| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-04-25 | |||
| 14:34:36 | mriedem | erhudy: i believe there is a separate policy rule for disabling networking on server create | |
| 14:34:43 | mriedem | alex_xu: ah | |
| 14:35:29 | erhudy | mriedem: thanks for the explanation | |
| 14:35:57 | mriedem | erhudy: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/compute/servers.py#L533 | |
| 14:36:06 | mriedem | is the policy to disable creating networks on a server create request | |
| 14:36:15 | mriedem | well, | |
| 14:36:21 | mriedem | requesting specific networks i should say | |
| 14:36:38 | mriedem | if you omit networks, but one is available to the project, a port will still be created on that network | |
| 14:37:08 | mriedem | there is probably a bug there wrt the 2.37 microversion and requesting networks='none' | |
| 14:37:11 | mriedem | since we don't check for that case | |
| 14:37:24 | openstackgerrit | Alex Xu proposed openstack/nova master: Deprecate Multinic, floatingip action and os-virtual-interface API https://review.openstack.org/457181 | |
| 14:38:29 | erhudy | alright, thanks for pointing me to the right place | |
| 14:46:02 | dane-fichter | mriedem: barbican can handle either 'aes' or 'AES', you can see it in the functional tests | |
| 14:46:58 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1686113 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "os_compute_api:servers:create:attach_network does not account for networks='none' and microversion 2.37" [Low,Triaged] | |
| 14:46:58 | mriedem | erhudy: fyi https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1686113 | |
| 14:47:05 | mriedem | dane-fichter: ok | |
| 14:47:16 | mriedem | just reply to my question in the review i suppose | |
| 14:47:23 | dane-fichter | mriedem: will do | |
| 14:49:28 | openstackgerrit | John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova master: Add description to policies in migrations.py https://review.openstack.org/459727 | |
| 14:50:47 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Add BDM to InstancePayload https://review.openstack.org/448779 | |
| 14:56:34 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: Use greenthread sleep to unlock api test threads https://review.openstack.org/459733 | |
| 14:57:11 | cdent | mriedem: one way around that ^ problem would be use to use wsgi-intercept instead of spawning a separate thread | |
| 14:57:19 | mriedem | dane-fichter: also note that the test that's dependent on this nova fix is still failing http://logs.openstack.org/59/455459/17/check/gate-barbican-simple-crypto-dsvm-tempest-ubuntu-xenial-nv/eb0372f/console.html#_2017-04-24_21_31_53_893425 | |
| 14:57:26 | mriedem | dane-fichter: so it'd be nice to see that passing | |
| 14:58:07 | openstackgerrit | John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova master: Fix rendering of several policy rule descriptions https://review.openstack.org/459734 | |
| 14:58:10 | dane-fichter | mriedem: yeah that's failing for other reasons, but agreed. | |
| 14:59:57 | openstackgerrit | Sean Dague proposed openstack/nova master: disable keepalive for functional tests https://review.openstack.org/459735 | |
| 15:03:21 | sfinucan | johnthetubaguy: RE: https://review.openstack.org/459734 | |
| 15:03:28 | openstackgerrit | Gábor Antal proposed openstack/nova master: Transform instance.volume_attach notification https://review.openstack.org/401992 | |
| 15:03:52 | sfinucan | johnthetubaguy: what's actually doing the rendering? Couldn't we change that instead to strip newlines or whatnot | |
| 15:03:55 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: update LibvirtConfigGuestDeviceAddress to provide XML https://review.openstack.org/459737 | |
| 15:03:56 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: rearange how scsi controller is defined https://review.openstack.org/459739 | |
| 15:03:56 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: set full description of the controller used by disk https://review.openstack.org/459738 | |
| 15:03:57 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: update the logic to configure volume with scsi controller https://review.openstack.org/459741 | |
| 15:03:57 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: update logic to configure device for scsi controller https://review.openstack.org/459740 | |
| 15:04:13 | mriedem | sdague: cool i forgot that was something we had for eventlet | |
| 15:04:20 | mriedem | sdague: that will likely fix it | |
| 15:08:03 | mriedem | test_popped_collar? | |
| 15:10:16 | moshele | jaypipes: hi can you review some pci stuff https://review.openstack.org/#/c/453938/ | |
| 15:10:17 | openstackgerrit | Matthew Treinish proposed openstack/nova master: Remove nova-cert https://review.openstack.org/459460 | |
| 15:12:47 | jaypipes | moshele: yes sir! | |
| 15:13:29 | moshele | jaypipes: thanks :) | |
| 15:14:21 | bauzas | johnthetubaguy: something is confusing me, and I'd love your insights : would having the claims in the scheduler solve the RAX problem requiring to use CachingScheduler? | |
| 15:14:49 | bauzas | johnthetubaguy: in other words, could we deprecate CachingScheduler if we merge scheduler claims in Pike ? | |
| 15:15:59 | mriedem | bauzas: placement solves the performance issue, or is supposed to solve the performance issue, which is why the caching scheduler exists, | |
| 15:16:04 | mriedem | but caching scheduler doesn't use placement | |
| 15:16:41 | openstackgerrit | Daniel Pawlik proposed openstack/nova master: Added kvm_hidden feature https://review.openstack.org/459753 | |
| 15:17:50 | bauzas | mriedem: okay, because we don't fully fetch the large list of hosts, got it | |
| 15:18:09 | bauzas | (in the filter scheduler) | |
| 15:18:24 | sean-k-mooney | the caching scheduler solve a part of scheduler performance but with the placement api and schduler claim you would nolonger have race condtions in the scheduler and could scaler it liniearly horizontally by adding more schdedulers | |
| 15:18:26 | mriedem | well and filters in db | |
| 15:18:41 | mriedem | bauzas: johnthetubaguy + osic said filter scheduler + placement was still slower than caching scheduler because of the retries | |
| 15:18:46 | mriedem | due to not claiming in the scheduler | |
| 15:19:16 | mriedem | so if we pick the correct host the first time in the scheduler by doing the correct claim, we should mitigate the need for retries | |
| 15:19:27 | mriedem | which is also why i nag about not relying on retries in the claims in scheduler spec | |
| 15:19:28 | bauzas | okay | |
| 15:19:31 | mriedem | or assuming it will work, or be there | |
| 15:19:34 | mriedem | it == retries | |
| 15:20:05 | openstackgerrit | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Claims in the scheduler https://review.openstack.org/437424 | |
| 15:20:28 | bauzas | mriedem: dansmith: updated the spec before I forgot to remove an unnecessary work item ^ | |
| 15:20:32 | bauzas | jaypipes: too ^ | |
| 15:21:33 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: +1 the claims process needs to be independent of (not depend on ) retries. | |
| 15:21:53 | openstackgerrit | Gábor Antal proposed openstack/nova master: Transform instance.volume_detach notification https://review.openstack.org/408676 | |
| 15:22:26 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: until we pick the wrong host b/c we didn't know about all of your crazy extra specs and aggregate requirements for NFV :) | |
| 15:23:19 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: numa: fix an uninitialized local variable https://review.openstack.org/458848 | |
| 15:23:37 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: ofcourse life would be so much less interesting without the nfv curve ball but nested resource provides and traits should fix that | |
| 15:24:44 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: mriedem: anyway, given we only check mem/cpu/disk and not other resource classes in the placement engine, we still need to accept reschedules... | |
| 15:24:56 | bauzas | until we at least have nested RPs | |
| 15:25:00 | bauzas | for NUMA resources | |
| 15:25:49 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: im reading the spec now but at what point is the claim made? before or after the filters run? | |
| 15:25:59 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: after | |
| 15:26:04 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: has to be after, else we don't know what to claim :) | |
| 15:26:27 | sean-k-mooney | ya so it should be after in the weigher stage right | |
| 15:26:31 | dansmith | mriedem: are we holding off on approving this until after forum, or should we just go ahead and merge and handle any feedback as an amendment? | |
| 15:26:45 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: it's after weighers too | |
| 15:27:12 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: tbc, it will probably be in the consume_from_request() method or somewhere close to it | |
| 15:27:14 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: it's at the point at which we pick a host, but before we ask that host to build (whereas currently it's after the host has started to build) | |
| 15:27:50 | bauzas | because we already somehow "claim" the resource in the in-memory HostState scheduler manager | |
| 15:27:52 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: bauzas that makes sense. | |
| 15:28:24 | sean-k-mooney | you should not need to rescudle for nfv requirements then as you have already validated that you can provided them | |
| 15:29:05 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: well, since we're not claiming the numa type resources in that claim, we'll still be able to race with filters choosing the same thing for multiple concurrent builds | |
| 15:29:05 | mriedem | dansmith: i'm not intentionally holding it up until after the forum. i wanted to get agreement on the plan prior to the forum, start POC code, and present the plan at the forum to get feedback from ops. | |
| 15:29:12 | mriedem | dansmith: i just haven't read the latest revision yet | |
| 15:29:17 | dansmith | mriedem: yeah, I'd really like to see code before forum | |
| 15:29:38 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: yes that is true | |
| 15:29:39 | dansmith | mriedem: okay I should take a pass through it.. maybe we can merge the spec this week and get some code going before forum if you're cool with it | |
| 15:30:00 | mriedem | i am cool with progress yes | |
| 15:30:11 | mriedem | remember, i like rush | |
| 15:30:38 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: you should be able to vailidate that before calling to the host though. ie. if you can claim the numa page allocation abourt and retry | |
| 15:31:10 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: is that late abort and retry the issue you were commenting on? | |
| 15:31:39 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: we don't have allocations for numa yet | |
| 15:31:41 | mriedem | in placement | |
| 15:31:58 | mriedem | i believe that's nested resource providers territory | |
| 15:32:13 | sean-k-mooney | oh ok i understand the gap now. ya that was covered by nested providers | |
| 15:32:43 | mriedem | so if you're an NFV shop and we don't have nested resource providers yet, then you'll need to enable retries yes | |
| 15:32:56 | mriedem | which means you're not using the whole cells v2 superconductor deployment model | |
| 15:33:04 | bauzas | mriedem: dansmith: I can start pushing code, fersür | |
| 15:33:48 | bauzas | the spec, IHMO, is in a good shape with good work items, so that's a cool start | |
| 15:34:08 | bauzas | now that said, I need to disappear for now | |
| 15:34:18 | bauzas | ttyl folks | |