Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-03-21
21:20:51 mriedem unrelated, but coincidental to the service / compute node delete and host discovery stuff lately https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1757207
21:20:52 openstack Launchpad bug 1757207 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "compute resource providers not equal to compute nodes in deployment" [Undecided,Incomplete]
21:21:24 sean-k-mooney[m] dansmith: personally i think the best solution would be to add a mixin to ovo to all strict dield checks and then use it where it is correct to.
21:22:01 sean-k-mooney[m] *allow strict field checks
21:22:23 dansmith sean-k-mooney[m]: it's just not a thing I care much about, but if it's a mixin, then that's better than changing the behavior of the base object
21:22:53 dansmith they behave like any other python object right now, which seems more like I would expect
21:23:01 dansmith it just only version-tracks the things in fields
21:23:37 dansmith I agree we should only set things in init if they're in fields, and explode otherwise
21:24:41 sean-k-mooney[m] Ya the current behavior has helped us break some circular depency too so the current behavior makes sense as the default.
21:25:10 tssurya mriedem: the new bug is again the same thing right ? because a) RPs are not deleted and b)probably the compute service was not shut down before deleting ? so the compute_node record keeps getting recreated ?
21:25:48 mriedem mikal: nice topic https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/execs-ive-had-a-few+(status:open+OR+status:merged)
21:25:52 melwitt dansmith: so it would be a mixin in ovo and then use the mixin only in the nova base object? just making sure I understand the best way to go about it
21:25:58 mriedem tssurya: yes
21:26:24 tssurya mriedem: just saw you updated the bug, cool
21:26:40 dansmith melwitt: well you couldn't do it in the nova base object because we utilize the fact that we can set non-field properties on some of our objects
21:26:50 dansmith melwitt: but you could mix it into certain objects if you want
21:27:09 dansmith melwitt: the init fix though could go to the base object in o.vo I think
21:27:11 melwitt I mean to restrict only when calling __init__
21:27:13 melwitt oh, I see
21:27:22 dansmith oh no, that can co straight to the core as far as I'm concerned
21:27:37 dansmith although we might break some things by doing that, but they're broken now silently
21:27:38 melwitt the setting of non-field properties hasn't confused me before, it's only the passing them in __init__ that has
21:27:47 melwitt (for whatever that's worth :P)
21:27:58 dansmith I guess some library types might want a warning instead of a failure in a minor/rev release or something
21:28:01 dansmith melwitt: ah okay
21:28:09 sean-k-mooney[m] Melwitt probably 2 mixins. One for init check that could be in base nova object and one for all assignments that would not be in base nova object
21:28:09 mikal mriedem: you're welcome
21:28:13 dansmith like, mark it as deprecated, warn and then fail later
21:28:39 dansmith sean-k-mooney[m]: I dunno, we don't actually set the values from init if they're not in fields, do we?
21:29:05 dansmith ah I guess we do
21:29:09 dansmith well, I dunno,
21:29:21 dansmith a warning initially would be totally fine on the base object IMHO
21:29:31 dansmith and the make it required in a year on a version bump
21:29:44 sean-k-mooney[m] Dansmith apparently in the tests mel found
21:29:59 dansmith sean-k-mooney[m]: yeah, I just didn't think it was actually _setting_ it, but I see it is
21:30:18 sean-k-mooney[m] Yeah more warning in test output :)
21:30:28 dansmith well, then we fix it :)
21:30:44 dansmith we could do it in our nova object to pre-fix everything
21:31:21 melwitt yeah, I'm not clear on if everyone would want to warn/fail if they call init with non-existent fields. maybe someone likes a shortcut like that
21:31:52 dansmith *shrug* I guess
21:31:58 sean-k-mooney[m] Ya im sure you could phase it in gradually
21:32:13 dansmith it was my intent to allow free-form properties, not to allow anything in init(), that's my bias I guess :)
21:32:56 melwitt yeah, I had the same thinking too as a user of objects
21:33:20 sean-k-mooney[m] Melwitt well if they ever call make compatible or serialise the object those non fields are lost so you still have to be careful with thwm or you will get weird bugs
21:34:09 melwitt yeah. I agree it makes sense to make it more intentional when setting free-form properties, i.e. you have to do that outside of init
21:34:19 melwitt being that those will be lost as you said in those situations
21:35:38 sean-k-mooney[m] Yep. We don't really use the free form attributes that often but they can be useful sometimes
21:42:37 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova stable/pike: Handle volume-backed instances in IsolatedHostsFilter https://review.openstack.org/543603
21:42:44 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova stable/pike: Fix docs for IsolatedHostsFilter https://review.openstack.org/543604
21:42:51 mriedem so uh,
21:42:52 mriedem https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1755392
21:42:53 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Remove useless run_periodic_tasks call in ClientRouter https://review.openstack.org/554381
21:42:53 openstack Launchpad bug 1755392 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "resize the instance is fail" [Undecided,New]
21:43:06 mriedem i thought there was a thing where you couldn't resize/migrate ephemeral/swap disks?
21:43:09 mriedem am i making that up?
21:45:41 openstack Launchpad bug 1755266 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Instance resize with swap on cinder volume fails" [Undecided,New]
21:45:41 mriedem similar https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1755266
22:02:09 openstackgerrit Julia Kreger proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Add microversion to ironic client wrapper call https://review.openstack.org/554762
22:02:34 sean-k-mooney[m] mriedem: i believe its undefined behavior if you change the number of ephemeral disk on resize. Migration of swap is fine. Resize is not
22:03:32 sean-k-mooney[m] Actually swap resize should be fine since we basically reboot
22:04:40 openstackgerrit Michael Still proposed openstack/nova master: Use a pythonic delete. https://review.openstack.org/554792
22:04:40 openstackgerrit Michael Still proposed openstack/nova master: Remove duplicative implementation of temporary directories. https://review.openstack.org/554791
22:04:41 openstackgerrit Michael Still proposed openstack/nova master: Use a pythonic delete, with a retry. https://review.openstack.org/554793
22:05:30 melwitt mriedem, dansmith: finally tracked down what's going on in the bug where after upgrading the pike, if there are service records with no uuid (from the N-1 version), they get the "TypeError: Can't upgrade a READER transaction to a WRITER mid-transaction" error
22:05:45 melwitt explained it here https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1746509/comments/9
22:05:46 openstack Launchpad bug 1746509 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "TypeError: Can't upgrade a READER transaction to a WRITER mid-transaction" [Medium,Confirmed]
22:06:06 mriedem sean-k-mooney[m]: i seem to remember diana clarke trying to fix something wrt swap disks and resize, found https://github.com/dianaclarke/openstack-notes/wiki/resize-disks but not the thing she was trying to fix
22:06:09 melwitt the good news is it's no longer a bug in queens or rocky, but it is a bug in pike
22:08:01 melwitt is it cool if I propose a fix only for pike? how does that usually work?
22:08:44 dansmith melwitt: ah yeah that sort of nesting is exactly what I was saying would have to happen, but was skeptical of it existing
22:08:54 dansmith melwitt: so.. glad you traced it all the way down :)
22:09:05 cfriesen mriedem: what about this? https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1552777
22:09:07 dansmith melwitt: mriedem would know better than me, but we've had to do that before, IIRC
22:09:07 openstack Launchpad bug 1552777 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "resizing from flavor with swap to one without swap puts instance into Error status" [Medium,In progress] - Assigned to Kam Nasim (knasim-wrs)
22:09:20 mriedem reminds me of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/507854/
22:10:07 cfriesen mriedem: though it looks like that one went away in pike
22:10:43 sean-k-mooney[m] Cfriesen resize with swap is picky. I think it works more or less now
22:10:50 melwitt dansmith: yeah, initially I couldn't repro it (as expected) with only a service query. but yeah, got to the bottom of it :) I think it could be easily fixed by just splitting the _make_instance_list call out from under the _get_by_filters_impl, that is, move it to get_by_filters
22:11:30 dansmith melwitt: okay, I just read your comment but I didn't go look at the (old) code to see, but.. sounds good? :)
22:11:52 melwitt dansmith: yeah, just chattering aloud. I'm excited that this makes sense now
22:12:28 dansmith melwitt: I will put a dan dummy in my chair who will continue to listen to your chattering. he doesn't type though, so just assume he's saying "uh huh, yeah, oh. sounds good. uh huh, yeah..."
22:12:47 melwitt haha
22:13:03 dansmith mriedem: and no snide comments from you mister.
22:13:42 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Standardize CPU resource tracking https://review.openstack.org/555081
22:15:51 mikal pick me pick me!
22:15:59 mriedem i'd have to see the proposed fix
22:16:01 mikal Basically snide comments is all I do now.
22:17:36 melwitt Snide Comment Czar
22:17:38 mriedem melwitt: so you want to move this call to _make_instance_list from here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/9465d1c/nova/objects/instance.py#L1235 to right after _get_by_filters_impl is called here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/9465d1c/nova/objects/instance.py#L1243 ?
22:17:51 mikal I would accept that job
22:18:01 mikal Or anything entitled "Old man shakes fist at clouds"
22:18:04 melwitt mriedem: yeah, that's what I'm trying right now. already have the func test written. let's see if it works
22:19:56 melwitt yay
22:23:50 mriedem so why couldn't we just also make this change on master and backport it?
22:24:01 mriedem even if it's not a problem on master,
22:24:06 mriedem would changing the same code cause any problems?
22:24:50 melwitt oh yeah, that's a better idea actually
22:25:08 melwitt when I first asked, I wasn't thinking the code was going to be the same on master but it is
22:26:15 mriedem dansmith: it would be best if your dan dummy looked like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WQfZYacEAw
22:26:20 melwitt I'll have to rewrite this func test a bit to be a regression func test that will still fail on master. not a big deal

Earlier   Later