Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-02-12
14:51:58 jroll this really wasn't something I intended to tilt that hard at
14:52:19 bauzas gibi: mriedem: the problem is that AFAICS we assert in a lot of places about having an instance with an image
14:52:33 mriedem jroll: i just wanted to see it socialized more before it's adopted across a few projects,
14:52:53 mriedem because i'm projecting it on the community wide goals process
14:52:54 bauzas so we can 'fix' that, but that won't solve the design issue that we accepted in the past a different paradigm
14:52:59 jroll mriedem: also, I wasn't aware of the "new" thing until today, so adding the new thing you linked wasn't my intention at all
14:53:19 mriedem jroll: so your ironic patch and graham's spec aren't the same thing?
14:53:21 jroll mriedem: the new thing sounds like it'll take a year just to get through committee and have code written
14:53:23 jroll correct
14:53:27 bauzas jroll: from a very practical standpoint, do you feel blocked ?
14:53:29 jroll mine is the "old" one
14:53:38 mriedem bauzas: jim just wants to upstream it, but meh
14:53:40 mriedem it sounds like
14:53:45 mriedem it's middleware
14:53:45 jroll bauzas: no, what matt said
14:53:46 bauzas jroll: because I don't really see *why*it needs to be something
14:54:13 jroll bauzas: because it's what we use for every paste-enabled service, and so trying to standardize the rest there
14:54:49 bauzas jroll: well, you wanna standardize your own monitoring model :)
14:55:04 jroll bauzas: s/your own/oslo's/
14:55:10 gibi bauzas: on the image_id, theoretically we can forbid booting from volume in nova where the volume doesn't have the image_id in the metadata, but I think that would be restrict some use cases that is possible today
14:55:12 cdent jroll: I'd say go ahead with the old thing. the new thing needs to be discussed but is a whole different kettle
14:55:14 jroll I'm not forcing it on anyone ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
14:55:20 bauzas I'm not sure operators are sold on using middleware healthchecks for knowing whether my app is up
14:55:48 cdent jroll: I reckon the way it is done in ironic is just fine for placement
14:56:06 bauzas gibi: If I'm sure about one thing, it's how operators can find solutions with things we don't officially support
14:56:07 mriedem gibi: i wasn't suggesting making that break now,
14:56:13 cdent it doesn't preclude some different future
14:56:19 mriedem gibi: was just wondering if we have the information from the volume meta, if we should store it in the request spec
14:56:43 bauzas mriedem: at the request_spec creation time, then ?
14:56:46 mriedem yes
14:56:50 bauzas well
14:56:56 mriedem the confusion will be,
14:57:01 bauzas if you rebuild ?
14:57:04 mriedem instance.image_ref == None == volume-backed,
14:57:09 bauzas also
14:57:09 gibi copying image_id over from the volume meta to the request_spec is fine by me
14:57:11 mriedem but requestspec.image.id == None....?
14:57:55 mriedem bauzas: if you rebuild a volume-backed instance with a new image, we fail today
14:58:09 jroll cdent: thanks
14:58:23 mriedem bauzas: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/api.py#L2979
14:59:24 bauzas mriedem: okay, gtk
15:01:18 takashin mriedem: Would you check my reply to you comment in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/513721/ ?
15:04:11 mriedem takashin: done
15:05:18 takashin mriedem: Thanks.
15:08:59 mriedem bauzas: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1748858
15:09:00 openstack Launchpad bug 1748858 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "allocation_ratio set by aggregate metadata don't work in NUMATopologyFilter" [Undecided,New] - Assigned to yangjie (yang.jie)
15:09:07 mriedem sounds familiar
15:09:30 bauzas mriedem: sec, thinking hard of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/543263/2/nova/scheduler/filters/isolated_hosts_filter.py
15:09:44 bauzas the change isn't trivial
15:10:04 mriedem bauzas: really?
15:10:40 mriedem bauzas: that's basically what it did before it was regressed here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202678/35/nova/scheduler/filters/isolated_hosts_filter.py
15:10:41 bauzas mriedem: yeah, my guts feel some problem that I still don't see
15:10:52 mriedem maybe you need to go to the bathroom
15:11:07 bauzas probably
15:11:13 bauzas but I'm looking at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/543263/2/nova/scheduler/filters/isolated_hosts_filter.py@43
15:11:16 gibi bauzas: shall we pull the patch from the gate as I +Wd it recently
15:11:42 mriedem if you look at how it worked before https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202678/35/nova/scheduler/filters/isolated_hosts_filter.py
15:11:43 bauzas gibi: I'm not saying we *have* a problem
15:11:50 mriedem the image id was always something it handled as optional
15:11:53 mriedem using dict.get()
15:11:59 bauzas the thing is
15:12:01 mriedem changing to request spec in that patch made it required
15:12:06 bauzas if we say we don't have an image
15:12:17 bauzas then the image isn't isolated, right
15:12:28 mriedem bauzas: that's the point of my email,
15:12:39 bauzas in that case, we should accept host1
15:12:40 mriedem which is, this never did anything for volume-backed instances,
15:12:44 mriedem but that's not the point of my fix right now
15:12:56 mriedem i'm restoring this filter to how it previously worked, before mitaka
15:13:01 bauzas then the doc is invalid
15:13:09 bauzas at least the docstring I mean
15:13:16 bauzas and I'd like to fix that
15:13:19 mriedem so clean that up in a follow up?
15:13:45 bauzas well now that gibi pulled the trigger, /me shrufs
15:13:46 cdent Is there a general opinion about the merit of conditional imports in nova code? I'd like to only import rpc and sqlalchemy_api here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/config.py#L54-L58 if those conditionals are true. The other option (which might make better long term sense) is to make a different parse_args
15:13:54 bauzas shrugs*
15:14:13 bauzas mriedem: the thing is, I thought you wanna backport ?
15:14:17 bauzas moar fun then
15:14:20 mriedem bauzas: i do
15:14:35 bauzas so, we should backport both your change *and* the doc change
15:14:37 mriedem i don't think the docstring is something that bars us from backporting this fix
15:14:38 bauzas looks sad
15:14:43 bauzas I know
15:15:04 mriedem bauzas: if you want to call out the volume-backed scenario, then push a patch on top of this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/543264/
15:15:06 bauzas I just would have appreciated if we could have amended the upstream filters documentation *and* the docstring in the sme change
15:15:35 mriedem i didn't say anything about volume-backed behavior in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/543264/ because, as i said in the ML, i'm not sure if that behavior is intentional or not
15:15:44 mriedem since the filter predates my involvement in nova
15:15:55 bauzas mriedem: I don't really care of the BFV case
15:16:34 bauzas the thing is, should we assume that an instance having no image is behaving identical as if we were having an instance with a non-isolated image ?
15:16:38 bauzas my guts feel yues
15:16:46 bauzas hence my trouble
15:16:47 mriedem fwiw essex https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/972fc7d80fae386cf4c72b7891f6601d6f7fb00b#diff-b4fa3e44aeb7757f04d296529b8492e5
15:16:58 mriedem bauzas: well, that's the point of my ML thread
15:17:03 bauzas again, I know
15:17:07 mriedem and why i also sent it to the ops ML
15:17:17 bauzas but people pulled the trigger before I had time to both review and reply
15:17:26 bauzas that's fine, it's my bad
15:17:29 mriedem i wanted to find out (1) does anyone use this filter (2) if so, do they know about this bfv thing, and (3) if so, do they care?
15:17:32 bauzas I need to be quicker
15:19:15 gibi I feel there is two different change on that is now on the gate to restore the regressed behavior and one that is on the ML to find out the what is the intended behavior for BFV

Earlier   Later