Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-11-28
15:32:49 jaypipes jianghuaw_: that way, we're not using any standard traits for things that are quantitative and you can still have the scheduler and placement service do what they're good at without any additional hacks.
15:34:04 jaypipes jianghuaw_: in that way, all the requests for vGPU with no need for display head support will go to those hosts and all other requests for vGPUs *with* display head support will go to the other hosts that have inventory of both VGPU and VGPU_DISPLAY_HEAD
15:34:08 jianghuaw_ jaypipes, hmmm. It should work.
15:34:58 jaypipes jianghuaw_: I'm fine using custom traits for something like that. it's just that I am strongly against using standard traits for things that are, in essence, quantities of some class of resource (like the proposed SINGLE_DISPLAY_HEAD_CAPABLE thing above)
15:35:04 jianghuaw_ jaypipes, another option is to making display head default as 1. If there is no display heads return from hypervisor.
15:35:56 jaypipes jianghuaw_: you mean "fake out" the inventory counts for VGPU_DISPLAY_HEADS for these hosts?
15:36:13 jianghuaw_ jaypipes, yes.
15:36:35 jaypipes jianghuaw_: nah, I'd prefer not to do that. otherwise, we'll go down the route of cdent and his "infinite inventories" :P
15:37:06 jianghuaw_ jaypipes, ok. Let's forget it:-)
15:37:35 cdent all my best ideas, like sands in the hourglass
15:38:22 jaypipes hehe
15:38:46 jaypipes jianghuaw_: no, in all seriousness, I think the custom trait CUSTOM_NO_DISPLAY_HEAD is the right approach to solve that remaining use case.
15:40:57 jianghuaw_ jaypipes, I think the above approaching by using custom traits actually strongly depends on the administrators to do right thing to set the flavors. I means it make break thing if someone wrongly created a flavor only request VGPU and don't have CUSTOM_NO_DISPLAY_HEAD.
15:41:56 jaypipes jianghuaw_: that's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.
15:42:47 jianghuaw_ jaypipes, got it. So we should record that in the document.
15:43:13 jianghuaw_ let's go with that approach.
15:43:16 jaypipes jianghuaw_: yeah. I think a "how to use vGPUs with OpenStack" article/tutorial/reference would be extremely useful.
15:43:51 jianghuaw_ jaypipes, thanks very much.j
15:43:57 jaypipes jianghuaw_: any time :)
15:44:53 jianghuaw_ efried, bauzas: thank you also for the discussion and advices.
15:45:13 efried jianghuaw_ Cool, good luck.
15:45:51 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Don't overwrite binding-profile https://review.openstack.org/519066
15:46:03 jianghuaw_ efried, :-)
15:46:18 efried alex_xu FYI, both of those tests pass on top of the stack; and I don't think we actually have other tests that match them exactly; and even if we did, I'm not opposed to having some duplication there.
15:46:41 efried alex_xu Not sure exactly how/where to propose the code, though.
15:48:34 efried alex_xu I guess we should propose the code under https://review.openstack.org/#/c/498737/ and abandon https://review.openstack.org/#/c/480379/
15:49:00 efried alex_xu But I'm not sure which patch to declare as having fixed bug #1731072
15:49:01 openstack bug 1731072 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "AllocationCandidates.get_by_filters returns garbage with multiple aggregates" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1731072
15:49:41 efried oh, I guess that bug isn't fully fixed anyway, so we can just leave that alone.
15:49:48 efried Okay, I've answered all my questions :)
15:49:58 efried jaypipes mriedem FYI ^^
15:50:52 efried Dangit, wrong bug. Should have been bug #1702420 -- which is indeed fixed now.
15:50:53 openstack bug 1702420 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "The AllocationCandidates.get_by_filters returned wrong combination of AllocationRequests" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1702420 - Assigned to Alex Xu (xuhj)
15:51:31 jaypipes efried: now as in now or now as in "will be shortly once some patch is merged"?
15:51:35 jianghuaw_ bauzas, Please check the above discussion after you come back. Hope you also agree with the approach: 1. always requesting display heads for VGPUs which have display heads; 2. use custom traits e.g. CUSTOM_NO_DISPLAY_HEAD for those cases where display head is not supported.
15:52:21 efried jaypipes The latter. I'm rebasing https://review.openstack.org/#/c/498737/ on top of the series formerly known as The Big Refactor.
15:52:37 jianghuaw_ bauzas, and don't forget to review my vGPU patches. Thanks:-)
15:52:39 jaypipes efried: gotcha.
15:52:49 jaypipes efried: I'm focused on n-r-p right now.
15:53:06 efried jaypipes Oh, actually, since the refactors are merged at this point, it may be fixed at master. I can check that quick...
16:05:32 efried jaypipes Well, my port relies on some of the test helpers, so for that reason alone it won't work until later in the series. IMO not worth the trouble of retrofitting the tests to pre-helper and then having to rebase.
16:05:51 jaypipes efried: ack
16:06:00 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: placement: func tests for multiple shared RPs https://review.openstack.org/498737
16:06:02 efried jaypipes alex_xu ^
16:07:40 openstack Launchpad bug 1702420 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "The AllocationCandidates.get_by_filters returned wrong combination of AllocationRequests" [High,Fix released] - Assigned to Alex Xu (xuhj)
16:07:40 efried alex_xu FYI I closed https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1702420
16:19:39 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Deduplicate instance.create notification samples https://review.openstack.org/523456
16:40:15 Anticimex hello, operator here
16:40:22 Anticimex was there ever progress on https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/mitaka/approved/detach-boot-volume.html since M?
16:40:42 Anticimex we just ran into that as a little nasty bug that made us sad
16:41:25 cdent mriedem: is there a reasonable way to do a test for this or is tempest sufficient? tempest happily blows up when it is wrong (see previous patchsets in the series): https://review.openstack.org/#/c/523403/
16:45:28 jaypipes Anticimex: what precisely is the use case for attaching/detaching a boot volume? I've read that spec and each use case just describes a poorly-architected legacy application that relies on the infrastructure to do all of its disaster recovery, backup, and HA.
16:55:43 mriedem cdent: i'm lost re https://review.openstack.org/#/c/523403/
16:55:51 mriedem which other patch in the series?
16:56:22 cdent sorry, not series, same change: ps1 and p2 have failures (but I may have knocked them out before they got a chance to report)
16:56:45 cdent mriedem: my words are a bit broken today, too many of them
16:57:50 cdent mriedem: the short form of my question is: since that didn’t have test coverage (besides tempest) before, is it okay without additional tests?
16:59:57 mriedem might not be bad to have a simple test that mocks out filter_factory and uses autospec to make sure what we're passing to that method is actually in the library
17:00:11 efried jaypipes Series starting at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/517119/ needs a rebase. Want me to hit it? Or mebbe we wait until some more stuff merges?
17:00:39 jaypipes efried: wait on that.
17:00:45 efried jaypipes K. Need to address gibi's -1 too.
17:01:22 jaypipes efried: yeah.
17:01:49 jaypipes efried: still running tests on the n-r-p series... and I'll need to rebase and bump the microversion yet again once cdent's latest patch merges.
17:01:57 efried jaypipes Right. Is there anywhere I can actually be useful at this point?
17:02:19 jaypipes efried: can you bake cookies (chocolate chip) and send them my way? :)
17:02:41 jaypipes efried: no, in all seriousness, reviewing edleafe's series on alternate hosts if you haven't yet will be good.
17:03:12 efried jaypipes Sorry, my wife is the baker. She's out til late tonight. I make a mean curry, though.
17:03:35 efried jaypipes Okay, I've been deliberately avoiding that one for lack of context, but I guess I'll have to dig in at some point.
17:03:38 jaypipes efried: ooh, I love curry.
17:03:44 jaypipes efried: doesn't ship well, though.
17:03:59 Anticimex jaypipes: resize boot volume, ie make it larger
17:04:05 jaypipes efried: also ask dansmith to point you at patches he'd like reeviewed.
17:04:12 efried dansmith ^
17:04:28 dansmith we're waiting on me for all my patches currently I think
17:04:41 jaypipes Anticimex: just stop the instance, resize the volume, and boot.
17:04:56 efried k, just let me know.
17:04:57 edleafe jaypipes: will have patch addressing your concerns on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/510159/ soon
17:05:05 Anticimex jaypipes: can't while it's attached
17:05:18 Anticimex .oO though that may have been fixed in ocata or something for ceph iirc
17:05:24 jaypipes Anticimex: stop the instance, resize the volume, and start the instance.
17:05:43 jaypipes edleafe: coo, thanks man
17:06:11 jaypipes Anticimex: terminate the instance, not stop it.
17:06:25 jaypipes Anticimex: I mean, if it's boot from volume, you're not losing anything.
17:06:29 mriedem you can resize an attached volume starting in pike
17:06:34 mriedem for libvirt + iscsi/fc
17:06:49 Anticimex jaypipes: no only cumbersome to retype all things, but that's indeed the workaround
17:07:05 jaypipes Anticimex: unless of course, it's a legacy application that relies on a) IP addresses not changing, b) infrastructure for doing disaster recovery, c) infrastructure for doing HA, etc
17:07:13 Anticimex but resize while attached (& stopped) is ok here
17:07:35 jaypipes mriedem: bfv though?
17:07:35 mriedem https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/pike/implemented/nova-support-attached-volume-extend.html
17:07:41 mriedem jaypipes: not sure about bfv
17:07:48 Anticimex mriedem: ack
17:07:52 jaypipes right... it's always the problem with bfv :)
17:07:53 mriedem the tempest test is not bfv
17:08:28 cdent efried: I’d totally dig on some curry please
17:10:26 Anticimex jaypipes: it is however legacy workload indeed
17:11:55 Anticimex but that wasn't the problem, the problem was the workflow for the resize (grow). but if this works in pike or queens if i got mriedem right, i guess that's always something
17:11:56 jaypipes Anticimex: by legacy, I'm referring to an application that doesn't have the ability to separate its application state from the persistent user data. In other words, an application that can be inserted in an image/ephemeral boot disk and have its user data written to a persistent volume.
17:12:59 Anticimex yeah, it's not capable of that
17:13:12 jaypipes Anticimex: I'd try it out if you can. Hopefully that would be a workaround solution until you can convince the application authors to provide a way to configure data to be written to a filesystem/DB separate from the boot partition.

Earlier   Later