Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-03-15
12:38:35 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add extra-specs-image-meta-conflicts spec https://review.openstack.org/382382
12:40:49 lyarwood johnthetubaguy: just back from lunch, that isn't a bug for me, more of an operator failure tbh. ./me adds a note to the bug
12:41:32 johnthetubaguy lyarwood: hmm, curious what you mean by that
12:42:23 lyarwood johnthetubaguy: while the compute service is down the original instance / domain is still active and connected to the backing rbd volume
12:42:37 lyarwood johnthetubaguy: so any attempt to remove the volume from the rbd pool is going to fail
12:42:49 johnthetubaguy lyarwood: ah, yes, it should do, good point
12:43:01 johnthetubaguy lyarwood: you have to wait for clean up on the compute node, which they haven't done
12:43:14 lyarwood johnthetubaguy: that or manually fence it
12:43:21 lyarwood johnthetubaguy: get it into a known state
12:45:29 johnthetubaguy lyarwood: yeah, we might need better tooling for that long term, post cinder API fix ups
12:45:47 alex_xu nova api meeting is 15 mins at openstack-meeting-4
12:45:57 johnthetubaguy alex_xu: yeah, I should get me some lunch quickly!
12:46:08 alex_xu johnthetubaguy: :)
12:47:29 alex_xu johnthetubaguy: maybe we can move the meeting early 15mins, then you can get a better lunch
12:48:46 johnthetubaguy alex_xu: nah, that just means I am hungry during the meeting
12:49:04 alex_xu :)
12:50:59 alex_xu johnthetubaguy: sdague experiment for removing stevedore https://review.openstack.org/#/c/445864/
12:55:47 sdague alex_xu: that looks really neat
12:57:29 alex_xu sdague: thanks, make me have more confidence
12:57:30 sdague alex_xu: and *so* much more clear
12:59:06 alex_xu sdague: just follow the placement api pattern, explicitly list the routes
13:00:16 alex_xu nova api meeting is running
13:12:09 openstackgerrit Mikhail Feoktistov proposed openstack/nova master: Add is_vz_container function https://review.openstack.org/445947
13:26:22 openstackgerrit Rafael Folco proposed openstack/nova master: DELETE all inventory for a resource provider https://review.openstack.org/416669
13:26:23 openstackgerrit Rafael Folco proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Raising http codes on old microversion https://review.openstack.org/444497
13:28:34 rpodolyaka jaypipes: heh, you'll be the first one to know, when the placement client plugin is done ;)
13:29:50 dansmith gibi: can you look at this? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/445697/
13:30:13 dansmith gibi: I found another case where we were lazy-loading that from an instance on compute and so I think we probably want to go a little more aggressive on it
13:32:25 jaypipes rfolco: quick request on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/444497/. if you could handle that, I'll re-review quickly.
13:33:02 jaypipes rfolco: besides that, I think we should be able to merge your two patches in that series today.
13:33:22 rfolco jaypipes.requests --> priority -1
13:33:27 cdent i concur, dr pipes
13:33:39 jaypipes rfolco: :)
13:34:22 stvnoyes1 i was writing a tempest test for swap disk (update volume attachment). The test runs ok on a running server, but I get a libvirt exception (Domain not found: no domain with matching uuid) when run against a stopped server. Is swap not supported on a stopped server? I didn't see anything in the doc about a restriction like that. thanks...
13:36:08 mdbooth stvnoyes1: It is not supported, no.
13:36:41 jaypipes stvnoyes1: when you say "you get a libvirt error", are you saying that that libvirt error is returned to you as a *user*, or that you see that error in the nova-compute log file?
13:36:56 stvnoyes1 in the log
13:37:14 mdbooth johnthetubaguy: ^^^ Incidentally, what stvnoyes1 said is why I was talking about the 'did_copy' response in the swap_volume callback to cinder
13:38:07 johnthetubaguy mdbooth: ack, makes sense, but we can't fix everything in one go
13:38:35 mdbooth johnthetubaguy: Yep, but if we could stick it in the api then we can fix it later more easily.
13:38:42 mriedem jaypipes: if you haven't seen yet, i had some questions in your ironic get_inventory patch
13:38:50 mriedem only thing i have left to review there is the RT functional test
13:38:57 jaypipes mriedem: yup, thanks much for your review and questions. answering now.
13:39:59 mriedem fwiw dansmith explained a bit of earlier conversations to me last night
13:40:30 jaypipes mriedem: dansmith is good like that. :)
13:43:34 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Avoid lazy-loading projects during flavor notification https://review.openstack.org/445697
13:48:14 mriedem johnthetubaguy: you were +2 on this before the cleanups https://review.openstack.org/#/c/429569/
13:50:25 mriedem bauzas: unless you have a reason not to, i'm going to open a bug about the fact that we never delete request_specs when we delete an instance,
13:50:28 mriedem i'm not sure if that's by design
13:51:08 mriedem maybe i'll start in the ML
13:51:15 mriedem since we wouldn't want to do this for soft delete
13:53:41 dansmith mriedem: we could also do with a bug to clean up all the conversion back and forth to/from the legacy version that never got cleaned up
13:53:45 stvnoyes1 jaypipes: i was interested to see what would happen doing a swap to a stopped vm with the cli. the cli command returned without an error. The volume status of both vols were unchanged. And there was that Domain not found error in the logs. I found a similar non-error using the API, the test only failed because the new volume never became 'in-use'.
13:53:47 bauzas mriedem: I have a branch for that
13:54:14 bauzas mriedem: that's one of the things I have in my plate and never had time for that in Ocata
13:54:17 mriedem dansmith: yeah bauzas has a blueprint for that from ocata,
13:54:29 mriedem i don't remember seeing anything about actually deleting these things though
13:54:34 bauzas mriedem: hence me planning to fix it by Pike
13:54:41 mriedem i'll brain dump in the ML
13:54:43 bauzas mriedem: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/391060/
13:54:45 bauzas dansmith: ^
13:54:51 mriedem ah
13:55:12 bauzas it requires a rebase
13:55:47 jaypipes stvnoyes1: gotcha. would you expect instead to have an "unsupported operation on stopped server" error message return instead of no error?
13:56:51 mriedem bauzas: left my concern inline, but that potentially cripples a restored soft deleted instance,
13:57:04 bauzas mriedem: cool, thanks
13:57:11 mriedem i'm not sure how we deal with that, since we don't want the compute doing a call back up to the API to delete the request spec when the instance is hard deleted
13:57:25 bauzas mriedem: the problem is that we never agreed on soft-deleting the Spec with alaski
13:57:40 dansmith he means soft delete of the instance
13:57:45 bauzas yeah
13:57:45 dansmith (right?)
13:57:49 dansmith not soft delete of the instance db record
13:57:49 bauzas I understand that
13:57:55 bauzas sure
13:58:12 bauzas but if we trigger the Spec hard deletion on an instance soft-delete
13:58:20 stvnoyes1 jaypipes: agree, it would be better to get some kind of error. since a server can stop at any time, doing a check in the API code would help a lot but it wouldn't cover all the cases.
13:58:26 bauzas then, how could we restore it if we restore the instance ?
13:58:34 dansmith you don't restore it,
13:58:49 dansmith you have to defer deletion of it until the soft-deleted instance is purged somehow
13:58:54 dansmith although that happens on the compute node
13:59:04 bauzas yeah, the trigger is then totally different
13:59:33 bauzas we could keep the spec record until the instance is hard-deleted
13:59:41 bauzas but I need to see where we trigger that
13:59:45 dansmith right, so you have to just not delete it in that case, and either leak it (as we do now for everything) or at least delete if you hard-delete
14:00:05 bauzas dansmith: you said we hard-delete on the compute side ?
14:00:14 bauzas a periodic I guess ?
14:00:21 dansmith compute is what does the purge yeah, in a periodic
14:00:30 mriedem dansmith: right
14:00:37 mriedem well, SOFT_DELETED in the API sense
14:00:39 mriedem not the DB sense
14:00:40 bauzas okay, that would ease my branch :)
14:01:11 bauzas IIRC, we already merged the .delete() method I added in Newton
14:01:23 bauzas the caller of that .delete() never merged in time in Newton
14:01:24 mriedem which delete() method?
14:01:28 bauzas the Spec one
14:01:36 mriedem yes RequestSpec.destroy() exists,
14:01:38 mriedem but nothing calls it
14:01:45 bauzas exactly
14:01:53 bauzas because I wrote the destroy()
14:01:58 bauzas it was in the same series

Earlier   Later