| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-01-02 | |||
| 15:35:00 | edleafe | jaypipes: this will also mean that we will need someone to run the scheduler subteam meetings, as I'll be on the road at that hour | |
| 15:35:15 | jaypipes | edleafe: ack. | |
| 15:35:34 | jaypipes | edleafe: or you could tell your management chain to stuff it and let you be productive. | |
| 15:42:33 | edleafe | jaypipes: I'd love to (and sort of have already), but it's dictated by someone clueless several levels above me. | |
| 15:43:16 | edleafe | jaypipes: I've been trying to land a new gig, but OpenStack isn't the hiring hotness it was a few short years ago | |
| 15:43:24 | dhellmann | hey folks, is this patch to add whereto for testing your doc redirects of any interest? or should I drop it? https://review.openstack.org/516385 | |
| 15:45:29 | cdent | (i'm excluding myself because that plus the friday report would kill me) | |
| 15:45:35 | stephenfin | dhellmann: sdague would normally be your man but he's not around. Maybe mriedem | |
| 15:46:22 | dhellmann | stephenfin : yeah, I added sdague to the review since he's the one that threw the fit that drove us to add support for this in the first place. | |
| 15:46:26 | efried | cdent I wouldn't necessarily have a problem doing that; but IMO we should move the meeting to a time where edleafe can at least attend, if not continue to run it. | |
| 15:46:42 | cdent | also true | |
| 15:47:04 | cdent | I think part of the problem is that 4 hours of edleafe's day is being eaten by stupidity | |
| 15:47:11 | cdent | so scheduling around him may be challenging | |
| 15:47:14 | edleafe | cdent: nailed it | |
| 15:47:43 | mdbooth | Is the gate unhappy today? | |
| 15:47:52 | jaypipes | edleafe: there's always k8s. | |
| 15:48:14 | mdbooth | jaypipes: Thanks for all those reviews on my patch series, btw. | |
| 15:48:27 | jaypipes | mdbooth: have they merged yet? | |
| 15:48:32 | mdbooth | 2 landed, currently trying to corral 3 more. | |
| 15:48:34 | edleafe | jaypipes: heh, I spent a lot of my holiday time improving my golang skills | |
| 15:48:37 | jaypipes | mdbooth: k | |
| 15:48:52 | jaypipes | edleafe: a good idea. | |
| 15:49:17 | mdbooth | edleafe: Thoughts on golang? | |
| 15:50:34 | edleafe | mdbooth: it's a perfectly fine language. The main issue isn't syntax, of course, but learning the proper way of doing things. 15 years of Pythonic thinking is a bit difficult to overcome. :) | |
| 15:50:47 | mriedem | mdbooth: might have a problem here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/525599/ | |
| 15:51:32 | mdbooth | mriedem: I'll regret pointing this out, but that's in the gate right now. | |
| 15:51:41 | mriedem | mdbooth: put a fix on top | |
| 15:51:49 | mdbooth | mriedem: Thanks :) | |
| 15:51:52 | mriedem | should be easy to adjust your test as well to use a deleted bdm | |
| 15:53:44 | mdbooth | mriedem: Ah, actually I think that was intentional because otherwise we can't but a not null constraint on the column subsequently. | |
| 15:54:13 | mriedem | so we can load a deleted record and update it? | |
| 15:54:24 | mriedem | you should at least have a wrinkle in your test showing this is ok | |
| 15:54:43 | mozart89 | Hello. Is it necessary to use Numa Topology ? | |
| 15:54:43 | mdbooth | mriedem: That is an excellent point. That should at least be tested. | |
| 15:54:43 | mriedem | also, another reason we don't have constraints on these things at first | |
| 15:54:49 | mdbooth | And I wouldn't be surprised to find it's broken. | |
| 15:54:51 | mriedem | mozart89: no | |
| 15:55:01 | kashyap | Oops, the 'i' in "Performance impact" _have_ to be capital; or else pep8 fails. /me corrected it out of OCD, and realized the template itself was like htat | |
| 15:55:43 | mdbooth | There's no constraint on it right now. The goal is to put a constraint on it in the first release where we positively assert that this migration has already run. | |
| 15:56:01 | mdbooth | i.e. if it fails, it's the operator's fault. | |
| 15:56:41 | mriedem | i was thinking of the unique constraint https://review.openstack.org/#/c/242602/28/nova/db/sqlalchemy/migrate_repo/versions/374_bdm_uuid.py | |
| 15:56:45 | mriedem | but i see uuid is nullable=True | |
| 15:56:51 | mriedem | which is the constraint you're talking about | |
| 15:57:21 | mriedem | the BlockDeviceMapping.uuid is not nullable though | |
| 15:57:24 | mriedem | which is probably good enough | |
| 15:58:26 | mdbooth | mriedem: Ah, actually this is still ok because it never loads the object. This is purely a db operation. I'll still add a test for it, if for no other reason than to make it obvious it's intentional. | |
| 15:59:32 | mozart89 | mriedem: I'm not using any NUMA Topology ( CPU pinning and e.t.c). But when i'm triggering "live migration" it stops with message "Require both a host and instance NUMA topology to fit instance on host". | |
| 16:00:24 | mriedem | mozart89: that's just a debug message isn't it? | |
| 16:00:55 | mriedem | mozart89: that's just a debug message that is output when the NUMATopologyFilter runs | |
| 16:01:03 | mriedem | and is likely not your issue | |
| 16:04:51 | kashyap | jaypipes: Is it true---to fix this (http://paste.openstack.org/show/636270/)---I have to explicitly change the order pf py27/py34 in tox.ini? | |
| 16:05:13 | mriedem | kashyap: no | |
| 16:05:20 | mriedem | rm -rf .testrepository | |
| 16:05:31 | kashyap | Yep, just did that. | |
| 16:05:47 | stephenfin | mriedem, kashyap: That isn't necessary on master anymore, I thought | |
| 16:05:53 | jaypipes | why is there a py27/py35 env for a specs repo? | |
| 16:05:54 | stephenfin | Since the switch to stestr | |
| 16:06:22 | mozart89 | mriedem: ok, thank you for direction :) | |
| 16:06:25 | stephenfin | Oh, this is nova-specs. nvm me | |
| 16:06:44 | kashyap | stephenfin: Yeah, it seems to be PEBKAC | |
| 16:06:46 | mriedem | there is no py27/py35 targets for nova-specs | |
| 16:07:21 | mriedem | Require both a host and instance NUMA topology | |
| 16:07:23 | mriedem | oops | |
| 16:17:51 | kashyap | mriedem: When you get a sec, is this also my env prob - http://paste.openstack.org/show/636286/ | |
| 16:18:30 | stephenfin | kashyap: Stick 'basepython=python2' in the requisite tox target | |
| 16:18:47 | stephenfin | I'd say your system Python is python3.x | |
| 16:18:53 | mriedem | yeah ^ | |
| 16:18:55 | kashyap | stephenfin: I wanted to do that, but I felt: "wait a moment, it should work with existin master" | |
| 16:18:58 | kashyap | Yeah, it is | |
| 16:19:15 | stephenfin | The gate/Ubuntu uses Python 2 so we'd never see it there | |
| 16:20:11 | stephenfin | So it needs basepython or the requisite changes to be Python3 compatible. Latter is better long term, naturally (one year closer to 2020) | |
| 16:21:33 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Address nits in I46d483f9de6776db1b025f925890624e5e682ada https://review.openstack.org/530462 | |
| 16:22:05 | stephenfin | gibi_away, jaypipes: So that ^ should _definitely_ work now, if you fancy sticking it on your review queue (it's cleanup for the PCI policy thing) | |
| 16:23:41 | kashyap | stephenfin: That's it; thanks. | |
| 16:24:13 | mriedem | kashyap: push a patch so others don't hit it | |
| 16:24:18 | kashyap | `tox -epep8 -- -HEAD` succeeds; ( mriedem - `tox -e fast8` was a joke, right | |
| 16:24:22 | kashyap | mriedem: Okido | |
| 16:24:28 | mriedem | kashyap: tox -e fast8 is a nova repo thing | |
| 16:24:30 | mriedem | not nova-specs | |
| 16:24:39 | kashyap | Ah, okay. | |
| 16:25:52 | kashyap | mriedem: Oops on, actually "that's not it". Fast switching between repos, I ran it on Nova upstream | |
| 16:26:40 | kashyap | stephenfin: That's my tox.ini - http://paste.openstack.org/show/636299/ | |
| 16:26:48 | kashyap | That should more than do, right? | |
| 16:26:53 | kashyap | (Again, this is for nova-specs) | |
| 16:30:38 | stephenfin | kashyap: Should do, yup | |
| 16:30:42 | stephenfin | You can drop line 21 | |
| 16:30:47 | jaypipes | stephenfin: done | |
| 16:31:08 | stephenfin | kashyap: Also line 3-5, but that's another change | |
| 16:31:09 | mriedem | ildikov: are you going to rebase https://review.openstack.org/#/c/267587/ on top of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/529695/ ? | |
| 16:31:15 | stephenfin | jaypipes: Thank you, sir | |
| 16:31:20 | kashyap | stephenfin: Yep | |
| 16:31:58 | ildikov | mriedem: I added it in 'Depends-On' | |
| 16:32:15 | ildikov | mriedem: I can make a chain if you would prefer that | |
| 16:32:35 | ildikov | ? | |
| 16:33:30 | stephenfin | mdbooth: Given the similarities to your own BDM patch, wanna take a shot at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/530487/ this week, once you're feeling better? | |
| 16:34:26 | mriedem | ildikov: the chain is better when it's in the same repo | |
| 16:34:33 | mriedem | IMO | |
| 16:35:47 | ildikov | mriedem: ok, will make it a chain | |
| 16:37:09 | mriedem | stephenfin: is this part of the pci policy bp i just marked as complete? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/530487/ | |
| 16:37:19 | mriedem | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/share-pci-between-numa-nodes | |