Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2019-04-03
14:01:38 bauzas https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-stein-rc-potential is pretty done
14:02:38 trident mriedem: You are correct, forbidden traits never worked unless there were also a required trait in the same flavor. If there were, both would be used, if not, the forbidden trait was lost.
14:03:14 bauzas mriedem: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/649454/ wanting it for RC2 ? I can vote on my own change given melwitt proposed it
14:03:40 bauzas I think it should clarify our Stein docs
14:03:49 bauzas even if we don't honestly branch them
14:06:04 mriedem bauzas: i'm waiting to hear that yes we're doing an rc2
14:06:15 mriedem and then i'd like to step through with the ptl which stein backports are going to go into it
14:06:28 bauzas soooooo... efried?
14:07:22 mriedem there is a 50% chance efried is the PTL coordinating the stein RC2 :)
14:08:54 bauzas oh, right, it's still melwitt's point :p
14:09:20 efried hi, sorry, catching up.
14:10:03 mriedem bauzas: you could start by backporting https://review.openstack.org/#/c/649409/ to stable/stein
14:10:36 bauzas mriedem: ok, I can do it
14:10:43 efried I think we need an RC2 for sure for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/649409/ at least
14:10:57 efried and if we're doing it, we might as well put the docs in, no risk there.
14:11:21 mriedem https://review.openstack.org/#/c/649454/ specifically yeah?
14:12:00 efried yes
14:13:11 efried mriedem: wanna +A that one please?
14:14:17 mriedem done
14:14:34 efried mriedem: Has anyone done docs on the SIGHUP thing?
14:14:40 efried L56
14:14:44 mriedem no
14:14:59 mriedem i was just creating a devstack env to try and recreate the bug
14:15:50 efried .. note:: SIGHUP is broken, see `bug 1715374`_
14:15:50 efried mriedem: I can go through and add a quick
14:15:52 efried to all the docs where it's mentioned if you like.
14:15:52 openstack bug 1715374 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Reloading compute with SIGHUP prevents instances from booting" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1715374 - Assigned to Ralf Haferkamp (rhafer)
14:16:57 mriedem well, if the nuance is it's broken for a window while servers are being created and waiting for an event when the sighup runs, that gets a bit hard to communicate in all the places we have sighup mentioned in the docs
14:17:36 efried .. note:: SIGHUP behavior is questionable, see `bug 1715374`_ if you try it and things go wobbly.
14:17:37 efried ?
14:17:37 openstack bug 1715374 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Reloading compute with SIGHUP prevents instances from booting" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1715374 - Assigned to Ralf Haferkamp (rhafer)
14:18:28 mriedem idk, could give a more detailed explanation of the bug in the reset() portion of https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/reference/services.html#the-nova-manager-module for just the compute service
14:19:06 mriedem i wouldn't want to mention a bug in 5 places just to have to remember after the bug is fixed to go back and remove all of those 5 places
14:20:18 efried as you wish
14:21:00 openstackgerrit Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova stable/stein: Libvirt: gracefully handle non-nic VFs https://review.openstack.org/649630
14:21:09 bauzas mriedem: ^
14:27:36 mriedem is there anything else we want to consider? https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:stable/stein
14:29:12 bauzas mriedem: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/647310/ is controversial for RC2
14:31:24 dansmith I thought we said no to that?
14:31:52 dansmith and sounds like lyarwood is on board with the original plan too
14:32:58 openstackgerrit Helena proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Spec for a new nova virt driver to manage an RSD, composable infrastructure deployment https://review.openstack.org/648665
14:32:59 lyarwood yarp, missed that it had already been discussed in the change once I got back online yesterday. gertty--
14:34:26 lyarwood Does anyone have any idea why nova-stable-maint already has +2 on stable/stein btw?
14:34:52 mriedem i'm not sure if the release team distinguishes anymore
14:34:54 mriedem smcginnis: ^?
14:36:26 jaypipes mriedem, dansmith: for online data migrations, did we envision those migration routines living forever or are we envisioning being able to delete some over time?
14:36:38 mriedem jaypipes: we already have deleted some over time
14:36:42 dansmith jaypipes: we have deleted many
14:36:50 jaypipes oh, ok.
14:36:55 mriedem most recent memory is i removed the request spec and flavor migration ones
14:37:07 dansmith we're not super good at setting that timer and then doing it, like any other cleanup
14:37:15 jaypipes mriedem, dansmith: after looking into mnaser's troubles, I think the removing the keypairs migration entirely might be the best solution.
14:37:20 dansmith but most of them should be relatively no-op-ish if done properly
14:37:21 jaypipes it's Newton-era
14:37:38 jaypipes dansmith: unfortunately that one does a full table scan across instance_extra each time it's run.
14:37:45 mriedem jaypipes: yeah i started looking at that the other day, but i don't think we have a blocker migration or anything in place to make sure the migration has completed before we rip that out
14:37:47 mriedem like we did for flavors
14:37:47 jaypipes dansmith: looking for WHERE keypairs=NULL
14:38:06 dansmith mriedem: we might not be able to for that one
14:38:19 jaypipes dansmith: and for large DBs like mnaser's 3M+ instance_extra records, it really is a resource hog.
14:38:22 dansmith mriedem: but since it's so old, if it hadn't finished, we probably know that other things would be broken
14:38:24 mriedem if there are keypairs in the cell db wouldn't that be an indication?
14:38:26 dansmith jaypipes: I hear you
14:38:51 mriedem for the request spec migration, we didn't have a blocker migration, just a nova-status upgrade check: https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/ed4fe3ead62c09ec7de7b6a11072295a99997b4f#diff-91e852cb498abb50ca653ef6418bd65a
14:39:05 mriedem oh i added the upgrade check in rocky, dropped the reqspec migration code in stein
14:39:11 dansmith jaypipes: I don't agree that going back to putting this inside the schema migration would make people happy, as his cloud would still be down while he waits for that to happen, but.. you know :)
14:40:02 dansmith jaypipes: hopefully you just meant some sort of version-like sentinel instead of scanning to determine if things needed to be done :)
14:40:04 jaypipes dansmith: why would his cloud be down?
14:40:14 dansmith jaypipes: if we did it in the middle of a schema migration?
14:40:34 jaypipes yeah.
14:40:52 dansmith because he'd be halfway between two schema versions with two versions of code that can't use it?
14:41:06 dansmith i.e. the reason we decoupled those tasks in the first place
14:41:11 jaypipes sorry, you misunderstand...
14:41:46 mriedem wouldn't dropping the keypairs migration be similar to dropping the instance groups migration? https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/1160921c2d053ce33279ca4ec1f00572271e7c95#diff-91e852cb498abb50ca653ef6418bd65a
14:42:19 mriedem jaypipes: fyi https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:remove-newton-online-compat-code+(status:open+OR+status:merged)
14:42:21 mriedem for a blueprint
14:42:26 jaypipes dansmith: if we did the data migration as an Alembic/sqlalchemy-migrate migration, then we wouldn't have to ever run the "check to see if this pre-condition exists" (like the SELECT against the instance_extra table...) more than once.
14:42:35 jaypipes mriedem: ack
14:42:59 mriedem i seem to remember we've fucked up the schema migration scripts before as well
14:43:05 jaypipes dansmith: I'm not saying the data migration would be the *same* migration as the schema migration. just that we could do it *as* a migraiton.
14:43:12 dansmith jaypipes: that's what I said above about the sentinel approach for scanning, but definitely do not agree they should be in the same migration
14:43:14 jaypipes instead of the whole separate nova-manage thing.
14:43:17 mriedem and since you can't downgrade the schema to get back, you'd have to reset the version in the migrations table and re-run those if we had a bug
14:43:21 jaypipes but that train has passed...
14:43:27 dansmith jaypipes: okay, well, you can see why people might be confused about such a statement :)
14:43:40 jaypipes mriedem: not once, ever, has anyone ever done a downgrade of a schema migration.
14:43:54 mriedem that's not true
14:44:12 mriedem hell we used to gate on being able to upgrade and downgrade the schema
14:44:26 jaypipes gating != ever being done in production, ever.
14:44:27 dansmith it didn't actually work for real data
14:44:28 dansmith yeah
14:44:30 dansmith heh
14:44:41 jaypipes it just doesn't happen, sorry.
14:44:51 dansmith which is why I don't want to couple the two processes
14:45:08 jaypipes the procedure is a) backup your stuff, b) run migrations, c) test and if problem, d) restore from backup.
14:45:21 dansmith but jaypipes, we could of course just set up our own version counter to be a sentinel to avoid re-running migrations,
14:45:33 jaypipes nobody ever ran a schema downgrade in production. I can almost guarantee that.
14:45:44 mriedem i should introduce you to some chinese people i know then
14:45:59 mriedem anyway, i'm not saying it's something that should be done
14:46:03 jaypipes mriedem: then, clearly, SOMEONE is WRONG on the Internet.

Earlier   Later