| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-03-27 | |||
| 19:28:01 | sean-k-mooney[m] | mriedem: honestly i dont think that would be too hard to enable in neutron. i dont know if i have time to look at it but it should be a minor enough api extention | |
| 19:28:20 | mriedem | i mention the old dest compute thing because we had also talked about doing this separately from the blueprint as a bug fix so we could backport it | |
| 19:28:28 | mriedem | but if it requires changes to the versioned object, we can't really backport it | |
| 19:28:45 | mriedem | that was also before we knew that ODL didn't send events | |
| 19:29:01 | sean-k-mooney[m] | basicaly i think we could have a singel key in the portbining dict. vif_plugged_event_policy that could be never,on_bind or on_plug then just hard code it for each of the ml2 drivers | |
| 19:30:03 | sean-k-mooney[m] | mriedem: ah ya that makes sense | |
| 19:32:24 | sean-k-mooney[m] | mriedem: do you want me to open an rfe but for the event stuff and we can see what the neutron team says? it would not be a hard dependecy but it would allow us to know in the future if we can wait | |
| 19:33:13 | cdent | edleafe: responded to your coments on forbidden traits in rp in db. I think you're missing a point or I've explained things very poorly | |
| 19:33:57 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Non-unique network names in Servers IPs API response https://review.openstack.org/521392 | |
| 19:34:10 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney[m]: sure | |
| 19:37:57 | efried | jaypipes, cdent, edleafe: Is there anything preventing two records in the allocations table having the same consumer+rp+rc? | |
| 19:39:29 | cdent | efried: in the table itself, no, but the interface on the object does a full wipe before it does any set (for a given consumer) | |
| 19:40:08 | efried | cdent: duly noted. | |
| 19:40:41 | mriedem | do we have a bp or anything anymore for supporting shared storage pools in nova? there was a bp but i can't find it now, maybe it was marked obsolete? | |
| 19:41:08 | edleafe | cdent: ok, but it seems like overkill. No one would be sending !TRAIT now, so I don't quite get the need to support it | |
| 19:41:48 | efried | mriedem: Since we descoped it in Q, and didn't bring it back up in Dublin... | |
| 19:41:57 | cdent | once that full stack is in place, someone can accidentally use the wrong microversion, and they need an appropriate error | |
| 19:42:18 | mriedem | efried: yeah i'm trying to list it as an alternative in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/551927/ | |
| 19:42:38 | cdent | efried, mriedem: tetsuro is still dilligently trying to make shared, correct, yes? | |
| 19:43:18 | efried | mriedem: IIRC, the shared storage provider spec was approved even before Q as one of those vague "we're headed in this direction" things, which led to the inception of aggregates and MISC_SHARES_VIA_AGGREGATE trait, but was never fully tied off. | |
| 19:43:32 | efried | mriedem: And after that we never (re)proposed anything on it. | |
| 19:45:26 | purplerbot | <cdent> once that full stack is in place, someone can accidentally use the wrong microversion, and they need an appropriate error [2018-03-27 19:41:56.981348] [n 18ze] | |
| 19:45:26 | cdent | edleafe: did you see [t 18ze]? | |
| 19:45:53 | cdent | edleafe: because I don't understand why you think it is unnecessary, and would like to | |
| 19:46:22 | mriedem | efried: ok, replied in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/551927/ | |
| 19:46:28 | mriedem | dansmith: jaypipes: ^ you might have other ideas | |
| 19:46:42 | mriedem | it's the age old "how can i support migration w/o globally shared ssh keys" | |
| 19:47:41 | mriedem | if you know a set of computes are in a shared storage pool, you could do the shared storage aggregate thing and then we could look that up from nova-compute rather than do the ssh check | |
| 19:47:43 | efried | mriedem: I think this is the closest we came to a shared storage pool spec https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/newton/implemented/generic-resource-pools.html | |
| 19:48:28 | mriedem | before that, we had https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/mitaka/approved/migrate-libvirt-volumes.html | |
| 19:48:42 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: api-ref: Parameter verification for servers.inc (1/3) https://review.openstack.org/528201 | |
| 19:49:31 | mriedem | that got held up on the imagebackend refactor o' doom | |
| 19:54:05 | jaypipes | efried: yes, the primary key is on rp+rc+consumer. | |
| 19:54:17 | jaypipes | efried: so the table itself is preventing that. | |
| 19:54:19 | efried | jaypipes: How hard to change? | |
| 19:54:29 | jaypipes | efried: why would we want to change that? | |
| 19:54:44 | efried | To preserve granular groups in allocation records. | |
| 19:55:15 | efried | jaypipes: Composing an email on it. | |
| 19:55:16 | jaypipes | efried: honestly, I'm not interested in doing that. | |
| 19:55:17 | dansmith | that's going to be a poblem | |
| 19:55:35 | dansmith | unless placement handles all the atomicity of working that into a consistent view from the api | |
| 19:55:44 | dansmith | we depend on allocations being per consumer | |
| 19:55:49 | jaypipes | right | |
| 19:55:51 | efried | per consumer isn't a problem. | |
| 19:56:31 | dansmith | presumably you want multiple allocations per consumer against a single RP right? | |
| 19:57:04 | efried | meaning "one 1G disk, one 2G disk, both from the same provider, allocated to the same consumer" | |
| 19:57:04 | efried | CONSUMER_A, RP_1, DISK_GB, 2048 | |
| 19:57:04 | efried | CONSUMER_A, RP_1, DISK_GB, 1024 | |
| 19:57:04 | efried | dansmith: Yes. I'm saying two records with e.g. | |
| 19:57:15 | cdent | jaypipes: you sure about that primary key? I see it as just on the id column? | |
| 19:57:24 | cdent | and no uniq anywhere | |
| 19:57:26 | dansmith | efried: how do you know which is which? | |
| 19:57:34 | efried | dansmith: I contend it doesn't matter which is which. | |
| 19:57:37 | dansmith | efried: and what is the difference between that and one 3G allocation | |
| 19:57:42 | efried | ditto | |
| 19:57:45 | efried | oh, sorry | |
| 19:58:01 | efried | dansmith: The difference is between "one 1G disk, one 2G disk" and "one 3G disk" | |
| 19:58:12 | dansmith | unless you add a group name into that key I don't see how you can reconstruct the original structure | |
| 19:58:16 | dansmith | oh I see | |
| 19:58:43 | dansmith | if it's the same RP, I don't think that's really placement's job to keep track of that | |
| 19:58:50 | efried | dansmith: Then whose? | |
| 19:59:03 | dansmith | that'd be a nova problem, looking at the fact that we have 3G of allocation and, oh hey, the flavor said two disks" | |
| 19:59:03 | jaypipes | efried: if there isn't one, that's a terrible mistake. | |
| 19:59:33 | dansmith | placement needs only to know that you got 3G of storage from that provider | |
| 19:59:42 | efried | dansmith: It was placement that took in a request of the form resources1=DISK_GB:1024&resources2=DISK_GB:2048 and responded with DISK_GB:3072. | |
| 19:59:43 | dansmith | if we decide to cut it up that's a VM management thing (i.e. nova) | |
| 19:59:59 | efried | dansmith: Yup, that'll work, but only for a little while. | |
| 20:00:01 | dansmith | encoding that you have two disks into an allocation in placement is teaching placement too much about nova, IMHO | |
| 20:01:06 | dansmith | efried: if you didn't ask (or imply) placement for those disks to be on different providers, then I think replying with a merged allocation or rejecting it as antithetical is legit | |
| 20:01:14 | sean-k-mooney[m] | dansmith: you will have to do that for things like bandwith requests on two different nics that could be allocated form the same pf | |
| 20:01:25 | sean-k-mooney[m] | or tor | |
| 20:01:27 | sean-k-mooney[m] | so its not jsut a nova thing | |
| 20:01:39 | efried | dansmith: Well, that's a separate issue - asking for them to be on different providers can't be expressed currently (assuming traits are the same etc.) | |
| 20:02:08 | efried | dansmith: The problem moving forward is that we're going to have agents other than nova responsible for mapping allocation into actual resources. Plus the fact that we're going to be synthesizing that request string from not just the flavor, but also from image metadata, neutron, eventually cyborg, cinder... | |
| 20:02:20 | sean-k-mooney[m] | dansmith: so are you saying we should be explcit and have some way of saying its ok to merge? | |
| 20:02:23 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney[m]: if the resource comes from a different pile, then it needs to be a different RP (even if the same pf) | |
| 20:02:44 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney[m]: and if it's not then placement doesn't need to know about it | |
| 20:03:11 | efried | dansmith: That doesn't let you express bandwidth on the PFs though. | |
| 20:03:17 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney[m]: rather decide whether not stating them as separate means they're merge-able or if it means it's a 400 | |
| 20:03:26 | edleafe | cdent: So you see a case where someone would create flavors with traits that are prefixed with '!', but not specify a microversion that supports it? I guess I can't see that. | |
| 20:03:44 | edleafe | But if it's necessary, so be it | |
| 20:04:04 | sean-k-mooney[m] | efried: well it kind of does | |
| 20:04:08 | cdent | edleafe: no I see a non-nova client of the placement api make requests to get resource providers filtered by traits, forgetting to set the microversion | |
| 20:04:20 | jaypipes | efried, sean-k-mooney[m]: I think you are both over-thinking this. | |
| 20:04:22 | efried | dansmith: Example that sean-k-mooney[m] is talking about: resources1=VF:1,NET_EGRESS_BW:200&resources2=VF:1,NET_EGRESS_BW:300 -- you can get back a candidate like { PF_RP1: { VF: 2, NET_EGRESS_BW: 500 } } | |
| 20:04:25 | cdent | edleafe: as in: a human | |
| 20:04:47 | sean-k-mooney[m] | the case that is not covered today would be anti afintiy of PFs for VFs for ha bonds | |
| 20:04:56 | dansmith | efried: right, it's still nova asking neutron for the fine-grained quota on each port though | |
| 20:05:06 | efried | neutron is responsible for carving out two PFs. How does it know that one needs BW:200 and the other needs 300? | |
| 20:05:09 | dansmith | efried: placement doesn't need more information than that 500 is committed to that consumer | |
| 20:05:19 | dansmith | efried: it doesn't imply it from placement, IMHO | |
| 20:05:20 | jaypipes | dansmith: zactly. | |
| 20:05:38 | efried | then from where? | |
| 20:05:44 | dansmith | from where what? | |
| 20:06:05 | dansmith | either in the port you created ahead of time, or from the flavor details when nova goes to create it for you | |
| 20:06:06 | jaypipes | efried: the allocation is the amount of that resource that is being provided by that specific resourc eprovider. it's 500. | |
| 20:06:07 | efried | Where does it get the information that that request entails one VF with BW:200 and one with BW:300? | |
| 20:06:22 | efried | neutron has access to the flavor? And the image? | |
| 20:06:31 | sean-k-mooney[m] | efried: if there are no different traits between resouce1 and resouce2 its ok to merge | |
| 20:06:36 | dansmith | efried: are you being difficult now or what? | |