| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-04-10 | |||
| 14:30:35 | mriedem | gibi: oh btw, | |
| 14:30:49 | mriedem | did you see my comments on the instance tags in the versioned notifications patch? | |
| 14:30:56 | gibi | mriedem: honestly I grow in this community every day and I'm very happy about that | |
| 14:31:02 | mriedem | speaking of insurmountable tasks | |
| 14:31:42 | gibi | mriedem: I even responded to them ;) | |
| 14:31:54 | openstackgerrit | Simon Dodsley proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Enhanced KVM Storage QoS https://review.openstack.org/340168 | |
| 14:34:20 | openstackgerrit | Simon Dodsley proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Enhanced KVM Storage QoS https://review.openstack.org/340168 | |
| 14:35:08 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1680773 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Migration of a one VM deployed as part of group fails with NoValidHost" [Undecided,Incomplete] - Assigned to Arun Mani (arun-mani) | |
| 14:35:08 | mriedem | djohnsto: got something for you https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1680773 | |
| 14:35:10 | mriedem | djohnsto: see the last comment | |
| 14:35:29 | mriedem | djohnsto: we could use a note in the docs about server groups with an affinity policy that they can't be migrated | |
| 14:35:42 | mriedem | djohnsto: that doesn't close the bug, so i'd push that as a Related-Bug change | |
| 14:43:34 | openstackgerrit | Simon Dodsley proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Enhanced KVM Storage QoS https://review.openstack.org/340168 | |
| 14:48:07 | openstackgerrit | Sean Dague proposed openstack/nova master: remove log translation tags from nova.cells https://review.openstack.org/454854 | |
| 14:49:37 | openstackgerrit | Simon Dodsley proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Enhanced KVM Storage QoS https://review.openstack.org/340168 | |
| 14:54:04 | mriedem | johnthetubaguy: jimbaker: so what i'd do is: | |
| 14:54:08 | mriedem | 1. deploy ocata | |
| 14:54:32 | mriedem | 2. goof up the [placement] creds in nova.conf for the scheduler service so it can't talk to the placement endpoint | |
| 14:54:36 | mriedem | 3. boot a server and time it | |
| 14:54:41 | mriedem | (osprofiler?) | |
| 14:54:53 | mriedem | 4. fix the placement creds in nova.conf for the scheduler service | |
| 14:55:08 | mriedem | 5. boot a server and time it (probably delete that server from step 3 too before this) | |
| 14:55:19 | mriedem | compare the times and digest in the ML | |
| 14:55:51 | johnthetubaguy | I love stats so I would say do it 30 times so its normally distributed, but otherwise, +1 | |
| 14:55:58 | mriedem | yeah good point | |
| 14:56:10 | mriedem | i think that's what rally does right? but it's 3 rather than 30? | |
| 14:56:14 | jimbaker | mriedem, so that gets us to some raw performance. and yeah, i have some basic stats knowledge. i was planning to look at the chatter as well with placement | |
| 14:56:37 | mriedem | i've personally never used rally or osprofiler so i can't claim to know how easy they are to do this | |
| 14:57:05 | johnthetubaguy | yeah, I have only seen the output from it | |
| 14:57:07 | jimbaker | i had previously looked at the possibility of using osprofiler for craton (which i'm transitioning away from) | |
| 14:57:26 | jimbaker | and in general a fan of tracing | |
| 14:58:14 | openstackgerrit | Maciej Szankin proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add remove-nova-consoleauth spec https://review.openstack.org/450063 | |
| 14:58:19 | jimbaker | but i think the thing that made sense here for someone new was getting a handle on the flow - and seeing what was necessary after all | |
| 14:58:43 | johnthetubaguy | jimbaker: its amazing what you can get from just the instance.save() notification system, you see how long it takes to set the host, for example, but thats probably a distraction | |
| 14:58:59 | openstackgerrit | Peter Hamilton proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add support for certificate validation https://review.openstack.org/357151 | |
| 14:59:08 | jimbaker | johnthetubaguy, ack, more for my quiver | |
| 15:00:50 | peter-hamilton | jaypipes: thanks for the +2 | |
| 15:01:20 | peter-hamilton | jaypipes: i just pushed an update to the spec to address the integration of cursive into nova | |
| 15:02:44 | peter-hamilton | jaypipes: minor changes for the most part | |
| 15:11:46 | jaypipes | peter-hamilton: +2d again :) | |
| 15:11:57 | peter-hamilton | jaypipes: awesome! thanks | |
| 15:12:24 | jaypipes | peter-hamilton: I used to think that *I* was the most loquacious spec writer. *you* have clearly taken that title from me ;P | |
| 15:12:43 | peter-hamilton | jaypipes: i do like to be thorough :) | |
| 15:12:46 | jaypipes | :) | |
| 15:20:47 | mriedem | sdague: you should probably get involved in the osc/horizon thread on novaclient 8.0 removing nova-net support, re: dtroyer's reply | |
| 15:20:49 | openstackgerrit | Andrey Volkov proposed openstack/nova master: Add ability to view quota details for project owner https://review.openstack.org/386008 | |
| 15:20:58 | mriedem | sdague: or keep me in check if i'm wrong | |
| 15:24:24 | sdague | mriedem: yeh, I'm with you | |
| 15:24:52 | mriedem | i may also be not understanding what dtroyer is saying, | |
| 15:25:01 | mriedem | and if osc wants to support nova-net forever, then that's on them | |
| 15:26:40 | sdague | yep, that's fine | |
| 15:27:29 | abhi89 | alex_xu: Hi | |
| 15:28:31 | abhi89 | alex_xu: can you please review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/455118/2 | |
| 15:28:39 | sdague | cdent: did you start in on placement uwsgi bits yet? | |
| 15:29:47 | cdent | sdague: no, did you see my question from earlier in the day about whether we still want placement on port 80 and a prefix and how that impacts the uwsgi bits (and my comments on mtreinish's patch)? | |
| 15:29:57 | cdent | (question in this channel) | |
| 15:30:15 | sdague | cdent: nope | |
| 15:30:55 | abhi89 | dansmith: Hi.. can you please review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/455118/2 | |
| 15:31:26 | cdent | [t 3FDi] | |
| 15:31:26 | sdague | cdent: so, I guess it all comes down to the tls termination | |
| 15:31:27 | purplerbot | <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?)? [2017-04-10 13:49:28.430362] [n 3FDi] | |
| 15:31:45 | openstackgerrit | Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/nova master: Read NIC features in libvirt https://review.openstack.org/444415 | |
| 15:31:46 | openstackgerrit | Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/nova master: Read Neutron port 'binding_profile' during boot https://review.openstack.org/449257 | |
| 15:31:47 | openstackgerrit | Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/nova master: Modify PciPassthroughFilter to accept lists https://review.openstack.org/444946 | |
| 15:31:47 | openstackgerrit | Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/nova master: Add Neutron port capabilities to devspec in request https://review.openstack.org/451777 | |
| 15:31:49 | cdent | sdague: the related bits were comments on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/451562/ | |
| 15:33:01 | mtreinish | cdent: I did see your comment on my patch. I actually didn't consider doing that. I figured we wanted to keep the 1 process per api server (at least for now) | |
| 15:33:20 | mtreinish | but it might be a good idea to start playing with that | |
| 15:34:00 | melwitt | jaypipes: hey, I have the placement project/user spec amendment proposed and your thoughts would be appreciated on whether project_id/user_id should be optional query string params for the set_allocations call https://review.openstack.org/#/c/454352/ | |
| 15:34:14 | cdent | one way we might be able to incrementally get there is instead of switching wholesale to nginx, is to start making mox_proxy_uwsgi available | |
| 15:35:14 | mtreinish | cdent: that's what devstack uses in uwsgi mode | |
| 15:35:17 | djohnsto | mriedem: Thanks let me take a look, and I'll see what I can do. Thanks for getting me started | |
| 15:35:38 | mriedem | yw | |
| 15:35:50 | cdent | mtreinish: it is? I thought it was running standalone uwsgi servers? | |
| 15:36:26 | sdague | the disadvantage with with templates is that it's one more thing to understand, and things can be spun up with the wrong names easily, then not work | |
| 15:36:31 | cdent | mtreinish: using either the mod_proxy or nginx way gets us services on prefixes instead of ports, while still providing separate logs | |
| 15:37:15 | cdent | sdague: I'm not sure if I'll fulling understanding what you're saying? | |
| 15:37:46 | mtreinish | cdent: hmm, you might be right. I might be confusing it with what I did | |
| 15:38:00 | mtreinish | I just assumed it was mod_proxy_uwsgi because that's what the keystone docs say you should do | |
| 15:38:37 | cdent | yeah, I think for outside-devstack that's right, but in devstack it's standalone | |
| 15:39:25 | sdague | cdent: we can either use systemd native templating, or we can blast out our own files | |
| 15:40:00 | sdague | systemd native templating means we need everything in certain naming schemes, which actually makes figuring out which are the devstack services possibly less clear | |
| 15:40:13 | sdague | because we're going to have a couple different types of templates | |
| 15:42:59 | cdent | sdague: perhaps. I haven't fully grokked the functionality of the template file names, but I was thinking they'd still all be in the devstack namespace | |
| 15:44:25 | cdent | sdague, mtreinish: in any case I think we can set the template question aside, at least for now, and consider the question of placement + uwsgi only. Do we want to throw mod_proxy_uwsgi into the mix, or take placement off the /placement prefix and have it only on a port? (for now) | |
| 15:44:45 | sdague | cdent: there are very specific naming rules that making things potentially odd | |
| 15:45:16 | sdague | cdent: so... here is my question, which I don't know | |
| 15:45:31 | sdague | in what ways can the current apache tls proxy talk to the uwsgi process? | |
| 15:46:14 | sdague | because I'm going to assume the tls terminator remains a thing we want, and that is not port based | |
| 15:46:30 | sdague | but I don't quite know what constraints that puts on running uwsgi | |
| 15:47:23 | cdent | theoretically none: if we have a proxy it can get to anything else over more http | |
| 15:48:00 | sdague | cdent: right, except that means we need ports, right | |
| 15:48:04 | cdent | uwsgi can expose itself either over http or a socket. The socket is more efficient and if we want to use it we need either ngxin or one of the three apaceh-based solutions | |
| 15:48:35 | sdague | cdent: right, so the socket approach, if we do that, do we have a path forward that lets us dump the ports? | |
| 15:48:44 | cdent | it depends on what the tls proxy is doing, which I haven't paid much attention to. | |
| 15:48:47 | sdague | with apache tls proxy in the front end | |
| 15:48:56 | sdague | cdent: right, so that's my question :) | |
| 15:49:05 | sdague | http://uwsgi-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Apache.html seems to hint yes | |
| 15:49:15 | cdent | if we have a proxy in front of uwsgi, we can dump ports in the public exposed interfaces | |
| 15:49:18 | cdent | it doesn't matter which proxy | |