| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-10-23 | |||
| 14:19:42 | artom | Just seems more thorough :) | |
| 14:20:15 | artom | Err, in my second line, 'blah' is the reason, not reason length | |
| 14:20:44 | efried | johnthetubaguy In the scheduler meeting (#openstack-meeting-alt) there's about to be a discussion of whether you can remove a trait on a RP that has allocations - your interest is via https://review.openstack.org/#/c/504531/8/specs/approved/node-traits.rst@86 | |
| 14:36:01 | alex_xu | jaypipes: I try to refactor the alllocaion candidates in implement the traits support https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:bp/add-trait-support-in-allocation-candidates, appreciate if you can give some feedback on the direction | |
| 14:39:17 | openstackgerrit | Jan Zerebecki proposed openstack/nova master: Only log not correcting allocation once per period https://review.openstack.org/508262 | |
| 14:40:57 | johnthetubaguy | efried: did you cover that? | |
| 14:41:11 | efried | johnthetubaguy Not yet. | |
| 14:43:45 | openstackgerrit | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Don't disregard cache mode for instance boot disks https://review.openstack.org/514339 | |
| 15:01:10 | cdent | jaypipes: on the link state thing, we don’t want to kill an entire compute service for one pf do we? | |
| 15:01:42 | jaypipes | alex_xu: yes, will try to review that whole series today. I'm doing new hire stuff and meetings today and tomorrow, though, so reviews will be slwo | |
| 15:01:44 | jaypipes | slow | |
| 15:02:08 | alex_xu | cdent: jaypipes edleafe efried, the trait spec said the provider summary of the allocation candidates API response includes all the traits in that rp, not only the required. For the resources in the response, the current implementation is only include the requested resources, is that we expected? or it is bug | |
| 15:02:18 | jaypipes | sean-k-mooney: and yes, I definitely saw you mention "hardware-defined software" on the ML. :) | |
| 15:02:25 | alex_xu | jaypipes: thanks | |
| 15:02:50 | cdent | alex_xu: sounds like bug | |
| 15:02:52 | jaypipes | alex_xu: probably a bug | |
| 15:02:57 | jaypipes | jinx :) | |
| 15:02:57 | efried | alex_xu In the provider summary or in the allocation_requests ? | |
| 15:03:01 | cdent | the provider summary should be “the provider" | |
| 15:03:06 | alex_xu | efried: yea | |
| 15:03:19 | dtantsur | cdent, jaypipes, johnthetubaguy, efried, https://doodle.com/poll/ts43k98kkvniv8uz (sorry, forgot to cc you) | |
| 15:03:29 | jaypipes | cdent: right, but there;'s a dict of resources in the provider summary showing remaining capacity for inventories that provider has. | |
| 15:03:49 | jaypipes | cdent: this was requested for weighers that want to sort based on remaining inventory capacity. | |
| 15:03:58 | alex_xu | ok...it is bug, then I need some change in my refactor patch | |
| 15:04:20 | efried | Why is it a problem if the remaining capacity is included for classes that weren't claimed? | |
| 15:04:23 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Move shred to privsep. https://review.openstack.org/495537 | |
| 15:04:31 | cdent | jaypipes: i wasn’t meaning to be exclusive, rather that the entire provider should be reprsented (plus whatever else) | |
| 15:04:35 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Move xend existence probes to privsep. https://review.openstack.org/495538 | |
| 15:05:21 | jaypipes | dtantsur: done | |
| 15:05:47 | jaypipes | efried: I don't think it is. I think it was probabl jjst an oversight | |
| 15:05:54 | jaypipes | god damnb this mac keyboard... :( | |
| 15:06:06 | efried | jaypipes Which part is an oversight? | |
| 15:06:16 | efried | jaypipes Including the extra RCs or excluding them? | |
| 15:06:29 | jaypipes | efried: that the provider summary for a provider only includes resources that were requested and not all resources the provider had | |
| 15:06:36 | efried | jaypipes Which way are we saying it's *supposed* to be? | |
| 15:07:00 | efried | That it should include *all* of them, I guess. I agree with that. | |
| 15:07:59 | cdent | efried: yes, all | |
| 15:08:04 | efried | ++ | |
| 15:08:25 | edleafe | efried: cdent: of what use do you see non-requested resources in the provider_summary? | |
| 15:08:30 | alex_xu | jinx means a person bring bad luck? | |
| 15:09:00 | jaypipes | efried: yeah, sohuld include all the inventories, not just the ones for requested resources | |
| 15:09:06 | cdent | alex_xu: that’s one meaning, but the meaning we are using is “you said something at the same time as me” | |
| 15:09:08 | efried | alex_xu Heh, not in this context. It's a silly game kids play: when two people say the same thing at the same time, the first one to say "jinx" "wins" | |
| 15:09:35 | efried | alex_xu There's various penalties for "losing". The one I grew up with was that the "loser" has to remain silent until you say their name. | |
| 15:09:36 | cdent | in the real version of the game the loser can’t speak for some amount of time | |
| 15:09:40 | cdent | jinx! | |
| 15:09:54 | cdent | let’s efried off the hook | |
| 15:10:07 | efried | alex_xu Another one I've heard of is that the "winner" gets to punch the "loser" until the loser recites some incantation. | |
| 15:10:29 | efried | "Jinx poke, you owe me a coke, times onetwothreefourfive...." | |
| 15:10:46 | cdent | edleafe: the provider summary, as I understand it, is supposed to list the resource providers in a complete. From what’s there we should be able to conceptualize what the resource provider providers, not just what we are using from it | |
| 15:10:57 | cdent | whether that is of use or not is unclear | |
| 15:11:19 | dansmith | alex_xu: in case you're wondering, seeing it spelled out in writing like we just have makes it sound even dumber than it normally does | |
| 15:11:21 | cdent | s/, not/are, not/ | |
| 15:11:32 | dansmith | alex_xu: so if you're thinking "wtf is wrong with these guys" ... you're not alone | |
| 15:11:42 | cdent | no need to be a dick about dansmith | |
| 15:12:02 | dansmith | cdent: s/about/about it/ right? | |
| 15:12:04 | alex_xu | haha :) | |
| 15:12:19 | cdent | dansmith: if you like but the typo is in your favor, so maybe we keep it? | |
| 15:12:25 | dansmith | heh | |
| 15:13:01 | dansmith | cdent: I'm only saying that I've never seen the rules of jinx written out before and I'm feeling kindof embarrassed for my entire generation now that I have :) | |
| 15:13:14 | efried | Agreed | |
| 15:13:44 | cdent | It predates our generation yeah? I thought of it as kind of antique even when I was a child and I’m nearly the oldest here. | |
| 15:13:57 | efried | My dad is the one who told me about the punching thing. | |
| 15:14:08 | edleafe | yeah, it was old when *I* first heard about it | |
| 15:14:18 | edleafe | written on stone tablets it seems even lamer | |
| 15:16:08 | dansmith | I have no idea, I assumed it was too dumb for generations prior, but I'm sure you're right | |
| 15:17:00 | efried | The internet (which is never wrong) hints that it may go back as far as 16th century Scottish tavern games. | |
| 15:17:16 | cdent | Isn’t each subsequent generation immensely cooler than the last? My (adult) children assure me this is the case. | |
| 15:18:18 | edleafe | cdent: Your children are correct, but just in your family | |
| 15:18:18 | dansmith | heh | |
| 15:18:28 | cdent | thank you old man | |
| 15:19:17 | cdent | Scotland has a lot to answer for. | |
| 15:20:29 | mriedem | dansmith: are you ok with this before i propose a backport https://review.openstack.org/#/c/513001/ | |
| 15:20:54 | dansmith | omg no | |
| 15:20:55 | dansmith | wtf | |
| 15:21:10 | dansmith | ugh | |
| 15:21:21 | efried | So... not okay with it | |
| 15:21:36 | efried | Just reading between the lines here. | |
| 15:21:38 | mriedem | i brought this up when it was initially being reviewed, pretty sure anyway - but there is no api schema restriction in the baremetal api about the resource class name | |
| 15:22:07 | dansmith | I very specifically think this is completely broken | |
| 15:22:11 | dansmith | I know and I fought hard to NOT do this ambiguous thing | |
| 15:22:51 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Only add CUSTOM_ prefix if required https://review.openstack.org/513001 | |
| 15:22:56 | mriedem | pulled it out of the gate | |
| 15:22:59 | mriedem | johnthetubaguy: ^ | |
| 15:24:17 | johnthetubaguy | so VCPU becomes CUSTOM_VCPU, just CUSTOM_FOO stays CUSTOM_FOO | |
| 15:24:33 | johnthetubaguy | its a pain to setup the system with CUSTOM_ in only half the places | |
| 15:24:58 | mriedem | VCPU is a standared resource class | |
| 15:25:41 | johnthetubaguy | yep, that's where it gets funky, that code keeps it as always CUSTOM_ at the start, it just avoids the double encoding | |
| 15:25:43 | mriedem | if you set the ironic node.resource_class as vcpu, then we'd translate that to CUSTOM_VCPU yeah | |
| 15:25:56 | dansmith | mriedem: thanks | |
| 15:25:57 | johnthetubaguy | that's what I mean, I should have added a test for that really | |
| 15:26:23 | dansmith | I just commented on that patch, | |
| 15:26:24 | mriedem | the ironic docs are at least pretty clear about this https://docs.openstack.org/ironic/pike/install/configure-nova-flavors.html#scheduling-based-on-resource-classes | |
| 15:26:31 | dansmith | but I'm super against us adding this ambiguity | |
| 15:27:28 | dansmith | anything else that wants to look at placement-related data for ironic nodes would have to implement the same "is it already right, or not" behavior when taking the ironic class and turning it into a placement class | |
| 15:27:44 | dansmith | instead of just "apply the following set of rules to get from ironic to placement" | |
| 15:27:46 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: console: introduce the VeNCrypt RFB authentication scheme https://review.openstack.org/345398 | |
| 15:27:46 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: console: introduce framework for RFB authentication https://review.openstack.org/345397 | |
| 15:27:47 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: doc: Document TLS security setup for noVNC proxy https://review.openstack.org/500544 | |
| 15:27:47 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: console: provide an RFB security proxy implementation https://review.openstack.org/345399 | |