| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-10-18 | |||
| 08:28:59 | Kevin_Zheng | OK, I got your point | |
| 08:29:30 | gibi | Kevin_Zheng: I can inform the user properly in half of the cases :/ | |
| 08:30:47 | Kevin_Zheng | Hmm, but maybe it will still be miss leading, as an user, I can see that I still have resources in the cloud | |
| 08:30:56 | gibi | Kevin_Zheng: this is basically a chiken-and-egg problem. The need of complex allocation on the destination can only be detected in every case if placement a_c is called. But force flag is defined in a way that it forbids calling the scheduler and placement | |
| 08:30:58 | Kevin_Zheng | but you tell me that there is no valid host? | |
| 08:31:29 | gibi | Kevin_Zheng: only if you specify the force flag | |
| 08:31:39 | gibi | Kevin_Zheng: the root of the problem is the definition of the force flag | |
| 08:32:21 | gibi | Kevin_Zheng: it forces (sic) nova to decide without the scheduler. But when we introduced placement in the picture nova lost the possibility to decide without consulting placement | |
| 08:33:17 | Kevin_Zheng | Hmm, there is a log, but the logs may only be available for ``operators``, if we had ``admins`` that can use force flag, this might still be confusing? | |
| 08:34:14 | gibi | Kevin_Zheng: there is no specific log in case #2. In case #2 nova tries to blind copy the flat soruce allocation to the dest but on the dest the root RP does not have enough resources therefore it is a NoValidHost | |
| 08:35:05 | gibi | Kevin_Zheng: it is indistinguishable from the case when the dest would allow flat alloaction but we run out of resources on the dest | |
| 08:35:10 | Kevin_Zheng | Hmm, thats true | |
| 08:35:29 | Kevin_Zheng | Ok, I'm convienced | |
| 08:35:31 | Kevin_Zheng | :) | |
| 08:39:38 | gibi | Kevin_Zheng: I understand that it is not a good situation from the user perspective. But force flag cannot be supproted any more as it is defined today. This is why I proposed to remove that flag in the future | |
| 08:41:16 | Kevin_Zheng | yes, I understand, but I think it might be very widely used for admins, as you mentioned, it has already been discussed, and it is free to propose better solutions, I think I will try to dig deeper. | |
| 08:44:19 | gibi | Kevin_Zheng: in the ML post I tried to give alternatives http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-October/135551.html | |
| 08:44:55 | gibi | Kevin_Zheng: option #D) would be one way out but that would be bad from other perspective (inconsisten resource allocation) | |
| 09:04:49 | sean-k-mooney | o/ | |
| 09:25:36 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: in your absence, it was discovered that random failures in the gate uncovered a bug: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/611017 | |
| 09:31:41 | sean-k-mooney | jangutter: oh looking | |
| 09:32:28 | sean-k-mooney | jangutter: am.. that should not chage anything | |
| 09:32:58 | sean-k-mooney | the real code check that its sys.platform != 'nt' | |
| 09:33:17 | sean-k-mooney | what you call the linux one has no effect on the code | |
| 09:34:01 | sean-k-mooney | although may be im think of os.name | |
| 09:35:12 | sean-k-mooney | oh i see the bug... | |
| 09:35:38 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: yeah, it basically turned the gate into a handy fuzzer. | |
| 09:35:51 | sean-k-mooney | ya ill quick approve that. its not the first time i have seen people assign directly to a module before and override things | |
| 09:36:53 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: the follow-on is a bit hinky, not sure what hyperv should do: does it need to delete anything, or is it just a handle that disappears when the port gets deleted? | |
| 09:37:02 | sean-k-mooney | jangutter: ya there was anothter patch in the past where someone on my team assigned a mock to a module then then sepnt a day trying to figure out why random test were failing | |
| 09:38:17 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: I hit the trifecta, I triggered this randomly on macos, where the error appeared to say: you can't run this linux command on Windows! | |
| 09:38:56 | sean-k-mooney | jangutter: well osx is not supported at all but ill ignore that | |
| 09:39:49 | sean-k-mooney | so on the delete port thing i was personally thinking of removeing that call from the ovs-lib | |
| 09:40:38 | sean-k-mooney | jangutter: that said there is a delete_netdev flag so im ok with you patch as is for now | |
| 09:41:24 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: yah, you know anyone on hyperv able to tell if it's the right thing to do (tm)? | |
| 09:41:25 | sean-k-mooney | i do not really like the depency that delete_netdev adds between ovsdb module and linux_networking | |
| 09:41:56 | sean-k-mooney | jangutter: well iptools and pyroute2 do not work on windows so i would think its correct :) | |
| 09:42:02 | sean-k-mooney | eg your change | |
| 09:42:55 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: yeah, i also would like it if the ovsdb lib would be "thinner" and just do ovsdb things. | |
| 09:43:12 | sean-k-mooney | jangutter: that is what it is ment to do | |
| 09:43:38 | sean-k-mooney | other then this one call to delete the nedev device i dont think it does more today | |
| 09:43:55 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: the set mtu thingy too. | |
| 09:44:09 | sean-k-mooney | well that is tricky but we can split it | |
| 09:44:20 | sean-k-mooney | for vhost user that has to be done via the ovsdb | |
| 09:45:34 | sean-k-mooney | i have no issue with making it explict per vif type however and invoking it in the ovs.py file | |
| 09:45:44 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: yep, any abstraction eventually becomes leaky. a working fix is better than a perfect fix that's never implemented. | |
| 09:46:14 | sean-k-mooney | ideally the ovsdb module should be cross plathform | |
| 09:46:43 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: and pushing out the complexity towards the plugin "feels" right in my opinion. | |
| 09:47:29 | sean-k-mooney | jangutter: so on a related topic. i want to improve the testing in os-vif. i will hopefully get around to adding a linux bridge job and mayboe an ovs-iptables job or ovn. | |
| 09:48:29 | sean-k-mooney | we talked in the past about a agilo ovs ci do you have one running on your plugin? | |
| 09:49:17 | sean-k-mooney | if so it might be nice to trigger it on a restited set of os-vif files also | |
| 09:49:26 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: heh, in theory yes, in practice it's been busted for ages. | |
| 09:49:37 | sean-k-mooney | ok :) | |
| 09:50:02 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: (on expanding the tests, is this more or less in the right direction for "future os-vif"? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/610636/ ) | |
| 09:54:40 | sean-k-mooney | i was just opening that :) | |
| 09:57:48 | sean-k-mooney | jangutter: so one change to that interface that i think we will need to do is be able to pass in the tree and then filter it | |
| 09:58:31 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: you mean something like https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/kilo-eol/nova/objects/instance.py#L257 | |
| 09:59:00 | sean-k-mooney | no | |
| 09:59:43 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: ah, I see what you mean. Rather than self-editing the object, return a new one with the filtered fields? | |
| 10:00:23 | sean-k-mooney | yes or rather host_info would retrun an unfiltered tree and then we would have a sperate filter function | |
| 10:01:03 | sean-k-mooney | the reason for this is i think we will want to have nova call host info and then filter by what the hypervior can support then serialser it and send it to neutron | |
| 10:01:09 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: I had the same thought, it feels dirty to self-edit. | |
| 10:01:39 | sean-k-mooney | then neutron will want to filter it again and select a vif type from what is left | |
| 10:01:53 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: filter should be a static function, not a member function. | |
| 10:03:25 | sean-k-mooney | ya proably it could be a class function that take steh tree as the second argument but a static fucntion would work just as well | |
| 10:03:28 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (3) https://review.openstack.org/574104 | |
| 10:03:47 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (4) https://review.openstack.org/574106 | |
| 10:04:02 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (5) https://review.openstack.org/574110 | |
| 10:05:15 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: cool, will refactor the refilter. | |
| 10:06:12 | sean-k-mooney | :) cool the main issue is this part of the api was actully just a poc that was cerated without really thinking about how it would be used | |
| 10:09:28 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: yep, and I realised while doing Jay's proposal for the offload metadata that if I don't work on this, it's going to result in another poor idiot thinking about this later. | |
| 10:12:09 | sean-k-mooney | jangutter: ya so this is all laying the ground work for doing the negciation likely in T | |
| 10:12:44 | sean-k-mooney | we could try and start it in Stein but i think that would be too tight to get the nova and neutron work done also | |
| 10:29:46 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Use oslo_db.sqlalchemy.test_fixtures https://review.openstack.org/609352 | |
| 11:36:01 | pooja_jadhav | hi team, I have some doubt in the https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/tests/unit/api/openstack/compute/test_simple_tenant_usage.py#L135-L143.. In this they are trying to create 10 instances but when I have debug the code, I can see 20 istances. (1 instances repeated again). Can anyone guide me for the same? | |
| 11:54:03 | openstackgerrit | Martin Midolesov proposed openstack/nova master: Implementing graceful shutdown. https://review.openstack.org/608704 | |
| 12:23:31 | pooja_jadhav | sean-k-mooney: Hi | |
| 12:23:49 | sean-k-mooney | jangutter: fyi your patch is still in the gate which is why the next patach has the -2 since its not merged yet | |
| 12:23:53 | sean-k-mooney | pooja_jadhav: hi | |
| 12:24:33 | pooja_jadhav | sean-k-mooney: I have some doubt in the https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/tests/unit/api/openstack/compute/test_simple_tenant_usage.py#L135-L143.. In this they are trying to create 10 instances but when I have debug the code, I can see 20 instances. (1 instances repeated again). Can you guide me for the same? | |
| 12:26:51 | jangutter | sean-k-mooney: I tried looking for any os-vif patches in the gate and it seemed to have silently disappeared. | |
| 12:27:07 | sean-k-mooney | looking at it. depending on what _fake_instance does it looks like this should create tenahts*servers fake instance objecst | |
| 12:27:55 | sean-k-mooney | jangutter: ok well its there now http://zuul.openstack.org/status if you put 611017 in the filter | |
| 12:28:26 | sean-k-mooney | sometimes it takes a minute for it to post back after it leaves the queue | |
| 12:29:32 | sean-k-mooney | pooja_jadhav: was there somthing in partcaller that you were confusted by regarding https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/tests/unit/api/openstack/compute/test_simple_tenant_usage.py#L135-L143 | |
| 12:31:24 | pooja_jadhav | sean-k-mooney: sorry, I am not getting what u mean to say | |
| 12:32:09 | sean-k-mooney | pooja_jadhav: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/tests/unit/api/openstack/compute/test_simple_tenant_usage.py#L136-L143 is is construcint an InstanceList by initalisint the objects filed with a list comprehention | |
| 12:32:59 | sean-k-mooney | it is first calulating a rag by multipliying tenants by server then for each x in that range it is calling _fake_instance | |
| 12:33:07 | pooja_jadhav | sean-k-mooney: the issue i am facing like, I am creating 2 instances then in the simple tenant usage api should give me usgaes for that 2 instances only. but I can see 4 instance instead | |
| 12:34:01 | pooja_jadhav | correct | |
| 12:34:34 | pooja_jadhav | SERVERS = 5 and TENANTS = 2 (it should create 10 instances) | |
| 12:34:39 | sean-k-mooney | TENANTS and SERVERS are not paramaters to the function | |
| 12:34:41 | pooja_jadhav | correct? | |
| 12:34:43 | sean-k-mooney | yes | |
| 12:35:07 | pooja_jadhav | but when I see the instanceList, in that I can see 20 instances | |
| 12:35:25 | pooja_jadhav | 1 instance is repeating again (twice) | |
| 12:35:37 | pooja_jadhav | for the existing test cases only | |
| 12:36:04 | sean-k-mooney | can yo point me to a failing test? | |
| 12:36:18 | pooja_jadhav | test is not failing right now | |
| 12:36:36 | pooja_jadhav | actually, I am writting new test for simple tenant usage api for my fix | |