Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-03-06
19:42:02 mriedem logan-: this is small enough that we probably don't need a spec, but you should probably mention the blueprint during the weekly nova meeting durin the 'open discussion' section
19:42:16 mriedem http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/#Nova_Team_Meeting
19:42:26 logan- sounds good. I wasn't sure if it was specless or not, so I figured i'd just push it and see. will make sure to be at the meeting this week.
19:42:46 logan- thanks
19:42:52 mriedem yw
19:49:37 openstackgerrit Sarafraj Singh proposed openstack/nova master: conf: remove console_driver opt https://review.openstack.org/441485
20:01:09 openstackgerrit Pushkar Umaranikar proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Stop using Neutron admin token https://review.openstack.org/439890
21:02:15 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: virt: add get_inventory() virt driver API method https://review.openstack.org/441543
21:02:15 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: virt: implement get_inventory() for Ironic https://review.openstack.org/441544
21:02:17 jaypipes mriedem: ^^ addressed your concerns
21:03:28 mriedem jgriffith: do you have time to talk with alexandrelevine about the scaleio ephemeral driver for nova?
21:04:13 alexandrelevine jgriffith: hi
21:04:33 jgriffith alexandrelevine hi
21:04:44 jgriffith mriedem alexandrelevine can you give me about a 1/2 hour?
21:04:52 jgriffith maybe less?
21:05:05 alexandrelevine jgriffith: Ok.
21:06:11 jgriffith alexandrelevine never mind, I'm available (you forget to include a dial in for a meeting invite you're out of luck)
21:06:24 alexandrelevine :)
21:06:40 jgriffith alexandrelevine :)
21:06:49 jgriffith soon they won't invite me at all :)
21:06:54 alexandrelevine So there is a problem with the ScaleIO ephemeral driver. And it's mostly historical and resource-wise. I'll explain.
21:07:00 jgriffith alexandrelevine sure
21:07:29 alexandrelevine We started doing it 1.5 years ago when we worked for EMC. And we were postponed because at the time a refactoring started in the same area - imagebackend.py
21:08:03 alexandrelevine We were told that it'll go fast and well but as often it didn't. So we were postponed once. And then twice because of communicational and organizational reasons.
21:08:10 alexandrelevine And now seems to be the third time.
21:08:29 alexandrelevine All this time we had to support patches for new versions of nova and ScaleIO aside from the main code.
21:08:49 jgriffith alexandrelevine so to be clear I have the luxury of being able to claim "not being involved" in any past efforts :)
21:08:51 alexandrelevine Now we've left EMC and we don't have enough resources to keep doing this cumbersome tasks.
21:09:05 jgriffith so while I feel for ya, I don't necessarily have anything to say about that
21:09:10 jgriffith alexandrelevine Ahh!
21:09:22 jgriffith Well so you just made a case for my number one argument :)
21:09:23 alexandrelevine But because of what we did we know the area quite well.
21:09:46 jgriffith alexandrelevine if you don't have enough resources, why wouldn't you want to make life easier and get it for free from a community based Cinder driver?
21:09:53 alexandrelevine jgriffith: we're willing to finish the work we started and to support it in the future though, don't be mistaken :)
21:09:58 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Get instance availability_zone without hitting the api db https://review.openstack.org/439754
21:09:59 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Target cell in super conductor operations https://review.openstack.org/438022
21:09:59 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Enlighten server tags API about cells https://review.openstack.org/440856
21:10:00 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Make scheduler target cells to get compute node instance info https://review.openstack.org/439891
21:10:00 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Change MQ targeting to honor only what is in the context https://review.openstack.org/438023
21:10:01 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Make consoleauth target the proper cell https://review.openstack.org/441461
21:10:02 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Make conductor ask scheduler to limit migrates to same cell https://review.openstack.org/438025
21:10:02 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Add cell field to Destination object https://review.openstack.org/438024
21:10:03 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Teach HostAPI about cells https://review.openstack.org/442162
21:10:03 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Teach simple_tenant_usage about cells https://review.openstack.org/441388
21:10:04 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Make os-availability-zones know about cells https://review.openstack.org/442163
21:10:17 jgriffith alexandrelevine but you won't be able to support it fully? (ie your comment about resources)
21:10:28 alexandrelevine But to start all over again and to do the cinder backend might not be in our power at the moment.
21:10:46 alexandrelevine We would be able to support fully the ScaleIO code we created.
21:11:00 alexandrelevine But we don't have resources to start over from another angle.
21:11:24 alexandrelevine Also as I said we know the area quite well - I did a POC for the total refactoring as well.
21:11:35 alexandrelevine So there some tricky parts and design problems.
21:11:47 mriedem alexandrelevine: can you explain the issues that you think will be a major issue for the generic cinder driver?
21:11:49 alexandrelevine And the code to work with is far from the ideal state.
21:12:06 alexandrelevine The same as for other ephemeral drivers. Namely:
21:12:23 alexandrelevine 1. Entangled code to introduce changes into.
21:12:54 alexandrelevine 2. Tricky operations like live migration and resizing, pieces of which are evenly spread around two files.
21:13:17 alexandrelevine 3. Specifics of behavior like 8-gb granular disk allocations for ScaleIO.
21:13:26 openstackgerrit Ed Leafe proposed openstack/nova-specs master: The ResourceProviderTraits API - Manage traits with ResourceProviders https://review.openstack.org/345138
21:13:42 alexandrelevine 4. Specifics of implementation like necessity to map/unmap ScaleIO volumes to host unlike for ceph
21:13:46 alexandrelevine And such...
21:14:06 jgriffith alexandrelevine but the Cinder approach would require handling all of those for ALL backends no?
21:14:08 mriedem how do 3 and 4 not get handled by cinder and os-brick?
21:14:13 jgriffith with the exception of #3
21:14:50 alexandrelevine It would take some design decisions, communications between interested parties, talks, reviews, etc. With the usual round-trips for all of this, realistically, it's 2-3 releases at the best. Of course if it was all in one organization it could've be done in month or two. But that's not the case.
21:14:55 mriedem for #2, wouldn't live migration and resize work the same as for boot from volume?
21:15:51 alexandrelevine jgriffith: Abouth the #4. I'm not sure. It might. But most probably it won't.
21:16:10 jgriffith alexandrelevine well I don't think that's necessarily true, I certainly hope not
21:16:24 jgriffith I'm honestly hoping that this is something that we can somehow pull of in this cycle
21:16:39 jgriffith otherwise I'll go back to pushing my flavor-extra-specs proposal and forget all of it :)
21:16:43 jgriffith alexandrelevine so seriously...
21:16:57 jgriffith alexandrelevine I get where you're coming from and I understand you've already invested a lot perhaps
21:16:58 jgriffith BUT
21:17:02 alexandrelevine jgriffith: There is a number of different disk types in nova - local/root/config/volume - some of which are intermingled with other. So I'm not sure that mapping/unmapping would be enough to be done outside. Probably but not necessarily
21:17:17 jgriffith I think it's fundamentally WRONG to continue doing all these one offs for just one particular vendors interests
21:17:31 jgriffith especially if/when we all have a common interest in achieving the same thing
21:17:48 jgriffith why not utilize your resources and efforts to better the entire project and not just your product?
21:17:55 alexandrelevine jgriffith: They honestly hoped that they'd pull the refactoring in 1 month. It still goes. And that's exactly same area with the same problems.
21:19:00 mriedem alexandrelevine: i don't remember anyone claiming the entire imagebackend refactor what mdbooth was doing in newton would be done in a month
21:19:02 alexandrelevine jgriffith: Our stuff is already done and ready. New thing - is a significantly much more work for us.
21:19:05 jgriffith I've had the same debates in Cinder WRT other things EMC has proposed (VIPER, CPRHD...) so while I sympathize I can say that you're very unlikely to change my opinion on this
21:19:13 alexandrelevine mriedem: I remember
21:19:14 jgriffith others have tried for years :)
21:19:28 alexandrelevine mriedem: We were told that it'll be done by June and then we'll add our code.
21:20:45 mriedem anyway, that effort derailed and we talked about it in BCN, and it's not being worked now i don't think,
21:21:00 alexandrelevine jgriffith: At the moment people which added ploop as I know proceed with changing the code. I'd suggest to let ScaleIO in along with starting the work on cinder backend. This way people would get the only really competing to ceph storage backend soon. Otherwise - time is indefinite.
21:21:09 jgriffith alexandrelevine lucky for you I carry no weight on the Nova team, but honestly I think it'd be irresponsible to move forward with a one-off solution as opposed to workign on a generalized approach
21:21:16 mriedem and what i'm hearing is, adding a generic cinder driver is going to be hard because the code is a hot mess, and because the scaleio work has been going on for over a year, you've dealt with that mess
21:21:59 alexandrelevine mriedem: Yes. And as I said I dealt even more with that mess when I proposed the POC for that same refactoring so I think I correctly estimate the picture.
21:22:00 mriedem so rather than start over on the hard thing that everyone wants, add another special backend and all of the conditionals that go along with in the libvirt driver code
21:22:06 sdague cburgess: just for you - http://docs-draft.openstack.org/03/441203/8/check/gate-keystone-specs-docs-ubuntu-xenial/923ac60//doc/build/html/specs/keystone/backlog/hierarchical-quota-scenarios.html#make-chet-sad-model
21:22:35 mriedem alexandrelevine: i also don't really see what motivation your team has for maintaining this once it's in tree unless you're getting paid to maintain it
21:23:14 alexandrelevine mriedem: Me neither. But we're doing it right now. Maybe we just don't like to drop what we're responsible for.
21:23:48 alexandrelevine mriedem: And part-time participation is not such a big load on us comparing to, say, a full month work.
21:23:50 mriedem alexandrelevine: i can see that, i worked on getting db2 support into nova for 2 years, and then we ripped it out about 6 months later because ibm stopped supporting it upstream
21:24:18 mriedem however, i'm not trying to get db2 back into nova
21:24:28 alexandrelevine mriedem: Don't mind if we rip ScaleIO out in favor of ready cinder backend even a week after. It just has to work.
21:24:50 jgriffith alexandrelevine honestly I would've thought based on your statements you'd prefer the general cinder driver approach.
21:24:56 mriedem alexandrelevine: removing things is harder than just adding them in and letting them rot
21:25:05 alexandrelevine mriedem: I just fill sort of responsible for the unfinished solution and we don't have much resources to keep patching it aside - it's even more work.
21:25:07 jgriffith alexandrelevine you already stated you don't have resources to work on / maintain the effort

Earlier   Later