| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-09-27 | |||
| 14:56:56 | bauzas | ghood point | |
| 14:57:15 | bauzas | anyway, I need to jump on a call | |
| 14:57:17 | mriedem | but....that's likely not good enough if you resize to a specific host, and then live migrate without specifying a host... | |
| 14:57:51 | bauzas | mriedem: live migrate has the same logic IIRC | |
| 14:58:00 | bauzas | we null out the field | |
| 14:58:26 | mriedem | i don't see that happening | |
| 14:58:28 | mriedem | for live migrate | |
| 14:58:36 | bauzas | oh shit no you're right | |
| 14:58:43 | bauzas | bug bug bug | |
| 14:58:48 | openstackgerrit | Mohammed Naser proposed openstack/nova master: Use INFO for logging no allocation candidates https://review.openstack.org/605765 | |
| 14:58:58 | mnaser | mriedem: bauzas ^ | |
| 14:59:07 | mnaser | took me longer to come up with a decent commit message jeez | |
| 14:59:39 | melwitt | . | |
| 15:00:10 | mriedem | bauzas: i'll give myself a todo to write a regression test for this | |
| 15:00:23 | bauzas | mriedem: ack | |
| 15:01:06 | mriedem | mnaser: +2 | |
| 15:01:54 | openstackgerrit | Christoph Manns proposed openstack/nova master: Fix stacktraces with redis caching backend https://review.openstack.org/605748 | |
| 15:01:59 | bauzas | mnaser: +Wipped | |
| 15:02:15 | bauzas | mnaser: please make a cherry-pick for rocky | |
| 15:06:58 | openstackgerrit | Mohammed Naser proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: Use INFO for logging no allocation candidates https://review.openstack.org/605771 | |
| 15:07:09 | mnaser | bauzas: done | |
| 15:26:53 | mnaser | AggregateRamFilter is still relevant and working? i remember there was an aggregate filter that had a long ml discussion about how it wasnt really working? | |
| 15:28:14 | mriedem | mnaser: ask jaypipes re https://review.openstack.org/#/c/544683/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/552105/ | |
| 15:38:06 | melwitt | mnaser: this is the situation http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-January/126283.html and it's still the case now. those two specs ^ are what's needed to restore the ability to set allocation ratios per aggregate | |
| 15:41:14 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Ignore forcing of live migration for nested instance https://review.openstack.org/605785 | |
| 15:41:33 | gibi | mriedem: my first stab for ignoring the force flag ^^ | |
| 15:42:24 | mgagne | @mriedem: what's up with caching scheduler? | |
| 15:42:31 | mriedem | mgagne: are we ok to remove it now? | |
| 15:42:32 | mriedem | in stein | |
| 15:43:01 | mnaser | melwitt: i see, i think i might be looking at the wrong filter then | |
| 15:43:03 | mgagne | mriedem: I think we figured out it was ok after you wrote the allocation healing tool. | |
| 15:43:03 | mriedem | i.e. is heal_allocation sufficient for you right now to get upgraded to a FilterScheduler world | |
| 15:43:16 | mgagne | ++ | |
| 15:43:17 | mriedem | mgagne: ok | |
| 15:43:18 | mriedem | thanks | |
| 15:43:24 | mnaser | maybe it was a weigher that had the flip of a switch | |
| 15:43:29 | mnaser | -1 or 1 to pack vs distribute | |
| 15:43:36 | mriedem | host_subset_size? | |
| 15:43:42 | mnaser | yeah it is gr | |
| 15:44:03 | mnaser | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/weights/ram.py i guess no way of having that per host or per aggregate or anything | |
| 15:44:30 | mgagne | mnaser: we have a private implementation of the RAMWeigher per aggregate | |
| 15:44:39 | melwitt | mgagne: while you're here, don't forget to re-propose https://review.openstack.org/312626 for stein. I was +2 on the implementation but we were at feature freeze at the time | |
| 15:45:06 | mgagne | melwitt: thanks for the follow up | |
| 15:45:39 | mnaser | mgagne: that'd be nice to have upstream i guess, assuming that's a possiblity | |
| 15:46:00 | mgagne | mnaser: sure, unfortunately, I'm not sure it's gonna play well with placement API :D | |
| 15:46:09 | mgagne | or maybe it's not related? | |
| 15:46:12 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Ignore forcing of live migration for nested instance https://review.openstack.org/605785 | |
| 15:46:12 | mnaser | weighers are after placement | |
| 15:46:13 | mnaser | so it doesnt matter | |
| 15:46:18 | mgagne | mnaser: awesome | |
| 15:46:19 | mnaser | its just "which machine do i prefer" | |
| 15:46:39 | mnaser | but im not a nova dev but thats as far as i understand it | |
| 15:46:46 | mnaser | weighers run after placement allocations AND filters have ran | |
| 15:46:50 | mgagne | so you just need a high host_subset_size for weigher to get some hosts to choose from | |
| 15:47:37 | mnaser | yeah we have that bumped up. the silly idea is right now by default nova spreads vms which is ok but with large vms it becomes problematic | |
| 15:47:47 | mnaser | because we have enough capacity for them but just not in aggregate if that makes sense | |
| 15:47:54 | mgagne | hehe, I know =) | |
| 15:48:12 | bauzas | mriedem: you're my rebuild specialist, so lemme bug you about some silly question | |
| 15:48:19 | mnaser | but we had some really bad decision making with our first flavors so running it with -1 ram multiplier for * .. bad things happen | |
| 15:48:51 | bauzas | mriedem: as of today, do we rebuild by calling the scheduler or have we stopped this ? /me is confused by the number of bugs we had about | |
| 15:49:04 | bauzas | my brain sucks | |
| 15:50:50 | openstackgerrit | Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova master: Reject networks with QoS policy https://review.openstack.org/570079 | |
| 15:51:40 | mgagne | mnaser: based on Newton (sorry): https://gist.github.com/mgagne/142e20e32049abd0cdf5d2da7e048608 | |
| 15:51:42 | melwitt | mnaser: hm, supposed to pack by default, I thought | |
| 15:52:07 | mnaser | mnaser: by default the weighers are set to positive values so distribute | |
| 15:52:59 | melwitt | ok. in the past the scheduler used to pack by default, so I'm not sure when/how that changed | |
| 15:53:07 | mgagne | doesn't make much sense to pack since if you have lets say the openstack infra team spawning 120 VMs at the same time, you will overload the same hosts with requests. | |
| 15:53:35 | melwitt | not since claims in the scheduler, but in the past yeah | |
| 15:53:46 | mgagne | true | |
| 15:54:40 | mgagne | but still, maybe you don't want 6 images being downloaded for the first time on the same host at the same time. or other similar expansive operations. | |
| 15:54:48 | mnaser | mgagne: thanks for that, ill have a look | |
| 15:55:24 | melwitt | generally speaking, I think pack is the more desired behavior for efficient usage of compute hosts. the only reason people increased subset size, as I understand it, was to avoid the racing of parallel requests trying to claim the same nodes with the old way of claiming | |
| 15:55:46 | mnaser | yeah that was what we had to do for a while | |
| 15:55:47 | mriedem | bauzas: we call the scheduler if the server is being rebuilt with a new image | |
| 15:55:56 | mriedem | b/c we need to validate the new image for the host that the instance is on | |
| 15:56:10 | bauzas | ok, I didn't remember all the conditionals | |
| 15:56:12 | melwitt | yeah, if it's a first time ever image. but when I worked at yahoo we used to warm the cache for images on the compute hosts before letting users at it | |
| 15:56:25 | bauzas | mriedem: thanks | |
| 15:56:29 | mnaser | with ceph it's not even an issue because cow | |
| 15:56:38 | melwitt | true. we didn't use ceph | |
| 15:57:28 | mriedem | mnaser: you're asking about having the RamWeigher applied to an aggregate? | |
| 15:57:37 | bauzas | mriedem: that's from Queens, right? | |
| 15:57:42 | bauzas | I remember the CVE | |
| 15:57:48 | mriedem | bauzas: i think so, but it was backported so ... | |
| 15:57:56 | bauzas | mriedem: okay | |
| 15:58:16 | mriedem | mnaser: reminds me of Kevin_Zheng's spec https://review.openstack.org/#/c/599308/ | |
| 15:58:43 | mriedem | trying to make the weight configuration not global | |
| 16:00:30 | mgagne | mriedem: yes and I commented that I had a similar solution per aggregate, not per flavor. code posted above in a gist =) | |
| 16:03:15 | mriedem | mgagne: ok i remember reading your comment but totally missed the part about having the weight configuration per aggregate | |
| 16:03:50 | mriedem | so Kevin_Zheng's spec is maybe way too extreme on the granular side, being per-flavor, | |
| 16:04:02 | mriedem | but global weight configs is also pretty extreme, | |
| 16:04:12 | mriedem | it seems per-aggregate weight configuration would be a nice compromise | |
| 16:05:15 | bauzas | mriedem: mgagne: I think there was a consensus on that approach, even at the PTG | |
| 16:05:42 | bauzas | putting on a flavor, I nacked, but I'm okay with it per aggregate | |
| 16:05:59 | bauzas | (in the spec, I meant) | |
| 16:06:41 | mriedem | yeah i totally didn't connect the dots on what the alternative was (weights per aggregate) | |
| 16:06:54 | mriedem | i must have been thinking about just pinning flavors to aggregates or something, idk | |
| 16:07:03 | bauzas | you can mix both indeed | |
| 16:07:03 | openstackgerrit | Matthew Booth proposed openstack/nova master: Fix a race evacuating instances in an anti-affinity group https://review.openstack.org/605436 | |
| 16:07:10 | bauzas | if that helps your case | |