| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-05-19 | |||
| 09:06:02 | sfinucan | fwiw, you can fix it by downloading the last correct PS from the first patch (probably 20, so 'git review -d 449257,20') | |
| 09:06:19 | ralonsoh | sfinucan: thanks! | |
| 09:06:27 | sfinucan | ralonsoh: np ;) | |
| 09:07:59 | openstackgerrit | Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/nova master: Read Neutron port 'binding_profile' during boot https://review.openstack.org/449257 | |
| 09:25:14 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: update logic to configure device for scsi controller https://review.openstack.org/459740 | |
| 09:25:14 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: update the logic to configure volume with scsi controller https://review.openstack.org/459741 | |
| 09:25:15 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: rearange how scsi controller is defined https://review.openstack.org/459739 | |
| 09:25:15 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: update LibvirtConfigGuestDeviceAddress to provide XML https://review.openstack.org/459737 | |
| 09:25:16 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: set full description of the controller used by disk https://review.openstack.org/459738 | |
| 09:33:35 | mdbooth | sfinucan: Eurgh, that whole situation is a complete pita | |
| 09:33:49 | sfinucan | mdbooth: Yup | |
| 09:34:03 | sfinucan | But it's a rabbit hole I really don't fancy diving down | |
| 09:34:24 | mdbooth | It's a rabbit hole which shouldn't exist | |
| 09:36:39 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: network: update pci request spec to handle trusted tags https://review.openstack.org/458820 | |
| 09:36:39 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: configure trust mode for vfs https://review.openstack.org/458514 | |
| 09:36:40 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: network: add command to configure trusted mode for VFs https://review.openstack.org/458513 | |
| 09:53:01 | mdbooth | sfinucan: It should have been obvious from the previous bug that EPERM was wrong. I wonder why we didn't pick that up last time. | |
| 09:53:24 | mdbooth | [Errno 13] Permission denied | |
| 09:53:29 | mdbooth | 13 == EACCES | |
| 09:53:51 | sfinucan | mdbooth: I know :( | |
| 09:54:04 | sfinucan | Isn't EPERM a superset of EACCES though? | |
| 09:54:13 | mdbooth | They're discrete | |
| 09:54:21 | mdbooth | This is the return from a syscall | |
| 09:54:30 | mdbooth | It's an integer | |
| 09:55:25 | openstackgerrit | Alex Szarka proposed openstack/nova master: Transform instance.exists notification https://review.openstack.org/403660 | |
| 09:59:00 | mdbooth | melwitt: KABOOM! | |
| 09:59:10 | melwitt | heh, sorry bout that folks | |
| 10:29:05 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: objects: remove related pinning from __init__ of InstanceNUMATopology https://review.openstack.org/408242 | |
| 10:29:05 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: objects: remove cpuset_reserved from __init__ of InstanceNUMATopology https://review.openstack.org/466030 | |
| 10:29:06 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: objects: remove pagesize from __init__ of InstanceNUMATopology https://review.openstack.org/408241 | |
| 10:30:52 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for os-interface endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/459979 | |
| 10:31:08 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for server-tags instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/461645 | |
| 10:31:24 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for server-migrations endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/461646 | |
| 10:35:32 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Remove useless API tests https://review.openstack.org/461011 | |
| 10:56:04 | openstackgerrit | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: Scheduler returning alternatives per destination https://review.openstack.org/465175 | |
| 10:56:05 | openstackgerrit | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Allocate instance by the conductor https://review.openstack.org/460455 | |
| 10:56:05 | openstackgerrit | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: Delete existing allocations when retrying https://review.openstack.org/460433 | |
| 11:00:18 | cdent | bauzas: thanks for expanding the commit message on the retrying change. Can you confirm my understanding: the goal is to delete transient allocations (which aren't currently using physical resources) as soon as we know they are going to be eventually deleted, so that something else can try to consume them sooner. | |
| 11:00:20 | cdent | Is that right? | |
| 11:01:43 | bauzas | cdent: the goal is to propose hosts that can be acceptable per filters/weighers in case the original host is not being accepted when the conductor posts the allocations | |
| 11:02:29 | bauzas | cdent: given we have placement that verifies allocations, it's fine to propose hosts that are not fulling matching with the *new* situation, but at least have been verified as matching with the other requests | |
| 11:02:33 | cdent | I'm speaking specifically about the allocations that could have been cleared up later at the time NoValidHost happens | |
| 11:02:52 | bauzas | cdent: so, there are 2 cases | |
| 11:03:10 | bauzas | cdent: 1/ if the conductor posts an allocation but gets a "sorry" from placement | |
| 11:03:56 | bauzas | cdent: 2/ if the allocation is done correctly, but then the compute exceptionnally has an exception (because of libvirt-ish so else) and then reschedules the instance to the conductor | |
| 11:04:37 | bauzas | cdent: if scheduler gives back a NoValidHosts to conductor, then the conductor will behave like the existing | |
| 11:05:11 | bauzas | (unless I misunderstood your problem, which is definitely something possible :D ) | |
| 11:07:10 | bauzas | cdent: oh , you mean about the need for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/460433/10 ? | |
| 11:07:13 | bauzas | (sorry my bad) | |
| 11:07:22 | bauzas | I thought you were talking of the need for alternatives | |
| 11:07:23 | cdent | I'm talking about my question on ps 8 on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/460433 about why we are deleting allocations early (instead of waiting to handle them on NoValidHost) and trying to confirm my understanding of your adjustments to the commit message there | |
| 11:07:36 | bauzas | so | |
| 11:07:36 | bauzas | ok, my bad | |
| 11:07:50 | bauzas | the problem is with transient allocations like I said | |
| 11:07:55 | bauzas | imagine the scenario | |
| 11:08:05 | cdent | basically if you can confirm "so that something else can try to consume them sooner" is correct, I'm satisfied | |
| 11:08:12 | bauzas | Ironic and 2 concurrent instances | |
| 11:08:20 | bauzas | instance 1 is scheduled to hostA | |
| 11:08:31 | bauzas | then the allocation will be made against hostA | |
| 11:08:36 | bauzas | but then it's rescheduled | |
| 11:08:48 | bauzas | concurrently, instance2 is scheduled | |
| 11:09:05 | bauzas | given allocation is posted against hostA, placement won't provide hostA as a valid target | |
| 11:09:24 | bauzas | which is a sad panda, because we know it's being rescheduled | |
| 11:09:51 | bauzas | cdent: does that fit with your concerns ? | |
| 11:10:19 | bauzas | tbh, I'm not super attached to that patch, I just think it helps some possible race condition | |
| 11:11:29 | cdent | when instance1 tries to go to hostA but then is rescheduled, what does that mean about the current state of hostA as a good target for any allocations? | |
| 11:11:30 | bauzas | cdent: FWIW, I'm not trying to focus my efforts on updating https://review.openstack.org/#/c/460455/ now that we have alternatives | |
| 11:12:07 | bauzas | cdent: instance being rescheduler doesn't necessarly imply that the host where the instance was set to is necessary bad | |
| 11:12:30 | bauzas | cdent: we discussed that at Summit, and we identified (ops too) that most of the time, it's uncorrelated with resource constraints | |
| 11:12:32 | cdent | but it could be, right? | |
| 11:14:04 | cdent | I guess I take a relatively conservative position on this stuff: I think we can avoid inaccuracies and confusion by holding allocations a bit longer, at the cost of less packing. But it seems that people are more interested in packing? | |
| 11:14:54 | bauzas | cdent: that's a good point | |
| 11:15:45 | bauzas | cdent: from what I recall from the summit, people wanted to make sure we were not removing some host because of a resource constraint, because they said most of the time it's because of X or Y | |
| 11:16:03 | bauzas | cdent: were you at the cells 2 forum session where most of the crux was discussed there ? | |
| 11:16:21 | bauzas | cdent: as dan asked whether they were interested in stopping to reschedules | |
| 11:16:32 | bauzas | cdent: most of the present folks were horrified by that | |
| 11:16:47 | bauzas | anyway, I need to disappear for a bit | |
| 11:17:00 | cdent | i had to be somewhere else for that one, but i heard a summary later | |
| 11:17:10 | cdent | me too, I'll keep thinking about it. thanks for the info. | |
| 11:19:38 | bauzas | np | |
| 11:29:28 | openstackgerrit | Hironori Shiina proposed openstack/nova master: Ironic: Support boot from Cinder volume https://review.openstack.org/215385 | |
| 11:44:04 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: docs: Document 'nova-manage db online_data_migrations' https://review.openstack.org/464634 | |
| 12:58:08 | mriedem | o/ | |
| 12:59:58 | mriedem | sdague: this gets the grenade live migration job going again (limited) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/466097/ and this gets the live migration back and forth testing going in that job https://review.openstack.org/#/c/466033/ | |
| 13:01:14 | sdague | mriedem: +A | |
| 13:01:18 | mriedem | thanks | |
| 13:06:02 | dpawlik | mriedem: Hi. I changed as you suggest in PS https://review.openstack.org/#/c/459753 | |
| 13:06:44 | bauzas | mriedem: I replied on your status email about the claims discussion | |
| 13:06:57 | bauzas | mriedem: AFAIUI, we already had a consensus :) | |
| 13:09:34 | mriedem | bauzas: i see that | |
| 13:10:34 | mriedem | dpawlik: ok, it's not a bug though, it's a feature, so it should have a blueprint | |
| 13:16:36 | dpawlik | mriedem: ack | |
| 13:17:44 | cdent | bauzas, mriedem: I threw my own crazy talk 2c into the mix too because I'm lonely and want to make friends. | |
| 13:24:15 | mdbooth | mriedem: Do we have a pattern for internal code assertions other than assert() ? We don't seem to have too many assert()s in our code. | |
| 13:24:38 | mdbooth | mriedem: I ask in the context of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/443951/ where I've recommended he use assert() rather than raise an exception | |
| 13:25:43 | mriedem | mdbooth: not really | |
| 13:26:16 | mdbooth | mriedem: Ok, cool. Was just wary of asking him to fix that, only to have him respin yet again because we do something else. | |
| 13:26:18 | cdent | mdbooth++ for assert in programming error case | |
| 13:27:44 | dpawlik | mriedem: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/add-kvm-hidden-feature | |
| 13:27:52 | mriedem | mdbooth: did you see my beautiful code dive through attaching a volume during bfv and attach_volume? what a mess. | |