| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-04-05 | |||
| 13:01:37 | jaypipes | mriedem: you need to ship the code from something... | |
| 13:02:15 | jaypipes | mriedem: that's all I'm referring to here. the mechanism for delivering that code into a place searchlight knows about... | |
| 13:02:50 | jaypipes | alex_xu: around? I'd love to make progress on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/376200/ today if you can. | |
| 13:04:21 | bauzas | johnthetubaguy: reviewing it now | |
| 13:09:19 | yasemin_ | artom, which one is true for compute nodes, placement-api or placement-client? | |
| 13:11:06 | dane-fichter | jaypipes: have you looked at the newest draft of the cert validation spec? | |
| 13:11:18 | jaypipes | dane-fichter: no sir, not yet. | |
| 13:11:56 | dane-fichter | jaypipes: ok. I think peter posted it yesterday but it was after y'all had already kind of established your queues for spec review day | |
| 13:12:51 | jaypipes | dane-fichter: will take another look today. | |
| 13:12:59 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Add snapshot id to the snapshot notifications https://review.openstack.org/453077 | |
| 13:13:03 | dane-fichter | jaypipes: thanks jay! | |
| 13:13:08 | yasemin_ | frickler, artom, which one is true for compute nodes, placement-api or placement-client? | |
| 13:28:36 | mriedem | claudiub: for volume attach, does hyperv honor the user-supplied device name (if one is provided)? | |
| 13:36:51 | artom | mriedem, wait, in a Windows guest? | |
| 13:36:56 | artom | As in, 'D:' ? | |
| 13:37:39 | mriedem | hyperv can run linux guests right? | |
| 13:37:46 | artom | yasemin_, I'm not sure I understand your question, how can placement-api be true on a compute node? | |
| 13:37:46 | mriedem | but that's a good question - what if it's a windows guest | |
| 13:38:03 | mriedem | yasemin_: for devstack? placement-client | |
| 13:38:10 | mriedem | as a subnode | |
| 13:38:12 | mriedem | in devstack | |
| 13:38:19 | yasemin_ | artom, yes for devstack compute node enable services | |
| 13:38:44 | artom | mriedem, huh, TIL hyperv isn't limited to Windows guests | |
| 13:38:50 | mriedem | yasemin_: https://github.com/openstack-infra/devstack-gate/blob/master/features.yaml#L269 | |
| 13:39:12 | mriedem | yasemin_: that's when d-g is setting up a subnode | |
| 13:39:13 | artom | yasemin_, compute node only needs placement-client, methinks | |
| 13:40:06 | yasemin_ | okey | |
| 13:40:50 | EmilienM | hello here, can you review this patch please? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/453338 - it would help TripleO CI to test upgrades from Ocata to Pike. Thanks a lot! | |
| 13:42:09 | jaypipes | melwitt: pls see my comments on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/453030/... | |
| 13:42:29 | jaypipes | melwitt: it's already been approved, but I have some requests for you in there. | |
| 13:43:16 | jaypipes | melwitt: we should really be using GET /usages, not GET /allocations for the quota-counting call. | |
| 13:46:01 | claudiub | mriedem: hi. nope, we can't honor that. | |
| 13:46:30 | claudiub | mriedem: and ofc, hyper-v can run linux guests. :) | |
| 13:47:14 | mriedem | claudiub: thanks | |
| 13:47:17 | mriedem | i'm not sure about vmware | |
| 13:47:22 | mriedem | i think xen might be the only one | |
| 13:49:10 | bauzas | jaypipes: heh, split-brain is not exactly happening in systems with leader elections | |
| 13:49:19 | bauzas | it can happen there, but it's just a case | |
| 13:49:39 | bauzas | my own definition of split-brain is when you have 2 datasets being inconsistent | |
| 13:49:53 | bauzas | which is larger than yours :) | |
| 13:56:32 | melwitt | jaypipes: okay, thanks. I can propose an amendment to the spec | |
| 13:58:28 | openstackgerrit | Maciej Szankin proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add remove-nova-cert spec https://review.openstack.org/448882 | |
| 14:02:40 | gmann | sdague: on extension removal, as i updated the base patch in that series, i ll rebase others if needed that might need re approval | |
| 14:03:04 | gmann | johnthetubaguy: can you check this base patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/450834/ | |
| 14:05:57 | dane-fichter | mriedem: when you get a chance, could you take a look at the newest cursive patch? it passes the experimental check. | |
| 14:06:03 | dane-fichter | mriedem: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/351232/ | |
| 14:07:14 | mriedem | yeah | |
| 14:15:41 | mriedem | jaypipes: on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/453030/ to be clear, are you saying both GET /allocations *and* GET /usages, or just the latter as a new handler? | |
| 14:17:01 | melwitt | is the placement-api-ref on docs.o.o anywhere? I can't find it | |
| 14:17:03 | jaypipes | mriedem: implement both in the REST API but have the quota-handling call only the GET /usages | |
| 14:18:38 | mriedem | jaypipes: why both | |
| 14:18:39 | mriedem | ? | |
| 14:18:46 | mriedem | why do we need two handlers for the same thing? | |
| 14:18:56 | jaypipes | mriedem: well, one is the detail view, the other is the aggregate view. | |
| 14:19:24 | mriedem | i think we need a respin of the spec then with the rest api impact section filled out with those details | |
| 14:19:38 | mriedem | if we're adding a new handler | |
| 14:19:57 | melwitt | mriedem: I'm working on an amendment for the spec to address everyone's comments | |
| 14:20:29 | sdague | melwitt: I'm not sure that publish loop ever fully got setup | |
| 14:20:56 | melwitt | sdague: ack, thanks | |
| 14:21:01 | bauzas | melwitt: it's in devref | |
| 14:21:36 | bauzas | melwitt: https://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/placement.html | |
| 14:21:38 | melwitt | bauzas: I found this but it says it's forthcoming https://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/placement.html#api-reference | |
| 14:21:50 | bauzas | oh ok, my bad then | |
| 14:27:50 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: explain payload inheritance in notification devref https://review.openstack.org/453667 | |
| 14:36:53 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Plumbing for tagged nic attachment https://review.openstack.org/415622 | |
| 14:36:54 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Libvirt support for tagged volume attachment https://review.openstack.org/418100 | |
| 14:36:54 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Delete nic metadata when detaching interface https://review.openstack.org/435387 | |
| 14:36:56 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Delete disk metadata when detaching volume https://review.openstack.org/435082 | |
| 14:36:59 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Plumbing for tagged volume attachment https://review.openstack.org/391941 | |
| 14:37:01 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Libvirt support for tagged nic attachment https://review.openstack.org/415520 | |
| 14:37:01 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: API support for tagged device attachment https://review.openstack.org/376021 | |
| 14:37:04 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Add method to invalidate metadata cache https://review.openstack.org/453673 | |
| 14:52:53 | openstackgerrit | John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Spec to add per instance timeout for LM https://review.openstack.org/442809 | |
| 15:00:55 | jaypipes | cdent: it's not about "doing a bit of math on the client side". rather, it's just making the REST API more useful, IMHO. | |
| 15:02:12 | cdent | I get where you're coming from, but you solution adds an endpoint for a specific result that can be serviced by something more generic that fits in with the existing grammar | |
| 15:02:37 | cdent | And I'm trying to toe the line on "only add stuff if we have to" | |
| 15:02:45 | cdent | and in this case there are plenty of ways to "not have to" | |
| 15:03:05 | cdent | If we decide to go with /usages, that's fine it's not a big deal | |
| 15:03:10 | edleafe | And is "usage" a resource? (in the REST sense of the word) | |
| 15:03:13 | cdent | but since we can do it another way, that's fine too | |
| 15:03:48 | jaypipes | edleafe: we already have /r-p/{uuid}/usages | |
| 15:05:20 | jaypipes | cdent: in either, case I'm fine doing it only in /allocations to start off and adding the /usages at a later time. | |
| 15:05:22 | jaypipes | mriedem: ^ | |
| 15:06:08 | cdent | jaypipes: that seems like a reasonable path: if it turns out it is just too damn slow or code-messy to do the math client side, then adding later is great | |
| 15:06:22 | jaypipes | yep, ok with me. | |
| 15:06:33 | jaypipes | for some reason I thought we had a top-level /usages endpoint already :( | |
| 15:07:12 | cdent | jaypipes: yeah, I had to check to confirm it. I keep going back to the DECLARATIONS var in handler.py over and over. Makes me very glad it is there. | |
| 15:07:35 | edleafe | So would usages be a summary of allocations by resource class? | |
| 15:07:49 | jaypipes | correct. | |
| 15:08:01 | jaypipes | as in "a usage report". | |
| 15:08:15 | edleafe | ok, that's what I thought | |
| 15:09:14 | mriedem | ala https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/compute/?expanded=show-rate-and-absolute-limits-detail#show-rate-and-absolute-limits | |
| 15:09:22 | mriedem | "maxTotalCores": 20, | |
| 15:09:26 | mriedem | "totalCoresUsed": 0, | |
| 15:09:33 | mriedem | yay quotas in placement | |
| 15:10:08 | melwitt | each compute node is a RP, right? so with the /allocations query, there would be maybe hundreds of entries to add together for every quota check | |
| 15:11:08 | cdent | one sec but it may be that we have to do it jay's way | |
| 15:12:05 | cdent | nope, never mind | |
| 15:12:15 | jaypipes | melwitt: correct. | |
| 15:12:21 | cdent | I was worried that if a user had multiple instances on the same rp the output would be weird | |