Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-10-03
12:12:38 sean-k-mooney mdbooth: was lookin at an edgecase recently where if cleanup on the source fail we dont update the vm host
12:14:29 sean-k-mooney nicolasbock: e.g. when you finish migrating the instace if the post migrate job on the source node failts to say unplug a vif we fail before we update the instace db record to refect that the vm is running on the new node
12:14:49 sean-k-mooney mdbooth: did you ever proposea a patch for ^
12:15:12 mdbooth sean-k-mooney: Probably.
12:17:27 sean-k-mooney nicolasbock: are the placement allocation currently associated with the vm correct for the host it is actully on
12:17:45 sean-k-mooney e.g. if you ignore the db host value and actully check the vms location
12:18:00 mdbooth sean-k-mooney: Trying to parse your comment here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/605436/5/nova/compute/manager.py@1447
12:18:18 mdbooth Are you saying we can release the lock there?
12:18:25 mdbooth Or yield the context manager there?
12:18:35 mdbooth Or something else, because neither of ^^^ would be correct.
12:18:48 nicolasbock The VM is running on `6cbb84b0-02f4-4ee3-9df2-151475b1effe`
12:19:03 nicolasbock But placement says that it's on `57b0e4d5-3a3e-4cf3-ba8c-b88c8ce4679b`
12:19:09 sean-k-mooney mdbooth: im saying if we dont have a lock when we invoke that line the db request could cause use to yeild causeing a race
12:19:32 mdbooth Ah, *eventlet* yield
12:19:37 mdbooth Ok.
12:19:54 sean-k-mooney e.g. this is the thing that definetly needs to be in the critcal section of the lock
12:20:01 nicolasbock I ran `openstack server show 2aa3a324-bf22-4e0c-912a-d7c52f59f1fd`
12:20:15 nicolasbock and `openstack resource provider allocation show 2aa3a324-bf22-4e0c-912a-d7c52f59f1fd`
12:21:06 sean-k-mooney mdbooth: ya re reading that was not clear
12:21:53 sean-k-mooney nicolasbock: is 57b0e4d5-3a3e-4cf3-ba8c-b88c8ce4679b the source or destination of the migration
12:22:23 sean-k-mooney nicolasbock: im assume the destination correct?
12:22:36 sean-k-mooney sorry source
12:23:07 nicolasbock I don't know what happened, but I would guess that it is the source
12:23:27 nicolasbock Sorry, I am not sure I completely grasp the terminology of source and destination
12:23:43 sean-k-mooney ya so the resouce being used on 6cbb84b0-02f4-4ee3-9df2-151475b1effe are likely still owned by the migration object in placement
12:24:44 nicolasbock What's the migration object?
12:26:21 sean-k-mooney when you do a migration we create a migration record that we use to calim resouces on the destination host then when the vm is move we use a special atomic oepration in the placemnt api to change the allocation consumer form the migration recordds uuid to the vms uuid
12:27:23 nicolasbock So you are saying that that atomic operation wasn't executed?
12:27:30 sean-k-mooney yes
12:27:35 nicolasbock Ok
12:27:55 nicolasbock Can I get it to execute?
12:28:01 sean-k-mooney so if you do nova server-migration-list 2aa3a324-bf22-4e0c-912a-d7c52f59f1fd does it have a migration object listed
12:28:53 nicolasbock No
12:30:10 sean-k-mooney oh hum strange. perhaps the migration has already been confirmed.
12:31:13 sean-k-mooney nicolasbock: efried might be able to help better the i if he is around
12:31:28 nicolasbock So I thought that `openstack resource provider allocation set` would allow me to update the DB
12:31:39 nicolasbock Thanks sean-k-mooney !
12:32:06 nicolasbock But I am not using that command correctly since it complains about an incorrect 'allocation string format'
12:36:24 openstackgerrit Vlad Gusev proposed openstack/nova stable/pike: libvirt: Use os.stat and os.path.getsize for RAW disk inspection https://review.openstack.org/607544
12:37:16 openstackgerrit Matthew Booth proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: Run against mriedem's evacuate test https://review.openstack.org/604423
12:44:15 mdbooth This is an interesting query: http://logstash.openstack.org/#dashboard/file/logstash.json?query=message%3A%5C%22AssertionError%3A%20u'host3'%20%3D%3D%20u'host3'%5C%22
12:44:49 mdbooth I wonder why that started spiking only a few days ago: code change, or infra change?
13:03:06 stephenfin lyarwood: RE: https://review.openstack.org/588570 I'd been putting it off but will do that now. Will keep you posted
13:04:26 lyarwood stephenfin: cheers
13:06:26 openstack Launchpad bug 1209101 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Non-public flavor cannot be used in created tenant" [High,Fix released] - Assigned to Sumanth Nagadavalli (sumanth-nagadavalli)
13:06:26 s10 How can I reopen bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1209101 ? It still exists.
13:07:02 sean-k-mooney s10: just change status and leave a comment with details
13:08:02 s10 sean-k-mooney: I've left comment, but I can't change status, all of them are grey.
13:08:38 sean-k-mooney s10: that said i dont think its nessisarly the same but. that was fixed in 2013
13:08:47 sean-k-mooney its more likely a regression
13:08:59 sean-k-mooney are you seeing this on master?
13:09:51 s10 sean-k-mooney: Yes, this regression have never been fixed. I will write a comment about how to reproduce it.
13:10:56 sean-k-mooney well it was fixed and then reverted so this likely needs to be treated as more then a bug fix but rather as a blueprint/spec
13:13:21 sean-k-mooney the original bug fix predates microversions so i think a mini spec + microversion but would be required to alter the api behavior
13:13:57 sean-k-mooney bauzas: is ^ correct
13:14:27 bauzas context ?
13:14:56 sean-k-mooney private flavor are automatically expsed to new tenants
13:15:13 openstack Launchpad bug 1209101 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Non-public flavor cannot be used in created tenant" [High,Fix released] - Assigned to Sumanth Nagadavalli (sumanth-nagadavalli)
13:15:13 sean-k-mooney because https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1209101 was reverted
13:15:55 sean-k-mooney sorry are not automatically exposed
13:18:35 sean-k-mooney bauzas: so context is if we want to chagne teh behavior of the api to auto grant access to the private flavor that would require a spec rather then being just a bug fix right as its an api change?
13:20:02 bauzas sean-k-mooney: IIUC, I'd tend to say yes, as it's a behavioural change
13:20:24 bauzas we don't really call the fact to not show private flavors as a "bug"
13:20:48 bauzas some people would also like to keep this behaviour I guess
13:21:17 bauzas and last but not the least, two OpenStack clouds could behave differently for the same request and list of flavors, which is not interop
13:21:26 bauzas HTH
13:34:10 sean-k-mooney s10: im just having lunch but based on bauzas confirmation rather then repoen the but i would suggest you file a nova spec. if you dont have time to do that i can see if i can do it later today but you have more context then i as to what you wanted to achive
13:39:28 efried nicolasbock: Still around?
13:40:59 efried nicolasbock: mriedem would be a better source of CLI syntax help, but I can tell you what the API call itself would need to look like.
13:41:42 mnaser does anyone know if CERN does pci passthrough on centos or ubuntu?
13:42:03 dansmith I thought they were all centos
13:43:05 mnaser i'm trying to figure out why pci passthrough isn't working
13:43:35 mnaser everything nova side is working ok, but the newly spawned qemu-kvm process is stuck spinning at 100% cpu, no console logs, libvirt qemu logs show nothing..
13:44:32 mnaser so i'm a bit at a loss, not really sure where to go next
13:44:52 s10 sean-k-mooney: Basically, what I want to archive is to be able to provide tenants and ability to manage private flavors which they created.
13:46:13 s10 sean-k-mooney: But this will be more complicated than automatic flavor access add after private flavor creation...
13:46:43 sean-k-mooney s10: ok if that is the usecase then that should be relitvly simple to capture in a spec. ill write up a spec.
13:47:16 sean-k-mooney s10: oh why should we not jsut need to allow the teant that created teh flavor to have acess to it automatically?
13:48:17 sean-k-mooney for interop reasons we will need a microversion bump but that is just a mechanical sideeffect not germain to the feature
13:53:21 s10 sean-k-mooney: I want them to have access to created flavor automatically because there is no RBAC in nova for private flavors. Flavors don't have an owner. I can't only allow tenants to run flavor-access-add for "their" flavors :(
13:58:12 mnaser ou
13:58:17 mnaser i wonder if this has to do with using lvm local storage
13:58:54 mnaser and the qemu user not being able to access it
13:58:55 mnaser hmm
13:59:30 mnaser yup, it can't access it
14:00:15 mnaser would it be a responsibility of nova to setup permissions of volumes under lvm so that the qemu user can read it?
14:02:59 mdbooth I just ran a git bisect to try to find out why the incidence of test_parallel_evacuate_with_server_group failure went from occasional to almost 50% in the last few days, and the culprit is my patch from the other day: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/604859/
14:03:06 mdbooth I still consider this a feature :)
14:14:43 mriedem dansmith: did you know there was a cinder_img_volume_type metadata key which can be used to create a bootable volume with a specific volume type? https://docs.openstack.org/cinder/latest/cli/cli-manage-volumes.html#volume-types
14:15:11 mriedem so technically people today could boot from volume from an image with that metadata and get what they wanted instead of passing a volume type to nova - clunky i know
14:15:14 dansmith on the image
14:15:18 mriedem yeah,
14:15:22 dansmith I did not know that, no
14:15:49 mriedem likely also means that we need to make a decision in the compute API if the user specifies a volume type and the source image has that metadata key/value, which do we pick? or do we 400?
14:16:42 mriedem probably need to know what cinder does in that same case
14:16:49 mriedem smcginnis: do you know off the top of your head? ^
14:17:06 dansmith seems to me like if they ask for something on the boot request, that always wins
14:17:07 dansmith like, we have a default type, and there can be a default for an image,
14:17:10 smcginnis If you explicitly provide a type, I believe we will give that priority over the image property.
14:17:18 dansmith but if they ask for something specific at the time, I would expect they want the one they asked for

Earlier   Later