Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2019-02-27
16:06:10 artom mriedem, I put a drive-by comment in the ML about root detach, btw
16:10:27 artom "volume workflow since in these cases, we want to keep the BDM record but reset some fields." Can that part change? Is a BDM without a volume ID really still a BDM?
16:10:35 artom (from https://review.openstack.org/#/c/614750/)
16:10:59 mriedem not all bdms are volumes
16:11:00 artom Anyways, I know I'm jumping in here super late and talking out of my butt
16:11:18 mriedem even if you don't boot from volume, there is an image bdm for the local disk
16:11:46 mriedem BDM.is_volume is what tells you if it represents a volume
16:11:51 artom But there's still "something" there, right? image ID, volume ID?
16:12:20 mriedem yes there would be in those other non-volume cases
16:12:26 mriedem not for a detached root volume
16:13:08 artom OK, so my question still makes sense - if a BDM has nothing to "back" it, is it still a BDM?
16:13:26 mriedem it's a placeholder
16:13:50 mriedem there are probably other ways to model this, and i seem to remember some of that discussion during the spec review, but none of it is great
16:14:30 artom It's almost as though it'd need to be split in half: the instance side, and the "backing" side
16:14:59 artom Anyways, yeah, way too late to talk about design at this stage
16:15:40 mriedem there has to be *something* that nova can use to indicate that the root volume is detached
16:15:56 artom (And the tags would move to the "backing" side - because they're a nova concept, but they apply to the volume, not the attachment, strictly speaking)
16:16:00 mriedem in case the user tries to attach a new root volume or do something like shelve offload, detach root, unshelve (without re-attaching a root volume)
16:16:45 artom mriedem, yeah, there needs to be a placeholder, as you said
16:17:34 artom OK, brainstorming here, how about this: split image_id, volume_id, snapshot_id and tag (and whatever else is needed) into a new "BlockDeviceBacking" object or whatever
16:17:42 artom And null *that* on a detached root volume
16:18:31 artom But persist that BlockDeviceBacking
16:18:44 artom And if the same root volume is re-attached, re-join those two objects?
16:21:13 openstackgerrit sean mooney proposed openstack/os-vif master: add addtion check and gate jobs for os-vif https://review.openstack.org/639732
16:21:14 mriedem no thanks
16:21:38 mriedem i need to move on from this before i become too depressed to get much done today
16:26:04 openstackgerrit sean mooney proposed openstack/os-vif master: add addtion check and gate jobs for os-vif https://review.openstack.org/639732
16:27:15 aspiers kashyap: I think I'll make a preliminary patch which extends LibvirtConfigCapsGuest to capture the <emulator> value
16:27:31 dcdawg Beginner question: Can I simply commit spell corrections in the comments of the code or do I have to make a bug report for that?
16:28:17 kashyap aspiers: Alright, I'll keep an eye on that series. (I'm just about to head out for my Dutch class; next 3 1/2 hours)
16:28:48 openstackgerrit sean mooney proposed openstack/os-vif master: add addtion check and gate jobs for os-vif https://review.openstack.org/639732
16:28:50 openstackgerrit Jim Rollenhagen proposed openstack/nova master: ironic: check fresh data when sync_power_state doesn't line up https://review.openstack.org/636699
16:31:37 mriedem dcdawg: definitely don't need a bug
16:32:09 mriedem depending on the comment you're fixing, if the comment is otherwise not something that can be understood or make sense and needs to be re-written for clarity, sure that's fine
16:32:30 mriedem it's just a simple typo but you still understand what the comment is saying, then patches to fix those are mostly just noise, unless you fix a bunch of stuff in a single change
16:34:00 efried b) (the relevant subset of) the provider_summaries?
16:34:00 efried a) the allocation candidate (allocation_requests[N]) under consideration; and
16:34:00 efried Hi nova. Do the current args passed into a filter (which appear to be a HostState and a RequestSpec) somewhere contain information from GET /a_c? Namely
16:35:09 mriedem pretty sure no
16:36:02 efried HostState.host is a Selection object?
16:36:10 mriedem no,
16:36:13 mriedem it's a ComputeNode.host
16:36:27 mriedem HostState is a wrapper of a ComputeNode
16:36:47 gibi mriedem, stephenfin: thanks for the reviews
16:37:13 efried okay; seems like a and b should be something we should start passing into filters, nah?
16:37:34 mriedem we haven't had a need yet
16:37:40 efried as soon as nested starts being real in allocation candidates...
16:37:44 mriedem when you have a filter that needs that information then we'll talk about it
16:37:53 efried and until we have every possible filtering and weighing feature natively in placement...
16:38:04 mriedem which we won't
16:38:11 efried right
16:39:05 efried okay, that's fair. But it seems like it would be pretty easy to do.
16:39:48 mriedem nothing is ever easy anymore
16:39:54 cdent was it ever?
16:39:59 mriedem sure
16:40:07 mriedem back in grizzly you could do whatever :)
16:40:15 mriedem it didn't need to actually work
16:40:41 mriedem https://media2.giphy.com/media/11fpbdcbnBd5tu/source.gif
16:41:16 cdent efried: you have a concrete use case yet, or preparing for the future?
16:42:06 efried cdent: more the latter.
16:42:40 cdent the situation seems to be "lots of things in nova are going to want that info, eventually"
16:42:49 efried I agree with that.
16:43:10 efried But I also sympathize with the notion of: let's not do this just because we think it's a good idea; let's wait until someone actually needs it.
16:43:11 cdent It's the eventually that seems to be causing strain
16:43:17 efried YAGNI?
16:43:30 cdent there's a growing movement to make sure we have contributors who will own that stuff
16:44:18 cdent I guess yagni's a factor, sure, but more: let's not add extra work without adding extra people. If people don't show up, they must not want it.
16:44:35 cdent making that void more visible is a thing I care about quite a bit
16:44:47 mriedem artom: ^ sound familiar?
16:45:04 artom mriedem, heh, I was gonna say
16:45:10 jaypipes jroll: sorry, yes, please go ahead
16:45:18 cdent mriedem: ?
16:45:45 mriedem cdent: artom and i were just talking about that, in a closet
16:45:57 artom Yeah, we've come out of the closet just now
16:46:05 cdent congrats
16:47:20 cdent so how to visibilate things/
16:47:40 cdent (not including hickies)
16:47:48 edleafe add extra work without adding extra people. If people don't show up,
16:47:48 edleafe This should be added somewhere in the OpenStack charter: "let's not
16:47:51 edleafe they must not want it."
16:48:10 artom edleafe, people *do* show up. Once.
16:48:33 artom And as mriedem was saying, in 2 years of deployers upgrade to the new thing, those people are gone.
16:48:38 artom *when
16:48:42 mriedem i'm not in my 20s anymore, i'm looking for a long-term commitment with contributors
16:50:18 artom o/` If you want it better put a ring on it o/`
16:56:37 openstackgerrit Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: WIP status: Ensure templated connection URLs are rendered before use https://review.openstack.org/639607
17:03:54 efried mriedem_away, jaypipes, bauzas, gibi: I think https://review.openstack.org/#/c/538498/ is ready to go now, if you want to give it another look-see.
17:04:02 efried (convert compute caps to traits)
17:08:44 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Remove port allocation during detach https://review.openstack.org/622421
17:08:44 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Add remove_resources_from_instance_allocation to report client https://review.openstack.org/639653
17:08:45 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Add pf_interface_name tag to passthrough_whitelist https://review.openstack.org/625311
17:08:45 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Record requester in the InstancePCIRequest https://review.openstack.org/625310
17:08:46 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Support server create with ports having resource request https://review.openstack.org/636360
17:08:46 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Ensure that bandwidth and VF are from the same PF https://review.openstack.org/623543
17:08:47 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Refactor _heal_allocations_for_instance (2) https://review.openstack.org/637954
17:08:47 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Refactor _heal_allocations_for_instance to make place for port healing https://review.openstack.org/637953
17:08:48 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: cache neutron ports in heal allocation https://review.openstack.org/638207
17:08:48 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage: heal port allocations https://review.openstack.org/637955
17:09:52 gibi mriedem_away: I fixed up https://review.openstack.org/#/c/639653 but I run out of time on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/622421 so I have to do that tomorrow
17:13:07 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Fup for the bandwidth series https://review.openstack.org/639159

Earlier   Later