Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-10-19
22:21:55 cburgess mikal My volume fix script wasn't required until the hot mess that is/was os-brick circa liberty.
22:28:50 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Use neutron's new port binding API for live migration https://review.openstack.org/375580
22:34:57 mriedem dansmith: i updated ^ based on some review i had after sean updated it from the call this morning
22:35:09 mriedem dansmith: one sticky thing in there yet which i know you won't like,
22:35:14 mriedem but i think we can hammer in code review
22:36:23 dansmith yeah I don't really think the argument of "avoid changing the object due to stuff in ml2" is sound
22:36:40 dansmith but as long as we can argue in the code I guess it's fine
22:45:11 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Use neutron's new port binding API for live migration https://review.openstack.org/375580
23:26:05 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Add pagination and changes since filter support for os-instance-action API https://review.openstack.org/507762
23:51:18 gmann bauzas: i replied on your comment on this spec - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/508101/7
23:52:02 gmann bauzas: let me know if i need to make it clear about those 'Main policy' in spec. i can do that quickly
#openstack-nova - 2017-10-20
00:30:12 openstackgerrit Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Spec for API extensions policy removal https://review.openstack.org/508101
00:30:29 gmann bauzas: ^^
01:33:42 yikun_jiang liusheng, test
01:48:36 openstackgerrit garyk proposed openstack/nova master: Add debug information to metadata requests https://review.openstack.org/511895
01:51:49 openstackgerrit Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Spec for API extensions policy removal https://review.openstack.org/508101
06:36:08 openstackgerrit Zhenyu Zheng proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage db archive_deleted_rows is not multi-cell aware https://review.openstack.org/507486
06:39:55 openstackgerrit Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Implement query param schema for simple_tenant_usage https://review.openstack.org/507480
07:40:51 SamYaple will nova have python3 support by Queens?
07:41:35 SamYaple looks for the latest info on python3 for nova. is this up to date? PI extensions policy removal https://review.openstack.org/508101
07:41:46 SamYaple oops wrong link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Python3
08:13:03 gmann SamYaple: this is list remaining seems - https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/tests-py3.txt
08:14:10 SamYaple gmann: oh perfect! so it looks like just missing support for xen
08:14:11 gmann SamYaple: this was whole effort for py3 - https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/goal-python35+(status:open+OR+status:merged)+project:+openstack/nova
08:14:17 gmann yea
08:14:24 SamYaple awesome. i dont use xen :)
08:14:29 SamYaple wonderful news
08:14:33 SamYaple thanks for that
08:18:06 kashyap stephenfin: Hi, do you know top off your head if we can define a custom flavour that will set a specific image metadata property?
08:31:19 stephenfin Not that I'm aware of, no. It had to be part of the image itself
08:31:25 stephenfin kashyap: ^
08:31:57 kashyap stephenfin: Thought so, thanks for confirming.
08:40:56 openstackgerrit jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Refactor placement version check https://review.openstack.org/512497
08:52:20 openstackgerrit Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Implement query param schema for delete assisted vol https://review.openstack.org/513668
08:57:52 openstackgerrit David Rabel proposed openstack/nova master: VMware: add support for graceful shutdown of instances https://review.openstack.org/494169
09:04:49 openstackgerrit David Rabel proposed openstack/nova master: VMware: add support for graceful shutdown of instances https://review.openstack.org/494169
09:20:15 openstackgerrit Zhenyu Zheng proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage db archive_deleted_rows is not multi-cell aware https://review.openstack.org/507486
09:22:30 kashyap Hi bauzas, when you get a moment:
09:22:40 bauzas sure ?
09:22:52 kashyap Is such a rule possible: If the instance has "hw_machine_type=x86_64=pc-q35-2.9" property, then when migrating it, please choose a Compute node that has that machine type configured (because: there's also the same nova.conf attribute that can be set for the whole Compute)
09:25:47 openstackgerrit Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/nova stable/pike: Pick ironic nodes without VCPU set https://review.openstack.org/513678
10:03:52 openstackgerrit Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Implement query param schema for host index https://review.openstack.org/513699
10:05:20 openstackgerrit Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: [placement] Enable limiting GET /allocation_candidates https://review.openstack.org/513526
11:20:29 openstackgerrit Huan Xie proposed openstack/nova master: VGPU: Define vgpu resource class https://review.openstack.org/511180
11:21:50 artom_ stephenfin, since https://review.openstack.org/#/c/345396/22/nova/console/websocketproxy.py is being held up by CI, do you think https://review.openstack.org/#/c/345399/29/nova/console/websocketproxy.py@82 could be addressed?
11:22:01 artom_ My OCD would feel much better :)
11:22:10 artom_ (But I understand if you don't feel like chasing the +2 again)
11:22:36 openstackgerrit Huan Xie proposed openstack/nova master: VGPU: Define vgpu resource class https://review.openstack.org/511180
12:18:18 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova stable/pike: Add 'delete_host' command in 'nova-manage cell_v2' https://review.openstack.org/513717
12:30:10 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova stable/pike: Add 'delete_host' command in 'nova-manage cell_v2' https://review.openstack.org/513717
12:32:15 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova stable/ocata: Add 'delete_host' command in 'nova-manage cell_v2' https://review.openstack.org/513721
12:34:25 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Fix 500 error while passing 4-byte unicode data https://review.openstack.org/407514
12:38:10 stephenfin artom: I can split it out into a separate patch, but I won't mess with the first one once it's got +W
12:38:16 stephenfin *I will
12:38:44 stephenfin For reference, that got added because the original patch was written without Python 3 being a consideration
12:41:58 artom stephenfin, ah, gotcha
12:42:07 artom I'm obviously not super hung up about it
13:27:39 openstackgerrit sahid proposed openstack/nova-specs master: update: introducing isolate emulthreads on host https://review.openstack.org/511188
13:43:39 efried Gah, Friday!
13:44:18 figleaf fried_rice: usually people have that reaction to Mondays
13:45:51 gibi this is the time (and the same time on Monday) when I like to be in an EU timezone. For me it is almos over. ;)
13:54:46 fried_rice leakypipes Now a good time to talk about same RCs on main & shared RPs?
13:55:49 leakypipes fried_rice: yuppers.
13:56:09 fried_rice Okay, so I opened a couple bugs and put up a couple test cases that demonstrate the issue:
13:56:20 fried_rice https://review.openstack.org/#/c/513149/
13:56:26 fried_rice (bugs in the commit msg)
13:57:00 fried_rice The crux of the issue happens when the main RP (the compute node for now) has a resource class that's also present in the shared RP(s)
13:58:05 fried_rice The end game with shared RPs is post-Q, but it's going to come into play with the code alex_xu is writing to handle traits for allocation candidates.
13:58:55 fried_rice Using the example where the RC in question is DISK_GB, the problem is that you can say you want traits "RAID" and "SSD", but placement doesn't know that those are disk-y traits.
13:59:47 fried_rice So if your compute node has localdisk that's SSD, and your shared storage RP has disk that's RAID, you'll get a candidate for (compute node + shared RP) because the combination satisfies both traits.
14:00:16 leakypipes fried_rice: I thought the resources1/required1 stuff solved that particular issue? because that request is saying "gimme 10GB of disk space from a provider with the STORAGE_DISK_SSD trait"
14:00:57 fried_rice Well, first of all, we have deliberately deferred discussion of the semantics of numbered groups with shared, because we're deferring shared.
14:01:12 fried_rice But second, that would only "solve" it if you made sure to use the numbered groups in the right place.
14:01:13 leakypipes ok... and?
14:01:42 fried_rice That would be a tough thing to document for ops. But I suppose it could be done.
14:02:02 leakypipes fried_rice: well, Eric, much of the n-r-p stuff is going to be tough to document for ops...
14:02:12 fried_rice Nevertheless, the code for the un-numbered group needs to handle it in some way or another.
14:03:06 leakypipes fried_rice: or it doesn't and we ignore it until we work on the numbered groups stuff.
14:03:46 fried_rice "it doesn't" meaning what?
14:04:14 leakypipes fried_rice: the un-numbered groups code does not need to handle this scenario.
14:04:16 cdent leakypipes: was this originally supposed to work (in the early design) or had we put some other boundary in that meant it didn’t matter? Trying to refersh my memory.
14:05:07 leakypipes cdent: there's nothing about the current design of the resource providers modeling system that prevents these questions from being answered. Until fried_rice'
14:05:32 leakypipes s numbered groups request format thing was proposed, however, we did not have a way of communicating the question to the placement API.
14:06:11 leakypipes cdent: and what I'm saying is that we have higher priority items to get done. we should shelve this important discussion for after those higher priority items are done.
14:06:46 fried_rice leakypipes Okay, but I'm saying we have code right now (merged and in flight) where this needs to be addressed.
14:06:59 leakypipes fried_rice: your concern is definitely a good one. just saying let's focus on the foundational pieces first, note where we have bugs, and solve those bugs with the numbered groups stuff.
14:07:02 cdent leakypipes: I get that, but I’m just trying to confirm some of my memroy about resource classes and shared providers, in existing code
14:07:14 leakypipes fried_rice: it does not need to be addressed right now.
14:07:51 leakypipes fried_rice: unless by addressed you mean "put a func test with commented-out assertions that explain how things *should work* when X bug is fixed"
14:08:06 leakypipes cdent: ack
14:08:53 fried_rice leakypipes https://review.openstack.org/#/c/479766/10/nova/objects/resource_provider.py@2549 is in flight right now: we just can't write this code without answering the question in some way.
14:08:57 figleaf leakypipes: I remember saying that a CN could have local disk or shared disk, but not both
14:09:00 figleaf then that changed
14:09:20 figleaf well, not *me* saying that, but...
14:09:39 leakypipes fried_rice: yes, you can.
14:10:24 leakypipes fried_rice: I will put a review comment in the patch.
14:12:02 leakypipes figleaf: what you're remembering is the scheduler folks (you, me, cdent, superdan, etc) agreeing to "keep things simple" for now and assume a CN has either local or not, and not support both at this time.
14:12:27 figleaf leakypipes: ok, thanks. Why did that change?
14:12:42 leakypipes figleaf: it hasn't.
14:13:08 fried_rice leakypipes The patch has an implementation that already takes shared RPs into account. If that code is unreachable/no-op at the moment, then okay - but that patch is either going to need to rip out the existing shared RP stuff or create known-buggy situations.

Earlier   Later