| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-11-27 | |||
| 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 | |
| 20:53:01 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Refined fix for validating image on rebuild https://review.openstack.org/521186 | |
| 20:53:02 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Fix doubling allocations on rebuild https://review.openstack.org/521662 | |
| 20:53:02 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add regression test for rebuild with new image doubling allocations https://review.openstack.org/521153 | |
| 20:53:52 | mriedem | artom: are you happy now? | |
| 20:56:09 | artom | mriedem, sorry what? I've gone and joined dansmith and the pigeon on the dog: https://i.imgur.com/ijgWRzw.jpg | |
| 20:56:19 | artom | mriedem, in seriousness though, yes. Thanks for being patient :) | |
| 20:57:16 | mriedem | approved, thanks for being thorough | |
| 20:57:41 | mriedem | just like henry david | |
| 20:57:52 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Updated from global requirements https://review.openstack.org/522929 | |
| 20:58:39 | artom | Oh and this means I get to do all those downstream CVE backports I signed for | |
| 20:59:11 | artom | So, actually, I have another nit I'd like to bikeshed over for the entire week | |
| 21:15:39 | openstackgerrit | Claudiu Belu proposed openstack/nova master: POC: tests: autospecs all the mock.patch usages https://review.openstack.org/470775 | |
| 21:17:19 | claudiub|2 | mriedem: hi. if you're still interested about mock autospecing, the above patch enforces autospec on all mock.patch calls. it does have a few hacks though, if you're willing to accept the compromise. | |
| 21:23:44 | belmoreira | dansmith: was testing what you proposed. I though I had a good solution... now I feel embarrassed :) | |
| 21:23:46 | belmoreira | dansmith: It works great! thanks | |
| 21:24:52 | dansmith | belmoreira: cool, glad to hear it | |
| 21:26:20 | belmoreira | dansmith: do you think this can still be added into newton? | |
| 21:26:39 | dansmith | belmoreira: not backported upstream most likely, but it should apply easily (as you know) | |
| 21:27:50 | belmoreira | ok, thanks again | |
| 21:32:21 | cfriesen | mriedem: did we ever figure out what to do about keypairs and users/tenants? (like where one user creates a heat stack and another within the same tenant can't delete it) | |
| 21:32:40 | cfriesen | can't find anything in the etherpads | |
| 21:34:01 | mriedem | cfriesen: you can now rebuild an instance with a new key_name | |
| 21:34:18 | mriedem | https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/queens/approved/rebuild-keypair-reset.html | |
| 21:35:29 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance action record for attach/detach/swap volumes https://review.openstack.org/517205 | |
| 21:37:17 | cfriesen | mriedem: right, I knew about that part. but I thought some people were talking about how keypairs should really be owned by the tenant. Could be it never actually got written down. | |
| 21:37:47 | mriedem | cfriesen: i'm not really remembering that | |
| 21:37:53 | mriedem | cfriesen: maybe sdague does | |
| 21:38:22 | cfriesen | thx | |
| 21:43:18 | sdague | keypairs are the only resource not owned by the tenant | |
| 21:44:10 | sdague | it makes for a very weird model of ownership, because the point was supposed to be that tenants owned all the things, and users were just permissions to be part of a tenant | |
| 22:04:51 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: Optional separate database for placement API https://review.openstack.org/362766 | |
| 22:19:28 | melwitt | cfriesen, mriedem: I recall some discussion about how user A in a tenant can't ever view user B's keypairs in the same tenant. I just can't remember where/when that was | |
| 22:19:59 | melwitt | it's so baked in that it would probably be difficult to change | |
| 22:21:17 | cfriesen | melwitt: true. what about the the weirdness of per-tenant keypair quotas when keypairs belong to users across all tenants? | |
| 22:23:28 | melwitt | cfriesen: currently, I think you can set keypair quota per tenant but what it means is "how many keypairs can each user in the tenant have" | |
| 22:23:52 | melwitt | are you thinking of a per tenant quota that means "how many keypairs can this tenant have in total"? | |
| 22:23:59 | cfriesen | melwitt: but a user can exist in multiple tenants, so which one applies? | |
| 22:24:15 | melwitt | whichever one the user is authing as at the moment | |
| 22:24:34 | melwitt | i.e. the tenant passed in the REST API request | |
| 22:24:42 | cfriesen | okay, that makes sense in a weird sort of way. | |
| 22:25:06 | cfriesen | it does mean your usage in one tenant could go up due to activity in another tenant | |
| 22:27:26 | melwitt | ah yeah, that's true. keypairs are counted per user. | |
| 22:27:30 | mriedem | ltiple cells. | |
| 22:27:30 | mriedem | yikun: good morning. :) do we really need https://review.openstack.org/#/c/517273/ to add paging support for the os-migrations API? can't we just find the starting cell for the marker by iterating the cells until we find the one with the marker migration? that's obviously less efficient since we don't have a mapping in the API database, but i don't think performance here is as big a concern as it is for paging instances acros | |
| 22:30:50 | zigo | I'm getting a weird error in my tempest test env: qemu-img: file system may not support O_DIRECT\nqemu-img: Could not open '/var/lib/nova/instances/_base/c44b0b620ae7c6fd8111e0abb5a8d1fc39fcdf08.converted': Could not open '/var/lib/nova/instances/_base/c44b0b620ae7c6fd8111e0abb5a8d1fc39fcdf08.converted': Invalid argument | |
| 22:31:25 | zigo | It looks like qemu-img doesn't like me running on a filesystem using overlay for / over tmpfs ... | |
| 22:31:47 | zigo | Is there any workaround ? | |
| 22:33:48 | zigo | penick: Blinking reading what I wrote ? :) | |