| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-04-13 | |||
| 22:06:57 | sean-k-mooney | jaypipes: perhaps you could take a skim over jangutter path https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456386 if you have time. form an os-vif point of view it makes sense to me. | |
| 22:12:01 | melwitt | mriedem: I think I'm missing how HostMappingNotFound is raised from things that don't appear to raise it | |
| 22:12:18 | mriedem | melwitt: the decorator | |
| 22:12:29 | mriedem | melwitt: which one specifically? | |
| 22:12:59 | melwitt | mriedem: like service_get_by_compute_host, but I see the decorator now. duh | |
| 22:13:05 | mriedem | ok | |
| 22:13:35 | melwitt | meaning duh to me, I wasn't seeing where the lookup was coming from | |
| 22:13:52 | mriedem | melwitt: i took that as a personal 'duh' to me | |
| 22:13:59 | mriedem | i was highly offended | |
| 22:14:00 | melwitt | I knew it! | |
| 22:19:25 | melwitt | mriedem: I don't see how it can be raised from the compute_node_get here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456227/4/nova/api/openstack/compute/hypervisors.py@192 and then things could fail at L195 not raising the webob exception | |
| 22:26:44 | mriedem | melwitt: hmm yeah i don't see HostMappingNotFound raised from there either | |
| 22:27:14 | melwitt | not harmful for the except block, but harmful not to have the try-except around the other call that can raise it | |
| 22:27:47 | mriedem | well, it's not good to be handling exceptions that won't happen either | |
| 22:27:55 | mriedem | melwitt: want to -1? | |
| 22:28:07 | melwitt | yeah, I will. I'm just looking through the tests now | |
| 22:28:34 | melwitt | yes, agreed not good | |
| 22:50:07 | mriedem | dansmith: i don't want to pester but are we missing anything on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456227/ ? | |
| 22:50:50 | dansmith | gdi you people | |
| 22:51:45 | dansmith | yeah I think I might've mixed up compute_get and service_get | |
| 22:51:53 | dansmith | ffs | |
| 22:52:20 | dansmith | I think I even explained it right in one of the earlier sets and then did the wrong thing | |
| 22:52:37 | melwitt | got too excited | |
| 22:54:23 | mriedem | it would be nice if we could just put a try/except around the entire os-hypervisors/os-services/os-hosts APIs | |
| 22:54:44 | mriedem | heh, you know, we actually could | |
| 22:55:49 | melwitt | now that would be sweet | |
| 22:56:50 | mriedem | well we do have a catch all place in the wsgi layer | |
| 22:57:32 | mriedem | this i think https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/wsgi.py#L396 | |
| 22:58:08 | mriedem | so, if we wanted to be lazy, we could just handle HostMappingNotFound there and return httpnotfound | |
| 22:58:11 | mriedem | melwitt: dansmith: ^ | |
| 22:58:15 | mriedem | kind of a cop out though | |
| 22:58:33 | dansmith | you'd rather backport that change? :) | |
| 22:58:43 | mriedem | this is going to ocata? | |
| 22:59:00 | mriedem | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/442162/ was pike | |
| 22:59:21 | dansmith | oh yeaq | |
| 22:59:25 | dansmith | I was thinking the p-1 | |
| 22:59:31 | mriedem | ok, | |
| 22:59:33 | dansmith | you'd rather do that? | |
| 22:59:43 | dansmith | I think I have this changed, fwiw | |
| 22:59:44 | mriedem | i thought red hat backported multi-cell support for rhosp ocata :) | |
| 22:59:51 | mriedem | how about we do the safe thing now | |
| 22:59:57 | mriedem | and look at the lazy way later | |
| 22:59:58 | claudiub|2 | mriedem: hellou. just peeking around here for a bit. this blueprint was approved in ocata, and had the implementation up for review, but it didn't merge in ocata: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/hyper-v-nested-virtualization | |
| 23:00:08 | melwitt | it seems like doing that would be weird. though it is doing like Forbidden and Invalid that way but not NotFound. dunno the history on that | |
| 23:00:10 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Fix hypervisors api missing HostMappingNotFound handlers https://review.openstack.org/456227 | |
| 23:00:15 | claudiub|2 | can it get re-approved? :D | |
| 23:00:22 | mriedem | claudiub|2: for you? anything. | |
| 23:00:25 | claudiub|2 | <3 | |
| 23:00:37 | claudiub|2 | seems like an early easter. :) | |
| 23:00:38 | mriedem | melwitt: i think it's basically just a catch all for global types of failures | |
| 23:00:43 | mriedem | which hostmappingnotfound kind of is | |
| 23:00:55 | dansmith | mriedem: yeah that one is pretty easy to catch and always do the right thing | |
| 23:01:04 | mriedem | claudiub|2: jesus hasn't come up and seen his shadow yet so don't count your chickens | |
| 23:01:05 | dansmith | it's fairly specific about what happened and what should be done | |
| 23:01:07 | mriedem | this easter could be different | |
| 23:01:07 | melwitt | yeah. I was just noting it for whatever reason intentionally left out the base class for NotFound | |
| 23:01:19 | dansmith | mriedem: could be super confusing for someone trying to track down the 404 though | |
| 23:01:25 | mriedem | dansmith: yeah i totally agree | |
| 23:01:39 | mriedem | dansmith: i never knew that existed until about a year ago when laski pointed it out | |
| 23:01:45 | mriedem | ^ is generally my story for everything | |
| 23:01:46 | claudiub|2 | well, it is a bit cloud-y lately | |
| 23:01:51 | melwitt | laski, that rascal | |
| 23:03:29 | claudiub|2 | also, i've submitted the sr-iov bp: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/hyperv-sriov no implementation yet i'm afraid, apparently there's a whole guide to follow just to configure the nics properly. | |
| 23:04:24 | mriedem | claudiub|2: sounds about right | |
| 23:04:31 | mriedem | claudiub|2: do you get a long weekend? | |
| 23:05:05 | claudiub|2 | well, technically i'm free on monday, i'll still be around | |
| 23:05:16 | claudiub|2 | i don't like vacations too much. :D | |
| 23:05:23 | mriedem | you can read the sriov manual | |
| 23:05:42 | claudiub|2 | yeah, that is in my plan. :D | |
| 23:06:14 | claudiub|2 | and question: can we live-migrate vms with sr-iov? | |
| 23:06:19 | mriedem | claudiub|2: no | |
| 23:06:23 | mriedem | resource tracker issue | |
| 23:06:24 | claudiub|2 | hm, interesting | |
| 23:06:26 | mriedem | *issues | |
| 23:06:31 | mriedem | cfriesen knows about it | |
| 23:06:40 | claudiub|2 | is that a nova limitation, or a hypervisor limitation? | |
| 23:09:47 | claudiub|2 | so, alaski is like beetlejuice - say his name too many times and he shows up. :D | |
| 23:10:53 | alaski | I'm glad I appear to have explained things to folks in the past, because I don't remember much these days | |
| 23:15:26 | melwitt | you missed out on some cerebral shelve feature talk today | |
| 23:20:37 | alaski | I hope it was good. I am very much not proud of introducing that feature. | |
| 23:25:38 | melwitt | hm ... define good. mriedem found that upon shelve offload, volumes are not disconnected and then also when network is cleaned up, that only does something for nova-net through the network_api, the neutron implementation is a no-op pass | |
| 23:27:00 | melwitt | so it pretty much relies on the unshelve putting the instance back on the same host it was shelved offloaded from, which seems really unlikely | |
| 23:29:15 | alaski | yeah, I would not expect that to happen much in practice | |
| 23:33:17 | gmann | mriedem: thank i almost forgot about that bug, ll check patch | |
| 23:37:04 | cfriesen | claudiub|2: the first issue is that we need to get resource tracking in general working over live migration. (see https://review.openstack.org/#/c/244489 and the follow-on patches) | |
| 23:39:23 | cfriesen | do people actually use shelve? If so, why hasn't anyone noticed this? | |
| 23:40:22 | alaski | maybe not using volumes, or neutron? | |
| 23:40:41 | alaski | it did seem to have a small following, despite discouragement about using it | |
| 23:42:53 | melwitt | yeah, I would guess similar. I have heard of it being used and it would work fine for nova-net and no volumes | |
| 23:53:20 | mriedem | cfriesen: someone has, long time ago | |
| 23:53:23 | mriedem | the stratoscale guys | |
| 23:53:26 | mriedem | from the bug in the ML | |
| #openstack-nova - 2017-04-14 | |||
| 00:03:10 | gmann | mriedem: just replied, i think we need version bump otherwise it will be interop issue | |
| 00:04:00 | gmann | mriedem: cloud with >2.20 may or may not have this fix and it end up with different API behavior on clouds. | |
| 00:05:00 | gmann | mriedem: we could have avoided version bump by backporting fix since 2.20 was in but that was before mitaka which is EOL now | |
| 00:05:33 | mriedem | gmann: then we backport the fix | |
| 00:05:45 | mriedem | we've fixed regressions caused by microversions in the past and backported them | |
| 00:10:17 | gmann | mriedem: and for mitaka? | |
| 00:10:29 | mriedem | gmann: we have all kinds of latent bugs that go back to releases that are long end of life by now | |
| 00:10:45 | mriedem | just because we can't backport something to the release that introduced the bug doesn't mean we can't fix it and backport to what's supported | |