claim to support N-1 services | |
| 15:22:13 | mriedem | "we can't expect them to package and manage a totally separate service right now" ? | |
| 15:22:15 | mriedem | really? | |
| 15:22:21 | bauzas | so we should support the placement service being n-1 | |
| 15:22:39 | mriedem | placement has been available since newton, it's already out there for the packaging before upgrading to ocata, | |
| 15:22:41 | mriedem | so i don't see a problem there | |