Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-04-10
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
14:07:01 bauzas seriously
14:07:14 bauzas Affinity and AntiAffinity are very strict policies
14:07:19 gibi yes
14:07:26 mriedem yeah i was thinking of ServerGroupAffinityFilter
14:07:31 mriedem i create a group with policy 'affinity'
14:07:36 mriedem create 3 servers in that group
14:07:40 mriedem i expect them to be on the same host
14:07:43 mriedem so i can't migrate them
14:07:45 bauzas mriedem: you're correct
14:07:47 mriedem b/c that would violate the policy
14:07:50 gibi correct
14:07:53 mriedem ok
14:08:01 bauzas mriedem: yup, but you can disable the filter if you need so
14:08:02 mriedem so we should document that in the api
14:08:09 bauzas well, it's a policy
14:08:09 mriedem bauzas: the operator can
14:08:10 mriedem the user can't
14:08:29 bauzas mriedem: sure, but the hint is transparent
14:08:38 bauzas I mean
14:08:45 bauzas it's self-explanatory
14:09:09 bauzas FWIW, it can even be a DoS vector...
14:09:13 bauzas like
14:09:25 bauzas of course we have quotas tho
14:09:42 bauzas but as a user, I can inflect which host my instances will end up
14:09:56 bauzas FWIW, I do much prefer the soft policies

Earlier   Later