| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-10-16 | |||
| 16:28:50 | mriedem | sort of redundant in that way | |
| 16:30:26 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: Optional separate database for placement API https://review.openstack.org/362766 | |
| 16:31:42 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Remove dead parameter from '_create_domain_and_network' https://review.openstack.org/512352 | |
| 16:34:25 | alaski | I'll just apologize again for introducing shelve :) it's an interesting idea, but it really messes with the model of how things work | |
| 16:35:06 | mriedem | heh | |
| 16:35:07 | mriedem | oh laski | |
| 16:36:13 | mriedem | alaski: this came up today b/c someone reported a bug where they created an instance in a specific AZ, shelve offloaded, then on unshelve the AZ was gone so they get a NoValidHost | |
| 16:36:22 | mriedem | so that started a discussion on what we should do about fixing it, if anything | |
| 16:37:10 | mriedem | which reminds me, if you created your server with personality files and shelved it, those files are gone on unshelve | |
| 16:37:17 | mriedem | another reason to deprecate personality files https://review.openstack.org/#/c/509013/ | |
| 16:37:23 | mriedem | any other specs cores around want to +W ^ ? | |
| 16:38:45 | alaski | My first inclination is to say that when that AZ was removed whoever was doing it probably didn't realize that there were shelved instances there, and maybe that needs to be exposed better. | |
| 16:39:10 | mriedem | yeah that was one option - sylvain has a spec to not allow renaming or deleting AZs while there are instances tied to them | |
| 16:39:50 | alaski | that would probably affect resize as well | |
| 16:41:41 | alaski | I could also see an argument for being able to provide scheduling hints on any API requests that can cause an instance move. Though that's a fair amount of complexity to introeduce | |
| 16:41:59 | mriedem | that was another option that came up | |
| 16:42:12 | mriedem | and i'm on the fence about adding more functionality to the unshelve API if we kind of want to kill it long-term | |
| 16:43:35 | alaski | that's my favorite option, kill it, but I always felt like it was too entrenched for that | |
| 16:43:44 | mriedem | we actually have no idea | |
| 16:43:48 | mriedem | as to it's usage in the wild | |
| 16:43:52 | mriedem | that's the frustrating part | |
| 16:44:39 | alaski | yeah. I always wanted to think it wasn't really used. But at every summit a few people would mention it and want to make it better because they used it | |
| 16:45:02 | mriedem | there were those one guys that wanted to make it super fast somehow | |
| 16:45:38 | mriedem | like, enterprise fast | |
| 16:45:51 | mriedem | shelve at the speed of business | |
| 16:45:57 | alaski | haha | |
| 16:46:12 | alaski | you need a (tm) there | |
| 16:46:27 | mriedem | nova: shelving at the speed of business (tm) | |
| 16:46:35 | mriedem | needs a t-shirt | |
| 16:50:24 | alaski | I would wear that | |
| 16:52:00 | mriedem | alaski: here you go https://www.customink.com/designs/novashelve/scj0-00b6-zdmw/share?pc=EMAIL-40778&utm_campaign=shared%20design&utm_source=share%20link&utm_medium=shared%20design&utm_content=shared%20desktop | |
| 16:52:25 | mriedem | dansmith: ^ place orders now | |
| 16:52:30 | mriedem | supplies are limited | |
| 16:53:13 | alaski | minimum order of 6 | |
| 16:53:18 | mriedem | i can change the color | |
| 16:53:19 | mriedem | sec | |
| 16:54:59 | mriedem | https://www.customink.com/designs/novashelve/scj0-00b6-zdmw/share?pc=EMAIL-40778&utm_campaign=shared%20design&utm_source=share%20link&utm_medium=shared%20design&utm_content=shared%20desktop | |
| 16:55:21 | mriedem | $33?! | |
| 16:55:37 | mriedem | i'm not sure the joke is worth that much | |
| 16:56:24 | alaski | not quite | |
| 16:56:35 | mriedem | i'm also pretty sure the foundation people would not allow the usage of the logo on a shirt that makes fun of nova | |
| 16:58:31 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Handle InstanceNotFound when setting password via metadata https://review.openstack.org/472933 | |
| 16:59:38 | openstackgerrit | Matthew Booth proposed openstack/nova master: Remove reboot argument to _create_domain_and_network https://review.openstack.org/512363 | |
| 17:03:29 | dansmith | mriedem: lol | |
| 17:07:30 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Service user token requested with no auth https://review.openstack.org/512329 | |
| 17:07:42 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Make migration uuid hold allocations for migrating instances https://review.openstack.org/506420 | |
| 17:07:43 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Make live migration hold resources with a migration allocation https://review.openstack.org/507638 | |
| 17:08:13 | dtantsur | folks, could you please put spec https://review.openstack.org/#/c/449155/ on your review radar? | |
| 17:08:25 | dtantsur | this should be contained in the ironic driver, and may end up a big win for us | |
| 17:08:27 | dtantsur | thanks! | |
| 17:09:23 | dtantsur | mriedem: ^^ | |
| 17:29:04 | ralonsoh | dansmith: hi, about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/449257/42/nova/objects/instance_pci_requests.py. | |
| 17:29:40 | ralonsoh | dansmith: I modified the obj_make_compatible function to handle this. I don't know why I can't change the type of this field | |
| 17:30:59 | dansmith | ralonsoh: because an older node sending one of these to a newer node won't trigger a backport operation (since the version says it should be compatible), but it won't deserialize it with the right field type | |
| 17:31:18 | dansmith | ralonsoh: let me pull your patch down and make a change to show you, just a sec | |
| 17:31:36 | ralonsoh | dansmith: for sure, and thanks! | |
| 17:38:57 | abhi89 | dansmith, melwitt, sdague: please review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/505546/ .. its been pending since a long time now.. | |
| 17:40:51 | dansmith | ralonsoh: here's a test: https://pastebin.com/LapK0Rnz | |
| 17:41:00 | dansmith | ralonsoh: which gives you this: https://pastebin.com/cXTH5P2i | |
| 17:41:09 | dansmith | ralonsoh: revert your field change and run that and you'll see it passes | |
| 17:43:03 | ralonsoh | dansmith: but in the test, nova_object.version should be 1.1 if sent by an old node | |
| 17:43:22 | ralonsoh | dansmith: shouldn't it? | |
| 17:44:19 | dansmith | ralonsoh: it won't matter :) | |
| 18:01:58 | mriedem | dansmith: want to send this ocata change in? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/482219/ - that's holding up a newton change | |
| 18:02:14 | dansmith | "want" is a little strong | |
| 18:02:37 | mriedem | if you could find it in your heart | |
| 18:09:26 | mriedem | artom: hmm, tonyb raised a concern in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471356/ about whether or not VIR_DOMAIN_BLOCK_REBASE_COPY_DEV would be in the libvirt version we support in newton | |
| 18:09:34 | mriedem | it looks like VIR_DOMAIN_BLOCK_REBASE_COPY_DEV was added in 1.2.9 | |
| 18:09:46 | mriedem | and min supported version of libvirt in newton (and ocata) is 1.2.1 | |
| 18:10:11 | cdent | https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/placement/#resource-provider-allocations ) | |
| 18:10:11 | cdent | dansmith, mriedem, edleafe: in discussion on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/510625/ it was agreed that the GET /allocations/{consumer_uuid} rep should include project_id and user_id since PUT will require it. In your opinions should GET /resource_providers/{uuid}/allocations as well? I think not because the layout is much different (because the cardinality of the output) (see | |
| 18:15:54 | dansmith | cdent: I dunno, if there's not a need for it currently I wouldn't personally spend time on it | |
| 18:16:12 | dansmith | ideally I would think it would be best to have that information in each allocation, but.. | |
| 18:17:07 | mriedem | cdent: on GET /resource_providers/{uuid}/allocations you'd have to put project_id and user_id within each consumer-uuid keyed dict entry right? | |
| 18:17:17 | mriedem | i don't think we care about that, | |
| 18:17:41 | mriedem | if you really needed to take the result of GET /resource_providers/{uuid}/allocations and figure out the project/user for one of those allocation cosumers, you could turn around and call GET /allocations/{consumer_uuid} yeah? | |
| 18:17:44 | cdent | right, it would be weird | |
| 18:17:48 | cdent | yes | |
| 18:18:01 | cdent | cool, this is the answer I was hoping for | |
| 18:18:24 | mriedem | artom: so i think we probably need to either revert https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471353/ or put a fix on top | |
| 18:18:34 | mriedem | to not try and use VIR_DOMAIN_BLOCK_REBASE_COPY_DEV if it's not available | |
| 18:18:40 | dansmith | I can see uses for it it but like I say, I don't think there's anything begging for it right now | |
| 18:18:44 | cdent | for the consumer side I had to take jay’s only one join query recent cleanup and add four more to get the project and user inf | |
| 18:23:12 | melwitt | mriedem: yeah, nothing is calling InstanceList.get_count_by_vm_state. it was intended to be used for limiting the number of pending resizes but once we got to it, we decided not to change the existing quota behavior for resizes | |
| 18:33:39 | efried | alex_xu I reread https://review.openstack.org/#/c/497713/ with fresh eyes and commented. | |
| 18:37:18 | efried | alex_xu dansmith cdent edleafe mriedem Pursuant to this morning's discussion about traits-on-shared-with-nested, we should figure out whether there's a way to take aggregates out of the picture until ^ is figured out. | |
| 18:41:10 | cdent | efried: how far out of the picture do you want them to go? | |
| 18:41:56 | efried | cdent Well, the logic in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/479766/ is trying to handle hitting shared RPs with the results. | |
| 18:42:35 | efried | cdent And the logic it's using is at the very least implementing an arbitrary and undiscussed design point. | |
| 18:43:57 | efried | cdent Which is: When you ask for traits X, Y, and Z, I can give you back an allocation request (i.e. one hit in the list of GET /allocation_candidates) that has traits X and Y in the compute host RP but trait Z in a shared RP in the same aggregate as the compute host RP. | |
| 18:45:26 | cdent | presumably that shared RP is also satisfying some inventory requirement, not _just_ a trait? | |
| 18:45:28 | efried | This is going to break down as soon as we have any scenario more complicated than traits X, Y, and Z being mutually exclusive on the compute host and shared RP. | |
| 18:45:44 | artom | mriedem, ah crap | |
| 18:45:46 | efried | cdent Yeah, there's that too. I'm not sure that's being accounted for. | |
| 18:45:50 | mriedem | artom: i'm fixing | |
| 18:45:51 | artom | I thought I checked for min libvirt version | |
| 18:45:54 | artom | Clearly I didn't :( | |
| 18:46:13 | artom | At least not far back enough | |
| 18:46:52 | artom | mriedem, what's the fix? Check for libvirt version in code? | |
| 18:47:25 | efried | cdent I think my main issue is that I don't think we have the semantic codified for the general case in any spec. | |