Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-08-02
20:34:09 sdague because otherwise I'll look at that tomorrow, because the current toc is driving me nuts
20:34:33 sdague also, this is our top current 404 - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/490181/
20:34:47 sdague 56 fails on that in the last 2 days
20:35:00 mriedem sdague: nope
20:36:28 mriedem sdague: you should rebase on top of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/489641/
20:36:43 sdague mriedem: sure
20:37:00 openstackgerrit Sean Dague proposed openstack/nova master: add top 404 redirect https://review.openstack.org/490181
20:39:05 mriedem you have to re-sort now too
20:39:20 openstackgerrit Sean Dague proposed openstack/nova master: sort redirectmatch lines https://review.openstack.org/490182
20:39:29 sdague yep, done
20:39:42 mriedem hot
20:39:43 mriedem dog
20:40:55 mriedem all approved
20:41:26 sdague \o/
20:46:10 openstackgerrit Sean Dague proposed openstack/nova master: fix rpc broken rst comment https://review.openstack.org/490197
20:46:12 sdague mriedem: one more for you
20:46:18 sdague smallest patch possible
20:46:53 mriedem show it shows up
20:46:55 mriedem -10
20:47:39 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: fix rpc broken rst comment https://review.openstack.org/490197
20:55:58 mriedem dansmith: there is a false sense of passing in the resize to same host tests https://review.openstack.org/#/c/490085/5/nova/tests/functional/test_servers.py@1300
20:56:51 dansmith mriedem: I made that change in response to a failure
20:58:08 dansmith that was actually one of the first changes I made, in response to a fail
20:58:15 dansmith lemme pull it out and see
20:59:51 dansmith but if it's dead code, then it's not affecting the passingness right?
21:00:22 dansmith yeah, removing it locally doesn't affect anything
21:00:48 mriedem i'll fix
21:00:50 dansmith maybe I misread the trace and modified it in the wrong place initially
21:00:52 dansmith sorry
21:00:54 mriedem i need to tweak the bottom test change
21:01:10 dansmith can I blame the break-up of everything into non-unified test cases?
21:01:18 mriedem sure
21:01:50 mriedem blame it on the rain
21:13:10 jaypipes ugh... rebase hell after pulling in mriedem's changes.
21:13:27 jaypipes thought this was code that wasn't overlapping :(
21:13:34 mriedem jaypipes: i'm fixing that stack now too
21:13:39 mriedem should be up in a couple minutes
21:14:45 jaypipes mriedem: I was working on the resize-same-host problem
21:15:49 mriedem in the compute?
21:15:51 mriedem or scheduler?
21:16:16 jaypipes mriedem: in the report client. fixing up and adding tests for the section dansmith had marked "this is cheating"
21:16:27 mriedem ok i haven't looked at that yet
21:16:40 jaypipes mriedem: fixing up the disk_gb calculation stuff.
21:16:50 cdent I gotta crash, need to not repeat last night’s too lateness. If there’s unclear state to pick up in the morning, please send a status mail or something like that.
21:17:09 jaypipes k
21:17:23 cdent Speaking of state: I’m not gonig to be around on friday, so if somebody else wants to do an rp/placement update, have at
21:17:37 cdent good night and good luk
21:17:41 cdent and luck even
21:17:43 jaypipes ciao
21:19:32 jaypipes mriedem: I'll wait on you, then. cuz I pulled the latest update you pushed for the "remove provider allocs in confirm/revert resize" patch above and it's all fooey.
21:19:50 mriedem i had just rebased
21:19:56 mriedem and cherry picked that from gerrit
21:20:06 dansmith maybe we should merge some of the turducken
21:20:11 dansmith fewer plates in the air
21:20:15 mriedem yeah, about there
21:20:26 mriedem chris brought up something in my change i need to address
21:25:54 jaypipes dansmith: if you're looking for something to get your mind off this resize stuff, your opinion on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474914/7/os_vif/objects/vif.py would be useful.
21:34:08 mriedem ok coming up
21:35:01 mriedem i assume someone is going to fix the pep8 failures in the last change
21:35:10 dansmith jaypipes said he was
21:35:21 jaypipes yes
21:35:43 dansmith did we get jenkins runs?
21:36:21 dansmith btw,
21:36:49 dansmith jaypipes: reading your (now) top patch earlier, I was kinda thinking the ocata compat thing could/should be split from the fixing of resize_confirm
21:36:56 dansmith are those tied together in some obscure way I'm not seeing?
21:37:29 jaypipes dansmith: yeah, agree with you
21:37:38 jaypipes dansmith: this all kinda snowballed on me. :(
21:38:05 dansmith cdent rightly noted that the patch is large and gangly at this point
21:38:18 jaypipes yup
21:41:25 mriedem f i got distracted and screwed up my rebase
21:51:30 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: remove provider allocs in confirm/revert resize https://review.openstack.org/488510
21:51:31 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Test resize to same host with placement api https://review.openstack.org/489973
21:51:31 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Sum allocations in the scheduler when resizing to the same host https://review.openstack.org/490085
21:53:16 mriedem ok i'm +2 on the bottom resize test change
21:53:21 mriedem and my middle change should be ready
21:53:34 jaypipes mriedem: lemme review the second then.
21:53:46 jaypipes mriedem: would certainly be easier to merge the bottom two...
21:54:16 jaypipes mriedem: will +2 the bottom one when I see the test runs
22:01:08 openstackgerrit Chris Friesen proposed openstack/nova master: Filter out stale migrations in resource audit https://review.openstack.org/339715
22:09:48 tonyb mriedem: ANy chance we can get https://review.openstack.org/#/c/489078/ some love. It's needed to unblock a glanceclient update
22:12:18 mriedem wtf what tests rely on those?
22:13:07 mriedem oh nova.tests.unit.test_wsgi.TestWSGIServerWithSSL
22:14:00 mriedem done
22:14:09 mriedem tonyb: see if dansmith will love up on that now
22:14:51 tonyb mriedem: Thanks
22:15:11 mriedem jaypipes: dansmith: fyi i also backported the PUT allocations overwrite change to ocata https://review.openstack.org/#/c/490231/
22:15:40 mriedem kangaroo sausage
22:15:42 dansmith really really trying not to say something dirty here
22:15:50 dansmith about "love up" on this patch
22:15:58 tonyb dansmith: LOL
22:16:10 colby_ down the newton version of nova support passing the libvirt cpu model from the flavor metadata hw:cpu_model ? Ive been having trouble finding that answer. Ive seen people say it worked in kilo but I have been unable to get it to work on newton
22:17:36 mriedem colby_: no, those are configured on the compute node, not something passed through flavor extra specs
22:17:41 mriedem unless someone has hacked that into their cloud
22:18:10 colby_ thanks!
22:18:35 mriedem flavor extra specs are a complete wild west so someone could have hacked that in
22:20:09 colby_ yea was hoping it would support it. Was tyring to have flavors that only worked on newer hypervisors, through host aggregates and would use higher cpu model. We use ceph backend so we default to the lowest cpu model for live migration but would like to be able to create some tiers
22:25:19 mriedem colby_: cburgess might have some tips
22:37:39 cfriesen colby_: mriedem: we hacked in setting the cpu model for a subset of Intel models in the flavor extra specs, and back around kilo we proposed upstreaming it but it turned out to be difficult to do generally (due to different clouds/hypervisors not treating cpu models the same)
22:38:32 cfriesen colby_: could you use host aggregates, one per model that you want to expose?
23:29:28 colby_ cfriesen: we could. I was tyring to do it in a way where the older cpu model flavors could still run on the newer hypervisors to not restrict those to just the old hypervisors. I was hoping to be able to have instances with different cpu models on the same hypervisor. But that may not be an option.

Earlier   Later