| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-04-04 | |||
| 13:00:19 | sfinucan | johnthetubaguy: I think the existing property refers to a different attribute of the emulated VGA dev | |
| 13:00:55 | johnthetubaguy | it seems to be video ram vs vga ram, they seem like the same thing to me | |
| 13:01:13 | bauzas | johnthetubaguy: AFAICU, that seems to be a separate property | |
| 13:01:28 | bauzas | looking at https://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html | |
| 13:01:29 | sfinucan | johnthetubaguy: That should be in the spec. If you haven't done it already, there should probably be a comment to the same | |
| 13:01:31 | johnthetubaguy | but why are they different? what does it mean? | |
| 13:01:43 | sfinucan | They are different properties though. Lemme find the QEMU docs | |
| 13:02:16 | sfinucan | johnthetubaguy: | |
| 13:02:18 | sfinucan | johnthetubaguy: https://www.ovirt.org/documentation/draft/video-ram/ | |
| 13:02:28 | sfinucan | vgamem is allocated within ram. Minimum ram size, as enforced by QEMU regardless the command line settings, is 2 * vgamem. vram is allocated separately. | |
| 13:02:38 | bauzas | johnthetubaguy: https://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html#elementsVideo | |
| 13:02:47 | bauzas | what sfinucan said | |
| 13:03:12 | bauzas | "Attribute ram ( since 1.0.2) specifies the size of the primary bar, while the attribute vram specifies the secondary bar size. If ram or vram are not supplied a default value is used. The ram should also be rounded to power of two as vram. There is also optional attribute vgamem (since 1.2.11) to set the size of VGA framebuffer for fallback mode of QXL device | |
| 13:03:26 | bauzas | honestly, it's a very specific libvirt thing | |
| 13:03:31 | sfinucan | fwiw, it's just another libvirt knob | |
| 13:03:35 | sfinucan | bauzas: jinx :) | |
| 13:03:46 | bauzas | I'm not really happy with that, hence my comment saying to maybe wait for custom RCs :) | |
| 13:03:53 | sfinucan | bauzas: well, technically QEMU - libvirt just wraps it | |
| 13:06:20 | bauzas | johnthetubaguy: sfinucan: just -1d it again | |
| 13:08:09 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova-specs master: SPICE native client support https://review.openstack.org/442040 | |
| 13:09:59 | johnthetubaguy | bauzas: don't feel we are being great at giving suggestions how to fix the spec right now though | |
| 13:14:20 | bauzas | johnthetubaguy: I tried to explain my preferrence about providing custom resource classes against very specific image props | |
| 13:16:30 | openstackgerrit | Sergey Nikitin proposed openstack/nova master: Added PCI NUMA policies https://review.openstack.org/390520 | |
| 13:28:58 | mriedem | is everyone excited for a fun spec review day?! | |
| 13:29:39 | peter-hamilton | mriedem: indeed! | |
| 13:29:39 | artom | Doc's appointment this morning, but will try to participate this afternoon | |
| 13:29:40 | mriedem | i see johnthetubaguy has been having fun | |
| 13:30:22 | johnthetubaguy | yeah, I abandoned a bunch of left alone specs | |
| 13:30:39 | johnthetubaguy | only three pages of joy now | |
| 13:30:44 | mriedem | awesome | |
| 13:39:16 | openstackgerrit | Maciej Szankin proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add remove-nova-cert spec https://review.openstack.org/448882 | |
| 13:45:54 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage: Deprecate 'shell' commands https://review.openstack.org/432280 | |
| 13:45:54 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage: Deprecate 'agent' commands https://review.openstack.org/450795 | |
| 13:45:55 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage: Deprecate 'host' commands https://review.openstack.org/453175 | |
| 13:45:55 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage: Deprecate 'project', 'account' commands https://review.openstack.org/453174 | |
| 13:45:56 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage: Deprecate 'log' commands https://review.openstack.org/453176 | |
| 13:48:36 | bauzas | mriedem: I guess you don't know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9onard_%28comics%29 ? | |
| 13:48:56 | mriedem | nope | |
| 13:49:38 | bauzas | mriedem: because the disciple always says "I serve science and it's my joy" | |
| 13:52:58 | dane-fichter | peter-hamilton: anything relevant so far? | |
| 13:53:18 | peter-hamilton | dane-fichter: not yet :) | |
| 13:53:36 | dane-fichter | peter-hamilton: cool. got caught in traffic | |
| 13:54:15 | mriedem | peter-hamilton: dane-fichter: you guys might want to review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/448882 | |
| 13:54:23 | mriedem | for dropping the nova-cert service | |
| 13:54:32 | peter-hamilton | mriedem: looking now | |
| 13:54:37 | dane-fichter | mriedem: we'll take a look, thanks | |
| 13:58:02 | tdurakov | hi, folks, there will be no live-migration meeting this week | |
| 13:58:10 | bhagyashris | johnthetubaguy: Hi, Could you please review patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/409644/ ? if you have free time. | |
| 14:01:03 | sdague | johnthetubaguy: why did you think 400 instead of 404 - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/448882 ? | |
| 14:01:48 | johnthetubaguy | sdague: didn't consider 404 honestly | |
| 14:02:02 | johnthetubaguy | sdague: I was seeing this as the implementation removed, not the API changed | |
| 14:03:32 | sdague | well, we could always be tricksie and use 410 then | |
| 14:03:59 | sdague | but I though that 404 is what the whole system returns if you go fetch /foobar | |
| 14:06:43 | johnthetubaguy | sdague: oh, 410 = gone, I had not come across that. I guess it depends if we want to pretend if the old API never existed or not. 410 would help know you got the correct URL, as you always used to, its just the server that has change and no longer wants to server up that API | |
| 14:08:03 | sdague | johnthetubaguy: yeh, though my hesitation on 410 is that no tool is every designed to understand it :) | |
| 14:08:48 | johnthetubaguy | sdague: yeah, thats good and bad in equal measure I guess | |
| 14:09:06 | sdague | yep | |
| 14:09:17 | sdague | but, more importantly, I think it requires us to have a stub hanging around | |
| 14:09:23 | sdague | vs. just deleting the handler | |
| 14:09:32 | sdague | and, I'd rather just delete the handler | |
| 14:17:43 | cdent | sdague, johnthetubaguy I reckon deleting the handler has most win (because of getting to remove cleanly) | |
| 14:17:54 | mriedem | do i need a spec to propose deleting the os-pci api code even though it's never been enabled or exposed? | |
| 14:18:20 | cdent | however 410 would also be fine. Not that many tools actually "understand" response codes. They just react to them. | |
| 14:19:03 | cdent | mriedem I think you have to ask mriedem about that | |
| 14:19:08 | mriedem | damn | |
| 14:19:10 | cdent | and then collapse in on yourself | |
| 14:20:09 | cdent | mriedem speaking of needing specs: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/448791/ needs one, I guess? | |
| 14:20:57 | mriedem | probably yeah | |
| 14:21:08 | mriedem | i don't want us to get lax on api impacts for placement | |
| 14:21:13 | cdent | fair | |
| 14:22:02 | mriedem | clarkb: with the UCA change in devstack we get libvirt 2.5 right? do you know if we also are going to get an updated qemu? and if so, which version? | |
| 14:23:03 | sdague | mriedem: we will | |
| 14:23:35 | mriedem | just wondering if it's new enough to cover what's in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/437070/ | |
| 14:23:41 | mriedem | ^ requires qemu 2.6 | |
| 14:26:24 | sdague | mriedem: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cloud-archive/+archive/ubuntu/ocata-staging/+index?batch=75&direction=backwards&start=150 | |
| 14:26:30 | sdague | guessing, I think that would be 2.8 | |
| 14:32:32 | mriedem | lyarwood: this introduced a bug https://review.openstack.org/#/c/393901/ | |
| 14:32:43 | mriedem | encryptor may not be defined when logged | |
| 14:35:22 | lyarwood | mriedem: bug #? The os-brick differs there for some reason.. | |
| 14:35:32 | mriedem | lyarwood: no bug yet, i can open one | |
| 14:36:17 | lyarwood | mriedem: thanks, I'll get it backported, btw I'm looking to drop all of this code in Pike via https://review.openstack.org/#/c/391597/ | |
| 14:37:17 | mriedem | heh that's not really a bug | |
| 14:38:12 | lyarwood | mriedem: ah just code review? I assumed it came from a customer, just reading the scollback it looks like you are reviewing the QEMU LUKS spec right? | |
| 14:38:37 | mriedem | yes | |
| 14:38:46 | lyarwood | kk, don't worry about the bug then | |
| 14:39:01 | mriedem | already written | |
| 14:39:07 | mriedem | i meant your os-brick encryptors change was not a bug | |
| 14:39:14 | mriedem | to make nova use os-brick encryptors code | |
| 14:39:15 | mriedem | is not a bug | |
| 14:39:25 | mriedem | the NameError is definitely a bug :) | |
| 14:39:28 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1679717 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Potential for NameError when logging volume encryptor" [Undecided,New] | |
| 14:39:28 | mriedem | https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1679717 | |
| 14:39:41 | lyarwood | ah | |
| 14:47:12 | mriedem | lyarwood: your spec reminds me that the cinder API reference doesn't even mention the encryption provider stuff in the volume type api docs | |
| 14:47:15 | openstackgerrit | Jeremy Stanley proposed openstack/nova master: Switch from pip_missing_reqs to pip_check_reqs https://review.openstack.org/453208 | |
| 14:51:44 | namnh | dansmith: Hi mr Smith, are you free, could I ask you a question about rolling upgrade? | |
| 14:52:22 | dansmith | namnh: just ask and someone here will answer if we know | |
| 14:53:19 | lyarwood | mriedem: yeah isn't it just stashed in the type as in extra_specs? ./me doesn't have an env to check | |
| 14:53:39 | lyarwood | type in extra_specs* | |
| 14:53:49 | namnh | dansmith: According to this link [1], we have to stop and start all Nova's serices except compute at the same time. | |