| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-04-27 | |||
| 17:01:09 | hemna | that doesn't call brick either. | |
| 17:01:34 | imacdonn | right ... brick gets called from within driver.destroy .. that's the problem | |
| 17:01:52 | imacdonn | as the comment right there says ;) | |
| 17:02:07 | hemna | boo! | |
| 17:04:08 | imacdonn | the hack that's gotten me by since icehouse is to put a lock on _shutdown_instance() (and a few similar places in manager) and the same lock on connect_volume() in virt.libvirt.volume.iscsi | |
| 17:05:28 | openstackgerrit | Abhishek Sharma M proposed openstack/nova master: Catching OverQuota Exception https://review.openstack.org/460305 | |
| 17:05:58 | johnthetubaguy | mdbooth: that iSCSI question, isn't that backend specific? I thought it was one iSCSI target per volume for some? | |
| 17:11:42 | openstackgerrit | Samantha Blanco proposed openstack/nova master: Remove flavor-rxtx policy https://review.openstack.org/444036 | |
| 17:37:59 | openstackgerrit | Steve Noyes proposed openstack/nova master: Add Cinder v3 detach to local_cleanup https://review.openstack.org/456851 | |
| 17:43:52 | efried | mordred Have a chance to skim https://review.openstack.org/#/c/460337/ yet? | |
| 17:44:05 | efried | mordred I'm working on the nova changes to accomodate. | |
| 17:46:21 | mordred | oh good - they're fixed now | |
| 17:47:03 | efried | trivial pep8 stuff. Still haven't done live testing, just wanting to make sure I'm heading down the right path here. | |
| 18:08:52 | mriedem | johnthetubaguy: i thought we had a policy check for showing fault details? | |
| 18:09:01 | mriedem | but i don't see that here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/compute/views/servers.py#L280 | |
| 18:09:08 | mriedem | except the is_admin check | |
| 18:28:12 | efried | sdague Got a sec to talk about [glance]api_server*s* ? | |
| 18:37:16 | linuxman | openstack-nova-scheduler service unable to start how to fix this issue | |
| 18:39:45 | openstackgerrit | Steve Noyes proposed openstack/nova master: Add Cinder v3 detach to shutdown_instance https://review.openstack.org/456877 | |
| 18:40:47 | efried | linuxman I think you want to ask that in #openstack? | |
| 18:41:29 | linuxman | but i hava a problem with nova service | |
| 18:42:10 | efried | Counts as "support of Nova deployments", nah? | |
| 18:42:12 | mriedem | linuxman: see the channel topic please, this is generally not a support channel, especially without any sort of context on the specific issue | |
| 18:42:36 | mriedem | "does not start" is not very helpful for debugging | |
| 18:44:06 | mriedem | thorst: it's snowing here, just fyi | |
| 18:44:22 | linuxman | you have any idea about proper rdo openstack channel | |
| 18:45:25 | mriedem | linuxman: i don't see one on https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/IRC | |
| 18:45:29 | mriedem | but i'd try #openstack-rdo? | |
| 18:45:47 | mriedem | doesn't look like that's it | |
| 18:46:09 | mriedem | linuxman: https://www.rdoproject.org/community/#discuss | |
| 18:46:18 | imacdonn | just #rdo I think | |
| 18:46:21 | mriedem | yes | |
| 18:46:46 | linuxman | just #rdo i tried but know one is there | |
| 18:47:09 | mriedem | i count 291 people | |
| 18:47:32 | mriedem | make sure you're on freenode | |
| 18:47:40 | imacdonn | I'm there .. I'm not just paying attention ;) | |
| 18:48:00 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Expose StandardLogging fixture for use https://review.openstack.org/460642 | |
| 18:48:00 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Do not log live migration success when it actually failed https://review.openstack.org/458958 | |
| 18:48:34 | mriedem | sdague: i made all of your log fixture dreams come true | |
| 18:51:30 | mriedem | dansmith: you want to tickle this little ocata fix in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/459840/ ? | |
| 18:52:11 | mriedem | dansmith: should i be reviewing https://review.openstack.org/#/c/460616/ ? | |
| 18:52:18 | mriedem | is ironic/tripleo testing that out? | |
| 18:52:48 | thorst | mriedem: lol. It's 80 in RTP | |
| 18:53:06 | mriedem | oh now that i look out the window again the snow stopped | |
| 18:53:09 | mriedem | that's like the 3rd time today | |
| 18:53:28 | mriedem | i could just be hallucinating | |
| 18:53:50 | dansmith | mriedem: working with them now and on functional tests | |
| 18:53:54 | mriedem | ok | |
| 18:59:16 | mriedem | EmilienM: "Postgresql support (or call it how you want) is also removed upstream in OpenStack." where was that decided? | |
| 18:59:22 | mriedem | the governance change was abandoned i thought? | |
| 18:59:34 | EmilienM | yeah probably | |
| 18:59:46 | EmilienM | mriedem: AFIK there is a session in Boston about that | |
| 18:59:51 | cfriesen | is it possible to run individual functional tests? | |
| 18:59:55 | mriedem | right, but your email says it was removed | |
| 18:59:58 | mriedem | cfriesen: yes | |
| 19:00:04 | EmilienM | mriedem: we're got some feedback from our users who use postgres, I don't think we'll remove the code in our side. | |
| 19:00:12 | EmilienM | mriedem: I was wrong | |
| 19:00:34 | mriedem | cfriesen: tox -e functional -- nova.tests.functional..... | |
| 19:00:49 | cfriesen | mriedem: thanks, I didn't have the double dash and it didn't like me | |
| 19:01:39 | mriedem | -- is key | |
| 19:06:48 | sdague | mriedem: nice | |
| 19:11:40 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Remove legacy v2.0 code from test_flavor_access https://review.openstack.org/460719 | |
| 19:13:44 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: re-Allow adding computes with no ComputeNodes to aggregates https://review.openstack.org/460616 | |
| 19:16:04 | dansmith | mriedem: you can look at this now ^ | |
| 19:16:14 | dansmith | pretty sure that'll do it for them but they're testing now | |
| 19:17:21 | mriedem | will do after jaybird's get_inventory libvirt change | |
| 19:17:39 | abhi89 | johnthetubaguy: Hi.. can you please review https://review.openstack.org/460305.. you had suggested to change the exception message while translating the cinder exception.. | |
| 19:26:11 | mriedem | jaypipes: your patch made me think of this ^ | |
| 19:26:11 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add a note to *_allocation_ratio options about Ironic hardcode https://review.openstack.org/460722 | |
| 19:41:24 | abhi89 | melwitt: Hi Melanie.. | |
| 19:41:39 | melwitt | abhi89: hi | |
| 19:41:47 | abhi89 | melwitt: regarding https://review.openstack.org/#/c/460305/ | |
| 19:43:22 | abhi89 | in that fix, previously, everytime we had a volume related quota exception ('gigabytes', 'volumes', 'per_volume_gigabytes'), we used to raise VolumeLimitExceeded exception | |
| 19:44:02 | abhi89 | now with my change, we give appropriate exception message for each of those 3 exceptions | |
| 19:45:13 | abhi89 | the bug is not related to "Failure prepping block device". its related to always raising og VolumeLimitExceeded exception in those 3 cases | |
| 19:45:23 | melwitt | abhi89: right. and by appropriate, do you mean saying "volume related" instead of "volume resource" or is there more to it that I missed? | |
| 19:46:09 | melwitt | abhi89: okay, I'm curious why the bug calls out getting the message of "Failure prepping block device" then. because the change doesn't seem related to that | |
| 19:46:15 | abhi89 | there is more to it.. | |
| 19:46:57 | abhi89 | "VolumeLimitExceeded: Maximum number of volumes allowed (5) exceeded for quota 'volumes'." this message will be generated in case of "volumes" quota exceed | |
| 19:47:10 | abhi89 | number there is just an example | |
| 19:48:15 | abhi89 | "VolumeSizeExceedsLimit: Requested volume size 5G is larger than maximum allowed limit 4G." message will be there when 'per_volume_gigabyte' quota is exceeded | |
| 19:48:53 | abhi89 | "VolumeSizeExceedsAvailableQuota: Requested volume or snapshot exceeds allowed gigabytes quota. Requested 5G, quota is 25G and 21G has been consumed." message will be generated when 'gigabyte' quota exceeds | |
| 19:49:48 | melwitt | abhi89: okay, so what you are doing is letting the original overquota exception bubble up which will contain the correct message | |
| 19:50:40 | abhi89 | so these are the 3 specific messages which come as part of OverLimit exception. This OverLimit exception get translated to OverQuota exception. After translation, I embed the appropriate message from OverLImit to OverQuota, so that we have the exact reason why the VM deploy failed | |
| 19:50:52 | abhi89 | original OverLimit message | |
| 19:52:06 | melwitt | abhi89: okay. so I think the main thing your patch needs is a bit of test coverage that shows those scenarios and verifies we get the message we expect in each case. similar to the regression test that I think should be kept | |
| 19:52:39 | abhi89 | I removed the regression test because it was very specific to just 'VolumeLimitExceeded' for all 3 cases | |
| 19:55:06 | abhi89 | we already have a test case to check whehter we have OverQuota exception or not.. for all 3 specific cases, as we have replaced the OverQuota message to OverLimit message, we wont be knowing which of the 3 quota exceeded | |
| 20:00:34 | mriedem | dansmith: jaypipes: comments in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/457782 - overall i don't have anything to block it, but i don't like the tight coupling and assumptions being made in the virt driver about what the RT is going to fil lin for it | |
| 20:00:37 | mriedem | *fill | |
| 20:03:35 | abhi89 | melwitt: was i able to put I point clearly! can you please suggest what can I improve upon if you are not satisfied with this change.. | |
| 20:04:53 | melwitt | abhi89: yes, was looking at it some more. basically, I want to see test coverage that verifies that we preserve and pass through the error message from cinder. because that's what we're relying on for the correct message. I don't think I see coverage of that yet unless I've missed something | |
| 20:06:00 | melwitt | abhi89: I had been thinking you could adapt the regression test (instead of removing it) to put in an example message from cinder in the OverLimit exception, then assert the message is as expected in our response text | |
| 20:06:15 | cdent | macsz: :( | |
| 20:08:32 | abhi89 | melwitt: we can put have one of the example messages to assert with.. but we should know which of the 3 occured i.e., which of the 3 have we replaced OverQuota's message with OverLimit's. That info is not with us. | |
| 20:10:48 | melwitt | abhi89: what do you mean? if we use an example message of "VolumeSizeExceedsAvailableQuota: Requested volume or snapshot exceeds allowed gigabytes quota. Requested 5G, quota is 25G and 21G has been consumed." and we assertIn('VolumeSizeExceedsAvailableQuota', e.response.text) that will simulate it, no? | |
| 20:11:03 | macsz | cdent: and i was just getting comfortable with nova | |
| 20:11:51 | edleafe | macsz: that was quick - I'm still not comfortable :) | |
| 20:12:04 | cdent | yeah, me neither. very impressive | |
| 20:12:06 | mriedem | edleafe: try a larger pant size | |