| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-04-11 | |||
| 14:40:37 | bauzas | stephenfin: but any other instance request would not go to this compute | |
| 14:40:49 | sean-k-mooney | if you are using more then is available you can nolonger allocate untill you drop below the new limit | |
| 14:40:55 | sean-k-mooney | but nothing breaks | |
| 14:40:59 | stephenfin | So it'd be the same here, right? | |
| 14:41:01 | bauzas | exactly what I said :) | |
| 14:41:07 | stephenfin | Or am I missing something? | |
| 14:41:07 | sean-k-mooney | it just prevent new instance going to the node | |
| 14:41:09 | bauzas | actually, that's a good point | |
| 14:41:28 | sean-k-mooney | yes it would be the same | |
| 14:41:30 | bauzas | if the host is oversubscribed, that's fine | |
| 14:41:40 | bauzas | it's just the options mean nothing | |
| 14:43:10 | sean-k-mooney | ok i hate myself for saying this but can we seperate hw:cpu_thread_policy into antoher spec for the removal of that option? | |
| 14:44:13 | sean-k-mooney | it can be replaced with a trait for host with SMT enabled | |
| 14:44:34 | sean-k-mooney | if we agree on that then that one less thing we need to figure out in the cpu spec | |
| 14:46:04 | sean-k-mooney | we will be loosing functionality by doing that but if are not ok with removing that option we have a blocker with the larger spec for cpus in placment anyway | |
| 14:46:09 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: Not _really_. I mean, 'isolate' results in extra cores being used and those have to be account for somehow | |
| 14:46:33 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: they are in the resouce tracker | |
| 14:46:47 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: you can't really remove that image property | |
| 14:47:00 | dansmith | you can translate it into something more sane, but it's basically API at this point | |
| 14:47:38 | sean-k-mooney | i personally see value in it but its cause huge issues for cpu in plament | |
| 14:47:42 | dansmith | if you just start ignoring that, everyone's tooling is going to start spinning up instances they think are isolated (or whatever) but arent' and they'll find out when it's too late | |
| 14:47:54 | sean-k-mooney | ya i know | |
| 14:48:05 | sean-k-mooney | we can certely translate it | |
| 14:48:21 | stephenfin | dansmith: The migration path we'd suggested was keeping that but limiting it to hosts with "I don't have hyperthreads" trait set | |
| 14:48:23 | stephenfin | I think | |
| 14:48:25 | sean-k-mooney | to forbined:trait=COMPUTE_SMT | |
| 14:48:36 | stephenfin | Wait, yeah, that ^ | |
| 14:49:05 | dansmith | stephenfin: that's cool, it just can't like .. be removed, like sean-k-mooney was saying :) | |
| 14:49:22 | sean-k-mooney | removed was a bad phasing | |
| 14:49:26 | stephenfin | dansmith: True. We can think about deprecating it in the future though | |
| 14:49:28 | sean-k-mooney | its meaning would change | |
| 14:49:34 | dansmith | I don't | |
| 14:49:34 | stephenfin | It's that or we carry the shim forever | |
| 14:49:35 | dansmith | it's API | |
| 14:49:52 | stephenfin | We deprecate/remove other APIs though? | |
| 14:49:54 | dansmith | you can fail the boot if it's specified as anything if you want | |
| 14:50:04 | dansmith | stephenfin: this is unversioned | |
| 14:50:14 | dansmith | but I think we have to check for it basically forever | |
| 14:50:23 | dansmith | it's also API that's unversioned and spread between nova, glance and cinder | |
| 14:50:37 | stephenfin | Hmm, good point | |
| 14:50:56 | dansmith | I'm not saying you have to honor it well, with a shim forever, | |
| 14:50:59 | sean-k-mooney | ok does it help to split that bit out into another spec | |
| 14:51:02 | dansmith | but you can't ever just start ignoring it, IMHO | |
| 14:51:15 | stephenfin | ok, let's kick that can down the road | |
| 14:51:44 | stephenfin | for now, I quite like the idea of overallocating the PCPUs for existing instances with the 'isolate' policy | |
| 14:51:45 | sean-k-mooney | well its a prequisit for dedicated cpus in placmente | |
| 14:51:45 | dansmith | the only reason not to separate it is if it's a problem for your current proposal, like you can't continue to honor it as is after you make other changes | |
| 14:51:54 | dansmith | but if that's not a problem, then sure | |
| 14:52:07 | sean-k-mooney | well it is a proablem for the current proposal | |
| 14:52:12 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add host and hypervisor_hostname flag to create server https://review.openstack.org/645458 | |
| 14:52:16 | dansmith | then we can't separate it completely | |
| 14:52:17 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: Yeah, I don't think we can split it out entirely | |
| 14:52:36 | dansmith | I've been on a call for the last hour, and have another starting soon that I actually have to pay attention to, FYI | |
| 14:52:42 | stephenfin | We need to figure out what happens right now, once we have PCPUs in placement | |
| 14:52:48 | dansmith | so don't assume my pending silence on this matter is because I have shot myself in the face | |
| 14:53:34 | stephenfin | What we don't need to figure out now is what we're doing even further down the road (in terms of failing the instance if the image property is set or something else) | |
| 14:53:40 | mriedem | bauzas: you know how we reset_forced_destinations on the request spec when moving a server? | |
| 14:53:43 | stephenfin | dansmith: Ack, me too | |
| 14:53:48 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: well the traits thing is mentioned here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/555081/22/specs/train/approved/cpu-resources.rst@778 | |
| 14:53:51 | dansmith | stephenfin: yes, I think you can punt on that part | |
| 14:54:25 | mriedem | bauzas: if i create a server with a query scheduler hint targeted at a host or hypervisor_hostname, i can never migrate my server off the host :) same problem - but dumber | |
| 14:54:30 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: Oh, indeed it is. I just need to expand on that I guess | |
| 14:54:41 | stephenfin | OK, let me try and jot all this down in the spec and clean up the other issues | |
| 14:55:19 | sean-k-mooney | so its litrally already part of the spec. the only fuctionality that you loose with tah it you can nolonger use isolate to allow a host with hyperthreads to be shared between guests that want full coures and thost that can just have threads | |
| 14:56:03 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: the code isnt the problem with this sepc | |
| 14:56:37 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: the upgrade impact is and it think we can move forward with this spec but the current spec still has upgrade issues | |
| 14:57:31 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: i share dansmith view that we shoudl enable inplace upgrades to this new way of doing things if we can do that i will be happy with this | |
| 14:58:30 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: that requrie either paralle implementions and a config to opt in to new beahvior or no change to exising configs | |
| 15:01:14 | bauzas | mriedem: sec, was otp | |
| 15:02:07 | mriedem | bauzas: somewhat related but you might have something to add to my reply here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/649534/5/nova/objects/request_spec.py@606 | |
| 15:02:08 | bauzas | uh, and now in meeting actually :( | |
| 15:02:18 | mriedem | bauzas: not high priority | |
| 15:07:31 | mriedem | stephenfin: can we not have a py3 unit test for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/650235/ ? | |
| 15:08:07 | stephenfin | mriedem: Not really, no. It's an environment thing | |
| 15:08:27 | mriedem | but can't we control the environment in a test? | |
| 15:09:21 | mriedem | btw zigo made the same change in osc https://review.openstack.org/#/c/541609/ | |
| 15:09:24 | stephenfin | Yes? No? I honestly don't know. We'd be monkeypatching Python internals, I suspect | |
| 15:09:44 | mriedem | idk about that, | |
| 15:09:48 | mriedem | nova's tox.ini sets this: | |
| 15:10:00 | mriedem | LC_ALL=en_US.utf-8 | |
| 15:10:36 | stephenfin | right, so the Python process is correctly configured in that case | |
| 15:10:59 | stephenfin | I think we'd have to reload the interpreter to misconfigure things | |
| 15:11:01 | sean-k-mooney | is this realted to the gat using the LC_ALL=C again | |
| 15:11:05 | stephenfin | yup | |
| 15:11:22 | mriedem | stephenfin: takashi also asked that something is documented about this which could probably go here https://docs.openstack.org/python-novaclient/latest/cli/nova.html#nova-console-log | |
| 15:11:54 | stephenfin | mriedem: I don't think OSC is an issue because of the follow up patch to the one you linked https://review.openstack.org/#/c/554698/1 | |
| 15:12:25 | mriedem | ah ok | |
| 15:12:40 | stephenfin | Alas, we don't use cliff in novaclient | |
| 15:12:53 | stephenfin | As for docs, it's on my todo list and I'll try drag something out by the end of the week | |
| 15:15:05 | stephenfin | mriedem: There's an alternative approach we can take that doesn't require changing environment configuration, but I don't know if we want to do it as it's a huge hack https://review.openstack.org/#/c/583535/ | |
| 15:15:14 | stephenfin | I'd nearly rather suggest people use Python 3 if they're encountering these kinds of Unicode issues | |
| 15:18:17 | mriedem | i'll see if i can add a unit test in novaclient | |
| 15:30:26 | melwitt | mriedem: thanks, will take a look. I'm in the middle of updating everything, will be able to push the updates soon today I think | |
| 15:34:34 | melwitt | soon™ | |
| 15:42:45 | lyarwood | melwitt: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/611974/ - finally got to this btw, LGTM after playing around with it locally. | |
| 15:43:08 | melwitt | lyarwood: just saw that, thanks so much | |
| 16:06:14 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Add test for console-log and docs for bug 1746534 https://review.openstack.org/651827 | |
| 16:06:16 | openstack | bug 1746534 in python-novaclient "encoding error when doing console-log" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1746534 - Assigned to Thomas Goirand (thomas-goirand) | |
| 16:06:20 | mriedem | stephenfin: see how ^ grabs you | |
| 16:06:27 | mriedem | i couldn't reproduce the original bug in the unit test | |