Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-11-27
18:20:55 dansmith belmoreira: I think you want to delete the buildrequest here: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/cells/messaging.py#L998
18:21:41 dansmith if you can test that, I think we could probably merge that change
18:22:27 belmoreira but it does it in the nova_api DB?
18:23:13 dansmith that code will run at the top-level nova-cells service, which would be configured to point to the top-level nova_api db right?
18:24:31 belmoreira I wasn't aware that nova-cells would sync nova_api DB. Only nova DB in top cell.
18:24:52 dansmith well, it doesn't do anything other than what you tell it to
18:25:13 dansmith historically there was no api db, so it didn't do anything there, but if you put code in there to find/delete the buildrequest then it will start to do some of that :)
18:25:34 belmoreira I see :)
18:25:53 belmoreira do we already have an example that nova_api DB is updated?
18:26:31 dansmith in nova-cells? not that I know of
18:27:14 dansmith it'll need to be graceful about buildrequest being deleted already, for the people that have a unified api db for all their cellsv1 cells
18:28:53 dansmith are you asking because of consistency or just because you're not sure how to go about the lookup/delete/
18:29:15 belmoreira my current patch changes the the delete_build_request in conductor/manager to delete it in the nova_api cell. I wasn't aiming to merge it upstream :)
18:29:16 dansmith because it should be roughly the thing done in delete_build_request
18:29:43 dansmith okay but wouldn't you rather a change that doesn't need a new config option and _is_ upstream?
18:30:12 belmoreira I started this conversation because I'm not sure if we are missing something else
18:30:37 belmoreira or this can have any consequence when upgrading then to ocata/pike
18:31:45 belmoreira dansmith sure I would prefer a proper fix
18:35:37 belmoreira dansmith thanks. I will have a look on how to have it in cells/messaging
18:36:19 dansmith belmoreira:
18:36:24 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Fix cellsv1 build request deletion if multiple api databases are used https://review.openstack.org/523187
18:36:38 dansmith belmoreira: see if that ^ works and/or tweak until it does and then we can move on with it
18:37:46 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Fix cellsv1 build request deletion if multiple api databases are used https://review.openstack.org/523187
18:40:07 belmoreira dansmith: thanks a lot. I will let you know
18:40:25 dansmith belmoreira: cool
18:50:36 artom mriedem, haven't had a chance to look at the latest version yet
18:50:41 artom Will do that now
18:54:57 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: Use oslo_db Session in resource_provider.py https://review.openstack.org/523192
18:54:59 jaypipes mriedem, efried_rollin: ^
18:58:24 mriedem that is a large change, but looks like it's inevitable
18:59:54 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Fix 'force' parameter in os-quota-sets PUT schema https://review.openstack.org/523194
19:00:00 mriedem sdague: ^ is that 1 line os-quota-sets 'force' regression fix. the functional api samples are just to show the regression
19:05:51 artom Ohhh, the "need to open every PS individually to leave comments on each" thing is gone!
19:06:04 artom Man, my life just keeps on improving
19:06:09 artom This morning I learned about pssh
19:06:52 jaypipes mriedem: well, I figured it would be silly to fix only the conn.execute() calls in the lookup_entry_in_table() function and leave the other call locations.
19:08:08 mriedem jaypipes: if we need to backport that fix, then it would be best to fix the one place and do the massive refactor on top
19:08:44 jaypipes mriedem: there's latent bugs in all those other call locations.
19:09:18 jaypipes mriedem: you want to backport >1 patch or just one?
19:09:37 jaypipes mriedem: also, I'm happy to create a backport patch for pike/ocata
19:10:17 mriedem i single backport patch would be ideal, however, with the amount of refactoring that's gone on already in queens, the backport is probably going to suck, but if you want to own the backport then that's ok with me for a single change
19:10:58 mriedem i don't know that it needs to go to ocata
19:11:13 mriedem i think this actually crept up in CI because posting allocations during scheduling failed
19:11:15 mriedem which wasn't in ocata
19:12:15 jaypipes mriedem: I'll handle the backport to pike, then, no prob.
19:13:22 sdague mriedem: +2, though I'm still rather down on all the deepcopy and modify pattern, I think it creates more of these bugs in the future
19:13:35 sdague vs. just do a full expand every time there is a new tweak on the schema
19:22:23 mriedem sdague: thanks
19:22:27 mriedem dansmith: here is my proposed reno https://gist.github.com/mriedem/3da0a2edf18be0487e8becad31293077
19:22:36 mriedem for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/521186/
19:22:44 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: finish refactor AllocCandidates._get_by_filters() https://review.openstack.org/516782
19:23:04 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: required traits for no sharing providers https://review.openstack.org/517027
19:23:20 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Add ProviderSummary.resource_class_names @property https://review.openstack.org/517646
19:31:23 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add regression test for rebuild with new image doubling allocations https://review.openstack.org/521153
19:31:23 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Refined fix for validating image on rebuild https://review.openstack.org/521186
19:31:24 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Fix doubling allocations on rebuild https://review.openstack.org/521662
19:31:37 mriedem jaypipes: i added a reno on https://review.openstack.org/521186 which you were +2 on
19:33:43 cfriesen when updating the default quota class set, if I set a value lower than the current usage will that prevent any more resources from being consumed? updating quota-sets has the "force" option for this case, but I don't see that for quota class sets.
19:36:51 mriedem cfriesen: quota classes aren't tied to a tenant
19:37:00 mriedem so there is no 'current usage' on a quota class
19:37:38 mriedem as for "if I set a value lower than the current usage will that prevent any more resources from being consumed" - i'm not sure
19:37:54 mriedem it might
19:38:00 cfriesen mriedem: I was envisioning usage as being basically per tenant.
19:38:33 mriedem we check limits based on (1) is there a specific limit for this project, (2) if not, is there a specific limit for this quota class, (3) if not, what's the configured limit
19:38:37 cfriesen so you have the class default as 10, the tenant currently has 9, I change the class default to 8
19:39:06 mriedem i think that will cause the next instance create to be overquota
19:39:27 cfriesen that matches my understanding, thanks. it's odd we have "force" for that when setting tenant quotas but not the global default
19:39:34 mriedem the point in changing the limits to be below the usage (like the force parameter in PUT /os-quota-sets) is to get to the desired limit regardless of current usage
19:40:01 mriedem if we checked that on the global default, we'd have to check usage for all projects
19:40:10 mriedem and,
19:40:26 mriedem we could be tracking quota for projects that no longer actually exist in keystone
19:40:35 cfriesen true enough
19:40:54 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Implement query param schema for delete assisted vol https://review.openstack.org/513668
19:41:07 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Versioned notifications for service create and delete https://review.openstack.org/519588
20:08:58 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/pike: Add regression test for rebuild with new image doubling allocations https://review.openstack.org/523213
20:08:58 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/pike: Refined fix for validating image on rebuild https://review.openstack.org/523212
20:08:59 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/pike: Fix doubling allocations on rebuild https://review.openstack.org/523214
20:15:25 openstackgerrit Eric Berglund proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: PowerVM Driver: SEA https://review.openstack.org/523216
20:19:37 cfriesen mriedem: when querying quota details including usage for a tenant/user, does it only count resources created by that user?
20:20:42 mriedem cfriesen: you should talk to melwitt
20:27:39 mriedem cfriesen: in general quotas are on the usage in the project,
20:27:41 mriedem except for keypairs
20:28:25 mriedem you can see how usage is counted by the methods called for each CountableResource here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/quota.py#L1903
20:28:58 cfriesen mriedem: thanks
20:30:35 mriedem so i guess PUT /os-quota-sets/{tenant_id} is a bit weird if you're updating limits for keypairs, since those are per-user, so that should really be something like PUT /os-qouta-sets/{tenant_id}/key_pairs/{user_id} - or something like that
20:32:24 cfriesen quotas in general is a mess. the mapping between the HTTP API and the internal representation is really indirect. Looking at the quota for a user/tenant, it takes multiple queries to figure if the limit came from a tenant/user quota, a tenant quota, the default quota class, or the default in the code or config file.
20:34:38 artom mriedem, dansmith, I think we may have gotten a filter wrong, but I could just be being an idiot. Review left.
20:35:34 mriedem cfriesen: that's what i explained before
20:35:59 mriedem cfriesen: and why i wrote https://review.openstack.org/#/c/411035/
20:47:46 mriedem artom: so just AggregateMultiTenancyIsolation at this point
20:47:47 mriedem ?
20:48:07 artom mriedem, yeah. Am I correct in wondering why it's True?
20:48:20 mriedem yeah i think that's a carry over from PS5 when it used to be called POLICY_FILTER
20:48:24 mriedem and got lumped in as 'policy'
20:48:35 mriedem https://review.openstack.org/#/c/521186/5..7/nova/scheduler/filters/aggregate_multitenancy_isolation.py
20:49:12 artom Cool, so I'm not in the field
20:50:54 mriedem ok so i think i'll just change that one unless dansmith objects
20:51:09 dansmith I'm sure I don't
20:52:10 artom dansmith is like this pigeon at this point: https://imgur.com/gallery/Y5Ps3
20:52:37 dansmith pretty much

Earlier   Later