| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-08-17 | |||
| 13:21:41 | fried_rice | And on every iteration, it needs to go through that list and unset any of those traits that shouldn't be set, and set the ones that should. | |
| 13:25:45 | edmondsw | fried_rice mriedem I think we can change that to say shelve is supported | |
| 13:26:16 | fried_rice | edmondsw: Cool, you going to propose? | |
| 13:26:28 | edmondsw | fried_rice sure | |
| 13:29:05 | openstackgerrit | Matthew Edmonds proposed openstack/nova master: comment correction for libvirt multiattach https://review.openstack.org/593050 | |
| 13:44:32 | openstackgerrit | Matthew Edmonds proposed openstack/nova master: Doc: PowerVM does support shelve https://review.openstack.org/593052 | |
| 13:44:40 | edmondsw | fried_rice mriedem ^ | |
| 13:44:42 | fried_rice | ack | |
| 13:45:29 | fried_rice | edmondsw: Do we have a way to test that in the CI? | |
| 13:45:54 | fried_rice | edmondsw: Or at least a local run? | |
| 13:51:19 | edmondsw | fried_rice I presume there are tempest tests for this... | |
| 13:51:48 | fried_rice | edmondsw: I presume that too, but have not investigated. Guessing we could grep our blacklist? | |
| 13:53:06 | openstackgerrit | Chen proposed openstack/nova master: Fix evacuate logging https://review.openstack.org/593055 | |
| 14:04:35 | melwitt | . | |
| 14:07:05 | fried_rice | ō/ melwitt | |
| 14:30:26 | SteelyDan | sean-k-mooney: you confirmed that the new approach works for LB right? If so, can you comment on this patch? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/591735 | |
| 14:30:37 | SteelyDan | *the new waiting during live migration approach | |
| 15:14:30 | openstack | bug 1787606 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Multi instance creation rescheduling fails due to a lack of alternates" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1787606 | |
| 15:14:30 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: WIP Add regression for bug 1787606 https://review.openstack.org/593073 | |
| 15:14:31 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: WIP scheduler: Only skip the selected host when finding alternates https://review.openstack.org/593074 | |
| 15:18:48 | cdent | melwitt, SteelyDan: Do either of you recall if this be taken back to ocata standalone or the whole stack associated with topic is needed? | |
| 15:19:01 | cdent | melwitt, SteelyDan https://review.openstack.org/#/c/580498/ | |
| 15:19:52 | SteelyDan | cdent: needs to be taken? was taken? | |
| 15:20:02 | melwitt | cdent: if that can be taken standalone? | |
| 15:20:17 | cdent | can be, sorry | |
| 15:20:34 | cdent | looks like probably not, but the commit message kind of implies maybe it could | |
| 15:21:36 | SteelyDan | I dunno, I'd have to look pretty closely, because ocata had very different allocation behavior | |
| 15:21:50 | SteelyDan | so in general I would expect few things that applied to pike to apply directly to ocata | |
| 15:21:55 | cdent | yeah. | |
| 15:22:38 | melwitt | yeah, that's what I wasn't sure about, since a lot of foundational stuff was done in pike, whether this does the right thing on its own without other pike changes in placement | |
| 15:23:24 | SteelyDan | placement didn't change as a result of this, | |
| 15:23:38 | SteelyDan | it was the difference in how/where nova does the allocations in placement in ocata vs. pike | |
| 15:23:48 | melwitt | that is, why wasn't this proposed to ocata along with pike, if there was a reason for that | |
| 15:23:58 | SteelyDan | like, the doubling of the allocations for a migation | |
| 15:24:11 | melwitt | usually things get backported to all applicable places at the same time | |
| 15:24:13 | SteelyDan | although I guess if you're deleting an instance you should delete both | |
| 15:24:59 | SteelyDan | cdent: are you in a hurry such that waiting to ask matt isn't reasonable? | |
| 15:25:09 | SteelyDan | not sure he'll remember more, but.. | |
| 15:25:31 | cdent | SteelyDan: no, not in a super rush, just happened to cross my radar because of some internal flim flammery | |
| 15:25:53 | cdent | i'm going to see what happens if I try to pick just it | |
| 15:26:21 | SteelyDan | in ocata the compute node is authoritative over the allocations, | |
| 15:26:39 | SteelyDan | but even post pike it will be for deleted instances only, | |
| 15:26:47 | SteelyDan | so I'm not positive why this was even a thing on pike | |
| 15:27:48 | melwitt | what do you mean? the compute node will remove allocations for a local deleted instance on pike? | |
| 15:27:57 | melwitt | via auto-heal or something? | |
| 15:28:08 | SteelyDan | yes, | |
| 15:28:13 | SteelyDan | it used to always auto-heal everything, | |
| 15:28:24 | SteelyDan | but as of pike it should only do it for deleted instances once all the ocata computes are gone | |
| 15:28:25 | cdent | looking a bit more closely, it seems the real issue on the internal discussion is this part of the bug fix: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/580499/ , for cleaning up host mappings | |
| 15:28:27 | SteelyDan | let me see if I an find that | |
| 15:28:31 | melwitt | I see | |
| 15:28:56 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: add zvm into support matrix https://review.openstack.org/593079 | |
| 15:28:57 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: Add zvm admin intro and hypervisor information https://review.openstack.org/593080 | |
| 15:28:58 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: Add zvm CI information https://review.openstack.org/593081 | |
| 15:29:18 | SteelyDan | melwitt: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/pike/nova/compute/resource_tracker.py#L1249-L1258 | |
| 15:29:37 | SteelyDan | melwitt: prior to pike, the other conditions in that heal/check loop would heal things, but as of pike only the instance.deleted one would | |
| 15:30:05 | SteelyDan | because as of pike the scheduler/conductor/api are authoritative for allocations | |
| 15:30:09 | melwitt | a-ha, thanks | |
| 15:31:54 | cdent | le sigh. it seems the root cause of the internal problem is: we messed various database tables and now things don't look like they should | |
| 15:32:14 | cdent | doctor it hurts when I punch myself! | |
| 15:35:41 | fried_rice | Choke yourself instead. Self-limiting. | |
| 15:39:07 | cdent | what you do in the privacy of your own home... | |
| 15:40:32 | SteelyDan | hehe, thanks I was looking for how to acknowledge the kink | |
| 15:49:09 | cdent | said SteelyDan | |
| 15:49:26 | SteelyDan | :) | |
| 16:35:34 | SteelyDan | sean-k-mooney: did you see my query here earlier? | |
| 16:35:54 | sean-k-mooney | oh am no ill scoll back | |
| 16:36:13 | SteelyDan | (repeat) sean-k-mooney: you confirmed that the new approach works for LB right? If so, can you comment on this patch? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/591735 | |
| 16:37:13 | sean-k-mooney | i confimed that the current code on master works. this is the queens backport of the same? | |
| 16:37:28 | SteelyDan | sean-k-mooney: you don't need to confirm it separately for queens | |
| 16:37:41 | SteelyDan | but if you could comment there I'd appreciate it | |
| 16:38:10 | sean-k-mooney | yes ill just triple check i have the commit in question on the relevent nodes | |
| 16:38:44 | SteelyDan | I think we've already established when the event is sent from neutron in the LB case, so it really shouldn't even be an issue, but... | |
| 16:39:53 | sean-k-mooney | yep i have the master change on both linux bidge node an the conf change. ill comment to that effect | |
| 16:47:18 | sean-k-mooney | speaking of LM testing i should work on that email to the list. | |
| 16:57:16 | melwitt | SteelyDan: docs changes for rc2 proposed starting here https://review.openstack.org/593079 if you could pls take a look | |
| 16:57:39 | melwitt | backports | |
| 16:57:42 | SteelyDan | ugh okay, I'll add it to the list | |
| 16:57:58 | melwitt | thanks | |
| 17:11:27 | SteelyDan | melwitt: don't we know that zvm doesn't support rebuild? | |
| 17:14:33 | melwitt | SteelyDan: mriedem asked them to change it from missing => unknown because since they support spawn and destroy, it sounds like it could work https://review.openstack.org/#/c/532720/8/doc/source/user/support-matrix.ini@378 | |
| 17:15:28 | melwitt | but they aren't testing that path, so "unknown" | |
| 17:17:51 | SteelyDan | it's not implemented in the driver, and untested, which sounds a lot more like "unsupported" than "maybe it'll work if code we wrote long ago to handle it for normal hypervisors, which zvm is not" | |
| 17:17:53 | SteelyDan | but.. okay | |
| 17:18:39 | melwitt | yeah, I think that's why they put "missing" initially | |
| 17:18:48 | SteelyDan | ...yeah | |
| 17:18:53 | SteelyDan | so glad we added this | |
| 17:19:00 | SteelyDan | so are we looking for fast approvals on these I assume? | |
| 17:19:09 | SteelyDan | or do you want to wait for another stabler on monday? | |
| 17:19:57 | melwitt | I was thinking mriedem could get them on monday | |
| 17:20:43 | melwitt | I wanted them to be ready to go. I wasn't sure if we need to fast approve | |
| 17:20:57 | melwitt | I guess I could ask smcginnis | |
| 17:21:49 | SteelyDan | you know better than I at this point when rc2 will be, which is why I'm asking | |
| 17:22:12 | melwitt | final RCs are due Aug 23, so AFAIK we are fine until then | |
| 17:37:05 | SteelyDan | ack | |
| 18:08:37 | smcginnis | melwitt: The question was whether to do another RC? | |
| 18:14:44 | melwitt | smcginnis: no, question was, should we be looking at fast-approving doc backports to stable/rocky for RC2 today (other stable cores are not around) or is it fine to wait until monday? | |
| 18:15:04 | melwitt | my understanding is final RCs are due Aug 23, so there isn't a rush. but please correct me if I'm wrong | |
| 18:18:55 | smcginnis | melwitt: That's correct. You have until next Thursday if there is a need to do another RC. | |
| 18:19:26 | melwitt | ok thank you | |