| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-01-01 | |||
| 21:41:43 | jonher | I would guess something like https://docs.openstack.org/nova/rocky/contributor/blueprints.html HW-Peter | |
| #openstack-nova - 2019-01-02 | |||
| 02:39:41 | openstackgerrit | Jie Li proposed openstack/nova master: Add microversion 2.68 to support for volume-backed server rebuild https://review.openstack.org/627518 | |
| 07:32:03 | openstackgerrit | Jie Li proposed openstack/nova master: Add compute version 37 to support volume backed server rebuild https://review.openstack.org/625893 | |
| 07:50:10 | openstackgerrit | Jie Li proposed openstack/nova master: Add microversion 2.68 to support for volume-backed server rebuild https://review.openstack.org/627518 | |
| 10:46:08 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Add workaround to cleanup instance dir when using rbd https://review.openstack.org/618478 | |
| 10:53:08 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Add workaround to cleanup instance dir when using rbd https://review.openstack.org/618478 | |
| 10:59:01 | nehaalhat | Hi, I am trying to run tox -e pep8 and getting below issue...is any one have some idea about this? | |
| 10:59:10 | nehaalhat | Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement kombu===4.2.2 (from -c https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/requirements/plain/upper-constraints.txt (line 442)) | |
| 11:22:18 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/rocky: Document using service user tokens for long running operations https://review.openstack.org/626578 | |
| 11:31:12 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: libvirt: Add workaround to cleanup instance dir when using rbd https://review.openstack.org/627958 | |
| 12:09:20 | frickler | nehaalhat: yes, this is a known issue, a fix to requirements is being merged. see https://review.openstack.org/627925 | |
| 12:12:09 | frickler | also https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2004685 | |
| 12:53:07 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/rocky: Ensure rbd auth fallback uses matching credentials https://review.openstack.org/627009 | |
| 12:53:12 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/rocky: Fix a broken-link in nova doc https://review.openstack.org/626581 | |
| 12:53:21 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/rocky: Fix a broken-link in nova doc https://review.openstack.org/626580 | |
| 12:53:26 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/rocky: Fix an inaccurate link in nova doc https://review.openstack.org/626579 | |
| 12:57:43 | openstackgerrit | Ifat Afek proposed openstack/nova master: The field instance_name was added to InstanceCreatePayload https://review.openstack.org/627967 | |
| 12:59:47 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/rocky: Exclude build request marker from server listing https://review.openstack.org/626584 | |
| 13:24:29 | alex_xu | jaypipes: appreciate if you can take a look at the reply https://review.openstack.org/#/c/601596/4/specs/stein/approved/virtual-persistent-memory.rst@123, just want to ensure we express our thought clearly, I try to avoid coding the size into the RC name and standard the RC in the beginning. If that isn't a thing we care about, we are happy to move to the direction you suggestted. | |
| 13:46:02 | cdent | alex_xu: I'm sort of back, but struggling to get going. Happy New Year. | |
| 13:46:57 | alex_xu | cdent: ha, Happy New Year :) | |
| 14:02:56 | jaypipes | alex_xu: just recovering from vacation. will try to get to that ML post later this morning. | |
| 14:06:21 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/queens: Ensure rbd auth fallback uses matching credentials https://review.openstack.org/627010 | |
| 14:47:26 | jaypipes | alex_xu: k, responded on the ML post. | |
| 15:02:31 | efried | o/ | |
| 15:03:05 | efried | Did I miss anything? | |
| 15:18:51 | openstackgerrit | Dongcan Ye proposed openstack/nova master: Reword volume snapshot create https://review.openstack.org/623456 | |
| 16:12:44 | mriedem | dansmith: re cross-cell resize poc v2 to be more aligned with normal resize flow, i've got a problem which i need confirmation, | |
| 16:13:06 | mriedem | i'm trying to do an early prep_resize type thing on the dest which will do the resize_claim which creates the migration context, | |
| 16:13:46 | mriedem | problem is, at that point, the instance records are only in the source cell db and the context is targeted to the source cell, even though i'm running this code on the dest host in the dest cell - but i don't think that will work because i recall that the targeting on the context is lost over rpc right? | |
| 16:14:05 | mriedem | so any db stuff on the dest host at that point will try to go to conductor in the dest and blow up b/c the instance doesn't exist in that db yet | |
| 16:15:07 | mriedem | it works in functional tests b/c of our CheatingSerializer fixture and the CellDatabase fixture defaults to cell1 | |
| 16:15:08 | dansmith | well, yeah, the targeting is lost over RPC, but that's not really your problem -- it's that you can't do things in the target db for a given instance until the instance is created right? | |
| 16:15:55 | dansmith | you need the resize-like pre-claim because of non-normal resources like numa stuff? | |
| 16:16:19 | dansmith | because I think we should be trying to minimize our dependence on old-school claims like that | |
| 16:16:23 | dansmith | where possible of course | |
| 16:17:13 | mriedem | well, that and the resize_claim creates the migration context, which i'm still not really convinced i need yet - but i could create the migration context in conductor outside of the resize_claim code if i do need it | |
| 16:17:26 | mriedem | but yeah, trying to align more with the existing resize flow per spec feedback | |
| 16:17:38 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 16:17:54 | mriedem | this wasn't a problem in the shelve poc b/c i didn't touch the target cell until after i'd created the db records there | |
| 16:17:54 | dansmith | well, you can't create the migration context in condutor until the instance is created anyway right? | |
| 16:18:10 | mriedem | i can create the migration context in the source cell db if i need it | |
| 16:18:13 | mriedem | and then mirror it over | |
| 16:18:28 | dansmith | ah, sure | |
| 16:18:30 | dansmith | if that works | |
| 16:18:59 | mriedem | the problem with the shelve poc then is i'm waiting a long time to do any claims in the dest | |
| 16:19:21 | mriedem | i.e. after snapshot and shelving in the source | |
| 16:19:28 | mriedem | which could be a long time for a big root disk | |
| 16:19:47 | dansmith | yeah, and even if you claim resources in placement you may not have the numa/cpu resources you expect | |
| 16:20:42 | dansmith | I guess with shelve you delay scheduling super late altogether, but with the more-like-resize case, you can't really reserve all the resources you need until you have an instance created there | |
| 16:20:58 | dansmith | so in the latter case, you _could_ go ahead and create the instance in the cell db right? | |
| 16:21:29 | dansmith | also, I know it's been a while, but I don't think I said "we shouldn't do this will shelve" I just said "some of these attributes are not ideal" right? | |
| 16:22:41 | mriedem | regarding scheduling, that happens the same either way (shelve or more-like-resize) | |
| 16:23:01 | mriedem | we don't go down the new conductor task route unless the scheduler picks a host in another cell | |
| 16:23:25 | mriedem | so for the more-like-resize option, i could create the db records early in the dest cell yet | |
| 16:23:28 | mriedem | *yeah | |
| 16:24:47 | dansmith | ah, right, right | |
| 16:24:57 | dansmith | I forgot that we don't do this unless the scheduler picks another cell | |
| 16:26:13 | mriedem | even with my shelve poc, i see that my early verify code won't work there either - because that's running code on the dest host in the dest cell | |
| 16:26:29 | mriedem | so likely either route is going to require creating the instance record and friends in the dest cell db early in the process | |
| 16:29:08 | mriedem | and then i likely have some split brain / db syncing that i need to do throughout which sucks but likely unavoidable | |
| 16:29:27 | dansmith | well, | |
| 16:29:47 | dansmith | didn't I say something about creating the instance in deleted state so we could avoid that? | |
| 16:30:07 | dansmith | I think you told me why that won't work, but I'm still paging this in | |
| 16:31:28 | mriedem | that's not really the sync issue i'm thinking of, i'm thinking of like, we create the record in the dest cell db, do the claim which creates the migration context, now if i need to sync that migration context back over to the source cell, i need to do that copy explicitly; likewise, if the source cell changes the task_state on the instance during the process (like resize does), then i might need to sync those changes back ove | |
| 16:31:29 | mriedem | the dest cell instance record as well | |
| 16:31:57 | dansmith | oh | |
| 16:32:29 | dansmith | yeah, I guess | |
| 16:49:07 | openstackgerrit | weizj proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Update hacking version https://review.openstack.org/627726 | |
| 17:01:53 | melwitt | o/ | |
| 17:12:25 | mriedem | dansmith: so i think i'm going to spend some time today updating the spec because the more i work on the code, the more down the rabbit hole i go and likely won't have the spec ready by the time i'm out next week - so my plan is basically get some kind of high level agreement on the spec knowing there will be dragons during implementation, and then i'll be ferreting out those dragons | |
| 17:13:55 | mriedem | i think i at least know enough to know some pros/cons of the shelve vs more-like-resize flow to list those as well | |
| 17:14:00 | dansmith | okay | |
| 17:14:09 | dansmith | we really need to get more input on it than just me though | |
| 17:14:32 | mriedem | yeah mel and kevin left some feedback as well, and was in line with yours | |
| 17:14:41 | dansmith | oh, okay I hadn't looked yet | |
| 17:14:45 | mriedem | john is probably next best to review this given his prior experience | |
| 17:14:49 | dansmith | that makes me feel better | |
| 17:14:52 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 17:16:34 | dansmith | ah I see melwitt's comments were a little more anti-shelve than my waffling | |
| 17:16:50 | dansmith | so that makes what you were saying earlier make more sense | |
| 17:23:39 | melwitt | well, how I feel is I think it's hard to be definitive about shelve vs not, as both approaches have their cons, those were my initial impressions reading through. it doesn't seem like there's a great answer here and I expect us to go ahead with whichever approach mriedem thinks will be cleaner based on all of the work he's done | |
| 17:32:33 | dansmith | mriedem: melwitt: I replied to a few comments from melwitt | |
| 17:33:03 | dansmith | melwitt: yeah either will be disruptive and tons of work for sure | |
| 17:41:04 | jaypipes | mriedem: save me from needing to go through the code... on unshelve do we allow changing the flavor or image? | |
| 17:49:10 | mriedem | jaypipes: no | |
| 17:50:53 | jaypipes | mriedem: k, thanks | |
| 21:22:42 | redkrieg | Hi, I'm interested in changing the vif driver for an existing instance but I don't see any differences between an instance created with an image that has the hw_vif_model property set to e1000 and one with the default virtio. is there a way to change it with the openstack cli or does it have to be done in the libvirt xml file? | |
| 21:36:08 | redkrieg | I have the same question about cpu passthrough as well, if anyone sees this later. | |
| 22:31:47 | openstackgerrit | Belmiro Moreira proposed openstack/nova master: Change to debug repetitive info messages https://review.openstack.org/628058 | |
| 22:40:16 | openstackgerrit | Belmiro Moreira proposed openstack/nova master: Change API unexpected exception message https://review.openstack.org/628061 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2019-01-03 | |||
| 01:23:59 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Spec for cross-cell resize https://review.openstack.org/616037 | |
| 01:24:23 | mriedem | melwitt: dansmith: ^ round deux | |
| 03:08:07 | openstackgerrit | Yongli He proposed openstack/nova-specs master: add spec "show-server-numa-topology" https://review.openstack.org/612256 | |
| 03:22:58 | openstackgerrit | Yongli He proposed openstack/nova-specs master: add spec "show-server-numa-topology" https://review.openstack.org/612256 | |
| 04:16:03 | alex_xu | jaypipes: thanks for the response | |
| 06:17:33 | openstackgerrit | OpenStack Proposal Bot proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: Imported Translations from Zanata https://review.openstack.org/628109 | |
| 06:44:33 | brinzhang | Hi, when I boot an instance with a network A, and A has two or more IPv6 subnet, then the instance will be allocated two or more ipv6, I didn't figure this design idea. Can anyone explain it? | |
| 06:45:15 | brinzhang | If the network A has more IPv4 subnet, there will be allocated one IP(ipv4). | |
| 06:48:46 | alex_xu | brinzhang: that sounds like a question for neutron, not nova | |