| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-02-13 | |||
| 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/ | |
| 16:27:31 | cdent | rust, but vitrify, like the great reagan always did | |
| 16:30:36 | cfriesen | does anyone know off the top of their head whether any code paths other than initial instance creation set task_state=task_states.SCHEDULING ? | |
| 16:40:09 | openstackgerrit | Pushkar Umaranikar proposed openstack/nova master: Placement api: set custom json_error_formatter in resource_provider https://review.openstack.org/433176 | |
| 16:41:42 | markus_z | mriedem: I tried to summarize the whole newton-backport story here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/406898/3 Is that a format which helps you? | |
| 16:42:33 | mriedem | oof, maybe | |
| 16:42:41 | mriedem | i can't digest that right now though | |
| 16:43:26 | markus_z | mriedem: OK, let me know when I can provide more info there. | |
| 16:57:40 | openstackgerrit | Pushkar Umaranikar proposed openstack/nova master: Placement api: set custom json_error_formatter in resource_provider https://review.openstack.org/433176 | |
| 16:59:37 | openstackgerrit | Anusha Unnam proposed openstack/nova master: Reno for additional-notification-fields-for-searchlight https://review.openstack.org/428835 | |
| 17:03:01 | openstackgerrit | Anusha Unnam proposed openstack/nova master: Reno for additional-notification-fields-for-searchlight https://review.openstack.org/428835 | |
| 17:12:50 | mriedem | sdague: if we're going to bump the minimum required libvirt in pike https://review.openstack.org/#/c/432700/ to a version that exceeds what's available in trusty 14.04, do i also need to change https://github.com/openstack-dev/devstack/blob/e0a37cf21e43fbb4ba3f9f8fa5321a0a0e1bedf1/stack.sh#L195 so trusty isn't in that list? | |
| 17:12:54 | mriedem | at least when using libvirt | |
| 17:13:10 | sdague | mriedem: yeh | |
| 17:13:13 | mriedem | ok | |
| 17:13:13 | mriedem | same for a few of those others | |
| 17:13:41 | sdague | which is fine, xenial has been out for a year, there really is no reason for devstack to still stay on trusty | |
| 17:22:50 | mriedem | hmm, not sure what rhel7.1 shows up as | |
| 17:22:53 | mriedem | we check for 'rhel7' | |
| 17:23:11 | mriedem | kashyap: do you have a rhel 7.1 system handy? | |
| 17:23:23 | mriedem | or is rhel7 == rhel 7.0? | |
| 17:25:03 | cfriesen | mriedem: /etc/redhat-release has the appropriate release number...latest is 7.3.1611 | |
| 17:25:13 | cfriesen | not sure what you're using to check the release | |
| 17:26:05 | openstackgerrit | John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova-specs master: WIP: spec about having observer role by default https://review.openstack.org/427872 | |
| 17:27:20 | mriedem | cfriesen: what does "lsb_release -r -s" show? | |
| 17:28:20 | mriedem | i assume just 7.3.1611 | |
| 17:28:37 | mriedem | so we treat all minor versions of rhel 7 the same | |
| 17:28:39 | mriedem | in devstack | |
| 17:29:06 | cfriesen | controller-1:~$ ./lsb_release -r -s | |
| 17:29:08 | cfriesen | 7.3.1611 | |
| 17:30:04 | cfriesen | mriedem: on CentOS 7.2 it shows 7.2.1511 | |
| 17:30:15 | mriedem | yeah, we treat those all as rhel7 in devstack | |
| 17:30:20 | mriedem | answers my question though, thanks | |
| 17:35:06 | openstackgerrit | Maciej Szankin proposed openstack/nova master: conf: mark glance.api_servers opt as required https://review.openstack.org/428241 | |
| 17:38:08 | mriedem | sdague: is the 7.0 in that list for oracle linux? | |
| 17:38:16 | mriedem | still trying to find when that was added | |
| 17:38:49 | mriedem | if you don't know that's fine, i'm digging | |
| 17:43:31 | mriedem | oh i guess it's debian 7.0 | |
| 17:53:59 | mriedem | BobBall: does the xen ci use this? https://github.com/openstack-dev/devstack/blob/master/tools/xen/xenrc#L66 | |
| 17:54:20 | BobBall | *hangs his head in shame* | |
| 17:54:30 | mriedem | or can that be changed to xenial? | |
| 17:54:33 | BobBall | I don't want to answer that... | |
| 17:54:34 | BobBall | :D | |
| 17:54:57 | BobBall | We actually have a work item to change to Xenial which is something we're looking at currently | |
| 17:55:29 | mriedem | ok, i guess we'll see if https://review.openstack.org/#/c/433218/ blows up the xen ci | |
| 17:55:32 | BobBall | The Cinder breakage a few weeks ago didn't affect infra because it was already using Xenial (and therefore a new enough version of lvm) | |
| 17:56:21 | BobBall | It *may* blow up, but it might not... we did specify FORCE=yes for a while; not sure if we removed that or not. | |
| 17:56:57 | BobBall | It's therefore possible that this is just the "start" of random breakages until we have upgraded to Xenial | |
| 17:57:07 | mriedem | ok, it's -WIP for now | |
| 17:59:34 | BobBall | http://dd6b71949550285df7dc-dda4e480e005aaa13ec303551d2d8155.r49.cf1.rackcdn.com/01/432001/8/check/dsvm-tempest-neutron-network/7e28db3/logs/localrc.txt.gz contains FORCE=yes (although the comment is ages old because the original CI was using saucy!) | |
| 18:00:10 | BobBall | so I think it probably won't break the CI... but definitely something that increases the urgency of upgrading to Xenial. | |
| 18:03:49 | sdague | mriedem: should probably remove f23 at the same time | |
| 18:03:57 | sdague | that's no longer distro supported | |
| 18:08:10 | sdague | mriedem: I tweaked it | |
| 18:09:53 | mriedem | sdague: ok, sort of unrelated, along with adding zesty, but i can mention that in the commit message | |
| 18:10:29 | sdague | yeh, it's just mostly an adjustment to the current cycle distros | |
| 18:12:33 | mriedem | melwitt: dansmith: jaypipes: how much are we going to try and get this into rc2? or can it be backported? https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:fix-bfv-boot-resources | |
| 18:12:58 | jaypipes | mriedem: happy to review those, sure. | |
| 18:14:10 | dansmith | mriedem: they wouldn't be reasonable for a backport, IMHO, because the scheduler will send instances to computes that wouldn't take them because their claims code isn't updated | |
| 18:14:25 | dansmith | mriedem: haven't looked to see if they're accounting for newton computes even | |
| 18:14:32 | dansmith | seems like a large and risky thing for an rc2 to me | |
| 18:15:26 | openstackgerrit | John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add policy-project-checks spec https://review.openstack.org/433037 | |