Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-06-05
20:58:24 mriedem i'll open a bug to track this
20:58:37 dansmith and unless we had multiple real cells we wouldn't hit it anyway
20:58:53 mriedem we had == in ci?
20:59:27 dansmith yeah
20:59:33 mriedem i thought we were going to have the/a multinode job have 2 cells with 1 compute each?
20:59:44 dansmith yeah but not one downlevel
20:59:49 dansmith not yet anyway
20:59:51 mriedem sure, but we could with grenade
20:59:52 mriedem eventually
20:59:55 dansmith eventually
21:00:07 mriedem but then we're stuck back with the grenade not running interesting tests issue
21:00:18 dansmith that helper doesn't appear to be in tree, but I know I wrote it.. might've been for a thing that we ended up not doing and so never committed it
21:00:44 dansmith don't we run smoke first and then full tempest post-upgrade?
21:00:49 mriedem nope
21:00:50 mriedem smoke both ways
21:00:55 sdague no, it's smoke on both sides
21:01:11 mriedem smoke'em if you got'em
21:01:54 dansmith okay
21:02:03 sdague honestly, for the multi node, multi cell version testing, we should probably purpose build something for that. Because it feels like we want to be pushing very specific edges on test cases
21:02:45 dansmith you mean a specific list of tests?
21:02:50 openstack Launchpad bug 1695993 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "supports_device_tagging check in /servers API won't work with multiple cells" [High,Triaged]
21:02:50 mriedem dansmith: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1695993
21:03:00 mriedem dansmith: i think he means not grenade
21:03:13 sdague yeh, maybe not grenade either
21:03:15 mriedem sdague: you're talking about the ansible idea from the PTG?
21:03:21 dansmith hmm
21:03:26 sdague mriedem: I'm not honestly sure
21:03:34 mriedem i remember you saying something like that once
21:03:40 mriedem when i was monkeying with d-g and cells v2 setup
21:04:01 sdague it just feels like we might be better off building something that builds out the mixed cell version environment from scratch
21:04:17 sdague instead of glomming too much onto the existing stuff
21:04:35 mriedem might have also been when talking about what rolling upgrades look like for cells v2
21:04:36 dansmith I'm not sure why
21:04:38 mriedem with doing api at the end
21:04:47 mriedem since devstack/grenade starts/upgrades API first?
21:04:55 mriedem it had something to do with the upgrade order for api
21:05:03 mriedem we have notes from the BCN summit
21:05:57 mriedem anyway, i'm not proposing we tackle testing mixed-level cells in ci right now
21:06:37 dansmith mriedem: I will keep looking for my multicell service lookup patch in a couple dead end branches, but if I don't find it I'll just write it.. it's not hard
21:06:56 mriedem sure - you want to take that bug?
21:07:02 mriedem or just going to provide the helper?
21:07:31 dansmith mriedem: lemme write the helper and I'll survey the other uses... might be easy for me to just fix them uses too
21:07:50 mriedem dansmith: here it is https://review.openstack.org/#/c/442787/1/nova/objects/service.py
21:08:05 dansmith haha
21:08:15 dansmith no wonder I couldn't find it. that patch is dead to me
21:08:19 mriedem i know
21:08:24 dansmith lol
21:08:42 mriedem i was looking at it on friday considering taking it over
21:09:04 mriedem anyway, we should split that piece out into a separate change, and then the bug fix stuff on top probably
21:09:07 dansmith I've been working on sql injection attacks at gerrit so I can reassign it to you
21:09:08 dansmith yeah
21:09:10 dansmith I shall
21:28:49 edleafe jaypipes: dansmith: cdent: Started a thread on the ML: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-June/117913.html
21:29:02 jaypipes edleafe: thx ed
21:35:24 openstackgerrit Steve Noyes proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: update live migration to use v3 cinder api https://review.openstack.org/463987
21:39:35 openstackgerrit Steve Noyes proposed openstack/nova master: objects: Add old_attachment_id to BlockDeviceMapping https://review.openstack.org/471142
21:40:24 mriedem stvnoyes: that's not going to work
21:40:32 stvnoyes no?
21:40:42 mriedem primarily because you haven't added a column to the block_device_mappings table
21:41:28 mriedem however, we should talk to johnthetubaguy about this since i'd really hope we could avoid something like this
21:41:43 stvnoyes I was following this pattern that did somethng about the same - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/437665/
21:42:04 mriedem right but you missed https://review.openstack.org/#/c/437597/
21:42:22 stvnoyes ah ok. one of john's comments on the initial migrate review was for a place to keep the old attach id
21:43:09 mriedem john garbutt?
21:43:11 mriedem or griffith?
21:43:13 stvnoyes ah. ok (i am impressed that you remember all these things)
21:43:16 stvnoyes garbutt
21:43:35 mriedem hmm, i'd like to avoid an old/new attachment id column in the bdms table/object
21:44:01 mriedem initial thought if we have 2 bdms, one for the source host attachment and one for the dest host attachment
21:44:06 mriedem but that might break other things
21:44:40 stvnoyes did you have another idea? I originally tried to do without i, by creating a new bdm. but had problems down in libvirt driver distinguishing between what was source and destination
21:44:50 stvnoyes without 'it'
21:44:53 mriedem right that's one of the issues
21:45:31 mriedem the other problem is we have a BlockDeviceMapping.get_by_volume_and_instance method
21:45:32 stvnoyes so after going thru it a number of times, this came out to be less new code
21:45:46 mriedem which expects to get 0 or 1 results
21:46:11 jgriffith any way to do a "new/old" bdm?
21:46:42 mriedem probably not in a way that's any less bad than a single bdm with new/old attachmnets
21:46:43 mriedem *attachments
21:46:57 mriedem and like i said, a bunch of the code assumes volume id + instance id is uniqueu
21:47:01 mriedem *unique even
21:48:34 stvnoyes the other stringe thing I found is that when you have a connector present in the bd, the attachment_id is in the bdm twice (bdm.attachment_id, and in the connection_info string)
21:48:44 stvnoyes that's not terrific
21:49:12 mriedem stvnoyes: long-term i think we want to stop setting connection_info
21:49:15 mriedem when we have attachment_id
21:49:20 mriedem because cinder will store the connection_info for us
21:49:41 mriedem that probably happens in the attach patch
21:49:45 jgriffith stvnoyes that's because the attachment_id comes form that
21:49:52 stvnoyes that seems like a good idea (later)
21:50:07 mriedem nova wants to not store the connection_info
21:50:12 mriedem b/c it can be stale
21:50:43 mriedem and, well, we just don't want to duplicate all of this state modeling in two services
21:51:23 stvnoyes so how would you like to resolve whether we want to go with old_attachment_id? talk with John Garbutt? I can update the rv in the meantime with that missing change.
21:53:05 mriedem stvnoyes: yeah i'd say do what you're doing now, fix the db api thing, and then we talk to john to see if he had other idea
21:53:06 mriedem *ideas
21:53:21 stvnoyes ok cool
21:53:22 mriedem i don't like it but it's probably the lesser of many evils
21:53:48 mriedem unless of course dansmith has bright ideas he'd like to share about BDMs modeling and multi-attach
21:53:49 mriedem ...
21:54:12 dansmith barf

Earlier   Later