| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-05-26 | |||
| 19:32:29 | mtreinish | sure packaging solves this, but how do packagers know what's needed | |
| 19:33:02 | mtreinish | it doesn't seem unreasonable to say if installing from source make sure you have X, Y, Z installed since nova calls out to those | |
| 19:33:03 | sdague | by being part of our community | |
| 19:33:25 | efried | mtreinish Since you're clearly interested in furthering the cause of powervm in-tree, here ya go: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/443189/ | |
| 19:33:43 | sdague | I do get in a perfect world there would be a crisp "here is everything you need" interface, but in the list of priorities that's not really in the top 100 | |
| 19:33:59 | efried | (and mriedem, updating refs is on our to-do list, near the top) | |
| 19:34:22 | sdague | as the only people it's impacting is building from source without using any of the deployment projects | |
| 19:34:36 | mtreinish | sdague: I'm not saying it's a priority. I filed a bug to just recognize it's a gap | |
| 19:34:54 | mriedem | mtreinish: i didn't invalidate the bug, i just marked it low priority | |
| 19:34:58 | mriedem | if someone wants to take that on they can | |
| 19:35:12 | mriedem | with my reservations about it noted in there | |
| 19:35:18 | mriedem | i.e. complicated and getting out of date easily | |
| 19:35:48 | mtreinish | efried: I guess that I can take a look... | |
| 19:36:18 | efried | mtreinish It's a biggie. Perhaps you can figure out a way to parallel-process the review using that cloud in your closet... | |
| 19:36:50 | sdague | mtreinish: right, so my feeling is that bugs not in the top 100 priorities are just hay hiding needles in the stack. | |
| 19:37:48 | sdague | efried: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/443189/24/nova/virt/powervm/tasks/storage.py ... I'm confused about the LOG.exception that have "ignoring" in their message | |
| 19:38:01 | sdague | because, that's going to be a giant stack trace which will scare people | |
| 19:38:06 | sdague | but then being "meh" | |
| 19:38:10 | mtreinish | efried: I asked ibm to give me funding for that cloud and I was told no. They didn't even offer to give me any power boxes | |
| 19:38:12 | sdague | seems contradictory | |
| 19:38:12 | efried | sdague Taskflow esoterica | |
| 19:38:17 | mtreinish | not that my circuit breaker could handle them | |
| 19:39:00 | mriedem | leakypipes: did https://review.openstack.org/#/c/409706/ resolve that mitaka issue you were chasing the other night? | |
| 19:39:09 | sdague | efried: ok, intentional, then I'm fine with it | |
| 19:39:24 | efried | sdague This code only gets hit if the forward part of a Task Flow failed, and it's reverting. If one of the revert methods raises an exception, that's the exception that winds up getting raised overall, obscuring the original and bailing out of the remainder of the revert sequence. | |
| 19:39:44 | sdague | efried: sure | |
| 19:39:52 | sdague | I get catching the exception | |
| 19:40:12 | efried | sdague I had a talk with harlowja about this "feature" a few weeks ago, and we brainstormed some ideas to make it a bit more friendly; but for the time being... | |
| 19:40:26 | sdague | but you still want to dump the stack trace, even though you are saying "we're ignoring this fail" | |
| 19:40:28 | efried | sdague But yeah, I want to see the stack trace regardless, in case it points to something I want to fix. | |
| 19:40:29 | sdague | ? | |
| 19:40:31 | sdague | ok | |
| 19:40:50 | sdague | +2 | |
| 19:41:09 | efried | sdague Thanks! | |
| 19:42:27 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Changing deleting stale allocations warning to debug https://review.openstack.org/468519 | |
| 19:44:42 | superdan | mriedem: heh, | |
| 19:44:53 | superdan | mriedem: I just found and fixed a bug in the hypervisor-stats db query | |
| 19:45:00 | superdan | rebased to submit, merge conflict | |
| 19:45:06 | superdan | "that's impossible, this code hasn't changed in forever" | |
| 19:45:15 | superdan | wah wah wah, fixed three days ago by Kevin_Zheng | |
| 19:45:42 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Catch InstanceNotFound when deleting allocations https://review.openstack.org/468517 | |
| 19:46:02 | mriedem | superdan: heh yup | |
| 19:46:08 | mriedem | did that merge/ | |
| 19:46:09 | mriedem | ? | |
| 19:46:16 | superdan | apparently it did ;) | |
| 19:46:17 | mriedem | oh it did | |
| 19:46:18 | mriedem | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/467220/ | |
| 19:46:19 | mriedem | nice | |
| 19:46:39 | superdan | found it in kilo | |
| 19:46:45 | mriedem | you can thank yours truly for the gratuitous commit message | |
| 19:46:46 | superdan | was like "wow, still broken in master" | |
| 19:46:49 | superdan | heh | |
| 19:46:56 | mriedem | he taught me something on that one too, | |
| 19:47:04 | mriedem | remember how we though deleting a service doesn't actually delete the compute node? | |
| 19:47:08 | mriedem | turns out that's half true, | |
| 19:47:15 | mriedem | it actually does if it's a super f'ing old compute node record | |
| 19:47:57 | mriedem | i'm working on backports now | |
| 19:48:12 | superdan | sweet | |
| 19:48:56 | cdent | mriedem: i tested the log thing because that was the only change in the commit, and not having a test seemed lame | |
| 19:49:17 | mriedem | so you aren't weekending! | |
| 19:49:36 | mriedem | cdent: yeah i'm not saying i haven't done it myself | |
| 19:49:38 | mriedem | it's just, meh | |
| 19:49:58 | cdent | I blame figleaf. He distracted me with interesting conversation | |
| 19:50:08 | cdent | but soon I will eat carrots and drink wine and watch bad tv | |
| 19:50:34 | mriedem | ooo carrots | |
| 19:50:38 | mriedem | how english | |
| 19:50:39 | figleaf | I blame it on having to return alternate hosts | |
| 19:50:57 | figleaf | hey, we're growing carrots here! | |
| 19:51:02 | cdent | we've planted some | |
| 19:51:05 | mriedem | i was into alternate hosts before it was cool to be into alternate hosts | |
| 19:51:05 | cdent | but not ready yet | |
| 19:51:14 | sdague | oh, you know, we could add merged patches to the IRC bot here | |
| 19:51:23 | mriedem | sdague: yeah we should do that | |
| 19:51:26 | sdague | https://review.openstack.org/468527 | |
| 19:51:28 | mriedem | i've liked patchbot in other channels | |
| 19:51:42 | sdague | mriedem: gerritbot does it | |
| 19:51:50 | cdent | alternate hosts is going to cause problems, I reckon | |
| 19:51:51 | cdent | we'll see | |
| 19:51:53 | sdague | just the nova channel doesn't have it turned on | |
| 19:51:57 | sdague | we do in others | |
| 19:52:01 | mriedem | yeah qa | |
| 19:52:04 | mriedem | qa is bot city | |
| 19:52:08 | cdent | have a good weekend all | |
| 19:52:09 | mriedem | +1 | |
| 19:52:12 | mriedem | o/ | |
| 19:52:15 | sdague | enjoy | |
| 19:52:46 | sdague | merged patches are nice to see things going in and feel like there is progress :) | |
| 19:55:33 | efried | leakypipes Been digging into get_inventory; can I confirm a couple things with you real quick? | |
| 19:58:41 | efried | instance was claimified. Have I got that right? | |
| 19:58:41 | efried | leakypipes First thing, I'm noticing the old get_available_resource included not just "how much is there" but "how much has been used". The latter doesn't appear to have a place in get_inventory(). I _think_ I've gleaned that this is because the layers outside of the driver (resource tracker? scheduler?) calculate that for me by summing up allocations for existing instances, said allocations having been created when the | |
| 19:58:49 | mriedem | sdague: progress is nice | |
| 19:58:51 | mriedem | fun is fun | |
| 20:02:34 | efried | leakypipes Second, on a similar note, I have a bunch of fields in get_available_resource that don't have standard ResourceClass affordance. I could create custom resource classes for those, but there doesn't seem much point if nothing is going to consume them. So do those just... disappear? | |
| 20:03:34 | efried | leakypipes E.g. https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/virt/powervm/host.py#L55-L64 | |
| 20:07:55 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1691667 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "The metadata 8775 port has no authentication" [Undecided,New] | |
| 20:07:55 | mriedem | sdague: isn't this kind of a known thing? https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1691667 | |
| 20:07:59 | mriedem | i don't really see it documented though | |
| 20:08:32 | sdague | yeh | |
| 20:09:12 | sdague | I thought there was host based authentication in there | |
| 20:09:26 | sdague | like it actually cares about request ip address | |