Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2019-02-08
05:41:25 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Fix deprecation warning for threadgroup.add_timer https://review.openstack.org/635516
09:39:55 bauzas good Friday nova
09:40:27 bauwser (heh, that's maybe 3 months I didn't used my Friday suit :) )
11:21:45 openstackgerrit Andrey Volkov proposed openstack/nova master: Check hosts have no instances for AZ rename https://review.openstack.org/509206
11:27:20 stephenfin bauwser: Whoops
11:58:53 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: API: Remove evacuate/live-migrate 'force' parameter https://review.openstack.org/634600
12:22:43 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Transfer port.resource_request to the scheduler https://review.openstack.org/567268
12:25:29 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova-specs master: AMD SEV: address final feedback received prior to merge https://review.openstack.org/628252
12:42:37 openstackgerrit Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: Avoid redundant initialize_connection on source post live migration https://review.openstack.org/551302
12:46:56 openstackgerrit Surya Seetharaman proposed openstack/nova master: Plumbing required in servers ViewBuilder to construct partial results https://review.openstack.org/635146
12:46:57 openstackgerrit Surya Seetharaman proposed openstack/nova master: API microversion 2.68: Handles Down Cells Documentation https://review.openstack.org/635147
12:46:57 openstackgerrit Surya Seetharaman proposed openstack/nova master: API microversion 2.68: Handles Down Cells https://review.openstack.org/591657
12:56:30 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/os-traits master: Add HW_CPU_AMD_SEV trait https://review.openstack.org/635608
14:00:43 mriedem tssurya: i think we're just missing a unit test on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/635121/ and then i'd be +2
14:04:14 tssurya mriedem: on it thanks
14:08:12 mriedem dansmith: another good example of how brittle everything is https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1815153
14:08:14 openstack Launchpad bug 1815153 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Requested host during cold migrate is ignored if server created before Rocky" [High,In progress] - Assigned to Takashi NATSUME (natsume-takashi)
14:09:30 mriedem tssurya: if you're respinning i had some nits in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/635145/ as well
14:09:57 tssurya mriedem: yea saw them, I'll fix them too
14:16:56 bauwser mriedem: thanks for the detailed bug report on https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1815153
14:16:57 openstack Launchpad bug 1815153 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Requested host during cold migrate is ignored if server created before Rocky" [High,In progress] - Assigned to Takashi NATSUME (natsume-takashi)
14:17:18 bauwser mriedem: tbc, requested_destination wasn't intended to be persisted
14:26:04 dansmith mriedem: just in general?
14:26:21 mriedem just another example of how i feel that everything i touch breaks something else somewhere
14:26:33 dansmith ah yep
14:26:38 mriedem bauwser: sure, we fixed that,
14:26:46 mriedem and in doing so broke something else inadvertently later
14:32:20 bauwser mriedem: ergh ok
14:37:54 mriedem i'm also not sure why,
14:37:56 mriedem because of https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/a6963fa6858289d048e4d27ce8e61637cd023f4c/nova/compute/api.py#L3329
14:38:18 mriedem we should blow up here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/a6963fa6858289d048e4d27ce8e61637cd023f4c/nova/conductor/manager.py#L1009 with an old request spec
14:38:26 mriedem but i modified a functional test that hits that code and it doesn't blow pu
14:38:27 mriedem *up
14:38:56 mriedem oh i see why
14:39:02 mriedem https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/a6963fa6858289d048e4d27ce8e61637cd023f4c/nova/compute/api.py#L3329 has no effect on save
14:40:13 mriedem https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/a6963fa6858289d048e4d27ce8e61637cd023f4c/nova/objects/request_spec.py#L619.
14:46:05 bauwser mriedem: yeah, most of the problems with the persisted fields in the ReqSpec is because we late call .save() sometimes or not
14:46:43 openstackgerrit Surya Seetharaman proposed openstack/nova master: Plumbing for ignoring list_records_by_skipping_down_cells https://review.openstack.org/635121
14:46:44 openstackgerrit Surya Seetharaman proposed openstack/nova master: Plumbing required in servers ViewBuilder to construct partial results https://review.openstack.org/635146
14:46:44 openstackgerrit Surya Seetharaman proposed openstack/nova master: Plumbing for allowing the all-tenants filter with down cells https://review.openstack.org/635145
14:46:45 openstackgerrit Surya Seetharaman proposed openstack/nova master: API microversion 2.68: Handles Down Cells Documentation https://review.openstack.org/635147
14:46:45 openstackgerrit Surya Seetharaman proposed openstack/nova master: API microversion 2.68: Handles Down Cells https://review.openstack.org/591657
14:47:02 bauwser mriedem: so the only way to make sure to not persist them is to verify if save() does it or not
14:47:04 openstackgerrit Mohammed Naser proposed openstack/nova master: zuul: add cross-repo jobs for openstack-ansible https://review.openstack.org/635852
14:47:48 mriedem i would argue the root of our problems with the request spec is its dual nature - it's both a record of the original server create request (and modified on rebuild + new image and resize + new flavor), but also used as a parameter data bag to pass stuff to the scheduler for per-request operatoins like migrations
14:47:54 mriedem and we don't deal with ^ very well
14:48:13 bauwser yeah I agree with you
14:48:24 mriedem if we would have just passed things like requested_destination through to the scheduler as a specific parameter we could have saved some trouble
14:48:37 bauwser well
14:48:39 bauwser sure
14:48:50 cdent change it?
14:48:54 bauwser but we had a consensus about not doing this 2 years ago ;)
14:49:06 bauwser we preferred to pass o.vo objects rathre :)
14:49:07 mriedem sure, because 2 years ago no one anticipated the shit loads of bugs
14:49:25 mriedem i'm not advocating a big overhaul since that will yield yet more bugs
14:49:48 mriedem i just bemoan blowing off a two every time i try to stitch a finger back on
14:49:53 mriedem *toe
14:49:57 bauwser well, maybe the analysis could be to say which fields should be persisted once and which ones not
14:50:06 mriedem bauwser: we already have that in the request spec
14:50:12 mriedem and have been adding to it over time
14:50:20 bauwser right
14:50:27 mriedem https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/a6963fa6858289d048e4d27ce8e61637cd023f4c/nova/objects/request_spec.py#L587
14:50:30 mriedem https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/a6963fa6858289d048e4d27ce8e61637cd023f4c/nova/objects/request_spec.py#L593
14:50:50 mriedem gibi is already handling requested_resources so they aren't overwritten on save https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/a6963fa6858289d048e4d27ce8e61637cd023f4c/nova/objects/request_spec.py#L517
14:51:00 bauwser ok
14:51:00 mriedem we need to do the same for those other fields probably
14:51:06 bauwser yeah I guess
14:51:14 bauwser like the flavor
14:51:26 bauwser when should we persist it?
14:51:39 bauwser for example, for resize
14:51:43 mriedem flavor isn't in that list
14:51:56 bauwser should we persist the new flavor in the original ReqSpec ?
14:51:59 bauwser I know
14:52:05 mriedem we already do that here yeah https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/a6963fa6858289d048e4d27ce8e61637cd023f4c/nova/conductor/manager.py#L361
14:52:06 bauwser I guess so
14:52:09 bauwser so
14:52:43 bauwser what I'm trying to explain is that we basically fixed problems by each bug
14:52:52 bauwser and then we modified the object
14:53:07 bauwser maybe we should just take some time to discuss about *all* the fields
14:53:09 mriedem oh yeah and that flavor thing introduced a bug that was latent for a long time https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/a6963fa6858289d048e4d27ce8e61637cd023f4c/nova/compute/api.py#L3403
14:53:23 bauwser right
14:53:32 bauwser I'm just giving examples
14:53:38 mriedem and i'm just venting
14:53:41 bauwser so, honestly, the more I'm thinking
14:53:58 bauwser the more I wonder if we should have more than one RequestSpec for an instance :)
14:54:10 bauwser ie. the original record for create
14:54:16 bauwser and then a new record for a move
14:54:31 mriedem the more i think about request spec, the less i want to think about request spec
14:54:36 mriedem i want to get this bug fixed and move on
14:54:38 bauwser hah
14:55:05 bauwser anyway, I need to go to a meeting
14:55:10 bauwser :/
15:21:25 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Trim fake_deserialize_context in test_conductor https://review.openstack.org/635859
15:21:27 mriedem another subunit parser thing ^ based on http://logs.openstack.org/27/619527/16/gate/openstack-tox-lower-constraints/cd2889d/job-output.txt.gz#_2019-02-08_12_32_26_104934
15:26:34 mriedem dansmith: so wrt upgrades we just assert that conductor always goes before everything else yeah? and api is last. which is why if we're making changes to both api and conductor at the same time w/o changing rpc method interfaces, but like through fields on the RequestSpec (behavior changes), we aren't doing any strict version checking in the API to make sure conductor is new enough to handle that behavior change
15:26:41 mriedem we just assume that conductor will be upgraded before api
15:27:06 dansmith mriedem: api isn't last, compute is last
15:27:08 mriedem unlike how the api will check min versions on computes for behavior
15:27:19 mriedem ok but conductor is first
15:27:19 dansmith mriedem: we pretty much have to assume that conductor, scheduler, and api all go at the same time

Earlier   Later