| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-05-16 | |||
| 20:38:58 | artom | Ah... Well, by default I assume code that's there is there for a reason, and works well enough | |
| 20:39:16 | artom | And it was apparently decided by past powers that be that vif_driver.unplug was enough cleanup, so... ;) | |
| 20:39:23 | mriedem | heh yeah idk | |
| 20:39:35 | mriedem | well, | |
| 20:39:38 | mriedem | i guess the thinking was, | |
| 20:39:49 | mriedem | you'd only get that libvirtError if failing to attach the device in the guest failed | |
| 20:39:54 | mriedem | so there would be nothing to detach from the guest, | |
| 20:39:59 | mriedem | that's no longer the case with your change | |
| 20:40:10 | mriedem | b/c we have a new failure domain after the interface is attached into the guest | |
| 20:40:29 | artom | Aha, smart. | |
| 20:40:42 | artom | And that actually clarified the plug vs attach distinction in my head | |
| 20:40:55 | artom | plug = to the network | |
| 20:40:58 | artom | attach = to the guest | |
| 20:41:01 | mriedem | yeah | |
| 20:41:12 | mriedem | stepping back, what could _build_device_metadata actually fail on besides db/rpc traffic stuff | |
| 20:41:15 | mriedem | or coding errors | |
| 20:41:41 | artom | I looked through it, I didn't see anything besides what you mentioned. | |
| 20:42:26 | cfriesen | mriedem: do you think there's any point in further pursuing the live migration resource-tracking-numa-xml patches to try and get them merged, or should we give up and wait for jaypipes to fix it with the new placement/allocation code in queens? | |
| 20:42:55 | mriedem | cfriesen: i haven't dug into those, | |
| 20:43:05 | mriedem | but in general i wouldn't count on anything | |
| 20:43:13 | artom | mriedem, I need to run to fetch offsprings from daycare. I'll try to submit a new patchset tonight that detach_interface'es if _build_device_metadata fails | |
| 20:43:23 | mriedem | artom: ok | |
| 20:48:55 | kashyap | cfriesen: Hey, was travelling today. Just opened IRC & saw your ping (it's late here). | |
| 20:49:36 | kashyap | cfriesen: Is it about the stability of 'cpu-throttle-initial' and 'cpu-throttle-increment'? | |
| 20:49:48 | kashyap | If so, I can't say yet without digging myself, which I could only do tomorrow :-) | |
| 20:49:59 | kashyap | (Unless DanPB has already saw the email thread and responded there) | |
| 20:52:47 | cfriesen | kashyap: no worries. yeah, that's it. tomorrow's fine, and nobody has responded. :) | |
| 20:55:22 | openstackgerrit | Hongbin Lu proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] Handle exception on adding secgroup https://review.openstack.org/465173 | |
| 20:55:22 | bauzas | edleafe: not sure I understand why you're still working on my branch ? | |
| 20:55:29 | openstackgerrit | Ed Leafe proposed openstack/nova master: Remove selecting host based on host_subset_size https://review.openstack.org/465174 | |
| 20:55:45 | bauzas | edleafe: please stop doing that ! | |
| 20:56:03 | bauzas | I'm just uploading my series, and I'm working on it since yesterday ! | |
| 20:56:50 | bauzas | edleafe: is it because you want your name on the BP ? | |
| 20:56:58 | edleafe | There was still some interest in my approach. dansmith asked that I change the way that instance UUIDs are passed. | |
| 20:57:07 | edleafe | bauzas: dpm | |
| 20:57:09 | edleafe | ugh | |
| 20:57:22 | edleafe | don't be silly. I don't care about names on BPs | |
| 20:57:33 | bauzas | I'm seriously nerved, because you're duplicating my series | |
| 20:57:35 | dansmith | edleafe: no, I'm not interested in the scheduler approach, I was just saying that if we need to pass the uuids, we should do them as a param | |
| 20:57:53 | dansmith | edleafe: I said if you wanted to re-open the discussion about conductor vs. scheduler you could | |
| 20:58:18 | edleafe | dansmith: ok, and yes, I do want to re-open, because I think this is much cleaner | |
| 20:58:42 | edleafe | dansmith: the code is there and working OMM. | |
| 20:58:42 | dansmith | bauzas: have you replied to any of the feedback on your series? because I don't think I've seen that and so it looks like nothing has happened on that set for quite a while | |
| 20:58:44 | dansmith | since before summit or so | |
| 20:58:49 | bauzas | sorry to have a family life, folks | |
| 20:59:23 | bauzas | if you want to see code, then... | |
| 21:01:37 | cdent | I reallly think we can do more to move code along in a collaborative fashion | |
| 21:02:11 | cdent | I generally think that if feedback has not had a response for a couple days that code is up for grabs to be fixed. I know that's not a standard that we have formalized, but I wonder if we should. | |
| 21:02:21 | cdent | This stuff needs to move a lot faster than it is | |
| 21:02:26 | dansmith | agree | |
| 21:02:34 | edleafe | that's more of a free-for-all than collaboration, though | |
| 21:02:37 | openstackgerrit | Hongbin Lu proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] Handle exception on adding secgroup https://review.openstack.org/465173 | |
| 21:02:40 | bauzas | cdent: sure, but when you're working on something since 2 days, and then seeing a concurrent patch, do you think your former 2 days were just done ? | |
| 21:02:58 | cdent | bauzas: the way to get around that is to respond to feedback first | |
| 21:03:17 | dansmith | bauzas: right, it's hard to know someone is working on feedback when there is no response :) | |
| 21:03:18 | cdent | edleafe: I agree there are ways to make it more clean, but in general principle... | |
| 21:03:20 | bauzas | for example, I said to edleafe that I was working on removing host_subset_size and then I see https://review.openstack.org/465174 | |
| 21:03:30 | delete | hi, I am getting this error | |
| 21:03:31 | delete | GlanceConnectionFailed: Connection to glance host 198.23.82.11:9292 failed: Error finding address for https://198.23.82.11:9292/v1/images/detail?is_public=none&limit=20: [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:579) | |
| 21:03:37 | delete | glance is using a self-signd certificate | |
| 21:03:52 | edleafe | bauzas: and I told you that I had done it in a subsequent patch | |
| 21:03:54 | bauzas | dansmith: well, I pinged you and edleafe this morning explaining why I wasn't yet uploading my series | |
| 21:05:09 | dansmith | bauzas: yeah, but I hadn't seen any updates since then.. I guess I missed them | |
| 21:05:13 | delete | nevermind | |
| 21:07:37 | openstackgerrit | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Allocate instance by the conductor https://review.openstack.org/460455 | |
| 21:07:37 | openstackgerrit | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: Don't delete allocation if instance being scheduled https://review.openstack.org/460177 | |
| 21:07:37 | openstackgerrit | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: Delete existing allocations when retrying https://review.openstack.org/460433 | |
| 21:07:38 | openstackgerrit | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Scheduler returning more than 1 host https://review.openstack.org/465175 | |
| 21:07:46 | bauzas | dansmith: so ^ | |
| 21:09:35 | dansmith | bauzas: cool, thanks.. I'm assuming edleafe pushed up something that caused a merge conflict? | |
| 21:10:05 | bauzas | FWIW, I'm just adding the RPC API version | |
| 21:16:07 | efried | dansmith Is there a generic, forward- and backward-compatible way I can tell (in my CI) whether cellsv2 is enabled? | |
| 21:16:18 | efried | Basically, I need to know whether to run that nova-manage command. | |
| 21:16:27 | dansmith | um | |
| 21:16:35 | dansmith | as of ocata it's always enabled | |
| 21:16:38 | dansmith | so, yes? :) | |
| 21:16:46 | efried | But would like to code it in such a way that my CI will work today on pre-ocata, but also into the future. | |
| 21:18:06 | dansmith | your CI doesn't know what release you're on? | |
| 21:18:33 | efried | dansmith Well, yeah, but it's kinda tough to say "greater than or equal to ocata" | |
| 21:19:00 | efried | I mean, that'll work (cause 'master' is >= 'ocata')... until we roll over from z back to a ;-) | |
| 21:19:35 | dansmith | welp... I dunno, maybe pick something you know is in ocata but not in newton that you can key off of? like the presence of cmd/nova-status or something? | |
| 21:20:26 | efried | Okay. I think we're going to go dumber than that. We're not CIing before newton, so we'll just say "if not newton". Thanks dansmith. | |
| 21:20:37 | dansmith | seems reasonable :) | |
| 21:32:09 | edleafe | bauzas: dansmith: I have another patch that adds returning multiple hosts to the conductor, but wasn't sure if there was an agreement on a) how to do it and b) how many | |
| 21:33:40 | dansmith | edleafe: should be num_retries or whatever | |
| 21:33:53 | dansmith | well, num_instances * num_retries | |
| 21:33:58 | dansmith | edleafe: there's another wrinkle | |
| 21:33:59 | edleafe | "whatever" :) | |
| 21:34:19 | dansmith | the hosts we slap into a reqspec to pass down to the cell all have to be ... in that cell | |
| 21:34:46 | dansmith | so I was thinking as a first go, we might just get the normal candidate hosts, and then for each one, ask for n-1 more that are in the same cell, since we can ask the scheduler that already | |
| 21:34:56 | dansmith | (for the same cell I mean) | |
| 21:35:19 | edleafe | so... the scheduler picks a host, and then only returns other hosts that are in the same cell? | |
| 21:35:25 | edleafe | IOW, a post-filter? | |
| 21:37:16 | dansmith | well, we pick num_instances hosts like normal, | |
| 21:37:35 | dansmith | but then for each instance we re-ask for num_retries host in the same cell | |
| 21:39:28 | edleafe | ok, so check the cell_uuid for each selected host, and only return more hosts with that same cell_uuid | |
| 21:40:06 | dansmith | yeah, we can already ask to limit hosts to a given cell_uuid, | |
| 21:40:32 | dansmith | so I guess we have to look up the host_mapping for that host so we know what cell_uuid to ask for, | |
| 21:40:49 | dansmith | but we have to do that somewhere in that code so we should be able to collapse those (eventually, if nothing else) | |
| 21:41:09 | edleafe | yeah, the order of events was not clear to me | |