Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-04-19
14:38:08 mriedem i heard we bombed afghanistan with a large bomb
14:38:27 mriedem to show how cool we are
14:38:39 edleafe Is the overhead specific to each hypervisor, but the same for all instances on that hypervisor, regardless of instance size?
14:39:07 mriedem edleafe: no
14:39:15 edleafe ugh
14:39:24 bauzas mriedem: I do recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkZir1L7fSY for your knowledge
14:40:13 mriedem bauzas: ok, saved for later
14:40:21 bauzas mriedem: NSFW
14:40:29 mriedem i'm at home
14:40:31 mriedem so everything is safe
14:40:45 mriedem between the hours of 9am and 4pm that is
14:40:45 bauzas s/NSFW/NSFWFH
14:40:56 bauzas anyway
14:41:04 mriedem edleafe: the hyperv overhead calculation is pretty simple
14:41:08 bauzas mriedem: posting a summary in the spec ?
14:41:10 mriedem 'disk_gb': (instance_info['memory_mb'] + 512) // units.Ki
14:41:20 mriedem bauzas: yeah, in a minute
14:41:26 mriedem looking at this py35 weirdness
14:41:36 bauzas mriedem: okay, because I was about writing a new rev -ish
14:42:36 edleafe mriedem: oh, that's much clearer
14:43:15 mriedem edleafe: the xen and libvirt ones are more confusing
14:44:07 mriedem gcb: i'm having a hard time knowing which test is doing the stack overflow
14:44:18 mriedem but there appears to be an infinite recursion in oslo.config
14:44:35 mriedem gcb: i also see at the end: nova.tests.unit.test_rpc.TestRPC.test_add_extra_exmods [] ... inprogress
14:44:37 bauzas mriedem: the libvirt one is scarying me, because I wonder if we could even cache that
14:44:38 mriedem so maybe it's that one
14:44:47 mriedem bauzas: because it's config driven?
14:44:51 mriedem and per-image
14:45:15 mriedem bauzas: yeah that's a good point
14:45:17 mriedem dansmith: ^
14:45:24 mriedem the libvirt overhead one kind of screws us
14:45:24 melwitt mriedem: is anyone working on the intermittent ironic test failure? I want to take a stab at it if not
14:45:28 mriedem melwitt: no
14:45:30 bauzas mriedem: exactly this
14:45:41 mriedem melwitt: i was considering just skipping it for now
14:45:41 dansmith hmm, I don't remember the config bit
14:45:50 mriedem dansmith: might not be config, but it's based on image meta
14:46:00 gcb mriedem, Do you get error from https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456397 ? It seems oslo.config have recursion calls
14:46:02 johnthetubaguy melwitt: I saw talk of something in the neutron channel about ironic, but seemed more like a hard failure
14:46:09 dansmith mriedem: yeah image meta
14:46:24 mriedem gcb: it's multiple changes failing on this
14:46:27 mriedem according to logstash
14:46:45 melwitt mriedem: okay. I think the right thing to do is just raise the Timeout exception. we shouldn't be doing a real timeout
14:46:55 melwitt (as discussed on the bug)
14:47:11 mriedem melwitt: so remove all of the fake stub methods that are doing logic to trigger the timeout?
14:47:15 mriedem melwitt: that's the easy fix
14:47:34 mriedem i think i get the point of why the test was doing that though
14:47:39 mriedem to stub and mimic what the driver is doing
14:47:43 mriedem but it's pretty fragile
14:48:07 melwitt mriedem: yeah, stub the looping call to raise the timeout. I thought the test wants to check that it does the right thing when a timeout occurs, that it raises the ConsoleNotAvailable
14:49:21 melwitt that is, I think we can assume that oslo_service looping calls work correctly, else we're also testing oslo functionality
14:49:30 mriedem melwitt: yeah it's a fine line
14:49:49 bauzas mriedem: dansmith: we also lookup the instance if we don't have the numa topology set in the instance object for knowing the overhead
14:49:53 mriedem melwitt: i'm fine with doing that
14:49:56 dansmith mriedem: so, a couple things
14:50:00 mriedem melwitt: because my solution was skipTest :)
14:50:18 gcb mriedem, it's really strange, nova.tests.unit.test_rpc.TestRPC.test_add_extra_exmods is simple test. what I found just deprecated warning from oslo.messaging
14:50:41 dansmith mriedem: (1) presumably we'll do this without the cache first, (2) we can cache on flavorid/hv/ver first, (3) we might just make a hash key function that generates a key based on all the things currently known to matter
14:51:09 mriedem dansmith: where (3) could take into account the image id too?
14:51:12 dansmith mriedem: and (4) the penalty for missing means we *might* fail to build because of overhead on the compute, which sucks, but.. builds can fail
14:51:17 dansmith mriedem: yeah
14:51:26 mriedem dansmith: and the image meta could change w/o changing the image id
14:51:37 dansmith mriedem: or just hash in the actual fields we know are ever looked at
14:51:45 dansmith mriedem: right well, that's why I was thinking ^ instead of id, but yeah
14:51:55 bauzas mriedem: dansmith: so just to make it clear, we introspect the instance every time we claim the resource in the RT if libvirt
14:51:57 melwitt mriedem: heh, okay. I'll upload it and we'll see
14:52:02 mriedem changing meta on an image w/o dumping the old image seems like a bad idea
14:52:10 dansmith because if you have two images, but without cpu policy set, those shouldn't need to be done separately
14:52:17 mriedem bauzas: if libvirt/hyperv/xen
14:52:18 bauzas mriedem: dansmith: for knowing the numa topology
14:52:37 mriedem bauzas: where do we even set instance.numa_topology during instance creatE?
14:52:41 dansmith bauzas: I know, what's your point? hopefully that all goes away anyway
14:52:50 dansmith mriedem: it's during virt build I think
14:52:58 mriedem heh
14:53:00 mriedem so...
14:53:01 dansmith well, that's where we fill it out
14:53:05 bauzas dansmith: the fact that we could potentially not be able to cache things
14:53:22 bauzas because there could be only one occurence
14:53:33 mriedem sfinucan: do you know where we set instance.numa_topology during instance build?
14:53:36 bauzas I mean a cache hit of 1 occurrence
14:53:46 sfinucan mriedem: We set it twice
14:54:06 sfinucan Once during the filtering stage (to see if an instance would fit on the host)
14:54:08 dansmith bauzas: the looking at the instance.numa part is just to calculate the same thing, but without having flavor/image meta
14:54:17 sfinucan and once when actually booting the instance
14:54:23 sfinucan I'll get the two calls now
14:54:31 dansmith bauzas: you would get the same answer from the instance as from the metadata
14:54:57 dansmith mriedem: ^
14:55:16 mriedem sfinucan: looks like RT.instance_claim sets it on the instance
14:55:59 bauzas dansmith: mmm, you're right, two instances sharing same flavors/images would necessarly have the same overhead even with numa
14:56:08 dansmith right,
14:56:17 dansmith it's just that we get the value either calculated from meta, or already set if the instance has had it done
14:56:21 dansmith it's still the same answer
14:56:23 bauzas right
14:56:31 bauzas so, the key is the tuple (image, flavor)
14:56:35 bauzas well
14:56:38 dansmith no
14:56:46 bauzas (image, flavor, hv_type, hv_version)
14:56:51 dansmith yeah
14:56:51 dansmith the key is a hash value of flavorid, a set of image properties, hv, version)
14:57:00 dansmith not image id though

Earlier   Later