| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-04-13 | |||
| 14:05:18 | bauzas | mriedem: I know, *I* wrote that big fat warning :)à | |
| 14:05:30 | mriedem | the user doesn't read the operators guide | |
| 14:05:52 | mriedem | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/api-ref/source/parameters.yaml#L3499 | |
| 14:05:54 | bauzas | ah okay, get your point | |
| 14:06:20 | bauzas | gotcha | |
| 14:06:24 | bauzas | I can forge a patch | |
| 14:06:27 | johnthetubaguy | lbragstad: mriedem: sounds like we need to talk about "is_admin_project:True", I am assuming that basically means god_mode=True | |
| 14:07:35 | mriedem | johnthetubaguy: my understanding in talking with lbragstad was is_admin_project was assigning someone as admin to a project, not the deployment | |
| 14:07:41 | mriedem | but it's really confusing so i probably screwed it up | |
| 14:08:00 | mriedem | or is is_admin_project a flag on a project that says, this is the god project, if yo'ure a member, welcome to heaven | |
| 14:08:02 | lbragstad | mriedem that - but the other way around | |
| 14:08:33 | lbragstad | the admin_project is this super-duper special project within keystone and if you have admin on it, you have admin on the deployment | |
| 14:08:50 | lbragstad | (it's weird and a little strange) | |
| 14:09:09 | mriedem | so what is the case where i'm just admin on a non-admin project? | |
| 14:09:18 | mriedem | is that just, role:admin on project foo? | |
| 14:09:24 | mriedem | not role:admin on project admin? | |
| 14:09:26 | lbragstad | mriedem yeah | |
| 14:09:49 | lbragstad | mriedem the case would be that you'd be able to manage the project, but not the deployment | |
| 14:09:50 | mriedem | ok | |
| 14:09:56 | lbragstad | (think creating subprojects) | |
| 14:10:21 | mriedem | johnthetubaguy: i don't know if you need that explained in your spec or not, it would have helped me, and in simple terms | |
| 14:10:34 | openstackgerrit | Sergey Nikitin proposed openstack/nova-specs master: PCI NUMA Policies https://review.openstack.org/361140 | |
| 14:10:37 | mriedem | * god-mode: user as admin role on the special admin project | |
| 14:10:38 | lbragstad | or if you wanted to manage role assignments for things within the project you have admin on | |
| 14:11:12 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: I tried to describe that in there, I probably failed. Its why I spoke about a "special" admin project. | |
| 14:11:14 | mriedem | * fief lord: user has admin role on non-admin tenant project | |
| 14:11:14 | lbragstad | i mean - it's a step in the right direction, but i kinda think of it as a bandaid | |
| 14:11:35 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: +1 | |
| 14:11:53 | mriedem | or demigod if you like | |
| 14:12:07 | mriedem | fief lord seems more appropriate | |
| 14:12:14 | lbragstad | yeah | |
| 14:12:53 | mriedem | johnthetubaguy: my main question was can we split fixing the db issue (the trove service user 404 case) from the scope check overhaul? | |
| 14:13:06 | mriedem | because the former i think i understand the mechanics of, the latter i don't so much | |
| 14:13:18 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: I don't believe we can | |
| 14:13:26 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: I think one check is there to replace the other | |
| 14:13:29 | mriedem | i figured that would be the answer | |
| 14:13:49 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: is it worth a quick hangout? | |
| 14:13:59 | mriedem | in that case, you have to answer my gauntlet of questions in the scope check section | |
| 14:14:16 | johnthetubaguy | yeah, heading down them now | |
| 14:14:16 | mriedem | we could, | |
| 14:14:26 | mriedem | would be good if it were more than just me though | |
| 14:15:49 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: very true, I wonder if sdague and lbragstad would be up for it? | |
| 14:16:01 | sdague | ?? | |
| 14:16:16 | lbragstad | ? | |
| 14:17:00 | johnthetubaguy | wondering about a quick hangout | |
| 14:17:06 | johnthetubaguy | around policy stuff, with mriedem | |
| 14:17:15 | sdague | sure, give me 2 minutes, then I could do it | |
| 14:17:25 | lbragstad | I have some time now - meeting in 45 | |
| 14:17:47 | johnthetubaguy | lbragstad: same here | |
| 14:17:53 | johnthetubaguy | well, same meeting | |
| 14:17:54 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Add novaclient client_name and client_version to user-agent https://review.openstack.org/456638 | |
| 14:17:58 | lbragstad | johnthetubaguy :) | |
| 14:18:55 | sdague | ok, well let me know when | |
| 14:19:15 | johnthetubaguy | policy hangout: https://hangouts.google.com/call/5zxc7sggwndgrcihsydb5o37mmy | |
| 14:19:23 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: lbragstad: sdague: ^ | |
| 14:19:30 | mriedem | johnthetubaguy: i'll also be totally honest and say i worry about starting a new big slog of changes like this, when we have some things we haven't completed yet from previous releases | |
| 14:20:02 | mordred | jamielennox|away: ^^ see 456638 and double-check me that that's right before I do it for the other clients | |
| 14:20:05 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: I kinda thought we finished the conf now, hence opening this up | |
| 14:21:05 | mriedem | my av is all screwed up | |
| 14:21:08 | openstackgerrit | Sergey Nikitin proposed openstack/nova-specs master: PCI NUMA Policies https://review.openstack.org/361140 | |
| 14:21:15 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: your mic was working great | |
| 14:21:27 | mriedem | oh, no audio for me :) | |
| 14:22:26 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Delete nic metadata when detaching interface https://review.openstack.org/435387 | |
| 14:22:26 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Plumbing for tagged nic attachment https://review.openstack.org/415622 | |
| 14:22:27 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Libvirt support for tagged volume attachment https://review.openstack.org/418100 | |
| 14:22:30 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Delete disk metadata when detaching volume https://review.openstack.org/435082 | |
| 14:22:33 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Plumbing for tagged volume attachment https://review.openstack.org/391941 | |
| 14:22:35 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: API support for tagged device attachment https://review.openstack.org/376021 | |
| 14:22:36 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Libvirt support for tagged nic attachment https://review.openstack.org/415520 | |
| 14:31:39 | mriedem | johnthetubaguy: i meant https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/prep-for-network-aware-scheduling-pike specifically, but we have other things too | |
| 14:33:30 | mriedem | sfinucan: dansmith: bauzas: easy fix https://review.openstack.org/#/c/455183/ | |
| 14:34:19 | sfinucan | mriedem: I see your change and raise you https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456227/ | |
| 14:34:43 | mriedem | clarkb: looks like we have a new set of live migration failures since the UCA change http://logs.openstack.org/83/455183/5/check/gate-tempest-dsvm-multinode-live-migration-ubuntu-xenial/38fe0cd/logs/screen-n-cpu.txt.gz?level=TRACE#_2017-04-13_11_58_36_986 - not sure if it's related to the other things we've already seen and UCA was meant to fix, i.e. the i/o error | |
| 14:34:58 | bauzas | mriedem: looks like the live-mig job is bonkers | |
| 14:35:01 | mriedem | sfinucan: that tab was already open :) | |
| 14:35:14 | mriedem | it is http://logstash.openstack.org/#dashboard/file/logstash.json?query=message%3A%5C%22Live%20Migration%20failure%3A%20operation%20failed%3A%20Failed%20to%20connect%20to%20remote%20libvirt%20URI%5C%22%20AND%20message%3A%5C%22End%20of%20file%20while%20reading%20data%3A%20sh%3A%201%3A%20nc%3A%20not%20found%3A%20Input%2Foutput%20error%5C%22%20AND%20tags%3A%5C%22screen-n-cpu.txt%5C%22&from=7d | |
| 14:37:54 | kashyap | sfinucan: I'm obviously not a "core", but there's nothing inherently wrong with "two RH +2s" | |
| 14:38:02 | kashyap | Assuming they're acting in good faith | |
| 14:38:15 | sfinucan | kashyap: True, but it's just good practice | |
| 14:38:23 | kashyap | Having a blind rule (I'm not saying there is) like "We don't want two RH +2s" is just plain silly | |
| 14:38:30 | sfinucan | especially when the patch was RH authored | |
| 14:38:42 | kashyap | sfinucan: Ah, like that | |
| 14:38:58 | kashyap | sfinucan: Sure, it's a "nice to have" to keep biases in check | |
| 14:39:01 | mriedem | i'll review it when i'm off this call | |
| 14:39:14 | kashyap | But if they're are mature adults, then it's okay to assume they're acting in good faith :-) | |
| 14:39:16 | openstackgerrit | Sergey Nikitin proposed openstack/nova-specs master: PCI NUMA Policies https://review.openstack.org/361140 | |
| 14:39:28 | mriedem | kashyap: they are also rushing because of tripleo pressure | |
| 14:39:30 | mriedem | so there is a conflict | |
| 14:39:36 | mriedem | just hold up 30 minutes please :) | |
| 14:39:38 | sfinucan | kashyap: z'actly :) | |
| 14:39:40 | kashyap | sfinucan: Case in point: Upstream QEMU block layer has lots of RH-authored patches reviewed by RHers | |
| 14:39:49 | kashyap | And the quality of those discussions is one of the highest I've ever seen. | |
| 14:40:00 | kashyap | And they disagree all the time with each other | |
| 14:40:03 | jaypipes | bauzas, sfinucan: will try my best. really not feeling well today :( | |
| 14:40:16 | kashyap | mriedem: Ah, I see - didn't know the TripleO context | |
| 14:40:17 | bauzas | jaypipes: no worries man | |
| 14:40:22 | bauzas | jaypipes: take rest | |
| 14:44:34 | sfinucan | jaypipes: Aye, take it easy in that case | |
| 14:45:21 | jangutter | Massive apologies again for the insane lateness of "Spec to enable Netronome SmartNIC support" https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456386/ | |
| 14:46:15 | jangutter | At least I should be online for the next couple of hours if anyone is still willing to review it. | |