| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-06-27 | |||
| 12:22:10 | openstackgerrit | OpenStack Proposal Bot proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Updated from global requirements https://review.openstack.org/478083 | |
| 12:24:39 | jaypipes | ralonsoh: did you need me for something? | |
| 12:27:09 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Delete disk metadata when detaching volume https://review.openstack.org/435082 | |
| 12:27:10 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: API support for tagged device attachment https://review.openstack.org/376021 | |
| 12:34:42 | ralonsoh | jaypipes: hi, I left a comment in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/476612/ | |
| 12:34:54 | ralonsoh | jaypipes: about the abstraction of the ovsdb access | |
| 12:38:44 | jaypipes | ralonsoh: ah, gotcha | |
| 12:47:44 | sfinucan | sdague, alex_xu | |
| 12:47:49 | sfinucan | Can I kill this docs? https://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/api_plugins.html | |
| 12:47:51 | sfinucan | *doc | |
| 12:48:45 | alex_xu | sfinucan: yea, but probably need new doc to teach people how to add new API to the nova | |
| 12:49:00 | sfinucan | Well, we don't do it as plugins anymore, right? | |
| 12:49:28 | sfinucan | alex_xu: Is this what you're looking for? https://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/api_microversion_dev.html | |
| 12:55:19 | alex_xu | sfinucan: yea, although it is specific to the microversion | |
| 12:56:31 | sfinucan | alex_xu: Is there any other way to extend the API than with a microversion now? | |
| 12:56:41 | sfinucan | I thought we didn't let people extend the API anymore? | |
| 12:57:11 | sdague | sfinucan: we don't | |
| 12:57:21 | alex_xu | sfinucan: yes, that doc is for the nova developer add API to the upstream | |
| 12:57:32 | sdague | however the api_plugins page is the only one that talks about the how you add new bits of api code | |
| 12:57:38 | sfinucan | Ohhh, is it now | |
| 12:57:50 | sdague | the microversion page is just about changing responses in existing ones | |
| 12:57:56 | sfinucan | OK, I won't delete it then | |
| 12:58:05 | sdague | it definitely needs a rewrite | |
| 12:58:07 | sfinucan | But I think it will need to be reworked | |
| 12:58:08 | sfinucan | yup | |
| 12:58:11 | sfinucan | I'll include a TODO | |
| 12:58:25 | sdague | ++ | |
| 12:58:31 | alex_xu | yea, probably we need to mention this new route list https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/compute/routes.py | |
| 12:58:48 | sfinucan | indeed | |
| 13:11:06 | jaypipes | bauzas, edleafe, Guest63234: will be doing my best to push revisions on the allocation requests series while on a 5-hour long sales call today. :( | |
| 13:12:42 | openstackgerrit | Alex Szarka proposed openstack/nova master: Refactor init_instance:resume_guests_state https://review.openstack.org/349582 | |
| 13:16:00 | edleafe | jaypipes: ugh | |
| 13:16:07 | jaypipes | edleafe: yeah. | |
| 13:16:13 | edleafe | jaypipes: will reply to your reply on the patch | |
| 13:16:17 | jaypipes | edleafe: regarding that... | |
| 13:16:48 | jaypipes | edleafe: so like I mentioned on my comment, I actually tried that approach first and ended up having to change just as many lines eventually in the unit tests. | |
| 13:17:12 | jaypipes | edleafe: It really comes down to whether we want the filter scheduler driver to be the thing that claims resources or not. | |
| 13:17:39 | jaypipes | edleafe: or the manager class. | |
| 13:18:16 | edleafe | jaypipes: can you explain why we can't have chance scheduler do claims? And I also thought that we weren't going to sidetrack this for chance scheduler | |
| 13:18:21 | jaypipes | edleafe: my objective was to make as few changes to the filter scheduler driver class as possible. | |
| 13:18:40 | edleafe | jaypipes: because if there is no claim made when a compute node gets a build request, it will claim | |
| 13:18:44 | jaypipes | edleafe: chance scheduler doesn't know uuids. | |
| 13:19:27 | jaypipes | edleafe: it's more than the chance scheduler. it's a separation of concerns thing. | |
| 13:19:47 | jaypipes | edleafe: I'm trying to leave the filter scheduler driver doing filtering and weighing. | |
| 13:19:57 | jaypipes | edleafe: and have something else (the manager) do the claiming. | |
| 13:20:22 | edleafe | jaypipes: but let's focus on the concept I pointed out: changing method sigs to pass compute uuids instead of just getting them when the host is updated from the compute | |
| 13:20:46 | edleafe | IOW, the value is already there | |
| 13:21:10 | jaypipes | edleafe: I was changing the method signature of the *returned* value so that the manager could do the claiming and not have to do everything in _schedule() | |
| 13:21:16 | mriedem | artom: was it intentional to not restrict block device tags to be unique for multiple bdms on the same instance? | |
| 13:21:21 | mriedem | we have no unique constraint for that | |
| 13:23:17 | artom | mriedem, yeah | |
| 13:23:40 | artom | mriedem, I don't see a use case for it either, but there might be a reason for it | |
| 13:23:59 | artom | For instance, two disks that have the same purpose get the same tag | |
| 13:24:03 | edleafe | jaypipes: I'll have to look more at that part. I was focusing on the changes to HostState | |
| 13:24:26 | edleafe | jaypipes: I am concerned how to select a host without first making a successful claim | |
| 13:24:38 | artom | mriedem, there was no real argument for or against, so by default it's allowed | |
| 13:24:50 | artom | Same for nics | |
| 13:24:55 | artom | And there it makes even less sense | |
| 13:25:07 | artom | Unless you're going to bond two nics and want them tagged the same? I dunno | |
| 13:25:12 | jaypipes | edleafe: we only make the claim after the scheduler filters and weighers have all run against the host states | |
| 13:26:06 | mriedem | artom: pl | |
| 13:26:08 | mriedem | *ok | |
| 13:26:19 | bhagyashri_s | johnthetubaguy: Hi, waiting for some inputs. | |
| 13:26:54 | artom | mriedem, plus I think semantically most people wouldn't expect a tag to be unique | |
| 13:27:02 | artom | When you think of tag clouds and such | |
| 13:27:16 | artom | You're not surprised when many elements share one or more tags | |
| 13:33:53 | alex_xu | artom: I guess you forget to set microversion on req obj https://review.openstack.org/#/c/376021/72/nova/tests/unit/api/openstack/compute/test_attach_interfaces.py@480 | |
| 13:34:46 | mriedem | Vek: do we expect DeprecatedAction to always issue a warning even if you don't specify the arg? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/477212/ | |
| 13:35:38 | artom | alex_xu, did I? | |
| 13:36:01 | alex_xu | artom: yea, those test should against on the 2.49 | |
| 13:36:02 | artom | alex_xu, I ran those tests locally and they all passed... because 'tag' isn't a valid parameter in anything < 2.49 | |
| 13:36:06 | artom | Doh | |
| 13:36:26 | alex_xu | artom: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/376021/72/nova/tests/unit/api/openstack/compute/test_attach_interfaces.py@516 this should use self.req | |
| 13:36:30 | artom | alex_xu, can you leave a comment and I'll fix | |
| 13:36:37 | alex_xu | artom: ok | |
| 13:37:20 | artom | alex_xu, thanks :) | |
| 13:37:47 | edleafe | jaypipes: I read ahead to the other PSs in the series to understand. It appears that select_destinations will return num_instances hosts to the manager - without claiming first. Right? | |
| 13:37:54 | edleafe | jaypipes: That means that there aren't any backup choices to select. The big gain we were hoping to get is when there is a race and the claim fails, the scheduler can simply select the next host in the weighed list. Having the manager make the claim means we lose that. | |
| 13:38:10 | openstackgerrit | Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/os-vif master: Use ``assert_has_calls`` to check function calls https://review.openstack.org/477469 | |
| 13:39:29 | alex_xu | artom: done | |
| 13:45:32 | mriedem | artom: couple easy things to do in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/435082/ | |
| 13:45:34 | mriedem | and then i'm +2 | |
| 13:45:44 | artom | mriedem, sweet, thanks :) | |
| 13:46:14 | artom | alex_xu, I don't think we can remove those mocks though | |
| 13:46:47 | artom | Wait | |
| 13:46:59 | artom | Dammit, that's twice now I say a thing and change my mind immediately after | |
| 13:47:03 | artom | Sorry :( | |
| 13:47:51 | alex_xu | artom: no worries :) | |
| 13:59:13 | openstackgerrit | Chason Chan proposed openstack/nova master: switch to openstackdocstheme https://review.openstack.org/477751 | |
| 14:01:38 | openstackgerrit | Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/os-vif master: Add abstract OVSDB API https://review.openstack.org/476612 | |
| 14:04:56 | artom | mriedem, in the interest of reducing latency, is https://review.openstack.org/#/c/435082/50/nova/tests/unit/compute/test_compute_mgr.py@2537 satisfactory to you, or do you want to remove the tag and the call assertion entirely? | |
| 14:15:25 | mriedem | artom: replied | |
| 14:15:32 | mriedem | but now i'm shutting it down | |
| 14:16:15 | artom | mriedem, posthumous thanks :) | |
| 14:20:53 | jaypipes | edleafe: I thought we needed to return the alternate selections to the conductor anyway? | |
| 14:26:29 | edleafe | jaypipes: we need to pick a good host, so that we know what cell the alternates must be in | |
| 14:27:20 | jaypipes | edleafe: right, and those alternatives can be used to perform claim retries in the manager, no? | |
| 14:28:43 | edleafe | jaypipes: sure, but now you've kind of defeated the whole purpose of alternatives. If the setting is for 3 retires, and you burn 2 of them before you even get to the build... | |
| 14:30:05 | jaypipes | edleafe: it sounds like you're pretty gung-ho to just have a giant _schedule() method just do everything. | |
| 14:30:21 | jaypipes | I'm trying to add some separation of concerns into the codebase. | |