Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-02-07
12:31:18 sean-k-mooney stephenfin: any comments ^
12:33:19 sean-k-mooney cgoncalves: having should_provide_port in the port profile may be useful as a seperate change to help address https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1747496 in the future but should not be need for your usecase
12:33:21 openstack Launchpad bug 1747496 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "MTUs are not set for VIFs if using kernel ovs + hybrid plug = false" [Medium,Confirmed] - Assigned to sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)
12:34:14 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Add sending global request ID in put (3) https://review.openstack.org/531280
12:35:33 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Add sending global request ID in get https://review.openstack.org/531299
12:35:43 cgoncalves sean-k-mooney: yeah, that is what I am considering (the refactor part). a gap there would be lack of security group for that port, I guess
12:36:29 sean-k-mooney wanghongtao do you see any error in the libvirt instance log? it should be under /var/log/libvirt/qemu/instance...
12:36:57 cgoncalves sean-k-mooney: FYI this is what i would like to get rid of by leveraging os-vif: https://github.com/openstack/octavia/blob/master/devstack/plugin.sh#L316-L344
12:38:27 sean-k-mooney cgoncalves: well os-vif would be setting the neutron port uuid for the port in the external_id filed of the ovsdb so neutron shoudl add the security groups if you are using the openvsiwthc security gorup driver.
12:38:49 sean-k-mooney cgoncalves: but you are correct if you were using iptables you would need to do hybrid_plug
12:39:49 sean-k-mooney cgoncalves: e.g. crate tap/veth in linux bridge and connect that lb to ovs
12:39:58 sean-k-mooney via a veth
12:44:58 cgoncalves sean-k-mooney: right. in that case it would make much sense to name the vif VIFInternal because there would be any ovs internal port created
12:46:02 wanghongtao log no any error the vm is running in the hypervisor in the nova is shutdown
12:48:12 sean-k-mooney wanghongtao: ah nova has a periodic check in the compute to see if vms are still running. if it finds that they are not i belive it updates the state in the db to reflect that but i dont think it work the other way? dansmith melwitt stephenfin might be able to confirm
12:50:00 sean-k-mooney cgoncalves: well a os-vif vif object is not the same as a neutron vif type. the neutron vif_ovs + hybrid_plug=false is mapped to VIFOpenvswitch but vif_ovs + hybrid_plug=true is VIFBridge
12:52:29 wanghongtao now vm is stopped in hypervisor and in nova
12:54:54 sean-k-mooney wanghongtao: yes and before you stoped it with virsh stop it was active in nova correct
12:55:35 sean-k-mooney if nova sees a vm is running and is marked as stopped in its db it will stop the vm.
12:56:22 sean-k-mooney if nova think a vm is running and discovers its stopped i think it updates it db to mark it as off.
12:58:02 sean-k-mooney so what i think happended is nova and libvirt both agreed the vm shoudl be running, then you stoped it with virsh and nova noticed and updated its db. then you started it with virsh and nova stopped it because it thinks it should not be running.
12:58:17 sean-k-mooney wanghongtao: have you tried starting it with nova
12:58:53 cgoncalves sean-k-mooney: agreed. what I don't get is what if hybrid_plug=True and consider the usecase I presented? what should be the ovs vif type created? not VIFInternal
12:59:26 lyarwood stephenfin: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/540679/ - if you have time can you take a look at this, a test only follow up for the native LUKS decryption spec.
13:00:35 sean-k-mooney cgoncalves: hybrid_plug=True proably VIFbridge with should_provide_port=true not sure
13:03:22 sean-k-mooney cgoncalves: if we just used VIFbridge is there any reason you could not use the bridge interface for octavia
13:03:47 sean-k-mooney cgoncalves: i would prefer not to use should_provide_port=true for interface that will not be used by vms
13:05:46 cgoncalves sean-k-mooney: ah, good one. using the bridge interface should suffice ;)
13:06:21 cgoncalves sean-k-mooney: I'll refactor by introducing VIFInternal. thanks!
13:15:09 artom claudiub|2, heya
13:15:15 artom claudiub|2, yeah, saw the Jenkins email
13:15:20 artom Will try to take a look today :)
13:17:51 openstackgerrit Andreas Jaeger proposed openstack/nova master: Make the InstanceMapping marker UUID-like https://review.openstack.org/539323
13:23:37 efried stephenfin: Is the multi-numa-node guest thing only crucial for the PCI device aspect?
13:24:32 efried stephenfin: And in that case, you don't want anti-affinity for anti-affinity's sake; you just want the ability to get your devices from different NUMA nodes as necessary (cause otherwise you wouldn't have enough / the right ones available). Right?
13:24:50 sean-k-mooney efried: i think he is at lunch but there are other reason to use multi numa node guest
13:25:14 sean-k-mooney efried: e.g. large guest with more cpus then are availabel on a singel numa node when useing hugepages
13:25:38 sean-k-mooney efried: increased memory bandwidth
13:25:55 efried sean-k-mooney: So what, in that CPU case you would want affinity for "as many CPUs as possible" but allow the rest to bleed into other NUMA nodes?
13:26:15 efried sean-k-mooney: Or would it be sufficient in that case to say "no CPU affinity" and just let 'em spread out?
13:26:35 sean-k-mooney efried: no in the flavor extraspec you can specify how many cpus are assigned to each virtual numa node
13:26:56 efried sean-k-mooney: By what, naming the NUMA node?
13:27:17 efried So you could still get away with something that finicky using traits.
13:27:31 efried You could even do it so you didn't necessarily have to target a specific host, possibly.
13:27:40 sean-k-mooney efried: nameing the virtual numa nodes we have a nodeX sysntax where X is an integer starting at 0
13:27:57 sean-k-mooney the virtual number has no baring in phyical numa nodes on the host
13:28:02 efried sean-k-mooney: Just so - use a trait for that, plus granular request groups, and you can get away with that.
13:28:17 efried sean-k-mooney: You wouldn't use the affinity concept at all in that case.
13:28:46 sean-k-mooney efried: you would use affinity to tie memory form a numa node to cpus for a numa node
13:29:41 sean-k-mooney e.g. 8 vpcu with 2G or ram guset with 2 numa nodes each with 4 cores and 1G of ram
13:29:44 efried sean-k-mooney: I have to run, but would you mind scribbling down a concrete use case or two for this?
13:30:23 efried I want to make sure we can cover it one way or the other.
13:30:52 cdent (more scribbling)++
13:31:03 sean-k-mooney efried: sure stephenfin may have more to had but ill try to add a few flavor exampels to an eterhpad
13:31:11 efried Thank you
13:33:31 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: placement doc: Conflict caveat for DELETE APIs https://review.openstack.org/540919
13:35:19 sean-k-mooney efried: this is one of the multi-numa flavor i use for my own testing http://paste.openstack.org/show/664744/
13:36:20 efried sean-k-mooney: Roger that. I'll have some questions about it later on. gtg
13:37:19 sean-k-mooney efried: ill use that as a base however that is not the best example as i am depending on alot of implict behavor. ill work on smaples here https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/multi-numa-samples-for-placement talk later o/
13:38:45 jianghuaw bauzas, gibi May you help to look at this support matrix doc for vGPU? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/540808/
13:39:12 jianghuaw Hope it's not late for rc1.
13:39:14 jianghuaw thanks.
14:26:45 ameeda mriedem: I still need +2w here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/528385/. can you please help ?
14:27:32 bauzas jianghuaw: will look today, promised.
14:28:34 jianghuaw bauzas, thanks very much:-)
14:31:27 openstackgerrit Jacek Tomasiak proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Fix listing of instances above API max_limit https://review.openstack.org/534222
14:32:23 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Adds view builders for keypairs controller https://review.openstack.org/347289
14:32:31 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Adds view builders for keypairs controller https://review.openstack.org/347289
14:32:38 openstackgerrit Marcin Juszkiewicz proposed openstack/nova master: Provide basic data for AArch64 support matrix/functionality https://review.openstack.org/541728
14:32:53 hrw bauzas: please take a look
15:20:42 kashyap sean-k-mooney: Wonder if you have thoughts on my last two comments on the design here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/497457/18
15:20:45 kashyap (No hurry.)
15:27:00 mriedem o/
15:27:54 cdent o/
15:28:46 openstackgerrit Lajos Katona proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Add nested resources to server moving tests https://review.openstack.org/527728
15:28:52 hrw http://logs.openstack.org/28/541728/1/check/build-openstack-sphinx-docs/7a3bf19/html/user/support-matrix.html is nice. had no idea that zuul will make it available
15:28:56 lyarwood \o morning
15:30:20 dansmith mriedem: so we just merged another compute rpc bump that breaks my patches
15:30:28 dansmith mriedem: surely we should be in lock down for that except for critical bits
15:30:33 stephenfin ltomasbo: Two comments left on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/540679/
15:30:42 stephenfin Ooops, lyarwood ^
15:30:45 stephenfin Sorry ltomasbo :)
15:31:21 ltomasbo :D
15:31:43 mriedem dansmith: it was likely gibi's evacuate late affinity check bug patch,
15:31:48 mriedem which we wanted to get in since we can't backport it
15:31:48 dansmith yup
15:32:08 mriedem that's the last thing i'm aware of
15:32:22 dansmith mriedem: ack, well, it broke a lot of stuff I just got done fixing, so I want to make sure we're done before I fix this again
15:33:09 mriedem i'm not aware of any other patches for rc1 that require rpc version bumps
15:33:38 dansmith okay
15:34:18 kashyap dansmith: Something less grumbly: As 'promised', I've spent a couple of hours this morning digging into the 'bandwidth' parameter. I also got the source reviewed by 2 upstream libvirt devs. Noted the review. Refer my latest two comments on the change: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/497457/
15:34:29 dansmith kashyap: I've already replied
15:34:37 kashyap Ah, didn't even see yours!
15:34:52 kashyap dansmith: So here's even _more_ source-code deep dive discussion with Eric Blake, on that parameter: https://kashyapc.fedorapeople.org/virt/libvirt-bandwidth-API-parameter.txt
15:35:09 kashyap I cleaned up IRC conversation with Eric (libvirt / QEMU dev) on OFTC. And posted it there.
15:35:32 kashyap I learnt interesting things. I'm going to post an upstream libvirt API doc. These semantics should be documented.
15:35:35 dansmith kashyap: yep, the line of code sahid quoted makes it pretty clear which takes precedence
15:35:59 kashyap Eagle eyes there
15:37:52 kashyap So, your suggestion is also reasonable to me (instead of flipping the sequence of calls). Just setting it first, and run it _without_ setting the bandwidth parameter
15:41:57 kashyap Ah, I said the samething as you in the psuedo code - i.e. not supply the 'bandwidth' parameter on the second call.

Earlier   Later