Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-08-31
09:06:03 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Consumer gen support for delete instance allocations https://review.openstack.org/591597
09:45:26 openstackgerrit Chen proposed openstack/nova master: Fix filter server list with SOFT_DELETED status https://review.openstack.org/597443
10:13:58 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Delete instance_group_member records from API DB during archive https://review.openstack.org/588943
10:31:32 dr_gogeta86 hi
10:31:57 dr_gogeta86 there is any known tecnique to migrate VMs with high memory pressure
10:32:13 dr_gogeta86 i can't evaquate a node for some machine who uses a lot of ram
10:52:50 gibi dr_gogeta86: I suggest to read the spec https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/newton/implemented/auto-live-migration-completion.html
10:54:05 dr_gogeta86 tnx
11:10:16 giblet dr_gogeta86: and here some final documentation for the features proposed in that spec https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/admin/configuring-migrations.html#advanced-configuration-for-kvm-and-qemu
11:38:01 openstackgerrit Radoslav Gerganov proposed openstack/nova master: Do not dump all instances in the scheduler https://review.openstack.org/598611
12:13:45 openstackgerrit sahid proposed openstack/nova master: hardware: fix memory check usage for small/large pages https://review.openstack.org/532168
12:14:25 sahid finucannot: ^
12:49:52 finucannot sahid: ack
13:26:46 sahid finucannot, leakypipes thanks
13:29:02 leakypipes sahid: de rien, mon ami
13:31:27 sahid :-)
13:36:32 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: Delete instance_group_member records from API DB during archive https://review.openstack.org/598953
13:39:06 poojajadhav fried_rice: Hi
13:39:16 fried_rice poojajadhav: Greetings.
13:39:39 poojajadhav fried_rice: Can u help in simple tenant usage API
13:40:34 fried_rice poojajadhav: whoah. I'm certainly not the best resource for that, but I can see what I can do (read: who I can find who knows something about it).
13:41:18 openstack Launchpad bug 1715570 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "simple tenant usage api calculating disk usages incorrectly" [Undecided,In progress] - Assigned to Bhagyashri Shewale (bhagyashri-shewale)
13:41:18 poojajadhav fried_rice: Actually, I have started looking into the bug : https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1715570
13:43:19 poojajadhav fried_rice: To resolve the issue of the usages of the (disk, memory_mb, vcpu) I am trying to get usages from placement usage api and then will use that infor for simple tenantr usage api. But facing issue when getting palcement usages.
13:43:42 poojajadhav fried_rice: Getting errot like : [dict(resource_class_id=item[0], usage=item[1])for item in query.all()] *** ProgrammingError: (pymysql.err.ProgrammingError) (1146, u"Table 'nova_cell0.consumers' doesn't exist") [SQL: u'SELECT allocations.resource_class_id AS allocations_resource_class_id, coalesce(sum(allocations.used), %(coalesce_2)s) AS coalesce_1 \nFROM allocations INNER JOIN consumers ON allocations.consumer_id = cons
13:44:46 fried_rice leakypipes: ^ ?
13:45:16 fried_rice poojajadhav: Wait, how are you trying to retrieve the usages?
13:45:33 fried_rice via the placement API or by talking directly to "the database"?
13:45:49 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Consumer gen support for put allocations https://review.openstack.org/591647
13:46:49 poojajadhav fried_rice: same like done in placement https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/placement/handlers/usage.py#L104-L109
13:47:03 leakypipes fried_rice: simple tenant usage unfortunately is a pile of legacy and doesn't query placement at all.
13:47:16 leakypipes fried_rice: it's all looking at instances, compute_nodes table etc
13:47:21 leakypipes in the nova cell DBs.
13:47:30 mdbooth pip's giving me an ssl error (CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED) trying to download https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/2a/fd/2a8b894ee3451704cf8525a6a94b87d5ba24747b7bbd3d2f7059189ad79f/stestr-2.1.1.tar.gz on F28. Chrome thinks it's fine. Anybody seen anything similar?
13:48:15 fried_rice poojajadhav: You definitely shouldn't be attempting to access the placement database directly from anywhere other than within the placement API code itself. If you're trying to get placement information from nova, you would need to do it by talking to the placement API service through the REST interface, via the SchedulerReportClient.
13:49:44 poojajadhav fried_rice, leakypipes: If the instance is BFV then also its shwoing the flavor,root_gb as per https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/compute/simple_tenant_usage.py#L165-L168
13:50:16 fried_rice poojajadhav: I thought we had some patches already proposed that were looking at fixing this...
13:50:52 dansmith leakypipes: despite the legacyness, placement doesn't provide the data it would need anyway
13:51:58 mriedem the is_bfv fix doesn't extend to the simple tenant usage API right?/
13:52:02 mriedem since the API doesn't look at the request spec
13:52:47 poojajadhav fried_rice : But in the simple tenant usage api, we can get flavors details and falvor is exists in nova_api only.
13:53:32 dansmith mriedem: unrelated, but .. haven't we already had a discussion about allowing delete-on-termination to be provided in attach volume?
13:53:56 dansmith I found a very old blueprint and code from like 2013, but couldn't find anything more recent
13:54:08 dansmith and I thought we had (and you were opposed)
13:54:25 mriedem dansmith: someone was asking for adding delete_on_termination for ports during server create to match bdms, but not sure about adding that flag during attach
13:54:39 mdbooth dansmith: It does seem like a kinda weird thing to do, tbh. Also, how would that work with multi-attach?
13:54:53 mriedem i agree it would be weird
13:55:03 dansmith mdbooth: mriedem: yeah, I think it violates the "nova created it so nova deleted it" rule
13:55:05 mriedem delete_on_termination, to me, makes the most sense when nova creates the resoruce
13:55:10 dansmith and could be quite surprising
13:55:11 poojajadhav fried_rice : Can u please locate me to those patches
13:55:34 fried_rice poojajadhav: I'm probably thinking of something different.
13:55:45 dansmith mriedem: anyway i was sure you had already thrown down the hammer on this previously so I was just looking for a shortcut
13:55:55 leakypipes dansmith: ack
13:56:20 mriedem poojajadhav: https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/03c596a9f4324e572bc04d4bbad09a6d3d47366c#diff-cbbdc4d7c140314a7e0b2d97ebcd1f9c ?
13:56:40 mriedem dansmith: b/c today is friday red hat bug squash day and you have a customer that wants this ability?
13:56:50 dansmith mriedem: I told you never to call me here
13:56:53 mriedem and you can say "ol man riderman doesn't like it"
13:57:15 dansmith mriedem: no, I was hoping for a link to an ML thread where "ol man riderman said no"
13:57:28 mriedem for that you'd have to dig :)
13:57:34 dansmith well, I did
13:57:36 mriedem i wouldn't be surprised if it came up
13:57:46 leakypipes I think we'd need hansmoleman for that.
13:58:40 mriedem https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89777/
13:58:42 poojajadhav mriedem: I have checked on current master, in the usages for BFV instance it shows local_gb=1.
13:58:45 mriedem there are -1s in that spec from not me
13:58:54 dansmith mriedem: just procedural
13:59:01 dansmith I already found that and the conversation on the ML about it
13:59:03 mriedem poojajadhav: yeah, because the simple tenant usage API doesn't take into account whether or not an instance is volume-backed
13:59:07 dansmith nobody seemed to actually discuss it
13:59:07 mriedem as i said above
13:59:43 mriedem phil day was -1 onn it
13:59:46 mriedem for the reasons we just said
14:00:08 mriedem "I think the option for delete on termination when booting an instance is a hang over from the original boot from volume work where Nova would create a new (in effect ephemeral) volume from an image in Glance. I'm not sure that use case really exist anymore - but even if it does it doesn't seem like it should be extended to more general cases."
14:00:15 mriedem doesn't exist anymore....oh phil
14:00:41 mriedem heh jay was +1 on it
14:00:47 mriedem 2014 jay loved bfv!
14:01:12 poojajadhav mriedem: but should we consider instance is volume-backed or not for simple tenant usage api?
14:01:22 mriedem poojajadhav: yes we likely should
14:01:40 melwitt .
14:01:50 openstack bug 1469179 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "instance.root_gb should be 0 for volume-backed instances" [Medium,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1469179 - Assigned to Dan Smith (danms)
14:01:50 mriedem poojajadhav: you could start by reporting a bug, related to bug 1469179 and mention the issue
14:01:52 leakypipes mriedem: I must have mistaken it to mean delete bfv.
14:01:59 mriedem leakypipes: heh
14:02:33 openstack Launchpad bug 1715570 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "simple tenant usage api calculating disk usages incorrectly" [Undecided,In progress] - Assigned to Bhagyashri Shewale (bhagyashri-shewale)
14:02:33 poojajadhav mriedem: bug is already reported https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1715570
14:06:06 mriedem poojajadhav: ok
14:06:34 mriedem i'm not really sure how we could efficiently calculate volume-backed for all servers in the simple tenant usage API call - since it's not a flag on the instance itself
14:07:00 mriedem unless we started reporting that into the instance system_metadata or something
14:07:04 mriedem dansmith: any thoughts on that?
14:10:02 dansmith mriedem: yeah, we'd need a new element of data I think to be able to do it at all efficiently
14:10:06 dansmith sysmeta would not be that thing though
14:10:08 poojajadhav mriedem: I was thought like currently placement usage api giving correct usages so we can get them and use it for the simple tenant usage api
14:10:27 dansmith poojajadhav: that's not what simple tenant usage wants or needs
14:10:31 dansmith it needs historical data
14:10:47 poojajadhav dansmith: hmm
14:11:18 mriedem simple tenant usage is asking for an aggregate usage of resources for a given tenant over a specific time period
14:12:15 mriedem placement doesn't expose consumer type (instance or volume or container) nor created_at time
14:12:28 dansmith nor keep anything after deletion
14:12:34 dansmith i.e. no historical archive

Earlier   Later