| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-08-02 | |||
| 22:03:09 | tonyb | so you can just add that ref to your nova repo and then when you do git show on a SHA you'll get to see the reviewers | |
| 22:03:25 | tonyb | so the CI votes (but not comments) would be included. | |
| 22:04:34 | tonyb | https://review.openstack.org/#/q/reviewedby%3Aintel-nfv-ci | |
| 22:04:46 | tonyb | look slike it's still voting | |
| 22:05:58 | sean-k-mooney | maybe what does exception meen next to a ci comment https://review.openstack.org/#/c/584829/ | |
| 22:06:44 | tonyb | sean-k-mooney: Oh it means it's voting but not doign anythign helpful ;P | |
| 22:07:35 | sean-k-mooney | ah it makes perfect sense lol | |
| 22:07:56 | tonyb | ;p | |
| 22:08:17 | tonyb | sean-k-mooney: Let me see if I can find the last time it voted +1 | |
| 22:10:26 | tonyb | sean-k-mooney: Nope my gerrit fu is weak right now. I'll grab some coffee and try again | |
| 22:11:12 | sean-k-mooney | well looking at the log server it has not uploaded anything sice the 18th http://52.27.155.124/portland/2018-07-18 | |
| 22:13:48 | sean-k-mooney | tonyb: thanks for trying in anycase. i might reach out and ask what the status is. | |
| 22:20:34 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Reno for notification-transformation-rocky https://review.openstack.org/588403 | |
| 22:35:28 | melwitt | lbragstad: sorry for the delayed reply, but yeah what I was thinking was to look at migrating to keystone limits in stein, not yet going for the enforce part. johnthetubaguy had also mentioned that a two-stage approach to the migration might make migration easier from an operator perspective but I didn't understand that bit | |
| 22:38:43 | melwitt | side is the enforce with what we already have. then next stage will be to move to oslo.limit for enforcement | |
| 22:38:43 | melwitt | we have other work we'd like to do like be able to set quota limits for custom resource classes and where we're at right now, we could do that via our existing quota classes API, but then that will leave more to have to migrate to keystone limits when we move. so I was thinking maybe we should move to keystone limits first, then let the limits piece of custom resource class quotas be covered by unified limits, and all we do on our | |
| 22:43:20 | lbragstad | interesting melwitt | |
| 22:43:46 | lbragstad | so - you'd query keystone directly for limit information as opposed to using oslo.limit? | |
| 22:44:24 | melwitt | yeah. I actually didn't know the limit query was supposed to go through oslo.limit. if it does, we could do that, I just missed it or forgot | |
| 22:44:56 | melwitt | or are you saying limit + enforce are coupled? | |
| 22:45:01 | melwitt | in oslo.limit | |
| 22:45:04 | lbragstad | technically - it probably doesn't _have_ to go through oslo.limit, but that's where we were going to hide all the logic that understands the project tree | |
| 22:45:12 | melwitt | right okay | |
| 22:45:18 | tonyb | sean-k-mooney: Ahh when it votes it doens't actually 'vote' it just leaves a comment so it's back to groveling in the review metadata :( | |
| 22:45:44 | lbragstad | melwitt: i'm trying to map terms, but i was under the assumption that enforcement would be a requirement? | |
| 22:45:49 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Add /reshaper handler for POST https://review.openstack.org/576927 | |
| 22:45:50 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: reshaper: Look up provider if not in inventories https://review.openstack.org/585033 | |
| 22:45:51 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Make get_allocations_for_resource_provider sane https://review.openstack.org/584598 | |
| 22:45:52 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Report client: Real get_allocs_for_consumer https://review.openstack.org/584599 | |
| 22:45:53 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Report client: get_allocations_for_provider_tree https://review.openstack.org/584648 | |
| 22:45:54 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Report client: _reshape helper, placement min bump https://review.openstack.org/585034 | |
| 22:45:55 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Report client: update_from_provider_tree w/reshape https://review.openstack.org/585049 | |
| 22:45:56 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Compute: Handle reshaped provider trees https://review.openstack.org/576236 | |
| 22:45:57 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Remove redundant _update()s https://review.openstack.org/588091 | |
| 22:46:15 | lbragstad | if not - then it sounds like something we can build into oslo.limit or consider supporting (since it's the thing raise exceptions to the service) | |
| 22:46:26 | melwitt | lbragstad: it is, sorry. I mean whether it's one call or two calls in oslo.limit to do limits vs enforce | |
| 22:46:49 | lbragstad | oh - the thing that protects against race conditions? | |
| 22:47:21 | melwitt | sorry, I think I'm confusing things and I haven't looked at the POC code in awhile | |
| 22:47:46 | lbragstad | the skeleton of oslo.limit has that implemented in the context manager https://github.com/openstack/oslo.limit/blob/master/oslo_limit/limit.py#L60-L62 | |
| 22:48:06 | melwitt | ah, yeah I remember now | |
| 22:48:13 | lbragstad | https://github.com/openstack/oslo.limit/blob/master/oslo_limit/tests/test_limit.py#L96 probably helps visualize things a bit, too | |
| 22:48:22 | lbragstad | from a usage perspective anyway | |
| 22:49:31 | melwitt | thanks | |
| 22:49:37 | lbragstad | this stuff will get implemented soon, since this is where the code the calculates the limits wrt the tree https://github.com/openstack/oslo.limit/blob/master/oslo_limit/limit.py#L81-L85 | |
| 22:49:57 | lbragstad | (implementation detail of the context manager though) | |
| 22:49:58 | melwitt | and that will also pull the limits from keystone? | |
| 22:50:07 | lbragstad | yep - exactly | |
| 22:50:32 | lbragstad | when you enter the context manager, it should query keystone for the limits and do calculations based on the claims your making | |
| 22:50:51 | melwitt | ah, I see. I think I jumped the gun then. for some reason I was thinking we could move to using keystone limits only, as a first step, and then start doing the oslo.enforcement in a second separate step | |
| 22:50:52 | lbragstad | then __exit__ will do error handling in the event there was a race condition and verify = True | |
| 22:51:00 | melwitt | from a project perspective | |
| 22:51:05 | lbragstad | aha - sure | |
| 22:51:16 | lbragstad | hopefully it's only one step for you | |
| 22:51:29 | lbragstad | (unless there is a good reason to break things up a bit?) | |
| 22:51:44 | melwitt | no, I don't think there is. just ignorance on my part | |
| 22:51:55 | lbragstad | it's a lot of moving pieces =/ | |
| 22:52:04 | melwitt | yeah, for sure | |
| 22:52:26 | lbragstad | we were waiting on an APi to return the project heirarchy with limit data associated to it (landed in rocky) | |
| 22:52:50 | lbragstad | now that's in, we can start working on finishing up the implementation of that context manager | |
| 22:52:59 | lbragstad | (i'm hoping to start that soon) | |
| 22:53:09 | melwitt | on our side we have to decide whether to go ahead with the custom resource classes quotas by using our own quota classes API or wait for oslo.limit | |
| 22:54:11 | lbragstad | i can bump the oslo.limit impl up on my priority list if it helps give you all a definitive direction | |
| 22:54:23 | lbragstad | (if support in oslo.limit is the question) | |
| 22:55:16 | melwitt | have to dig in more on what's the cost of that. might not be much actually because we can leverage our own old API for doing it. it's just then we'd have to migrate whatever quota classes people have created over to keystone limits. but we have to do that regardless so maybe it's not much extra cost | |
| 22:55:34 | lbragstad | sure | |
| 22:55:54 | lbragstad | i think i see what you mean | |
| 23:00:38 | melwitt | lbragstad: re: the comments on our PTG etherpad, there is already support for user_id right? as shown on this doc? https://docs.openstack.org/keystone/queens/admin/identity-unified-limits.html | |
| 23:02:38 | melwitt | we've had discussions with operators in the past and there was consensus that user_id isn't useful if hierarchy is possible, but I don't know if/how we could change the semantics of our existing quotas. so I'm thinking of what's possible if we *don't* change semantics | |
| #openstack-nova - 2018-08-03 | |||
| 00:58:02 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova stable/ocata: [stable only] Handle quota usage during create/delete races https://review.openstack.org/582413 | |
| 00:58:04 | openstack | bug 1783613 in OpenStack Compute (nova) ocata "[ocata only] quota usage not decremented during boot/delete race" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1783613 - Assigned to melanie witt (melwitt) | |
| 00:58:04 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova stable/ocata: Add functional regression test for bug 1783613 https://review.openstack.org/588416 | |
| 00:58:08 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: In Python3.7 async is a keyword [1] https://review.openstack.org/584365 | |
| 00:59:25 | openstack | bug 1783613 in OpenStack Compute (nova) ocata "[ocata only] quota usage not decremented during boot/delete race" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1783613 - Assigned to melanie witt (melwitt) | |
| 00:59:25 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova stable/ocata: [stable only] Add functional regression test for bug 1783613 https://review.openstack.org/588416 | |
| 00:59:26 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova stable/ocata: [stable only] Handle quota usage during create/delete races https://review.openstack.org/582413 | |
| 01:15:46 | melwitt | mriedem_afk: I added a functional regression test that might help demonstrate the bug ^ | |
| 01:18:19 | melwitt | customer hit an issue around this so I proposed it upstream too in case it can help | |
| 01:30:38 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Remove unused request API sample template https://review.openstack.org/588420 | |
| 01:31:45 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Remove unused request API sample template https://review.openstack.org/588420 | |
| 01:34:52 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Remove unused request API sample template https://review.openstack.org/588420 | |
| 01:44:07 | lbragstad | melwitt: oh - so don't try and support per user quotas? | |
| 01:51:53 | openstackgerrit | Zhenyu Zheng proposed openstack/nova master: Update installation guide to be more clear about cellsv2 https://review.openstack.org/584244 | |
| 01:56:47 | openstackgerrit | zhufl proposed openstack/nova master: Fix none-ascii char in doc https://review.openstack.org/588422 | |
| 03:03:42 | openstackgerrit | Vishakha Agarwal proposed openstack/nova master: No change in field 'updated' in server https://review.openstack.org/586446 | |
| 04:38:48 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova stable/ocata: [stable only] Handle quota usage during create/delete races https://review.openstack.org/582413 | |
| 05:57:32 | openstackgerrit | Vishakha Agarwal proposed openstack/nova master: 'Updated_at' is NULL when show aggregate info https://review.openstack.org/580271 | |
| 06:06:56 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Remove unused request API sample template https://review.openstack.org/588420 | |
| 06:48:14 | alex_xu | stephenfin: sorry, just send at wrong channel, the sample files are deleted by this commit https://review.openstack.org/#/c/149129/, and actually, the api sample test doesn't validate the request body, so there is no complain, those file actually just for document. | |
| 06:52:29 | gmann | alex_xu: stephenfin this will fix - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/588420/4 | |
| 06:53:27 | alex_xu | gmann: thanks | |
| 06:54:07 | alex_xu | gmann: but I'm thinking about why we cleanup those empty file at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/149129/ | |
| 06:55:36 | gmann | alex_xu: not sure why we removed may be because their are just empty | |
| 06:55:52 | gmann | they are just empty | |
| 06:56:25 | alex_xu | gmann: yea, anyway, your fix is better | |
| 07:00:16 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Remove unused request API sample template https://review.openstack.org/588420 | |
| 07:00:38 | gmann | alex_xu: done ^^ | |
| 07:02:54 | alex_xu | gmann: thanks | |
| 07:23:36 | openstackgerrit | Yongli He proposed openstack/nova master: Load expected attr pci_devices while migrate https://review.openstack.org/588455 | |
| 07:31:32 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Add another up-call to the cells v2 caveats list https://review.openstack.org/581910 | |
| 08:22:13 | giblet | stephenfin: you found it you can make sure it is fixed ;) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/588420/ | |