| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-04-10 | |||
| 13:25:06 | mriedem | bauwser: gibi: how do you migrate a group of servers with an affinity policy since you can't pass a list of servers to migrate at once, and we don't migrate as a group? | |
| 13:25:17 | mriedem | or are you just unable to migrate servers in an affinity group? | |
| 13:25:57 | bauwser | mriedem: I need to go find my daughter | |
| 13:26:23 | bauwser | mriedem: honestly, migrating a group is not possible AFAIK | |
| 13:26:39 | bauwser | or you need to spin another compute that shares that | |
| 13:32:51 | mriedem | spin another compute that shares that | |
| 13:32:56 | mriedem | i don't know what that means | |
| 13:33:52 | openstackgerrit | Abhishek Sharma M proposed openstack/nova master: Catching OverLimit Exception https://review.openstack.org/455118 | |
| 13:35:54 | jaypipes | morning supernovas. | |
| 13:36:34 | venki | can we replace virtio model by ETH-1000 while booting the instance ? Anyone pls respond ... | |
| 13:37:04 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1679941 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Data still exsits in instance_mappings when delete instance" [Undecided,New] | |
| 13:37:04 | mriedem | melwitt: the question of deleting instance mappings when you delete an instance came up in the bug list https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1679941 | |
| 13:37:10 | mriedem | melwitt: similar to the request spec one, | |
| 13:37:13 | mriedem | i don't have a good answer | |
| 13:37:45 | kashyap | mriedem: When you get a moment, maybe you'll also have an opinion here, do we want to allow such a thing (a Nova config knob that lets one to use arbitrary QEMU binaries) -- https://review.openstack.org/#/c/445558/5 | |
| 13:38:13 | kashyap | I wrote some implications there | |
| 13:38:33 | mriedem | kashyap: ew | |
| 13:38:40 | kashyap | But I'm not quite sure if we'd want to allow such a thing. Can have upstream and downstream consequences | |
| 13:38:43 | kashyap | Precisely | |
| 13:38:53 | mriedem | "nova doesn't allow me to use a custom build ovs, or db, or anything i think should be custom built" | |
| 13:39:34 | kashyap | Heh | |
| 13:40:20 | kashyap | Upstream painstakingly evaluate the min / max versions each release, only to be overridden by a random config attribute, with that comes the deluge of bugs | |
| 13:40:28 | kashyap | s/evaluate/evaluates/ | |
| 13:40:34 | mriedem | kashyap: well this isn't someone using a distro | |
| 13:40:47 | kashyap | Yeah, even worse | |
| 13:41:06 | mriedem | heh, | |
| 13:41:14 | mriedem | not everyone has to drink your red koolaid you know | |
| 13:41:22 | kashyap | Please comment to that effect, before they have false hopes | |
| 13:41:41 | kashyap | mriedem: Heh, you know, I'll never forget -- when I had new hire orientation way back | |
| 13:42:08 | kashyap | One of the long-time engineering managers said: "You could even use any distribution for development purpose" | |
| 13:42:48 | kashyap | But that was way back, and don't quote me :-) | |
| 13:43:15 | mriedem | kashyap: i did | |
| 13:43:36 | mriedem | "regardless of kashyap trying to sell you a rhosp license, this isn't a good idea for upstream" | |
| 13:43:42 | kashyap | LOL | |
| 13:44:23 | mriedem | wow i just noticed this was approved | |
| 13:44:37 | kashyap | Urgh, I didn't even notice that | |
| 13:44:48 | mriedem | by one of your rh brethren | |
| 13:44:55 | kashyap | mriedem: It caught my attention with its unusually long summary commit message | |
| 13:45:07 | mriedem | yes that is also terrible | |
| 13:45:11 | mriedem | feel free to shame sfinucan | |
| 13:45:23 | edleafe | Scheduler subteam meeting in 15 minutes in #openstack-meeting-alt | |
| 13:45:32 | kashyap | mriedem: Urgh, don't make it sound like a John Grisham's novel ("The Bretheren") | |
| 13:45:46 | mriedem | i didn't know that existed | |
| 13:47:06 | mriedem | alex_xu: i've been debating doing a single microversion for a new round of deprecations (os-virtual-interfaces, multinic, os-hosts, and the quota class sets thing), but those would kind of all be deprecated for different reasons and be a massive single change, so i don't think it's a great idea | |
| 13:47:28 | mriedem | alex_xu: but i just had to tell someone to get it out of my head | |
| 13:48:27 | jaypipes | venki: pls see /topic. best to ask your question on openstack@ mailing list or ask.openstack.org. thanks! | |
| 13:48:34 | kashyap | mriedem: Thought you'd give it "-2" (which it deserves) | |
| 13:49:28 | cdent | sdague: in your hopes and dreams for placeument under uwsgi, is that on a custom port or standard ports (the latter requires either nginx or mod_proxy_wsgi, no?)? | |
| 13:49:28 | mriedem | kashyap: sounds like a new contributor, i don't want to hammer it | |
| 13:49:56 | mriedem | kashyap: i assume they are trying to hack some things locally, and just didn't realize this isn't a great upstream change | |
| 13:50:34 | kashyap | mriedem: Ah, okay. Yeah, but a reasonable person would give a benefit of doubt: "Hmm, if this got a -2, then there's a good reason for it, let me learn that" | |
| 13:51:46 | mriedem | i'm soft and gentle on a monday morning | |
| 13:51:53 | kashyap | :-) | |
| 13:52:30 | dansmith | mriedem: so I should stop chanting "crush .. his .. soul!" ? | |
| 13:54:07 | mriedem | dansmith: yes | |
| 13:54:14 | mriedem | soul crushing is reserved for tuesdays | |
| 13:54:14 | dansmith | until tomorrow? | |
| 13:54:19 | dansmith | got it. | |
| 13:54:25 | thomasem | Wait a moment, you did some of that on Friday. | |
| 13:54:32 | thomasem | I remember. | |
| 13:58:05 | mriedem | i must have blacked out, don't remember | |
| 13:58:20 | sfinucan | mriedem, kashyap: viva la long commit messages | |
| 13:58:32 | sfinucan | (albeit, properly formatted ones) | |
| 13:58:47 | kashyap | Commit _message_ is fine; summary not :P | |
| 13:59:51 | sfinucan | mriedem: RE: "<mriedem> sfinucan: is it possible to use choices with ListOpt?" - no, you can't | |
| 13:59:53 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1678686 in keystoneauth "keystoneauth doesn't use a default cafile" [Undecided,In progress] - Assigned to Sean McCully (sean-mccully) | |
| 13:59:53 | mriedem | dane-fichter: peter-hamilton: might be good to look at this and provide your opinions on if you think a default cafile is a good idea https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1678686 | |
| 13:59:59 | mriedem | sfinucan: yeah, nor DictOpt | |
| 14:00:11 | mriedem | sfinucan: although DictOpt with key/value choices would be ideal for disk_cachemodes | |
| 14:00:16 | peter-hamilton | mriedem: gotcha, i'll take a look at it | |
| 14:00:41 | mriedem | sfinucan: although i don't know how you transition from stropt to dictop w/o breaking config | |
| 14:00:56 | mriedem | unless you create a new option, new name, and deprecate the old one | |
| 14:01:15 | sfinucan | mriedem: ^ that, basically | |
| 14:01:17 | bauzas | mriedem: server groups are grouping instances, right? | |
| 14:01:31 | bauzas | mriedem: I mean, a server group can have different hosts within it | |
| 14:01:39 | bauzas | depending on the policy of course | |
| 14:01:42 | sfinucan | Would be pretty super for the PCI stuff too. Hmm... | |
| 14:02:11 | gibi | mriedem: migrating affinty group is not possible today. you will get no valid host. you can evacuate an affinity group with --force flag | |
| 14:02:12 | bauzas | mriedem: so, say you have an Affinity policty | |
| 14:02:25 | mriedem | gibi: ok that's what i thought | |
| 14:02:34 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1680773 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Migration of a one VM deployed as part of group fails with NoValidHost" [Undecided,New] - Assigned to Arun Mani (arun-mani) | |
| 14:02:34 | mriedem | gibi: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1680773 | |
| 14:02:45 | mriedem | they don't say what their group policy was in the bug, but i assume it was affinity | |
| 14:02:51 | mriedem | we should doc that limitation in the api-ref | |
| 14:02:58 | bauzas | mriedem: gibi: what if I have affinity policy and 2 hosts within that group | |
| 14:03:13 | bauzas | mriedem: gibi: AFAICU, it would be possible to migrate from one to another if that policy | |
| 14:03:30 | mriedem | i thought the server group with affinity policy was using the same_host scheduler hint? | |
| 14:03:32 | mriedem | so it's a single host | |
| 14:03:35 | bauzas | mriedem: no | |
| 14:03:38 | mriedem | i don't know what you mean by 2 hosts within that group | |
| 14:03:40 | gibi | bauzas: you cannot have an affinity group with two hosts iff you evacuated with --force | |
| 14:03:46 | bauzas | mriedem: same_host hint is for SameHostFilter | |
| 14:04:10 | gibi | bauzas: I mean can only have affinity group on two hosts iff you evacuated one of the VMs with --force | |
| 14:04:25 | bauzas | gibi: right, this is my point | |
| 14:04:36 | bauzas | gibi: so, say I end up with the group having 2 hosts | |
| 14:04:57 | bauzas | I guess it would be possible to migrate from one to another | |
| 14:05:13 | bauzas | also, I don't remember but I think we now have weighters right? | |
| 14:05:48 | gibi | bauzas: that means you have a broken group so I would not say anythin about what happens when you have a broken group. The precodition is not true so anything can happen | |
| 14:06:30 | gibi | bauzas: weighters for groups are to implement soft-affinity and soft-anti-affinity | |
| 14:06:55 | bauzas | oh right | |