Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-04-24
13:46:23 Tahvok Can someone give me a working example?
13:55:13 efried Tahvok I think you may want to ask that question in #openstack
13:57:21 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Enable test_iscsi_volume in live migration job https://review.openstack.org/459316
13:57:22 mriedem tdurakov: lyarwood: ^ let's see what happens
14:00:57 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Enable test_iscsi_volume in live migration job https://review.openstack.org/459316
14:01:21 mriedem kashyap: which version of qemu has native iscsi support?
14:01:39 openstack Launchpad bug 1524898 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Volume based live migration aborted unexpectedly" [High,Confirmed]
14:01:39 mriedem would be interesting to see if we can test against https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1524898 again
14:01:40 kashyap mriedem: I don't know top off my head, let me look
14:02:06 bhagyashris cdent: Hi, actually I am willing or curious to track the nfs share as a resource provider and manage its inventory with my own tooling as per you suggest me so How can I proceed Can you please give me some guide line or steps to do this?
14:04:46 cdent bhagyashris: I can show you how it is described in the spec, but you'll need some tooling of your own, and the information won't be very useful for two reasons:
14:05:05 cdent nothing will be using the info for scheduling, and nothing will be automatically writing allocations when disk is used
14:05:33 kashyap mriedem: If you're talking about the built-in iSCSI driver, it's there since "eons" -- version 1.0 (as the first commit dates to 2011) -- http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=c589b24
14:06:00 cdent bhagyashris: some of the info here may be useful: http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/newton/implemented/generic-resource-pools.html#scenario-1-shared-disk-storage-used-for-vm-disk-images
14:06:29 mriedem kashyap: it wasn't in the ubuntu package though
14:06:29 bhagyashris cdent:ok.
14:06:39 mriedem kashyap: https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/kilo/implemented/qemu-built-in-iscsi-initiator.html
14:06:59 mriedem looks like it should be there now though http://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/qemu-block-extra
14:07:22 bhagyashris cdent: yeah I have checked the generic-resource-pool spec long back ago.
14:07:51 kashyap mriedem: What is this 'qemu-block-extra'?
14:08:01 kashyap It's a separate package for Ubuntu?
14:08:09 mriedem yeah
14:08:10 mriedem i guess
14:08:25 bhagyashris cdent: thanks for information
14:08:36 mriedem kashyap: see https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1524898/comments/17
14:08:37 openstack Launchpad bug 1524898 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Volume based live migration aborted unexpectedly" [High,Confirmed]
14:09:19 mriedem kashyap: long ago i think danpb said that might not fix that bug, but it might provide better details when it fails if we're using native iscsi
14:10:00 openstackgerrit Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Claims in the scheduler https://review.openstack.org/437424
14:10:13 bauzas jaypipes: edleafe: cdent: mriedem: dansmith: others ^
14:10:22 cdent thanks bauzas
14:10:39 bauzas some help would be accepted for the wording :)
14:11:08 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Enable test_volume_backed_live_migration with block migration https://review.openstack.org/459321
14:21:56 openstackgerrit Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] Register osapi_compute when nova-api is wsgi https://review.openstack.org/457283
14:26:43 kashyap mriedem: Yeah, I recall this bug, and I se you've just enabled the said test given the recent version bumps
14:27:10 mriedem yeah
14:28:25 jaypipes bauzas: done.
14:29:47 bauzas jaypipes: thanks for the wording details, lovely appreciated
14:30:36 bauzas for the fun story, we have a 2nd election round happening when I land in BOS, I have 39% of chances to stay there :p
14:33:15 openstackgerrit jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for limits endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/458805
14:33:16 openstackgerrit jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for '/servers' endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/445864
14:33:16 openstackgerrit jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for flavors-access endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/456589
14:33:17 openstackgerrit jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for hosts endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/459231
14:33:17 openstackgerrit jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for flavor endpoint instead of stevedore[1] https://review.openstack.org/456549
14:33:18 openstackgerrit jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for flavors-extraspecs endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/456585
14:33:18 openstackgerrit jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for '/os-aggregates' endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/456825
14:33:19 openstackgerrit jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: use plain routes list for hypervisor endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/459235
14:33:19 openstackgerrit jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for '/os-keypairs' endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/456478
14:34:00 jaypipes bauzas: heh, indeed...
14:34:12 jaypipes bauzas: when is the second round vote day?
14:34:27 bauzas jaypipes: May the 7th
14:34:32 jaypipes hmm.
14:34:37 jaypipes good luck!
14:34:37 bauzas I'd hope it would have been May the 4th...
14:34:42 jaypipes heh
14:34:44 jaypipes indeed.
14:35:18 bauzas anyway, my wife will proxy my vote, so I'm fine with my mind
14:52:11 mriedem alex_xu: Kevin_Zheng: it's very confusing but I think i know why you're trying to stash the tags on the BuildRequest in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/394321/36/nova/compute/api.py
14:52:15 mriedem i'm leaving a ton of comments :)
14:52:19 mriedem but i think we're doing this the hard way
14:52:27 mriedem and i think some of the code in the api for this is all dead now
14:52:30 mriedem so i'm going to clean it up
14:52:36 mriedem in a separate patch
14:52:47 mriedem i.e. i think this was a workaround until we were creating instances and bdms in conductor
14:53:02 mriedem i'll have dansmith take a look later too in case i'm missing something
14:53:44 Kevin_Zheng mriedem: cool thanks, I will check tomorrow
14:54:13 bauzas mriedem: jaypipes: FWIW, I'm entering into the hell zone of deletes wrt claims
14:54:52 mriedem bauzas: fwiw, i spent 6 hours yesterday in the hell zone that is swap volume
14:54:53 bauzas mriedem: jaypipes: AFAICT, we currently unclaim the resources (ie. we DELETE allocations) only by the compute service, right ?
14:55:20 jaypipes bauzas: yes, AFAIK.
14:55:26 bauzas mriedem: jaypipes: so, what happens in the case of a local delete where we gently instance.delete() ?
14:55:40 bauzas do we DELETE /allocations too ? None from what I can tell
14:55:42 jaypipes bauzas: only in the periodic audit interval task (update_available_resource)
14:56:08 mriedem bauzas: we don't delete allocations for local delete,
14:56:11 mriedem remember i opened that bug?
14:56:19 bauzas jaypipes: mriedem: okay, so then should we keep the same behaviour ?
14:56:21 mriedem bauzas: and yes, the only place we delete allocations today is the scheduler report client via the RT
14:56:39 bauzas I mean, should we really not be concerned by DELETE allocations in the scheduler claims spec ?
14:56:59 bauzas or we could do that earlier in the compute API worker
14:57:22 bauzas well, only if not soft-deletes, of course
14:57:31 mriedem the fact we don't cleanup allocations during local delete is a bug
14:57:36 mriedem regardless of claims in the scheduler
14:57:38 bauzas mriedem: I vaguely remembered one bug, yup
14:57:54 mriedem bauzas: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1679750
14:57:54 openstack Launchpad bug 1679750 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Allocations are not cleaned up in placement for instance 'local delete' case" [Medium,Confirmed]
14:58:20 bauzas okay, so my question is
14:58:24 mriedem we talked about doing the cleanup in the api service, or leaving it to init_host on the compute,
14:58:42 bauzas should we modify the current behaviour of when we delete allocations, regardless of the above bug ?
14:58:45 mriedem i.e. if the db says we have deleted instances for this host when nova-compute starts up, then go through and attempt to delete their allocation records for that host
14:59:11 mriedem modify how?
14:59:16 bauzas or should we keep the compute service responsible for notifying placement ?
14:59:29 bauzas mriedem: call placement in the compute worker
14:59:40 bauzas mriedem: I mean the api worker
14:59:55 bauzas mriedem: before sending the RPC call to compute
14:59:56 mriedem i thought people wanted to do it in compute
15:00:06 mriedem hold up
15:00:10 mriedem you're conflating two things
15:00:23 mriedem 1. normal delete where we rpc cast to the compute to do the delete
15:00:34 bauzas right, whatever the delete type is
15:00:38 mriedem 2. local delete in the api where the compute service is down, or the instance is shelved offloaded
15:00:48 bauzas yup, I'm not conflating

Earlier   Later