| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-07-28 | |||
| 12:52:15 | s-dean | ok thanks, im trying to track down why i can list my instances with openstack server list | |
| 12:52:17 | sdague | cdent: ok, so I'm going to close it as Opinion Wishlist then, as it's one of those notes to self that's getting tracked in other ways (like via the etherpad) | |
| 12:52:32 | cdent | sdague: seems fair | |
| 12:53:28 | efried | s-dean There's a whole thing I don't understand about deleted instances not really being deleted, some kind of "soft" delete. | |
| 12:54:51 | s-dean | No i haven't deleted the instances yet, the command is hanging and not returning anything however the API server is returning 200 OK | |
| 12:56:19 | efried | s-dean does `nova list` work? | |
| 12:57:08 | s-dean | also in the instances table(nova DB), the cell_name filed is NULL | |
| 12:57:21 | s-dean | nope | |
| 12:57:57 | s-dean | that is also hanging, its like it cant access the database; | |
| 13:00:51 | s-dean | also there is no response | |
| 13:07:49 | bauzas | sdague: looking up bugs ? I'm about to do that too | |
| 13:08:18 | sdague | bauzas: yeh, I've been trying to burn the New list down | |
| 13:08:21 | sdague | getting close | |
| 13:08:24 | bauzas | k | |
| 13:09:00 | bauzas | I'll also look at the in-progress bugs | |
| 13:09:10 | bauzas | to make sure we won't miss any important one | |
| 13:29:46 | mriedem | pike-3 tag is in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/488218/ | |
| 13:35:59 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Sanity check delete_allocation_for_instance https://review.openstack.org/488187 | |
| 13:36:45 | cdent | mriedem: can you summarize what you leared while doing that ^? | |
| 13:37:30 | mriedem | cdent: well it does two things | |
| 13:38:12 | mriedem | 1. when the RT (source node during a migration) untracks it's instances and attempts to delete allocations, we get the current allocations for the instance for all providers and if the source node rp uuid isn't in the current list of allocations, it noops | |
| 13:38:37 | mriedem | 2. if the source node rp uuid is in the list of current allocations but there is also at least one other VCPU resource provider, it logs a message before deleting the allocations | |
| 13:38:48 | mriedem | i have seen #2 in the live migration CI runs, | |
| 13:38:51 | mriedem | i haven't seen #1 | |
| 13:39:04 | mriedem | http://logs.openstack.org/87/488187/2/check/gate-tempest-dsvm-multinode-live-migration-ubuntu-xenial/107a810/logs/subnode-2/screen-n-cpu.txt.gz#_Jul_27_22_21_14_766229 | |
| 13:39:45 | dansmith | yeah so #2 will get reported as a bug and tell us that we need to skip instead of log and continue there | |
| 13:39:52 | mriedem | i really just pushed this to see if things were really bad, like if we hit #1 a lot | |
| 13:40:46 | dansmith | mriedem: you could try setting the heal interval really small so it runs more often during the few migrations we actually do | |
| 13:40:50 | cdent | do you feel better or worse? | |
| 13:41:03 | mriedem | i feel better | |
| 13:41:18 | mriedem | #1 would be a scarier race imo | |
| 13:41:37 | mriedem | and could still happen, but chances are slim - at least in our CI env which isn't that load intensive | |
| 13:41:54 | mriedem | #1 happens after the source node RT pulls the allocations for it's own uuid, | |
| 13:42:19 | mriedem | so to hit #1, that means the allocations are gone for that node between the time it pulls them and the time it processes it's list of untracked instances | |
| 13:42:45 | mriedem | i think #2 is fixed by making the RT check the vm_state of the instance before trying to delete it's allocations | |
| 13:42:49 | mriedem | which is something jay was working on yesterday | |
| 13:42:51 | leakypipes | for the record, guys, I should be done with my patch shortly. | |
| 13:43:00 | bauzas | mriedem: yup, saw the pike-3 change this morning | |
| 13:43:02 | leakypipes | just working on unit tests now | |
| 13:43:15 | bauzas | it was already merged | |
| 13:43:19 | dansmith | mriedem: insert some artificial rpc delay into the periodic and see if #1 happens | |
| 13:43:41 | mriedem | i can do that | |
| 13:44:30 | mriedem | cdent: bauzas: also https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1707071 if you haven't seen that yet | |
| 13:44:31 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1707071 in OpenStack Compute (nova) ocata "Compute nodes will fight over allocations during migration" [Medium,Confirmed] | |
| 13:44:40 | bauzas | not yet indeed | |
| 13:44:57 | bauzas | mriedem: dansmith: leakypipes: I thought about something this night | |
| 13:45:04 | bauzas | cdent: ^ | |
| 13:45:13 | leakypipes | dansmith: you need to change your clothes. | |
| 13:45:31 | bauzas | what if we should just get the current allocations before deleting them by the scheduler, so in case we know we have a problem, we could put them again ? | |
| 13:45:32 | dansmith | heh | |
| 13:45:42 | bauzas | oh snap, FF | |
| 13:46:07 | cdent | thanks mriedem | |
| 13:46:48 | superdan | bauwser: get + check is just as safe as get + delete + re-put, except you never have to delete | |
| 13:46:49 | superdan | not sure why we would do the latter | |
| 13:47:06 | bauwser | mriedem: superdan: leakypipes: oh, and me and cdent just discussed about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/427200/ : it could be important for operators | |
| 13:47:50 | bauwser | superdan: sure, was just wondering if it was simplier than just trying to get two allocations for both source and target when moving | |
| 13:48:00 | bauwser | I know it's the consensus | |
| 13:48:05 | superdan | I don't see how it helps | |
| 13:48:06 | bauwser | and I totally agree with it | |
| 13:48:06 | mriedem | bauwser: yes there is an odd scenario in there which i commented on | |
| 13:48:14 | superdan | without two allocations we're not accounting for the resources used by a moving instance | |
| 13:48:19 | bauwser | but I do wonder if we could simplify the problem | |
| 13:48:33 | bauwser | at least for the races we know of | |
| 13:48:48 | superdan | well, the double allocation. there's still only one allocation for the instance | |
| 13:49:08 | bauwser | the problem here is that we have 3 different services looking at placement when moving : #1 scheduler, #2 source compute, #3 target compute | |
| 13:49:21 | superdan | that's kindof the point of placement right? | |
| 13:49:40 | bauwser | yeah, I know, but that means we have like shared information | |
| 13:49:56 | bauwser | but I think we discussed that yesterday | |
| 13:49:56 | mriedem | that's the point | |
| 13:49:57 | mriedem | the global view | |
| 13:50:03 | superdan | yeah, that's the whole thing | |
| 13:50:11 | bauwser | anyway, I don't want to nitpick | |
| 13:50:26 | mriedem | but yes that means old code that assumes it's all local and owns everything at any given time has to change | |
| 13:50:32 | superdan | it's not the shared state/view/responsibility that concerns me, it's that the current RT was designed for a different model | |
| 13:50:38 | bauwser | I'm just trying to see how to help with the problems we know about multiple services taking the same allocations | |
| 13:51:43 | leakypipes | hopefully my new patch's code comments explain the situation well enough. | |
| 13:51:47 | bauwser | ideally, eventually, I'm not sure we need resouretrackers for computes | |
| 13:52:01 | superdan | bauwser: we don't in the long run | |
| 13:52:01 | bauwser | if allocations would only be done by schedulers | |
| 13:52:15 | superdan | we still need some of that code on the computes, | |
| 13:52:19 | superdan | but not the full RT | |
| 13:52:23 | bauwser | I'd see RTs just *deleting* allocations if something goes mad | |
| 13:52:26 | superdan | that's what I was saying yesterday | |
| 13:52:28 | bauwser | superdan: yeah, I know | |
| 13:52:46 | bauwser | I'm just thinking out loud to try to identify how we could simplify | |
| 13:52:48 | superdan | so.... :) | |
| 13:52:57 | superdan | okay :) | |
| 13:53:01 | bauwser | but I agree with you, using the existing RT means tech deby | |
| 13:53:22 | superdan | Tech Deby.. that's like the host of a kids show about computers? | |
| 13:54:25 | bauwser | :) | |
| 13:54:43 | bauwser | my keyboard is AZERYT :p | |
| 13:55:37 | superdan | T and Y are together on both | |
| 13:55:49 | superdan | I thought it was AZERTY? | |
| 13:56:59 | bauwser | rather, yting | |
| 13:59:59 | cdent | can someone merge this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/488363/ looking at that warning is getting tiresome | |
| 14:05:28 | kashyap | superdan: Thanks for the review on this: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485752/ | |
| 14:05:38 | kashyap | superdan: And thanks for the little snark, too :P | |
| 14:06:10 | superdan | heh | |
| 14:06:56 | kashyap | Can anyone +W it? I can also backport it to the revlevant upstream branches | |
| 14:09:28 | superdan | kashyap: sdague loves +Wing patches like that | |