| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-02-13 | |||
| 10:36:14 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: return a CPU overhead if isolate emulator threads requested https://review.openstack.org/385364 | |
| 10:36:15 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: virt: update overhead to take into account vCPUs https://review.openstack.org/385024 | |
| 10:36:18 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: make emulator threads to run on the reserved pCPU https://review.openstack.org/400878 | |
| 10:36:19 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: numa: take into account cpus reserved https://review.openstack.org/400876 | |
| 10:36:20 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: numa: update numa usage incording the cpu reserved https://review.openstack.org/400877 | |
| 11:34:57 | openstackgerrit | John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add polcy-docs spec https://review.openstack.org/433010 | |
| 12:00:41 | openstackgerrit | John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add polcy-docs spec https://review.openstack.org/433010 | |
| 12:09:50 | bauzas | p!spy | |
| 12:18:55 | mdbooth | lyarwood: mriedem questioned your backport of the is_job_complete unit test changes: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/427289/ | |
| 12:19:05 | mdbooth | I replied on your behalf, but I was shooting from the hip :) | |
| 12:19:17 | mdbooth | Can you confirm or deny what I wrote? | |
| 12:25:42 | BobBall | dansmith: Any chance you could take another look at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/424428/ John has given +2 now, so it'd be really good to get another review. | |
| 12:41:32 | openstackgerrit | John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add policy-project-checks spec https://review.openstack.org/433037 | |
| 13:01:28 | openstackgerrit | Silvan Kaiser proposed openstack/nova master: Removes getfattr from Quobyte Nova driver https://review.openstack.org/428646 | |
| 13:06:09 | sfinucan | mdbooth: Have you seen https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/volume-multi-attach+status:open | |
| 13:06:54 | sfinucan | I recall seeing comments on multi-attach support in the mount manager code | |
| 13:06:59 | sfinucan | *changes | |
| 13:22:17 | johnthetubaguy | sfinucan: thats all depending on the new Cinder binding API now, I think | |
| 13:24:41 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Always set MTU when plugging devices https://review.openstack.org/408781 | |
| 13:32:18 | openstackgerrit | Wang Qing wu proposed openstack/nova master: PowerVM Driver: power_on/off and reboot https://review.openstack.org/427380 | |
| 13:32:18 | openstackgerrit | Maciej Szankin proposed openstack/nova master: conf: mark glance.api_servers opt as required https://review.openstack.org/428241 | |
| 13:37:19 | openstackgerrit | John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add policy-project-checks spec https://review.openstack.org/433037 | |
| 13:40:33 | openstackgerrit | John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add polcy-docs spec https://review.openstack.org/433010 | |
| 13:42:19 | openstackgerrit | John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add policy-project-checks spec https://review.openstack.org/433037 | |
| 13:52:02 | edleafe | Scheduler subteam meeting in 8 minutes in #openstack-meeting-alt | |
| 14:04:05 | bhagyashris | Hi all, Is the placement service is currently being used for the instance creation and instance actions (resize, shelve, unshelve and rebuild) ? | |
| 14:15:57 | jroll | moshele: would you mind a quick ironic-y review? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/433050/1 | |
| 14:16:20 | moshele | jroll: sure | |
| 14:17:11 | moshele | jroll: done | |
| 14:17:21 | jroll | moshele: thanks! | |
| 14:35:39 | mriedem | snikitin: i guess you added some more fields in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/427637/ for pike? | |
| 14:35:48 | mriedem | snikitin: did that come about because of review in ocata? | |
| 14:36:10 | mriedem | http://paste.openstack.org/show/598666/ | |
| 14:39:51 | snikitin | mriedem: I changed type of some fields because of review and added new fields because of implementation for xen and vmware. First version of spec was focused on libvirt. but other drivers cant provide all information which libvirt can. Xen and vmware provide other information instead. So I added fields for this information | |
| 14:40:15 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Fix additional mistakes in the NUMA spec document https://review.openstack.org/323252 | |
| 14:40:19 | mriedem | snikitin: ok, can you note that in the commit message please? | |
| 14:40:45 | snikitin | mriedem, sure | |
| 14:49:32 | bhagyashris | mriedem: Hi, Is the placement service is currently being used for the instance creation and instance actions (resize, shelve, unshelve and rebuild) ? | |
| 14:50:04 | mriedem | bhagyashris: the placement service is used by the filter scheduler as long as all of the computes in the deployment are running ocata code | |
| 14:53:25 | bhagyashris | mriedem: is there a connection between placement-api and DiskFilter, means is it required to disable DiskFilter? | |
| 14:54:12 | mriedem | bhagyashris: the filter scheduler will ignore the CPUFilter, RamFilter and DiskFilter when filtering compute nodes via the placement API | |
| 14:54:23 | mriedem | bhagyashris: if you previously disabled the DiskFilter, | |
| 14:54:43 | mriedem | you'll want to set the disk_allocation_ratio in nova.conf to a very high value so it's not considered in the placement decision | |
| 14:54:48 | mriedem | bhagyashris: this is all in the release notes and docs | |
| 14:55:13 | mriedem | bhagyashris: http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/placement.html#upgrade-notes | |
| 14:55:25 | mriedem | bhagyashris: http://docs.openstack.org/releasenotes/nova/unreleased.html | |
| 14:55:32 | mriedem | let me know if you have further questions | |
| 14:59:50 | bhagyashris | mriedem: I have seen this patch: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/428505/6/ this patch updates the compute node table with correct disk info in case of volume backed instance. | |
| 15:00:30 | mriedem | bhagyashris: yeah, which is based on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/428481/ which was a split from an earlier change that melwitt had | |
| 15:00:57 | bhagyashris | mriedem: yes, so my question is as we are using placement service for scheduling then why there is a need to update this info | |
| 15:01:28 | bhagyashris | mriedem: placement service will give appropriate disk info is that right? | |
| 15:02:46 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: Optional separate database for placement API https://review.openstack.org/362766 | |
| 15:03:24 | mriedem | bhagyashris: that's a good question, which i'm going to have to ask melwitt, dansmith or jaypipes to help with, since i haven't dug into those patches yet | |
| 15:04:32 | dansmith | bhagyashris: because claims are still in the old format for the time being, which means even if we pick a good compute node with placement, the compute node's own accounting (claims) may still reject it | |
| 15:05:00 | mriedem | ah i forgot about claims | |
| 15:05:25 | mriedem | i knew the report client wasn't reporting disk allocations for BFV instances into placement, but forgot about the old claims code in the RT | |
| 15:08:54 | mriedem | which reminds me, are we going to try and get that into rc2? or can we backport it? | |
| 15:09:22 | bhagyashris | mriedem: IMO, the BFV instance reports the disk usages correctly in the allocations table on current master | |
| 15:11:50 | mriedem | bhagyashris: yes but the scheduler isn't doing claims yet | |
| 15:12:12 | mriedem | the RT is doing the claim on the compute and not taking BFV into account, which is what melwitt's patch is for | |
| 15:12:17 | mriedem | if i'm understanding this all correctly | |
| 15:12:56 | mriedem | so the scheduler can use placement to pick a host that would work, but if the actual claim when building the instance on that host fails because it's not accounting for BFV, then the allocations table doesn't really matter | |
| 15:18:11 | bhagyashris | mriedem: is there a future plan of adding the claims in palcement service? | |
| 15:18:21 | mriedem | bhagyashris: yes | |
| 15:18:24 | mriedem | well, | |
| 15:18:26 | mriedem | in the nova-scheduler | |
| 15:18:29 | mriedem | not the placement service | |
| 15:18:49 | snikitin | mriedem: Done https://review.openstack.org/#/c/427637/ | |
| 15:19:37 | mriedem | snikitin: +W | |
| 15:19:38 | mriedem | thanks | |
| 15:19:47 | bhagyashris | mriedem: does not mean the compute node table is not gonna being used for the instance creation ? | |
| 15:19:51 | snikitin | thank you | |
| 15:20:12 | bhagyashris | * does that mean the compute node table is not gonna being used for the instance creation ? | |
| 15:21:10 | mriedem | bhagyashris: i'm unclear on the long-term plans for claims in the scheduler, there is a scheduler subteam that just wrapped up a meeting so hopefully someone from that team can answer, like edleafe or bauzas | |
| 15:21:22 | mriedem | i don't think we have a spec on that yet | |
| 15:21:55 | edleafe | bhagyashris: that is the goal, but we aren't there yet | |
| 15:22:19 | edleafe | bhagyashris: the goal is for a compute node to be just one kind of resource provider | |
| 15:23:26 | snikitin | mriedem: We have branch stable/ocata. As I understand it means that master is for Pike now. If so, could you remove -2 from diagnostics patch please? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/394480/ | |
| 15:23:37 | mriedem | snikitin: yup was getting there | |
| 15:24:07 | snikitin | thanks! | |
| 15:24:16 | bhagyashris | edleafe: ok. | |
| 15:25:36 | bhagyashris | mriedem: dansmith: edleafe: Thank you very much for information and valuable time. | |
| 15:37:32 | mriedem1 | snikitin: done | |
| 15:46:04 | Dinesh_Bhor | Hi all, a small TrivialChange to review: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/427041/1 | |
| 15:50:36 | openstackgerrit | Sivasathurappan Radhakrishnan proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Live Migration of Rescued Instances https://review.openstack.org/347161 | |
| 15:57:25 | mriedem | sfinucan: mdbooth you guys should check the exceptions aren't actually used in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/427041/ :) | |
| 15:57:57 | mdbooth | mriedem: I checked that it had a +1 from Jenkins... are they still in use? | |
| 15:58:06 | mriedem | oh wait | |
| 15:58:12 | mriedem | that moved to xenapi library | |
| 16:02:36 | mriedem | nvm, sorry, +W on that one now | |
| 16:02:55 | mriedem | fwiw i don't trust jenkins on cleanups like this since we might not have test coverage | |
| 16:03:48 | mdbooth | mriedem: True, but at the same time not trusting it for things like this kinda devalues it. | |
| 16:04:38 | mriedem | i still value it, but i don't trust it for dead code removal | |
| 16:04:42 | mriedem | trusty, but verify | |
| 16:04:48 | mriedem | like the great reagan always said | |
| 16:04:54 | mriedem | *trust :) | |
| 16:11:08 | sfinucan | mriedem: Aye, I checked them all first :) | |
| 16:12:57 | lyarwood | mdbooth: yup you are correct re the stable/newton test backport btw | |
| 16:13:27 | mdbooth | lyarwood: Just learned you're on holiday. Go away :) | |
| 16:13:43 | lyarwood | \o/ | |