| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-01-31 | |||
| 14:48:57 | cdent | i've laid so many bricks in the past few days I'm not sure I have any left | |
| 14:48:59 | mriedem | if another core can look at this, i think we should get it in before rc1 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/522112/ beause backports with new config options are generally gross | |
| 14:49:09 | jaypipes | cdent: poor guy. still under the weather? | |
| 14:49:17 | jaypipes | mriedem: on it. | |
| 14:49:19 | mriedem | ^ adds the ability for nova to do cinder api stuff, like neutron, without a user token, for things like periodic cleanup tasks | |
| 14:49:43 | jaypipes | mriedem: reading the bugs now... | |
| 14:50:04 | openstackgerrit | Sen Yang proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Implement hypervisor hostname exact pattern match https://review.openstack.org/520187 | |
| 14:50:11 | cdent | jaypipes: I _am_ still under the weather, but the bricks I was talking about in this case is the number of conversations in the past few days about generations and provider tree and related stuff that are still up in the air | |
| 14:50:21 | jaypipes | cdent: heh, ok :) | |
| 14:50:27 | ameeda | mriedem: about assigned bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1746531 where I should add the description and what should I write ? | |
| 14:50:28 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1746531 in OpenStack Compute (nova) pike "nova-manage db archive_deleted_rows man page does not mention --until-complete option" [Medium,Confirmed] | |
| 14:50:35 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: ComputeDriver.update_provider_tree() https://review.openstack.org/521187 | |
| 14:50:35 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: report client: get_provider_tree_and_ensure_root https://review.openstack.org/521098 | |
| 14:50:36 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: ProviderTree.get_provider_uuids: Top-down ordering https://review.openstack.org/536624 | |
| 14:50:36 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: SchedulerReportClient._delete_provider https://review.openstack.org/535463 | |
| 14:50:37 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: New-style _set_inventory_for_provider https://review.openstack.org/537648 | |
| 14:50:37 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: set_{aggregates|traits}_for_provider: tolerate set https://review.openstack.org/536625 | |
| 14:50:38 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Use update_provider_tree from resource tracker https://review.openstack.org/520246 | |
| 14:50:38 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: SchedulerReportClient.update_from_provider_tree https://review.openstack.org/533821 | |
| 14:50:39 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Fix nits in update_provider_tree series https://review.openstack.org/531260 | |
| 14:50:40 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Make generation optional in ProviderTree https://review.openstack.org/539324 | |
| 14:50:40 | jaypipes | cdent: I seem to have gracefully avoided all of those conversations... | |
| 14:50:40 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Move refresh time from report client to prov tree https://review.openstack.org/535517 | |
| 14:50:58 | ameeda | is still gate broken ? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/526900/ | |
| 14:51:21 | cdent | jaypipes: they've been interesting and I think for the most part useful with regard to longer term considerations | |
| 14:51:26 | efried | gibi, jaypipes, mriedem: easy manual rebases on that series | |
| 14:51:37 | gibi | efried: looking... | |
| 14:51:38 | cdent | jaypipes but trying to parse them while still ill is ow | |
| 14:51:40 | mriedem | melwitt: i think the functional test failures in your patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/340614/ are real | |
| 14:52:34 | jaypipes | cdent: ack on that... | |
| 14:53:47 | jaypipes | mriedem: hmm, delete_on_termination=True && boot_from_volume=True don't seem to be a good mix... | |
| 14:53:57 | jaypipes | but whatevs, I will try to keep an open mind.' | |
| 14:54:31 | mriedem | jaypipes: that's super old behavior | |
| 14:54:47 | mriedem | delete the backing volume once i delete the instance | |
| 14:54:48 | bauzas | mriedem: on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/522112/ | |
| 14:56:14 | ameeda | mriedem: should I follow https://docs.openstack.org/doc-contrib-guide/ ? | |
| 14:56:40 | mriedem | ameeda: no, the nova-manage man pages are in the nova tree | |
| 14:56:45 | mriedem | under doc/source/cli | |
| 14:57:00 | mriedem | it's just a restructured text file | |
| 14:58:01 | ameeda | great , what I should write there ? | |
| 14:58:11 | mriedem | ameeda: dude | |
| 14:58:23 | mriedem | i'm not going to write the patch fo you | |
| 14:58:24 | mriedem | *for | |
| 14:58:29 | gibi | jaypipes, mriedem: the first patch in efried's series needs a second core https://review.openstack.org/#/c/521098 the rest is +Wd | |
| 14:58:45 | ameeda | mriedem: sorry :$ | |
| 14:58:46 | mriedem | see how existing entries document CLI options, take a stab at doing similar for the missing option, and then post it for review and get feedback | |
| 14:58:49 | ameeda | Thank you !! | |
| 14:59:12 | mriedem | gibi: if it was a rebase you can just fast approve | |
| 14:59:58 | gibi | mriedem: it was a manual rebase, but yeah, I can fast approve it, sure. | |
| 15:00:29 | mriedem | we need some cores to look at this too https://review.openstack.org/#/c/537351/ | |
| 15:00:35 | mriedem | fixes nits in alex's traits series | |
| 15:01:26 | bauzas | mriedem: are we considering https://review.openstack.org/#/c/537351/4 not impact by FF ? | |
| 15:01:29 | bauzas | impacted* | |
| 15:01:49 | mriedem | bauzas: it's docs and nit cleanups | |
| 15:01:54 | bauzas | acceptable | |
| 15:04:35 | gibi | mriedem: fyi, this is can be merged now: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/533608 as the ocata backport has been merged as well | |
| 15:05:50 | mriedem | gibi: yeah i thought that was already done | |
| 15:06:48 | efried | Thanks gibi! | |
| 15:21:15 | gibi | ralonsoh__: hi! Do you plan to propose https://review.openstack.org/#/c/502306/14/specs/queens/approved/bandwidth-resource-provider.rst to rocky? | |
| 15:26:12 | tssurya | melwitt : I just wanted to confirm something, since quota calculation uses scatter_gather_all_cells, the whole process is a parallel process right when it comes to querying each cell DB ? | |
| 15:26:40 | dansmith | tssurya: yeah | |
| 15:26:43 | tssurya | melwitt : so we don't have to worry much about the performance in Pike with regards to this aspect | |
| 15:26:52 | tssurya | dansmith : thanks | |
| 15:29:27 | tssurya | dansmith : also regarding the status of our solution for calculating quotas when a cell is down, we realized that in Pike no vm creation would take place at all if any of the cell is down since it would raise exception at this point : https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/cb1e763df76e21b5382872c89dd169ecb152c420/nova/api/openstack/compute/servers.py#L494 | |
| 15:29:41 | dansmith | bauzas: can you please look at this? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/532924/ | |
| 15:30:35 | dansmith | tssurya: ah yeah, we need to fix that | |
| 15:31:00 | dansmith | tssurya: I think we can pretty much remove that check now since the version we're checking for should be out of the support window | |
| 15:31:32 | tssurya | dansmith : so I will submit a POC for this and nova list, but we can discuss more of this in the ptg after we find a solution to deal with differentiating deleted instances from living ones | |
| 15:31:48 | dansmith | in the future when we need to do that sort of thing we'll need to decide what the plan is if a cell doesn't come back with that answer | |
| 15:32:22 | dansmith | tssurya: I really don't think we're going to find such a solution without replicating more data up top, but.. yeah, sounds good | |
| 15:33:34 | tssurya | because even for the quotas solution (which was to allow vm creation if a project doesn't have any instances in the cell that is down) it would change to not allowing vm creation if there are any instance_mappings in that cell :( | |
| 15:33:51 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 15:34:18 | dansmith | that might not be a problem depending on how you distributed people (i.e. keep tenants to a subset of cells), but yeah fair enough | |
| 15:34:21 | ralonsoh__ | gibi, sean-k-mooney: I no longer work in OpenStack for the moment. Please, ask sean-k-mooney about the plans to propose it for the next release cycle | |
| 15:34:24 | tssurya | dansmith : how I found this - # TODO(melwitt): Counting across cells for instances means we will miss counting resources if a cell is down. In the future, we should query placement for cores/ram and InstanceMappings for instances (once we are deleting InstanceMappings when we delete instances). | |
| 15:34:37 | tssurya | however* | |
| 15:35:11 | tssurya | so hopes up for the last part "once we are deleting InstanceMappings when we delete instances" | |
| 15:35:24 | dansmith | tssurya: yeah so we could try to leverage placement here in some way, but it would be a rather inefficient merge of "does placement know about any of these instance mappings" | |
| 15:35:25 | sean-k-mooney | ralonsoh__: propose which? | |
| 15:35:45 | ralonsoh__ | sean-k-mooney, gibi: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/502306/14/specs/queens/approved/bandwidth-resource-provider.rst | |
| 15:35:46 | dansmith | tssurya: we can't delete instancemappings when we delete instances | |
| 15:36:46 | tssurya | dansmith: yea probably, but is there a way we could included a status for the mappings ? | |
| 15:37:19 | dansmith | tssurya: that's what I meant about "replicating more data" | |
| 15:37:25 | dansmith | we said we weren't going to do that, so we'd have to discuss whether or not we're going to violate that design point or not | |
| 15:37:49 | tssurya | dansmith: hmm okay, | |
| 15:38:03 | dansmith | tssurya: maybe we could do something like delete the reqspec (if we don't already) when we delete an instance, and then not include instances with no requestspec that do have a mapping? | |
| 15:38:39 | dansmith | tssurya: I think bauzas was going to clean that up (delete reqspec on delete) but not sure if he ever did | |
| 15:38:41 | tssurya | dansmith : we don't delete request_spec as of now, | |
| 15:38:50 | tssurya | but yes that would also work | |
| 15:38:55 | gibi | ralonsoh__: thanks for the info | |
| 15:38:57 | dansmith | that would be better IMHO | |
| 15:39:03 | tssurya | if we could delete specs when we delete the instances | |
| 15:39:14 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: do you plan to re-propose https://review.openstack.org/#/c/502306/14/specs/queens/approved/bandwidth-resource-provider.rst ? | |
| 15:39:48 | tssurya | dansmith : no he didn't because we did something similar to instance_mappings clean up during archival | |
| 15:40:07 | tssurya | so now we purge mappings and specs in the same way | |
| 15:40:30 | dansmith | yeah, okay, well, I think it'd make sense to do it that way, but we can discuss at the PTG | |
| 15:40:41 | tssurya | dansmith : yes sounds good :) | |
| 15:42:36 | cdent | bauzas: you happy to put your +W back on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/519462/ now that gate is a bit happier? | |
| 15:43:01 | bauzas | cdent: it requires a manual rebase | |
| 15:43:12 | bauzas | there is a merge conflict | |