| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-03-27 | |||
| 15:30:32 | bauzas | artom: does a live migration work with two different compute versions already ? | |
| 15:30:34 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Move placement test cases from db to placement https://review.openstack.org/553149 | |
| 15:30:40 | mriedem | bauzas: yes | |
| 15:30:48 | mriedem | we support mixed version computes for live migration | |
| 15:30:49 | artom | bauzas, I didn't see anything in the code that would suggest it wouldn't | |
| 15:30:58 | bauzas | mriedem: context is https://review.openstack.org/#/c/552722/6/specs/rocky/approved/numa-aware-live-migration.rst@244 | |
| 15:30:59 | sean-k-mooney[m] | linux bridge, sriov, hardware offloaded ovs, vpp, iovision(ebpf), mini net, calico and macvtap are the main ones used beyond ovs/ovs-dpdk | |
| 15:30:59 | mriedem | we have a grenade + live migratoin job that also does this back and forth | |
| 15:31:25 | bauzas | mriedem: then, I was claiming we could microversion the behavioural change artom is going to introduce | |
| 15:31:26 | sean-k-mooney[m] | oh there is also snabb switch | |
| 15:31:27 | mriedem | that's a bit drastic | |
| 15:31:32 | artom | bauzas, also, we'd only fail it if the instance has "NUMA" characteristics | |
| 15:31:36 | mriedem | sec | |
| 15:31:50 | artom | Which is currently broken anyways, so not as drastic as it sounds | |
| 15:31:55 | mriedem | see https://review.openstack.org/#/c/522537/13/nova/conductor/tasks/live_migrate.py | |
| 15:31:55 | bauzas | artom: I agree, and we don't test that AFAIK | |
| 15:32:06 | mriedem | you only need to know if the source and dest computes can do the new hotness | |
| 15:32:35 | mriedem | otherwise it's a novalidhost if you can't find a pair | |
| 15:32:42 | bauzas | mriedem: yeah I remember that change | |
| 15:33:29 | sean-k-mooney[m] | stephenfin: on and NTT have a dpdk soft patch panel thing , the point is nova cant have special case code for all of these | |
| 15:35:21 | bauzas | mriedem: if the implementation of artom's spec would go into that direction, then yes we wouldn't need a microversion | |
| 15:35:35 | mriedem | i think we can agree that we don't want to add subnet to the requested network turducken in the compute api https://review.openstack.org/#/c/518227/ | |
| 15:37:11 | bauzas | mriedem: oh please, yes | |
| 15:37:33 | bauzas | just create the port in neutron and pass it to nova | |
| 15:37:50 | bauzas | aha, jinxed by mriedem's comment | |
| 15:37:58 | artom | mriedem, that link you posted in my NUMA migration spec, that's basically just checking min compute version, right? | |
| 15:38:04 | artom | So the same thing I was suggesting? | |
| 15:38:35 | artom | Just for clarity in my head, because I feel like we're talking about the same thing as though they were different | |
| 15:39:00 | gibi | jaypipes: I'm open to debate to simulate or not the neutron backend ordering preference via a scheduler weigher but for that debate we need some neutron heavy guys, like mlavalle | |
| 15:39:45 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Handle nested providers for allocation candidates https://review.openstack.org/556873 | |
| 15:39:47 | bauzas | artom: yeah basically | |
| 15:39:55 | bauzas | artom: it's for a different usage tho | |
| 15:39:56 | jaypipes | mriedem, bauzas: ^^ added not about microversion. | |
| 15:40:05 | artom | bauzas, right, but the mechanism is the same | |
| 15:40:08 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney[m]: Well damn. That's unfortunate | |
| 15:40:08 | kashyap | Darn, lost edits to wiki.openstack.org, as it logged me out mid-way. And didn't give me a way to get the changes back. | |
| 15:40:27 | bauzas | artom: yup, the pattern should be the same | |
| 15:40:29 | artom | (We might eventually standardise that in a utils somewhere, since we seem to be doing a lot of it, btw) | |
| 15:40:39 | mriedem | artom: kind of, but it depends on where you're using it, | |
| 15:41:01 | mriedem | if it's the API and you're checking min compute service version across the entire cell, that's different than just comparing the source and candidate dest host | |
| 15:41:16 | bauzas | at least, we can assume we run a pre-flight check on the conductor that checks both compute versions | |
| 15:41:27 | bauzas | that could be generalized | |
| 15:41:38 | artom | mriedem, ah, so you're saying we should be more granular and just check the (source, dest) pair | |
| 15:41:41 | artom | Hrmm | |
| 15:41:46 | artom | Could we do that in the scheduler? | |
| 15:41:48 | mriedem | artom: yes, see that patch i linked | |
| 15:41:51 | bauzas | but that's an implementation detail, IHMO | |
| 15:41:58 | artom | So that straight away we have a dest that supports it? | |
| 15:42:07 | mriedem | artom: we could if we exposed the capability as a trait on the compute and added a pre-request filter | |
| 15:42:19 | bauzas | artom: the scheduler doesn't know whether it's a migration or a boot | |
| 15:42:26 | bauzas | but what mriedem wrote | |
| 15:42:34 | mriedem | artom: that would be an optimization imo | |
| 15:42:40 | mriedem | worth noting in the spec though | |
| 15:42:41 | bauzas | zactly | |
| 15:42:45 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Filter allocation candidates by forbidden traits in db https://review.openstack.org/556660 | |
| 15:42:45 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Filter resource providers by forbidden traits in db https://review.openstack.org/556472 | |
| 15:42:46 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Support forbidden traits in API https://review.openstack.org/556820 | |
| 15:42:46 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Parse forbidden traits in query strings https://review.openstack.org/556819 | |
| 15:42:54 | artom | Mmmm, forbidden traits | |
| 15:42:58 | artom | /homer | |
| 15:42:59 | gibi | mriedem: I will be available during the notification subteam meeting timeslot or before that but I have nothing to really talk about so we can simply skip the meeting if you agree | |
| 15:43:11 | SamYaple | so i just ran into an annoying time consuming issue. i was going an upgrade and my nova-osapi_compute service changed to reporting its hostname to the database. this created new nova-osapi_compute services in the services table. the old service entires had version 9 and this was causing all GETs to instances to fail with instance not found | |
| 15:43:20 | SamYaple | code in question https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/ed55dcad83d5db2fa7e43fc3d5465df1550b554c/nova/compute/api.py#L2268 | |
| 15:43:31 | SamYaple | no logs anywhere describing the issue :/ | |
| 15:43:52 | mriedem | gibi: yes let's skip | |
| 15:44:01 | SamYaple | would a check for old osapi_compute service versions be appropriate to add to `nova-status upgrade check` ? | |
| 15:44:12 | gibi | mriedem: ack, let's focuse on spec reviews | |
| 15:44:17 | artom | mriedem, bauzas, the optimization would be the scheduler doing the version checking? And for now we let the conductor do it? | |
| 15:44:52 | bauzas | jaypipes: should we also discuss in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/556873/2/specs/rocky/approved/nested-resource-providers-allocation-candidates.rst about how the scheduler would pass the root RP ? | |
| 15:45:10 | bauzas | jaypipes: because atm, it just says "which compute node is having that UUID ?" | |
| 15:45:15 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: Isolate placement database config https://review.openstack.org/541435 | |
| 15:45:15 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: Optional separate database for placement API https://review.openstack.org/362766 | |
| 15:45:16 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Ensure that os-traits sync is attempted only at start of process https://review.openstack.org/553857 | |
| 15:45:17 | jaypipes | gibi: I'm happy to speak with mlavalle or anyone else about this. I just feel like the network-bandwidth spec has gotten way over-engineered. | |
| 15:45:34 | mriedem | SamYaple: a bit confused, | |
| 15:45:41 | mriedem | you said it started creating service entries in the db, | |
| 15:45:46 | mriedem | but that there were also old entries? | |
| 15:46:13 | mriedem | SamYaple: also, this sounds vaguely familiar to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/556670/ | |
| 15:46:18 | gibi | jaypipes: I understand that it is a long spec and this part of it seems minor | |
| 15:46:20 | mlavalle | jaypipes, gibi: I am planning to go over the spec today | |
| 15:46:52 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: tox: Make everything work with Python 3 https://review.openstack.org/556894 | |
| 15:46:52 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: trivial: Remove 'tools/releasenotes_tox.sh' https://review.openstack.org/534383 | |
| 15:46:52 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: tox: Speed things up and document them https://review.openstack.org/534382 | |
| 15:46:56 | jaypipes | bauzas: the scheduler simply does a ComputeNode.get_all_by_uuid(), passing all the UUIDs of all providers it sees in the provider_summaries section of the allocation_candidates response. Nothing about that will be changing. | |
| 15:47:11 | mlavalle | I also have the impression that we can / should simplify a bit, jaypipes | |
| 15:47:15 | mriedem | SamYaple: at this point, if not CONF.cells.enable and we're in here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/ed55dcad83d5db2fa7e43fc3d5465df1550b554c/nova/compute/api.py#L2268 we likely should be puking out a warning | |
| 15:47:16 | jaypipes | gibi: no, it's not the length of the spec that I have issues with. | |
| 15:47:18 | bauzas | jaypipes: sec | |
| 15:47:29 | jaypipes | mlavalle: it's the crossing of scope boundaries that I have issue with. | |
| 15:47:35 | SamYaple | mriedem: http://paste.openstack.org/show/715421/ | |
| 15:47:40 | gibi | mlavalle: cool, then could you please add your view about the backend selection in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/502306/21/specs/rocky/approved/bandwidth-resource-provider.rst@610 | |
| 15:48:00 | SamYaple | the first three services inthat list were the originals. i deleted them and everything started working | |
| 15:48:08 | bauzas | jaypipes: say some child RP is accepting the query, the placement API call to allocation_candidates will return the root RP UUIDs in the provider_summaries ? | |
| 15:48:28 | bauzas | jaypipes: is that already the case or is that requiring some implementation change ? | |
| 15:48:35 | jaypipes | gibi: the thing we are attempting to consume is a chunk of network (ingress or egress) bandwidth for a physical network. I don't really see how vNIC type nor network "backend" selection is relevant to that. | |
| 15:48:37 | bauzas | because I want to understand what's missing | |
| 15:48:38 | gibi | mlavalle: if we want to have what is described in that subsection then we have to convince jaypipes to have backend specific traits in the RP tree | |
| 15:48:53 | jaypipes | bauzas: yes. and it already does that. | |
| 15:48:57 | SamYaple | mriedem: with the old services not deleted, GETs on instances (nova show's) would fail | |
| 15:48:58 | bauzas | \o/ | |