| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-07-07 | |||
| 19:25:28 | superdan | what we need, | |
| 19:25:34 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Add online migration to move quotas to API database https://review.openstack.org/410946 | |
| 19:25:35 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Limit maximum pending resizes for preventing over quota https://review.openstack.org/481739 | |
| 19:25:45 | superdan | is to data migrate the _instance_ flavors to also report that they use one of the new resources, | |
| 19:25:59 | superdan | so that the computes start reporting 1 total, 1 used, 0 available | |
| 19:26:13 | superdan | so really, | |
| 19:26:26 | superdan | ops just need to run data migrations before they update the main flavors to use the override I think | |
| 19:26:31 | superdan | make sense/ | |
| 19:27:31 | mriedem | yeah, that's where i was going in my head, | |
| 19:27:53 | mriedem | that the compute updates the existing instance embedded flavor on startup so we can fix the allocations reported in, | |
| 19:28:02 | superdan | right | |
| 19:28:04 | mriedem | and it's good that none of it turns on until you fiddle the flavors | |
| 19:28:11 | superdan | yeah | |
| 19:28:49 | mriedem | although, we don't actually pull the custom resource off the instance.flavor in the compute, we pull it off the node | |
| 19:29:02 | mriedem | so i'm a bit fuzzy on where the existing instance.flavor comes into play | |
| 19:29:40 | mriedem | this https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/virt/ironic/driver.py#L658 | |
| 19:29:44 | superdan | we report inventory based on the node | |
| 19:29:50 | superdan | we report allocations based on the instance/flavor | |
| 19:30:00 | superdan | and we request from placement based on the real flavor | |
| 19:30:55 | mriedem | ok so RT updates allocations here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/resource_tracker.py#L1012 | |
| 19:31:52 | mriedem | and this is where we get the allocations off the instance right? https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/client/report.py#L141 | |
| 19:32:02 | mriedem | which is only ram, cpu and disk | |
| 19:32:06 | mriedem | not fancy pants ironic stuff | |
| 19:32:18 | superdan | yeah | |
| 19:32:40 | superdan | we kinda need the ironic driver to do the instance flavor migration though I think | |
| 19:32:58 | mriedem | sure, but there are 2 parts to this if i'm understanding, | |
| 19:33:00 | superdan | because it'd be hard to do that from nova-manage, not being 100% sure the hypervisor type of an instance I think | |
| 19:33:15 | mriedem | 1. ironic driver updates the instance.flavor if it doesn't have the custome rresource class but the node.resource_class is set | |
| 19:33:38 | mriedem | 2. scheduler report client needs to account for custom resource class allocations off the instance flavor | |
| 19:33:54 | mriedem | then 3. deployer fiddles the bits | |
| 19:33:58 | mriedem | 4. cleanup | |
| 19:34:40 | mriedem | i think #2 is missing from the spec, unless i'm missing something | |
| 19:34:51 | superdan | yeah I suppose you're right | |
| 19:34:55 | superdan | it's implied | |
| 19:35:00 | mriedem | heh | |
| 19:35:16 | mriedem | mayhap i'll update the spec quick | |
| 19:38:43 | melwitt | superdan: can you tell where I would need to put an "objects.register_all()" to call object classmethods in the websocketproxy? would it have to be here or is there a way it could only be done once? https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/console/websocketproxy.py#L71 | |
| 19:39:41 | superdan | melwitt: you could do it at module-level.. it is only needed once per process | |
| 19:40:07 | melwitt | superdan: okay, cool. thanks | |
| 19:40:12 | superdan | you wouldn't want to do it per-request like that | |
| 19:41:02 | melwitt | yeah, that's what I was thinking | |
| 19:42:45 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Convert websocketproxy to use db for token validation https://review.openstack.org/333990 | |
| 19:55:04 | mriedem | superdan: oh i guess that allocations thing was mentioned in the deps section https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/pike/approved/custom-resource-classes-in-flavors.html#dependencies | |
| 19:55:25 | superdan | mriedem: that part is done already | |
| 19:55:25 | mriedem | maybe that was supposed to or expected to happen in http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/ocata/implemented/custom-resource-classes.html | |
| 19:55:41 | mriedem | "This depends on work to change the resource tracker to allow drivers to expose allocations of custom resource classes" | |
| 19:55:43 | superdan | the migration of existing instances is different from what is described there, and is specific to ironic | |
| 19:55:51 | superdan | right that depends-on is done | |
| 19:55:56 | mriedem | we don't expose allocations for custom resource classes | |
| 19:56:04 | mriedem | we expose inventory for custom resource classess | |
| 19:56:05 | superdan | we can from the driver, hang on | |
| 19:56:14 | superdan | oh | |
| 19:56:20 | mriedem | that's what i was talking about in https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/client/report.py#L141 | |
| 19:56:28 | superdan | yeah okay | |
| 19:56:36 | superdan | I was glossing over the allocation word there | |
| 19:57:25 | superdan | there's still the migration work that needs doing which is neither of these | |
| 19:57:56 | mriedem | yeah i think i've covered that here in this spec update, hold on | |
| 19:58:06 | superdan | cool, I gotsta jump on a call | |
| 19:59:13 | mriedem | geez another one | |
| 19:59:18 | mriedem | these aren't 900 numbers are they? | |
| 19:59:25 | superdan | I have a problem | |
| 20:11:05 | melwitt | grr, internet is on the fritz again | |
| 20:15:11 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Amend spec for "Allow custom resource classes in flavor extra specs" https://review.openstack.org/481748 | |
| 20:15:12 | mriedem | superdan: leakypipes: figleaf: ^ | |
| 20:15:27 | melwitt | mriedem: I think that tempest test works because the common.get_instance() method gets the instance via compute/api and that does a set_target_cell() that targets the context to the cell the instance is in | |
| 20:15:44 | mriedem | melwitt: so the same reason that normal attach works | |
| 20:15:48 | mriedem | so even though the instance isn't on a host, | |
| 20:15:51 | mriedem | it's still mapped to the original cell | |
| 20:16:02 | mriedem | tricksy baggins | |
| 20:16:09 | mriedem | melwitt: i told you you were the only one that could figure it out | |
| 20:16:28 | mriedem | ha | |
| 20:17:58 | mriedem | mayhap you'd like to +W https://review.openstack.org/#/c/481683/ | |
| 20:18:40 | mriedem | actually, | |
| 20:18:44 | mriedem | so maybe this means we don't need that fix | |
| 20:19:30 | mriedem | yeah, it was'nt failing b/c the context is already targeted | |
| 20:19:54 | melwitt | mriedem: yeah I was wondering, what broke that brought up the bug? | |
| 20:20:18 | mriedem | nothing :( | |
| 20:20:27 | mriedem | i noticed the local creation part during a review of something unrelated, | |
| 20:20:36 | mriedem | and because of how local delete has bit us with cells, | |
| 20:20:38 | melwitt | ah, okay | |
| 20:20:48 | mriedem | i immediately thought this was also busted in a similar way | |
| 20:21:32 | melwitt | yeah, the set_target_cell is so hidden that it's hard to tell when we need an extra target cell or not | |
| 20:33:31 | openstackgerrit | Andrey Kurilin proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Fix cropping the endpoint url https://review.openstack.org/479818 | |
| 20:53:21 | superdan | mriedem1: ah yeah, so we probably don't need that | |
| 20:53:29 | superdan | mriedem1: hence my asking where/how this came hup | |
| 20:53:32 | superdan | up even | |
| 20:55:09 | mriedem1 | sorry | |
| 20:55:26 | mriedem | the local create thing scared me because of local delete issues | |
| 20:55:37 | superdan | hah | |
| 20:55:47 | mriedem | leakypipes: i went through https://review.openstack.org/#/c/476632/ - we can't actually allocate in the scheduler until we've done the changes in the compute to not claim if the allocations are already done, right? | |
| 20:56:02 | mriedem | otheriwse we allocate in scheduler and still claim in compute | |
| 20:56:05 | superdan | mriedem: we already have that right? | |
| 20:56:11 | mriedem | do we? | |
| 20:56:24 | superdan | mriedem: compute just checks the allocations in placement, changing them only if need be | |
| 20:56:35 | mriedem | but i thought the big win was not doing the claim at all | |
| 20:56:38 | mriedem | in the resourc etracker | |
| 20:56:52 | superdan | we can't drop the RT until this is in place | |
| 20:56:56 | mriedem | plus, | |
| 20:57:04 | mriedem | there should be a minimum compute version check somewhere i thought, | |
| 20:57:17 | mriedem | we had the whole back and forth about sending the actual allocations down to the compute over rpc | |