| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-09-20 | |||
| 17:32:46 | tasker | conductor says "no valid host" because that's what scheduler says. | |
| 17:32:53 | mriedem | i'm wondering if the retry filter shouldn't be ignored here... | |
| 17:33:16 | tasker | if i send another instance to the same target, retryfilter passes the host. | |
| 17:33:42 | melwitt | RetryFilter removing a host implies that it tried to run the pre-migration on a host already | |
| 17:34:01 | melwitt | so something is weird here | |
| 17:34:21 | tasker | nothing logged at the compute at INFO or lower. | |
| 17:34:25 | mriedem | i'm wondering if the original instance request spec has retries set on it, and that's goofing up the retry filter during live migration | |
| 17:34:55 | tasker | something I could see in the database? | |
| 17:35:30 | mriedem | yeah, you should be able to pull the serialized json request spec out of the db | |
| 17:36:04 | mriedem | select spec from nova_api.request_specs where instance_uuid=xyz; | |
| 17:36:34 | mriedem | melwitt: this is where we get the request spec during live migration https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/conductor/tasks/live_migrate.py#L227 | |
| 17:36:40 | mriedem | we don't set a retry attribute on the request spec | |
| 17:37:16 | mriedem | we pass it along from the api if we are able to look it up https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/api.py#L3860 | |
| 17:37:36 | mriedem | which would be the original request spec from when we built the instance, which would have retry stuff set on it | |
| 17:38:03 | mriedem | if that wasn't set, we'd ignore it here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/filters/retry_filter.py#L31 | |
| 17:38:42 | mriedem | which, this is all kinds of weird because the conductor task is handling it's own retry logic https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/conductor/tasks/live_migrate.py#L344 | |
| 17:38:53 | mriedem | which tells me, when doing a live migration, we don't want to even ask the RetryFilter | |
| 17:39:01 | mriedem | bauzas: are you around? | |
| 17:39:44 | mriedem | tasker: if you can get that request spec json blob out of the db, that should tell us if the retry attribute is set and what hosts and how many times it's been retried during the initial build | |
| 17:41:43 | tasker | mriedem: yes, "retry" is set and is populated with both hypervisors that I'm trying to send it to. | |
| 17:42:16 | tasker | would you like to see it? | |
| 17:42:43 | mriedem | sure, throw it in a paste | |
| 17:46:32 | mriedem | i think this would actually fix the problem http://paste.openstack.org/show/621556/ | |
| 17:46:40 | melwitt | mriedem: so the first time you build an instance, if it fails host X, it will save that to the RequestSpec so host X will never be tried again ever? I didn't know it persisted something like that | |
| 17:46:47 | mriedem | oops one issue there | |
| 17:47:00 | tasker | http://paste.openstack.org/show/621557/ | |
| 17:47:09 | mriedem | melwitt: yeah | |
| 17:48:54 | mriedem | melwitt: i think this https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/conductor/manager.py#L583 | |
| 17:49:05 | mriedem | conductor build_instances is called from compute on a reschedule | |
| 17:49:14 | mriedem | and will put the chosen host in the retry object's list of hosts it's tried | |
| 17:49:14 | melwitt | well, I learned a thing. I had thought retries were a locally tracked thing per request | |
| 17:49:28 | mriedem | request spec is the persisted object that keeps on giving | |
| 17:49:32 | mriedem | even when you don't want the gift | |
| 17:49:59 | mriedem | so i think this is the fix http://paste.openstack.org/show/621558/ | |
| 17:50:16 | melwitt | yeah. I wouldn't have chosen to track retries _forever_. I thought RequestSpec would only contain the original request requirements so they could be honored in the future | |
| 17:50:17 | mriedem | just like how we don't want the original forced host/node during live migration, we don't want the original retry hosts either probably | |
| 17:51:45 | tasker | mriedem: I'm going to try your patch out. | |
| 17:52:01 | mriedem | tasker: yeah so the request spec had 2 original attempts, on compute-3.openstack.local and compute-2.openstack.local | |
| 17:52:11 | tasker | both targets I'm trying to send it to. | |
| 17:52:16 | mriedem | ok | |
| 17:52:30 | mriedem | and that's why this fails https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/filters/retry_filter.py#L44 | |
| 17:52:36 | tasker | which part of nova would I apply that to? compute, conductor, or scheduler? | |
| 17:52:50 | mriedem | conductor, but note, that diff is against master branch code | |
| 17:53:20 | tasker | let me see if I can adapt to the branch that I'm using. | |
| 17:54:09 | mriedem | http://paste.openstack.org/show/621559/ is latest stable/newton | |
| 17:55:12 | tasker | cool, thanks. I'm going to step out for some "fresh air" and then apply this. | |
| 17:55:19 | mriedem | it does stand to reason that if this instance failed to build originally on those 2 hosts, that live migrating it there might fail too...but we don't know why it originally failed, could have been a resource claim issue at the time | |
| 17:55:36 | tasker | that's a fair observation. | |
| 17:57:56 | melwitt | yeah, often it's a failed claim. and also what if that compute host is eventually replaced over the lifetime of the cluster, making it a fresh candidate for several instances that might still avoid it because they once failed to build there back when it was a different machine | |
| 18:06:45 | tasker | live migration successful | |
| 18:08:17 | tasker | mriedem and melwitt -- thank you so much for helping to figure out what was wrong. | |
| 18:11:01 | mriedem | nice | |
| 18:11:07 | mriedem | tasker: want to open a bug? i have a fix with the test locally | |
| 18:11:40 | tasker | sure. let me collect my notes. | |
| 18:12:31 | cdent | dansmith: responded to some of your comments on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/500410/ . you semi-accidentally identified a separate problem. The nullable thing I’m not quite sure how to proceed, depending on what we want to do. | |
| 18:14:56 | mriedem | cdent: congratulations, you have the first complete blueprint in queens https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/placement-deregister-objects | |
| 18:15:35 | dansmith | cdent: replied, I don't think there's an issue.. just make those not nullable and (separately) always set them and I think we're good | |
| 18:24:25 | cdent | dansmith: except that they are only ever used on input, never output, so why bother reading them? | |
| 18:25:01 | tasker | mriedem: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1718512 | |
| 18:25:02 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1718512 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "migration fails if instance build failed on destination host" [Undecided,New] | |
| 18:25:07 | mriedem | thanks | |
| 18:25:19 | dansmith | cdent: because it's (effectively) free, it makes the object consistent | |
| 18:25:26 | tasker | I hope that summary / description is clear enough. | |
| 18:28:40 | cdent | dansmith: okay, I’m happy to do that. I’m not sure why consistency matters _now_ but if we’d like it as a general rule, that’s fine. | |
| 18:29:48 | dansmith | cdent: clearly it doesn't have a user now, but we're an abstract model on top of the data store and unless there is a reason not to, we should do that thing, IMHO | |
| 18:30:09 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Ignore original retried hosts when live migrating https://review.openstack.org/505771 | |
| 18:30:17 | mriedem | tasker: ^ i'm going to wip that and send something to the dev/ops lists for this, because if we change this for live migration, we also have to do it for cold migrate/evacuate and unshelve | |
| 18:30:23 | mriedem | melwitt: ^ | |
| 18:30:43 | melwitt | ack | |
| 18:30:58 | cdent | dansmith: does YAGNI count as a reason not to? | |
| 18:31:42 | dansmith | cdent: I dunno what GNI is in there, but if you think there's a reason not to, then don't do it and we can just leave my -1 on there | |
| 18:32:52 | cdent | I’ve just always been brought up on the idea of not doing things unless there is a reason to do so, but as I said, I’m happy to do it and will do it. | |
| 18:34:24 | mriedem | if they are in the same table it seems easy peasy to just load them, it'd be one thing if we were lazy loading a big table join or something, | |
| 18:34:42 | mriedem | but if/when someone needs these, it's going to be weird debugging why they just aren't already in the object when it's read from the db | |
| 18:34:45 | mriedem | like every other object we have | |
| 18:34:48 | dansmith | mriedem: it's a join, but it's super tiny | |
| 18:34:52 | mriedem | oh | |
| 18:35:12 | mriedem | like the usages/consumers table join thing? | |
| 18:35:13 | dansmith | mriedem: like a 1:1 integer join | |
| 18:35:15 | dansmith | yes | |
| 18:35:16 | dansmith | consumers | |
| 18:35:39 | mriedem | i'm assuming at some point we actually intend on using these fields? | |
| 18:36:07 | dansmith | mriedem: if they're fields they should be loadable, and if we're never going to use them that way then maybe we shouldn't have them be fields | |
| 18:36:31 | mriedem | yeah i'd agree with that | |
| 18:36:36 | mriedem | i don't have context here though clearly | |
| 18:36:46 | dansmith | since consumer isn't a top level object in placement, getting them with allocations is the only way we can pull them out otherwise | |
| 18:36:51 | dansmith | unless we're querying for a consumer already | |
| 18:37:18 | dansmith | like if we needed to get all allocations against a resource provider | |
| 18:48:45 | mriedem | tasker: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2017-September/014233.html | |
| 18:49:08 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: [placement] manage cache headers https://review.openstack.org/495380 | |
| 18:55:54 | tasker | mriedem: thanks! I'll keep an eye out on these. | |
| 18:57:45 | tasker | mriedem and melwitt: I want to thank you two for taking the time to work with me on my issues for the last few days. your support has been a positive influence in my cloudy days. with your help, I've been able to progress with my upgrade trials. | |
| 18:59:20 | tasker | If you two are ever in the Kansas City area, let me know. first round's on me. | |
| 19:05:32 | mriedem | tasker: cool, you're welcome. you hit some weird issues so i'm glad we flushed those out and have fixes | |
| 19:13:18 | bauzas | mriedem: back now, wazzup ? | |
| 19:14:45 | mriedem | bauzas: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2017-September/014233.html | |
| 19:18:09 | bauzas | holy shit | |
| 19:18:34 | bauzas | mriedem: honestly, no reason to persist that | |
| 19:18:58 | bauzas | mriedem: if some host wasn't accepted for an instance create, there is no reason it will be excluded for a live migration | |
| 19:19:14 | bauzas | at least, we should still verify it by the scheduler | |