| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-01-31 | |||
| 18:01:11 | mriedem | cdent: before you dine, | |
| 18:01:18 | cdent | mriedem: yessir? | |
| 18:01:28 | mriedem | did either you or bauzas put anything up for the placement upgrade stuff in the devref? if not, i can start that | |
| 18:01:31 | mriedem | it will be pretty simple | |
| 18:01:34 | mriedem | just upgrade from newton notes | |
| 18:01:40 | cdent | I did not | |
| 18:01:43 | mriedem | bauzas: ? | |
| 18:01:58 | mriedem | ok i'll get started on that one | |
| 18:02:04 | cdent | thanks | |
| 18:10:19 | dansmith | sdague: question for you here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/426310 | |
| 18:12:07 | sdague | dansmith: ok, question away | |
| 18:12:17 | dansmith | sdague: it's in the review | |
| 18:12:26 | dansmith | about verify_noapi | |
| 18:14:26 | sdague | how can this run when the api is down? | |
| 18:14:35 | dansmith | sdague: there are other ways to solve this, including some sort of post phase for the plugin, where we've already run the verify, if you'd prefer | |
| 18:14:38 | dansmith | sdague: it's nova-manage | |
| 18:14:40 | sdague | it all depends on 'nova service-list' | |
| 18:14:59 | dansmith | oh, did I do it with service-list? I did.. | |
| 18:15:33 | dansmith | I don't actually care that the api is down, of course, although I guess that means we won't have the primary node compute up either | |
| 18:15:45 | sdague | right, that too | |
| 18:15:53 | dansmith | so, then, yeah, I need to run discover_hosts again after we've done the resource verify | |
| 18:17:04 | sdague | so, given the number of other things in flight, does this catch a failure that would have passed otherwise? Or is this just catching a failure earlier? | |
| 18:17:07 | dansmith | sdague: so, according to the plugin docs, I could run discover from resource verify post-upgrade I guess | |
| 18:17:36 | sdague | dansmith: yeh, post-upgrade seems like a put to run the discover_hosts again if you need it | |
| 18:17:38 | dansmith | sdague: this is a new thing we've introduced, and that log link proves that we're actually hitting it | |
| 18:18:12 | sdague | ok, but the fix for that isn't this, right? | |
| 18:18:22 | sdague | the fix for that is another discover_hosts call | |
| 18:18:37 | dansmith | sdague: no, this is the fix, otherwise the new discover_hosts call is still a race | |
| 18:18:50 | dansmith | sdague: if both computes aren't up, the discover_hosts won't do anything | |
| 18:19:52 | dansmith | sdague: am I missing why you don't like this service check? | |
| 18:23:21 | sdague | dansmith: so where is the discover_hosts getting run? | |
| 18:23:45 | dansmith | sdague: right now it's only run in simple_cell_setup | |
| 18:24:03 | openstackgerrit | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/os-vif: Update reno for stable/ocata https://review.openstack.org/427341 | |
| 18:24:56 | sdague | dansmith: and where does that get called during this flow that is failing? | |
| 18:25:20 | openstackgerrit | OpenStack Proposal Bot proposed openstack/os-vif: Updated from global requirements https://review.openstack.org/395347 | |
| 18:25:52 | dansmith | sdague: I'm not sure what you mean.. it's not failing, it's just not seeing the computenode record for the subnode when it runs in simple_cell_setup, which means later we end up without the hostmapping, and thus the failed test in that log I linked | |
| 18:25:54 | openstackgerrit | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/python-novaclient: Update reno for stable/ocata https://review.openstack.org/427344 | |
| 18:26:33 | sdague | dansmith: right... but the issue is that's a failure here - https://github.com/openstack-dev/grenade/blob/a1ea5cec068d59b9c2caa1c82d7ee2584d63aa08/grenade.sh#L270 | |
| 18:26:51 | sdague | but all this code is executed here - https://github.com/openstack-dev/grenade/blob/a1ea5cec068d59b9c2caa1c82d7ee2584d63aa08/grenade.sh#L283-L287 | |
| 18:27:14 | sdague | and I don't understand how code that runs after the failure in question is going to fix the issue | |
| 18:27:41 | dansmith | sdague: you mean it's on the old side? | |
| 18:27:47 | sdague | yes | |
| 18:28:08 | sdague | http://logs.openstack.org/79/396679/45/check/gate-grenade-dsvm-neutron-multinode-ubuntu-xenial/11607f2/logs/grenade.sh.txt.gz#_2017-01-30_09_49_58_107 | |
| 18:28:16 | dansmith | sdague: okay, I'm not sure how it's hitting that on the old side, since the thing that is failing merged on friday | |
| 18:28:26 | sdague | dansmith: well that's where this failure is | |
| 18:28:51 | dansmith | sdague: okay, so, I guess we'll continue to hold onto this fix for a condition that we know we've added | |
| 18:29:07 | dansmith | sdague: if you could tell me why you have a problem with it, it'd sure save us time when this becomes a critical problem | |
| 18:29:40 | dansmith | 'cause I still am confused about that part | |
| 18:30:15 | sdague | dansmith: because I don't see what it's making better. This was framed with the logs in question as fixing that issue, but they don't, because that's a different and real issue about initial node racing on the way up | |
| 18:30:57 | artom | Is http://logs.openstack.org/59/424759/12/gate/gate-tempest-dsvm-cells-ubuntu-xenial/d7b1311/console.html#_2017-01-31_17_48_34_663215 something to do with ongoing cells work? | |
| 18:30:58 | dansmith | sdague: you agree that race conditions exist that we know about, but just haven't hit yet right? | |
| 18:32:59 | sdague | dansmith: there are bunches of those though, and I'm fine fixing issues we're hitting. It just seems like this keeps getting pushed for issues we aren't yet hitting. And that are unlikely to hit based on the real timelines for additional stuff that happens before the second tempest run happens | |
| 18:33:58 | dansmith | sdague: right, so paraphrasing, what you just said is: "This is a race we know about, but right now we think we'll never hit it, so we'll just wait until the context has fallen out of our brains and it becomes a gate blocker in six months" | |
| 18:34:04 | dansmith | over ten lines of bash | |
| 18:34:36 | dansmith | sdague: and fwiw, the reason they're hitting that (just found out) is that their patch set base to master | |
| 18:34:51 | dansmith | hitting that in that way I mean | |
| 18:42:42 | melwitt | artom: not that I know of | |
| 18:43:38 | artom | melwitt, hrmm, thanks :) | |
| 18:47:35 | melwitt | artom: we recently merged a patch (on Jan 27) that might be related to this, so I'll do some digging through the logs to see what could be happening | |
| 18:48:38 | artom | melwitt, 4 days ago? We'd have noticed it by now if it was causing consistent failure in the gate... | |
| 18:48:48 | mriedem | i've seen that failure | |
| 18:48:52 | mriedem | it's intermittent | |
| 18:50:41 | melwitt | this is the test that uses reset-state to set servers to error, then lists them. there must be some race here | |
| 18:53:08 | jaypipes | cdent: any ideas on this? (I've updated my tox venv to the latest wsgi-intercept release): http://paste.openstack.org/show/597078/ | |
| 18:53:54 | jaypipes | cdent: lol, nm | |
| 18:54:12 | cdent | jaypipes: what was it? | |
| 18:54:32 | jaypipes | cdent: I'd forgotten to do: | |
| 18:54:39 | jaypipes | self.rt.report_client = self.report_client | |
| 18:54:51 | jaypipes | where self.report_client is the test_report_client.NoAuthKeystoneClient thing | |
| 18:55:01 | cdent | ah | |
| 18:55:05 | jaypipes | boom. | |
| 18:55:08 | jaypipes | perfecto. | |
| 18:55:13 | mriedem | artom: melwitt: http://tinyurl.com/hkpuoel | |
| 18:55:45 | cdent | jaypipes: cool, I was worried urllib3 had gone off and changed something (as they do) and made wsgi-intercept much more complicated (it's already a hairball) | |
| 18:55:50 | jroll | dansmith: did you get your question answered? typical devstack registers nodes with ironic after starting ironic, and then we (re)start n-cpu. so yeah, thinking we should wedge it in here-ish https://github.com/openstack/ironic/blob/master/devstack/lib/ironic#L1556 | |
| 18:55:57 | jaypipes | cdent: nah | |
| 18:56:49 | artom | mriedem, hrmm, does keep popping up, doesn't it? | |
| 18:57:37 | artom | And it predate's the change melwitt was talking about, since there are some on the 24th... | |
| 18:58:03 | melwitt | yeah, looks like this has been happening for awhile, just not often | |
| 19:00:46 | mriedem | i'll open a bug | |
| 19:01:17 | openstackgerrit | Pushkar Umaranikar proposed openstack/nova: Adopts keystoneauth with glance client. https://review.openstack.org/412634 | |
| 19:03:05 | artom | mriedem, melwitt, https://github.com/openstack/tempest/blob/master/tempest/api/compute/admin/test_servers.py#L50 | |
| 19:03:20 | artom | That seems... obvious? Surely you'd want to wait for the server to enter error state at that point... | |
| 19:06:26 | mriedem | artom: well it could, | |
| 19:06:57 | artom | I checked the api-ref, it returns 202, not 200 | |
| 19:06:58 | mriedem | it fails in cells v1, i assume, because the child cell is reporting the vm_state change back up to the parent api cell so the instances in both dbs are in sync, and when tempest makes the GET request, the api cell doesn't have the updated vm_state yet | |
| 19:07:12 | artom | So it's async and might not be done by the time the next requests lists the servers in error state... | |
| 19:08:07 | mriedem | it's actually odd that it's a 202 | |
| 19:08:35 | mriedem | because all that api does is literally change the vm_state in the db https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/compute/admin_actions.py#L82 | |
| 19:10:41 | mriedem | the upcall to the api cell is an rpc cast, | |
| 19:10:47 | mriedem | i wonder if that's why it's a 202, for cells v1 | |
| 19:13:40 | artom | Where does the cells call happen in that? | |
| 19:13:51 | mriedem | in nova.objects.Instance.save | |
| 19:14:35 | melwitt | I would think that would save it at the top and should be returned as 'error' as expected by the test. the save() would sync the vm_state change to the child. the get_all in compute/api is reading from child cells, so that's probably how it's happening | |
| 19:15:13 | melwitt | we've put in some conditionals "if cells v1, read from the top" but it looks like this was missed, for the get_all | |
| 19:15:20 | artom | Bah, vim ctags has failed me | |
| 19:15:34 | artom | It took me to agents.py save method for some reason | |
| 19:16:04 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1660747 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "test_list_servers_filter_by_error_status intermittently fails with MismatchError on no servers in response" [Medium,Confirmed] | |
| 19:16:04 | mriedem | here is the bug btw https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1660747 | |
| 19:16:25 | melwitt | thanks | |