| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-11-20 | |||
| 16:50:51 | efried | cdent looking... | |
| 16:53:26 | efried | cdent Good deal. I'll let mriedem decide whether that's reason to keep the words about the Accept header. | |
| 16:53:51 | cdent | ✔ | |
| 17:05:38 | cdent | mriedem: your comment on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/518223/1//COMMIT_MSG doesn’t make sense (to me). That paragraph I’m saying “there’s two changes here one fixes a 500, but another changes the content type of existing 400-499 responses so not sure if there is a violation or not" | |
| 17:06:38 | mriedem | ok, i didn't read too deep into that paragraph | |
| 17:07:48 | dansmith | mriedem: see my comment here? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/521186/3/nova/tests/functional/test_servers.py I think a custom hint is probably the best way forward here, so we don't depend on that filter being enabled | |
| 17:08:31 | dansmith | mriedem: we can also use that to make the "is policy" more straight forward, and if we do it customly, we'll be able to enforce host and node equivalence | |
| 17:09:39 | mriedem | didn't see the comment until now, but i was thinking about a custom hint over the weekend too, but forgot about it | |
| 17:09:49 | mriedem | but then we don't need deployers to change anything for the fix | |
| 17:09:58 | dansmith | right | |
| 17:09:59 | mriedem | so would you add a new filter too? | |
| 17:10:02 | dansmith | no, | |
| 17:10:09 | dansmith | I'd just do it in host manager like force_hosts works | |
| 17:10:16 | mriedem | ok | |
| 17:10:23 | mriedem | then tallyho | |
| 17:10:34 | dansmith | this is a real fun one | |
| 17:11:53 | openstackgerrit | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Provide VGPU inventory for a single GPU type https://review.openstack.org/514763 | |
| 17:36:13 | openstackgerrit | Andrey Kurilin proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: [ci] Use pseudo-random names for new resources https://review.openstack.org/479777 | |
| 17:44:29 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: placement: Traits ops on ProviderTree https://review.openstack.org/521605 | |
| 17:44:33 | efried | jaypipes Reckon we're needing this ^ soon, though I couldn't say what bp to put it under. | |
| 17:44:50 | jaypipes | efried_rollin: k | |
| 17:45:32 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance action record for attach/detach interface https://review.openstack.org/512190 | |
| 19:16:34 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Add cache headers to placement api requests https://review.openstack.org/521640 | |
| 19:16:34 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Object changes to support last-modified headers https://review.openstack.org/521639 | |
| 19:19:33 | cdent | dansmith: that ^ is the last-modified stuff done all in one patch/microversion | |
| 19:28:30 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add migration_get_by_uuid in db api. https://review.openstack.org/511421 | |
| 19:28:31 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Implement query param schema for migration index https://review.openstack.org/518644 | |
| 19:28:31 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add migration db and object pagination support. https://review.openstack.org/514904 | |
| 19:28:32 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add cross cell sort support for get_migrations https://review.openstack.org/517273 | |
| 19:28:32 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Extract SortContext/SortWrapper of instance_list into utils https://review.openstack.org/518871 | |
| 19:28:33 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add pagination and Changes-since filter support for os-migrations. https://review.openstack.org/330406 | |
| 19:36:38 | cfriesen | does the current master branch scheduler handle working as a hybrid scheduler for baremetal as well as VM compute nodes? I'm mostly wondering about things like the NUMATopologyFilter. | |
| 19:37:48 | mriedem | don't think so | |
| 19:37:53 | mriedem | b/c there are different host managers | |
| 19:38:03 | mriedem | HostManager vs IronicHostManager | |
| 19:38:27 | mriedem | although, | |
| 19:38:40 | mriedem | with resource classes in pike, i'm not sure how much you need the IronicHostManager anymore | |
| 19:38:41 | cfriesen | mriedem: yeah...IronicHostManager mostly calls the superclass functions | |
| 19:39:12 | mriedem | and use_baremetal_filters and baremetal_enabled_filters are deprecated | |
| 19:39:38 | mriedem | so, IronicHostManager should probably be deprecated | |
| 19:39:40 | cfriesen | mriedem: we're making it work on Pike and need to modify some of the filters. was just wondering if this was something that I should propose for Rocky as a spec | |
| 19:39:47 | mriedem | since the related config options for the filters are also deprecated | |
| 19:39:52 | cfriesen | or if it's just bugfix material | |
| 19:40:03 | mriedem | spec for what? | |
| 19:40:13 | mriedem | same scheduler serving vm and bm? | |
| 19:40:19 | cfriesen | yes | |
| 19:40:22 | mriedem | i think you get that with custom resource classes | |
| 19:40:34 | cfriesen | but they don't handle the fancy filters, right? | |
| 19:40:47 | cfriesen | so if you enable numatopologyfilter it breaks baremetal | |
| 19:40:49 | mriedem | i don't know how the fancy filters handle ironic nodes | |
| 19:40:57 | dansmith | I didn't think you needed ironic host manager even before placement | |
| 19:41:14 | mriedem | i bet johnthetubaguy would love to talk about this | |
| 19:41:18 | dansmith | like, originally you did but I thought aside from a couple details you were good now | |
| 19:41:31 | mriedem | well, difference is in the filters that are used | |
| 19:41:39 | mriedem | IronicHostManager used the Exact* filters | |
| 19:41:46 | mriedem | and all of those are deprecated since pike | |
| 19:42:19 | dansmith | right, but if you didn't need those filters, then you could use the same host manager as virt | |
| 19:42:29 | cfriesen | dansmith: the docs still say to enable it. there are some differences in how states are reported | |
| 19:42:57 | cfriesen | it looks like IronicHostManager is supposed to work with VM nodes | |
| 19:42:59 | mriedem | def _locked_consume_from_request(self, spec_obj): | |
| 19:42:59 | mriedem | so this | |
| 19:43:00 | mriedem | self.vcpus_used = self.vcpus_total | |
| 19:43:00 | mriedem | self.free_disk_mb = 0 | |
| 19:43:00 | mriedem | self.free_ram_mb = 0 | |
| 19:43:00 | mriedem | """Consume nodes entire resources regardless of instance request.""" | |
| 19:43:02 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Merge flavor extensions controller code https://review.openstack.org/516104 | |
| 19:43:03 | cfriesen | but some of the filters don't | |
| 19:43:06 | dansmith | I don't know all the details, but before placement came and kindof distracted us I thought we were about good to remove that | |
| 19:43:36 | mriedem | the ironic driver will consume all memory_mb/disk_gb/vcpu inventory on a node in placement | |
| 19:43:40 | dansmith | the docs are mostly aimed at just ironic deployments though where there's no reason not to enable the dedicated thing right? | |
| 19:43:47 | mriedem | so that IronicHostState is irrelevant | |
| 19:44:09 | mriedem | *IronicNodeState | |
| 19:44:15 | cfriesen | yeah...there's not a lot of info on how to set up hybrid. I did talk with Julia at the summit about some of this. | |
| 19:45:33 | mriedem | sdague: easy api extension merge-a-roo https://review.openstack.org/#/c/516104/ | |
| 19:45:45 | cfriesen | currently we modified NUMATopologyFilter.host_passes() to just return True for ironic nodes...wondering if this is something to push upstream | |
| 19:46:32 | mriedem | can ironic report numa capabilities? from what i gather, lots of people rely on the CapabilitiesFilter for ironic | |
| 19:46:44 | cfriesen | no idea. :) | |
| 19:46:45 | mriedem | *ComputeCapabilitiesFilter | |
| 19:51:46 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Fix some incorrect option references for scheduler filters https://review.openstack.org/521645 | |
| 19:59:18 | openstackgerrit | Andrey Kurilin proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: [ci] Use pseudo-random names for new resources https://review.openstack.org/479777 | |
| 20:01:18 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Alternate fix for validating image on rebuild https://review.openstack.org/521186 | |
| 20:14:45 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Deprecate the IronicHostManager https://review.openstack.org/521648 | |
| 20:28:33 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: i'm confused, is this a nova bp for just work that is all done in os-vif? https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/vif-port-profile | |
| 21:03:03 | efried | jaypipes What is the proper way to talk about a RP's association with an aggregate? Can I say the RP is *in* the aggregate? | |
| 21:03:12 | jaypipes | efried: yes | |
| 21:03:14 | efried | k | |
| 21:03:23 | efried | jaypipes So here's what I'm thinking. | |
| 21:04:24 | efried | jaypipes Today the report client keeps aggregate associations outside of ProviderTree. I believe we need to move what is currently SchedulerReportClient._provider_aggregate_map into ProviderTree. Specifically, _Provider has a set() of aggregate UUIDs. | |
| 21:05:23 | efried | jaypipes Because the virt driver will ultimately be in charge of assigning aggregate associations, so we'll want the same suite of methods on ProviderTree to ask if a given RP is "in" an aggregate, add (or replace) aggregate associations; etc. | |
| 21:06:17 | efried | jaypipes Same thing for traits, which is where that change set of a couple hours ago was coming from - to be followed up by SRC methods to populate/query it. | |
| 21:11:14 | jaypipes | efried: not sure the virt driver will be responsible for associated an aggregate to a provider -- unless the virt driver is also creating those aggregates. Does PowerVM do that? | |
| 21:11:40 | jaypipes | efried: for traits, yeah, totes agree. | |
| 21:12:18 | efried | jaypipes In the only real world case we have right now - shared storage pool - yes. I can't think how else the aggregate would get created. | |
| 21:12:45 | jaypipes | efried: it was originally intended to be created by an admin or an external agent (for example, Cinder...) | |
| 21:14:03 | efried | jaypipes Yeah, I suppose I can see that. In our case, we use SSP for ephemeral, so it would have to be more like the admin. It would just be another step they have to do when they're setting up the host. | |
| 21:14:22 | jaypipes | efried: understood. | |
| 21:14:26 | efried | jaypipes BTW, is there any rule against me using the same UUID for an aggregate and a RP that's in it? | |
| 21:14:42 | efried | I mean, I'm sure you'll say that's not a good idea, but is anything gonna stop me? | |
| 21:15:00 | jaypipes | efried: not a good idea, but nothing will prevent you from doing that. | |
| 21:15:14 | efried | k | |