| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-08-16 | |||
| 15:24:26 | dansmith | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/494216/1 | |
| 15:24:33 | dtantsur | totally, lemme see | |
| 15:24:42 | dansmith | I think I'm the only one around that can land that so it'd be good to have some backup +1s on there :) | |
| 15:28:00 | dtantsur | mind is there :) | |
| 15:28:20 | dtantsur | I've wait for an ironic job before, but I have no idea what exactly it's going to run, given that ironic does not have stable/pike yet.. | |
| 15:28:31 | dtantsur | so it may fail for a random reason | |
| 15:29:17 | dansmith | sorry, are you saying we should wait? | |
| 15:32:49 | dtantsur | dansmith: no, I'm saying we unfortunately cannot.. | |
| 15:32:56 | dansmith | ack | |
| 16:09:24 | dansmith | I guess we won't be getting jay then | |
| 16:09:58 | cdent | dansmith: is he on weird hours right now? I saw reviews from him at 8am-ish my time this morning | |
| 16:10:15 | dansmith | yeah he's in russia or whatever | |
| 16:12:12 | cdent | somewhere eastness | |
| 16:16:18 | dansmith | johnthetubaguy: still around? | |
| 16:29:42 | melwitt | dansmith: the stable/ocata stack is all merged, so we just need to approve stable/newton here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/491844/ | |
| 16:30:03 | melwitt | or tonyb ^ | |
| 16:31:12 | dansmith | melwitt: yep done | |
| 16:31:30 | melwitt | ty | |
| 16:32:33 | dansmith | also assuming we're punting the cells meeting again today | |
| 16:33:31 | melwitt | yep same | |
| 16:33:40 | melwitt | we are mriedemless | |
| 16:37:00 | melwitt | speaking of that, I'm going to be out on PTO mon-wed next week, FYI | |
| 16:37:20 | openstackgerrit | John Griffith proposed openstack/nova master: Implement new attach Cinder flow https://review.openstack.org/330285 | |
| 16:37:51 | dansmith | okay | |
| 16:40:59 | openstackgerrit | John Griffith proposed openstack/nova master: Implement new attach Cinder flow https://review.openstack.org/330285 | |
| 16:47:22 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Account for shared storage in the report client https://review.openstack.org/491098 | |
| 16:47:23 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Add functional resize tests using shared storage https://review.openstack.org/490733 | |
| 17:18:55 | openstackgerrit | David Rabel proposed openstack/nova master: Adds support for gracefull shutdown for VMware instances https://review.openstack.org/494169 | |
| 17:22:43 | openstackgerrit | Ken'ichi Ohmichi proposed openstack/nova master: Fix contributor documentation https://review.openstack.org/494277 | |
| 17:42:35 | openstackgerrit | Pavlo Shchelokovskyy proposed openstack/nova master: Shuffle best hosts from weighed hosts https://review.openstack.org/494136 | |
| 18:28:29 | dansmith | melwitt: you wanna send this? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/493963/4 | |
| 18:28:44 | dansmith | it's just a "don't end up with things that sum to zero 'cause placement will reject it" sort of deal | |
| 18:34:17 | melwitt | dansmith: on it | |
| 18:42:08 | melwitt | dansmith: +W | |
| 18:42:15 | dansmith | thanks | |
| 18:42:21 | dansmith | cdent: you gonna propose the backport? | |
| 18:42:28 | cdent | can do, sure | |
| 18:42:32 | dansmith | it'd be nice if someone else would since I have to +2+W these | |
| 18:42:33 | dansmith | thanks | |
| 18:47:14 | cdent | dansmith: oh, am I supposed to wait until it merges? it seems that not doing so has meant it doesn’t get the nice references to the commit. oops. | |
| 18:47:40 | dansmith | cdent: you should be fine to use the current hash with cherry-pick -x | |
| 18:48:30 | dansmith | which shouldn't change unless we have to modify the current one | |
| 18:48:34 | dansmith | which is unlikely | |
| 18:48:56 | melwitt | dansmith: have you seen this or heard of some discussion about it? it makes the scheduler always spread instead of pack https://review.openstack.org/#/c/494136 | |
| 18:49:32 | dansmith | melwitt: I think someone poked jay about that this morning but I havent' looked at all | |
| 18:49:44 | melwitt | okay. I'm just surprised by it | |
| 18:50:04 | dansmith | cdent: if you can update that backport with the header that'd be cool, otherwise I'll just wait and do it when it merges.. at least you'll be the owner that way | |
| 18:50:12 | cdent | yeah, wil do | |
| 18:50:18 | dansmith | I'll check on it when I get back from lunch | |
| 18:50:22 | dansmith | thanks | |
| 18:53:10 | cdent | never try to interact with gerrit while also trying to interact with panicking daugher and mother | |
| 19:11:33 | cdent | melwitt, dansmith: why is it that some people love pack so much? | |
| 19:11:49 | cdent | that fix looks right on for the ironic case | |
| 19:12:23 | cdent | (because it is only randomize those hosts in the weighted list that match the first weight) | |
| 19:14:01 | melwitt | cdent: I'm not certain how much they love it but it's currently possible to pack and after this change I think it's not, correct? the use case for fill-first is the ability to schedule large instances. in spread-first, you could easily lose the ability to schedule large instances | |
| 19:14:32 | melwitt | yeah, I understand for ironic it would be fine. but this is changing it across the board, right? | |
| 19:15:01 | cdent | if you want a resource provider to be for large instances, just set min_unit > 1 on it’s resource? | |
| 19:15:33 | cdent | I’m slightly kidding on that. I know that we have to maintain existing behaviors and expectations, but still… also s/'// | |
| 19:15:35 | melwitt | at the very least, there should be a release note that explains that fill-first is no longer possible to signal the change in behavior | |
| 19:16:38 | melwitt | this is the sort of thing we'd usually email the operators ML about to get a quick check if anyone cares about fill-first anymore | |
| 19:18:27 | melwitt | and if there's a way to address the use case with resource provider settings, then that's probably fine. something to include in the release note | |
| 19:19:04 | dansmith | cdent: spreading uses more power, means lower utilization on your hosts, and in the case of windows, makes you bleed on the license fee like crazy | |
| 19:20:25 | cdent | there’s an easy fix to that windows problem :) no, I get it, I just, meh, reality... | |
| 19:21:35 | cdent | hmm, so right now in libvirt at least, we provide now way to control min_unit. I guess we’ll want to change that eventually | |
| 19:22:23 | melwitt | yeah, and I want to know why setting host_subset_size isn't sufficient. that's the knob for adjusting the spread or pack | |
| 19:22:41 | melwitt | it's mentioned in the commit message but I didn't get what it means | |
| 19:26:21 | cdent | melwitt: do jay and pavlo cover that in their discussion on ps2? | |
| 19:27:35 | cdent | heh, and simultaneously jay said the same thing on the review | |
| 19:33:15 | melwitt | yeah, my bad | |
| 19:40:35 | dansmith | melwitt: from briefly looking, I'd expect that we're basically using the natural ordering of the resource providers as returned from placement, | |
| 19:40:47 | dansmith | which means the order isn't predictable, but it is consistent | |
| 19:41:07 | dansmith | which would mean that if you don't have any weights configured and you just want to pack, this would completely break your desired behavior | |
| 19:42:25 | melwitt | dansmith: okay, so the question there would be, could we get around by not random shuffling if weights are all 0 or can 0 not be treated as a special thing? is there a way to detect no weights have been configured | |
| 19:42:33 | cdent | where does the order that makes things pack come from is there are no weighers? | |
| 19:42:49 | cdent | if there | |
| 19:43:16 | dansmith | melwitt: maybe? I'm not sure I really see the problem here anyway | |
| 19:43:39 | dansmith | melwitt: if you want to spread, then spread. If you want to pack, you're _choosing_ less desirable placement in terms of performance | |
| 19:44:34 | melwitt | dansmith: I mean, we could keep this change if in the case of no weights configured, we don't do the random shuffle | |
| 19:45:25 | melwitt | what do you mean by you don't see the problem? you don't see the use case for the change? | |
| 19:45:26 | dansmith | I get that, I'm just not sure I see the point | |
| 19:45:29 | dansmith | ues | |
| 19:45:32 | melwitt | k | |
| 19:45:53 | cdent | the bug report goes into some detail on why it is bad for ironic, yeah? | |
| 19:46:00 | melwitt | I think the only point is the shuffling of same weights only vs shuffling of all (using host_subset_size) | |
| 19:46:08 | dansmith | it's basically "if the weighers don't know the difference between two things, then spread regardless of what you want" | |
| 19:46:24 | melwitt | yeah | |
| 19:46:31 | dansmith | like, two things that score the same are not equal if you want packing | |
| 19:46:39 | melwitt | right | |
| 19:46:47 | dansmith | and AFAICT, this is just choosing one default over the other (reversing the current default) right? | |
| 19:46:59 | melwitt | but the change wants the ability to shuffle things that score the same | |
| 19:47:23 | melwitt | that is, they can't get what they want with host_subset_size | |
| 19:47:49 | dansmith | yeah, but they're breaking pack people because they want to shuffle a smaller set of the top results | |
| 19:48:08 | melwitt | yeah I know. I was trying to think if there's some way to get them what they want and also not break pack people | |
| 19:48:36 | dansmith | sorry, I realize you think I mean I don't understand what they want | |
| 19:48:37 | dansmith | I do, | |
| 19:48:53 | melwitt | no, I know that you understand | |
| 19:48:54 | dansmith | I just think it's not the automatic applies-to-everybody performance optimization that they think it is | |
| 19:49:03 | dansmith | ack | |
| 19:49:18 | melwitt | I was just trying to explain what I was saying, that I was brainstorming if there's way to fulfill both use cases | |
| 19:49:42 | dansmith | yep yep | |