| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-09-06 | |||
| 14:09:46 | alex_xu | jaypipes: ^ | |
| 14:09:55 | alex_xu | jamespage: sorry for pointed to wrong person | |
| 14:10:15 | alex_xu | mriedem: but the notification isn't for single host, we must filter the info | |
| 14:10:18 | jaypipes | alex_xu: you mean RDT/CAT, right? | |
| 14:10:18 | mriedem | alex_xu: if you want a hypervisor agnostic solution, listen for notifications rather than polling libvirt directly | |
| 14:10:25 | alex_xu | jaypipes: yea | |
| 14:11:24 | mriedem | alex_xu: the instance.create.end payload would have the host/node information in it so yeah you'd have to filter but that doesn't seem hard | |
| 14:11:31 | bauzas | I don't get why it requires libvirt to be polled | |
| 14:12:02 | bauzas | and I second mriedem about subscribing to the notifications bus | |
| 14:12:30 | kashyap | bauzas: What requires libvirt to be polled? /me read it out of context; will read the scrollback | |
| 14:12:37 | alex_xu | mriedem: yea, that won't be so hard, that probably each node have a agent to listen the notification | |
| 14:12:41 | mriedem | bauzas: xenserver ci isn't going to care about unit test changes https://review.openstack.org/#/c/500968/ | |
| 14:12:51 | bauzas | holy ship, you're right | |
| 14:13:05 | alex_xu | bauzas: kashyap an external agent try to know there is new instance boot up | |
| 14:13:16 | mriedem | alex_xu: plus then you can use the fancy new versioned notifications and provide feedback to gibi | |
| 14:13:39 | alex_xu | mriedem: yeah | |
| 14:14:02 | gibi | yeah :) | |
| 14:14:03 | kashyap | alex_xu: Ah, it's the L3 CAT interface. I see some in-progress design work of exposing it in libvirt upstream | |
| 14:14:23 | alex_xu | kashyap: yea, looks like libvirt interface is slow | |
| 14:14:49 | kashyap | alex_xu: Yeah, there's a new thread that started a day ago | |
| 14:14:56 | kashyap | Did you see that? About the new RFC / design | |
| 14:15:36 | alex_xu | kashyap: not yet, another team member follow that, probably I will tell him | |
| 14:16:35 | mdbooth | melwitt: You about? Spotted something potentially funky looking at your change https://review.openstack.org/#/c/498983/ | |
| 14:16:48 | mdbooth | Not directly related to your patch | |
| 14:17:13 | alex_xu | kashyap: thanks for the info | |
| 14:17:23 | mdbooth | I couldn't see where we wrap swap_volume in any kind of lock | |
| 14:17:41 | kashyap | alex_xu: Here it is: "Yet another RFC for [Intel] CAT" - https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-September/msg00072.html | |
| 14:17:43 | mdbooth | e.g. by setting task_state | |
| 14:17:53 | mdbooth | I expect I just missed it, though. | |
| 14:18:14 | mdbooth | Do you happen to know if there is any locking around that method? | |
| 14:19:00 | mdbooth | If there isn't, the save/restore xml after a long-running rebase mechanism would be potentially pretty bad. | |
| 14:19:14 | kashyap | mdbooth: I read your comment this morning, and did find your task exclusion observation interesting | |
| 14:19:25 | gibi | mriedem: could you confirm that we want to delete the allocation of the instance during _destroy_evacuated_instances if the instance failed an evacuation? | |
| 14:19:35 | gibi | mriedem: context is in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/499237/ | |
| 14:19:36 | kashyap | Hmm, although the patch is a strict improvement as-is, now I wonder about your comment - where is the bug lurking... | |
| 14:19:50 | dansmith | mriedem: I'm going to be in an airport when the cells meeting is going on | |
| 14:19:57 | dansmith | mriedem: I can try to run it from there, but no promises | |
| 14:20:03 | alex_xu | kashyap: thanks! | |
| 14:20:25 | mriedem | dansmith: let's just skip | |
| 14:20:35 | dansmith | mriedem: cool | |
| 14:20:56 | gibi | mriedem: I'm asking because then a subsequent rebuild needs to allocate resources again | |
| 14:22:56 | mriedem | gibi: hmm, and a rebuild to the same host won't do a claim, and the RT won't auto-heal the allocations on the node | |
| 14:23:05 | mriedem | and rebuild (not evacuate) bypasses the scheduler | |
| 14:23:22 | mriedem | that's a good point | |
| 14:23:39 | gibi | mriedem: yes, that is my fear | |
| 14:24:03 | gibi | mriedem: in the other hand we could put the instance to error state after the failed evac and keep the allocation | |
| 14:24:17 | gibi | mriedem: this way the rebuild doesn't need to allocate | |
| 14:24:23 | mriedem | i'm in the middle of something and will have to digest the replies in that review later | |
| 14:24:30 | mriedem | gibi: we might also just have to leave this until the ptg | |
| 14:24:37 | gibi | mriedem: sure | |
| 14:24:59 | mriedem | could you add it to the ptg etherpad in case it has to wait until next week? | |
| 14:25:10 | gibi | mriedem: adding... | |
| 14:26:23 | hogepodge | mriedem: initial schedule is up, let me know if times work for you, leave notes if things need to be shuffled. It's all preliminary right now and subject to change. https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/InteropDenver2017PTG | |
| 14:27:52 | mriedem | hogepodge: ok thanks | |
| 14:32:31 | gibi | mriedem: I added it to the etherpad | |
| 14:36:40 | mriedem | gibi: thanks | |
| 14:40:14 | hogepodge | dtantsur|afk: ^^ | |
| 14:41:46 | openstackgerrit | Hongbin Lu proposed openstack/nova master: Handle exception on adding secgroup https://review.openstack.org/465173 | |
| 14:41:51 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: rbd: Remove unnecessary 'encode' calls https://review.openstack.org/412356 | |
| 14:42:32 | stephenfin | Hurrah ^ | |
| 14:44:13 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Remove qpid description in doc https://review.openstack.org/499087 | |
| 14:54:19 | dansmith | mriedem: dtantsur|afk: see this ironic migration thing? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/501025/2 | |
| 14:56:57 | mriedem | now i do | |
| 14:58:31 | esberglu | I'm getting the following unauthorized command error from nova-rootwrap intermittently | |
| 14:58:32 | esberglu | http://paste.openstack.org/show/620547/ | |
| 14:58:58 | mriedem | sdague: looks like https://review.openstack.org/#/c/457636/ is happy - the devstack patch to install the osc-placement plugin | |
| 14:59:01 | mriedem | http://logs.openstack.org/36/457636/9/check/gate-tempest-dsvm-neutron-full-ubuntu-xenial/ad2b234/logs/pip2-freeze.txt.gz | |
| 14:59:08 | esberglu | In /etc/nova/rootwrap.d/compute.filters I have the following line | |
| 14:59:09 | esberglu | tee: CommandFilter, tee, root | |
| 14:59:25 | esberglu | Anyone have any idea why sometimes that filter is failing to match? | |
| 15:03:25 | sdague | mriedem: yep | |
| 15:07:41 | stephenfin | sdague: Is the RXTX factor flavor key still applicable with a neutron backend? | |
| 15:08:23 | sdague | stephenfin: I thought it was nova net (and maybe xen) only. But I don't know. | |
| 15:08:30 | mriedem | hmm, did we ever say in the pike release notes that conductor now needs it's nova.conf to have the [placement] section filled in? | |
| 15:08:44 | mriedem | stephenfin: no, i plan on deprecating that out of the api | |
| 15:08:49 | mriedem | just need to write the spec | |
| 15:09:05 | mriedem | and yes, it's really only nova net + xen | |
| 15:09:20 | stephenfin | mriedem: Excellent. I'm going to put that in the docs and mark bug 1688054 as invalid | |
| 15:09:21 | openstack | bug 1688054 in openstack-manuals "Flavors in Administrator Guide - confusing description for rxtx factor" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1688054 | |
| 15:09:46 | mriedem | stephenfin: that doesn't make the bug invalid | |
| 15:09:53 | mriedem | if the docs are wrong for how it's used today | |
| 15:09:57 | sdague | esberglu: where in the code is that called? | |
| 15:10:13 | stephenfin | Yeah, that's a good point. OK, I'll clarify the intent a little better so | |
| 15:10:25 | stephenfin | ...and join the flavor/flavor2 files | |
| 15:10:28 | stephenfin | #RefactoringFTW | |
| 15:13:55 | efried | esberglu IT or OOT? SDE or traditional? Is it a snapshot operation that's being tested? | |
| 15:13:57 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Test resource allocation during soft delete https://review.openstack.org/495159 | |
| 15:13:57 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Moving more utils to ServerResourceAllocationTestBase https://review.openstack.org/499539 | |
| 15:16:26 | efried | Okay, I think I answered my own questions esberglu | |
| 15:17:39 | efried | sdague: This is being done as part of the snapshot operation in our OOT driver: https://github.com/openstack/nova-powervm/blob/master/nova_powervm/virt/powervm/mgmt.py#L97-L100 | |
| 15:19:49 | esberglu | Sorry got pulled away for a few | |
| 15:19:56 | esberglu | efried: Yeah this is OOT snaphot | |
| 15:20:17 | efried | esberglu And presumably this is causing the test to fail. | |
| 15:20:26 | esberglu | efried: Yep | |
| 15:20:50 | efried | But the _tee_as_root doesn't raise, right? We just fail to find the disk in the next part of the code? | |
| 15:24:03 | esberglu | efried: The nova-rootwrap command raises when trying to execute that tee command | |
| 15:24:15 | efried | esberglu Oh. Boo. | |
| 15:24:34 | esberglu | efried: https://github.com/openstack/nova-powervm/blob/master/nova_powervm/virt/powervm/mgmt.py#L58 | |
| 15:24:57 | esberglu | It calls that execute which goes into the rootwrap filters and should match the tee line | |
| 15:25:15 | esberglu | But sometimes it isn't matching that tee filter | |