Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-11-21
18:01:50 mriedem https://review.openstack.org/#/c/446446/
18:02:24 mriedem user can see when looking at AZs"
18:02:24 mriedem availability_zone key for a specific aggregate and accordingly change what the
18:02:24 mriedem can modify any metadata, it is possible to change the value of the
18:02:24 mriedem "Unfortunately, as an operator
18:05:35 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: vgpu: add enabled white list https://review.openstack.org/512580
18:10:07 mriedem we persist the flavor with the request spec yes?
18:10:41 dansmith flavor id you mean?
18:10:46 mriedem the full flavor
18:11:01 mriedem looks like yes
18:11:03 dansmith hrm, I guess we do
18:11:14 mriedem which means, re the TrustedFilter question,
18:11:46 mriedem if the admin changes the flavor extra specs for the trusted filter after you've created an instance, when you rebuild or migrate that instance, the filter is going to work on the original flavor used to create the instance
18:11:48 mriedem not the modified one
18:12:02 mriedem *i think*
18:12:46 artom That's what I understood when dansmith said that flavoUrs stay with the instance, yeah
18:17:16 mriedem my favorite burstlet flavour is tripe
18:17:55 mriedem artom: dansmith: ok, some replies inline https://review.openstack.org/#/c/521186/
18:18:48 mriedem dansmith: btw, i changed _GroupAntiAffinityFilter to False, ran functional tests and nothing failed
18:19:12 dansmith mriedem: it'll be non-deterministic
18:19:20 mriedem gha
18:19:22 mriedem *gah
18:19:25 dansmith because if it selects the other host by chance it'll be happy
18:19:49 dansmith it was oddly repeatable for me.. two tests validating the same thing (for two microversions) one would always pass the other would always fail
18:19:53 dansmith took me a while to figure out why
18:20:13 dansmith I was able to shake it up with different levels of concurrency and running the tests in isolation
18:20:30 mriedem test_rebuild_with_soft_anti_affinity ?
18:20:48 mriedem or test_rebuild_with_anti_affinity
18:20:58 dansmith soft I think
18:21:25 mriedem that one involves a weigher so yeah might be that one
18:21:27 dansmith I can try to repro if it's important
18:21:28 mriedem will run it a few times
18:21:58 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Use ksa adapter for cinder client https://review.openstack.org/508345
18:22:13 mriedem i am dangerously close to needing some deterministic lunch
18:23:01 dansmith mriedem: http://logs.openstack.org/86/521186/3/check/openstack-tox-functional/dc8ab81/testr_results.html.gz
18:23:03 dansmith that was the failure I tried to repro locally that led me down the path I think
18:48:20 dansmith artom_: mriedem well, now I can't get it to fail
18:49:24 dansmith oh, wait
18:49:24 mriedem :/
18:49:36 mriedem was that with same_host or something?
18:49:37 dansmith I bet it's because I hit this before I was doing the force_hosts
18:49:58 mriedem ah
18:50:18 dansmith it was when I was going to do the check in conductor manager I think
18:50:29 mriedem so we can probably change that one then
18:50:33 mriedem which would help with the confusion
18:50:42 dansmith yeah I guess so
18:51:33 mriedem dansmith: artom: in general, what are your thoughts/feelings/hopes/dreams about just calling the hint _is_rebuild and the filter attribute RUN_FOR_REBUILD? then each filter decision is about that scope/use case rather than what policy means
18:52:16 dansmith I dunno, it feels too specific, but I can't come up with another reason to do this really
18:52:33 mriedem right, like you said, we could change it later if we have a need to generify it
18:53:01 dansmith yeah
18:53:08 mriedem we could also maybe remove the variable at some point later with rpc version changes, like passing an actual is_rebuild parameter to select_destinations or something
18:53:20 dansmith yeah
18:53:32 mriedem i'm not sure that would buy us much, except maybe more straight-forward
18:53:44 dansmith ideally it'd be operation="rebuild" to give us some room for the future
18:53:45 dansmith but yeah
18:53:51 mriedem sure
18:54:06 mriedem operation="mind crime"
18:54:12 dansmith heh
18:54:17 mriedem 80s queensryche reference for artom
18:58:18 artom I was -5 for half the 80s, though I do enjoy some of their music now :)
18:58:41 artom Renaming it to RUN_FOR_REBUILD would definitely make the scope clearer
18:58:46 artom I agree it's not pretty
18:59:25 artom Though I'm not as repulsed by the api <-> scheduler coupling - the scheduler knowing about rebuilds isn't as far fetched as it sounds
18:59:49 artom I think ideally I'd like more methods in the filters, like I said in my last comment
19:00:28 artom So host_passes for "can this host run this instance now?", host_acceptable for "can this host accept this instance, resource considerations aside", and maybe other ones for cases we haven't thought of
19:00:36 artom But that doesn't look very backportable
19:04:29 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: cleanup mapping/reqspec after archive instance https://review.openstack.org/515034
19:05:29 mriedem mgagne: a couple of small changes to make here and then i think we're good https://review.openstack.org/#/c/503088
19:06:26 mriedem artom: the scheduler is definitely aware of moves for placement allocations, even if it's not super obvious
19:06:35 mgagne mriedem: will work on it today. I think committed the Ironic release note by mistake, will reword as suggested
19:07:03 mriedem mgagne: yeah heh, that was my comment :)
19:07:14 mgagne didn't read yet :P, will do
19:07:59 artom mriedem, yeah, it decides which instances go to which hosts, to operations on instances that have to do with hosts aren't outside its domain :)
19:08:05 artom *so operations
19:08:28 artom If we started telling it about keypair updates I'd be more concerned ;)
19:08:37 mriedem artom: i mean this specifically https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/client/report.py#L1035
19:16:14 efried cdent Still around?
19:16:23 cdent yessir
19:16:33 mgagne mriedem: so should I refactor _generate_configdrive or not?
19:16:38 efried cdent Is there a way in gabbi for me to say "This must *not* be in the response" ?
19:17:30 cdent in a body or header?
19:17:38 efried body
19:18:12 efried I know about checking the length of a chunk of the response; will fall back on that if nothing else is available.
19:18:39 cdent there are a couple of additional options:
19:19:22 cdent if the surrounding chunk of json is small and you know all of it, you can make the value of the jsonpath be the entire chunk, instead of just a scalar value
19:19:37 cdent or you might be able to do something with regular expressions
19:19:49 cdent (the value side of the jsonpath statement can be a regex)
19:20:09 cdent efried: if you got a pointer to an almost there example I can probably say something more concrete
19:21:27 efried cdent Like here: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/tests/functional/api/openstack/placement/gabbits/resource-provider.yaml#L105
19:21:38 efried cdent I want to make sure there's no "traits" key
19:21:43 efried etc.
19:22:21 efried response_forbidden_json_paths:\n\t$.resource_providers[0].traits
19:22:34 cdent heh
19:23:02 cdent is your intent to validate the entire response? If so, you might consider:
19:23:38 cdent response_json_paths:\n$: @<my-big-response.json
19:24:18 mriedem mgagne: no, i think what you have is ok
19:24:21 efried cdent Right; though the docs kinda recommended against that.
19:24:27 mriedem the error handling being different makes a refactor less worthwhile
19:24:28 openstackgerrit Eric Young proposed openstack/nova master: Implement ScaleIO image backend https://review.openstack.org/407440
19:24:35 mgagne mriedem: got it

Earlier   Later