| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-05-16 | |||
| 20:56:35 | dansmith | right | |
| 20:57:09 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: this is only part of the equation by the way | |
| 20:57:13 | sean-k-mooney | and sicne we have muleple python threads and the gil limits there exectuion we could starge the heartbeat | |
| 20:57:32 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: because I think that TRANSPORT is what we use for initializing a connection which we would use if we were going to start a server and listen | |
| 20:57:58 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: but connections to the *cell* rpc brokers happens in nova.context, because we connect per cell once we read that out | |
| 20:58:19 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: it's effectively the same situaton though, I imagine they both suffer from the same behavior | |
| 20:59:18 | sean-k-mooney | riping out those gloabls would proably be a pain | |
| 20:59:40 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/760fc2de32057817bafc0a1512a735dab1c7c68a/nova/context.py#L376 | |
| 20:59:56 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: having implemented multi-cell tests, I can assure you it is | |
| 21:00:24 | dansmith | but also, it's the thing that avoids us having to build that stuff up a hundred times, even for a single request where we make a couple rpc calls | |
| 21:00:41 | sean-k-mooney | and yep we are storing the connection in a module level CELL_CACHE | |
| 21:00:47 | dansmith | right | |
| 21:00:49 | sean-k-mooney | so yep ist the same issue | |
| 21:01:11 | melwitt | reconnect | |
| 21:01:11 | melwitt | so if the heartbeat thread gets starved, then connections get closed down, and then if reconnect in another thread races with an API request coming in and the API request hits before the reconnect, it will get the MessagingTimeout? I'm looking through the oslo.messaging code and from what I can tell, the reconnect is done on-the-fly when a message is attempted to be sent, so I don't understand how a different thread is doing the | |
| 21:02:02 | cmart | Hello -- can someone help me understand the process by which ephemeral disks get a filesystem label? It's usually `ephemeral0` but I have an instance created today which has `ephemeral0_160_40` | |
| 21:02:16 | melwitt | but if that were true that oslo.messaging automatically tries to reconnect, then the API request shouldn't fail, it would try to reconnect. so, nevermind, I don't know what I'm talking about | |
| 21:02:50 | sean-k-mooney | melwitt: well thats praobly the proble it like is not auto recoonectin on making a request | |
| 21:03:06 | sean-k-mooney | we poroubl have preiodic task or something that is doing th reconnection | |
| 21:03:12 | sean-k-mooney | that is jsut a guess | |
| 21:03:25 | sean-k-mooney | i havent look at this that closely in the past | |
| 21:03:42 | melwitt | yeah. I just can't tell what triggers a reconnect. in https://github.com/openstack/oslo.messaging/blob/40c25c2bde6d2f5a756e7169060b7ce389caf174/oslo_messaging/_drivers/amqpdriver.py I see a bunch of stuff where "recoverable error" will try to reconnect | |
| 21:04:12 | sean-k-mooney | are we using the amqp driver or the rabbitmq one | |
| 21:04:16 | melwitt | sorry, wrong link https://github.com/openstack/oslo.messaging/blob/9.5.0/oslo_messaging/_drivers/impl_rabbit.py | |
| 21:04:50 | melwitt | that other link was me trying to find where/how it raises MessagingTimeout | |
| 21:05:54 | sean-k-mooney | hum i wonder if setting https://github.com/openstack/oslo.messaging/blob/9.5.0/oslo_messaging/_drivers/impl_rabbit.py#L145-L149 to 0 would help? | |
| 21:06:10 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: that was mentioned earlier | |
| 21:06:35 | sean-k-mooney | oh ok i tought you were asking if there was a way to disable it eariler | |
| 21:06:36 | melwitt | that is, you think it might allow threads=8 config to reconnect? | |
| 21:06:54 | dansmith | I said it would be good to test with it, *but* I think the downside of it is that the rabbit server side won't terminate the connection because of lack of heartbeats which means more likelihood of just having stale connections that have been forgotten by the conntracks in between | |
| 21:06:56 | sean-k-mooney | i think it might not close the connect | |
| 21:07:00 | sean-k-mooney | *connection | |
| 21:07:02 | melwitt | oh ok | |
| 21:07:14 | sean-k-mooney | e.g. it would only close if the tcp soecket closed | |
| 21:07:17 | melwitt | yeah, I see | |
| 21:07:41 | imacdonn | pfft, it's not like rabbitmq-server is ever going to run out of connection............... | |
| 21:07:45 | dansmith | problem is, stateful firewalls in between client and server may do that without you noticing which will require some delay before you realize the socket is dead | |
| 21:08:17 | sean-k-mooney | right which is proably why the heartbeat is there in the first place | |
| 21:08:25 | imacdonn | back in the icehouse days, I had lots of problems trying to do AMQP through a firewall, due to lack of heartbeat support | |
| 21:08:25 | melwitt | yeah | |
| 21:08:46 | dansmith | right and why I think it's fine to let it be there, and if we wake up within a minute, we're good and if not, then we've got an immediate RST waiting for us so we know to reconnect | |
| 21:09:31 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Restore connection_info after live migration rollback https://review.opendev.org/551349 | |
| 21:12:07 | sean-k-mooney | melwitt: this is where the reconnect happens i think | |
| 21:12:09 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/oslo.messaging/blob/9.5.0/oslo_messaging/_drivers/impl_rabbit.py#L897-L928 | |
| 21:12:49 | sean-k-mooney | we call self.ensure_connection() if there was an exception wehn we calle self,_heartbeat_check() | |
| 21:13:53 | sean-k-mooney | which is a thread we inital in the dirver wihc is a global so there is again only 1 per process | |
| 21:14:41 | sean-k-mooney | so with threads=8 there is a 1 in 9 chacne that it will get scheduled to run | |
| 21:17:24 | melwitt | so since it does the reconnecting, if it doesn't run first, other thread will hit a closed connection and get MessagingTimeout | |
| 21:18:09 | sean-k-mooney | well the message timeout comes form the fact that we did a request and then stop listening because the connection closed | |
| 21:18:19 | sean-k-mooney | and we did not reconnect before teh timeout expired | |
| 21:18:27 | sean-k-mooney | so the set succfully | |
| 21:18:40 | sean-k-mooney | then it closed and they never go tthe resopnece | |
| 21:18:52 | melwitt | ok | |
| 21:19:13 | sean-k-mooney | which likely means when we recoonet it will be sitting on the queue | |
| 21:21:13 | sean-k-mooney | things like the inststance list would likely be fine in that case | |
| 21:21:31 | sean-k-mooney | since the api is hitting all the cell dbs but not doing an rpc right | |
| 21:21:43 | sean-k-mooney | but things like get_vnc_console woudl fail | |
| 21:21:50 | efried | cmart: what does your [DEFAULT]virt_mkfs option look like? | |
| 21:23:05 | sean-k-mooney | thing like boot would likely be fine too since thats fire and forget | |
| 21:23:28 | imacdonn | so now I'm wondering if the connection reestablishment is working "by accident" with threads=1, or if I can depend on it........ | |
| 21:23:44 | cmart | efried I haven't defined it (on Queens, Ubuntu 16.04) so probably the default | |
| 21:24:07 | sean-k-mooney | well with threads=1 thre is a 50% change the connetion tread will run | |
| 21:24:20 | sean-k-mooney | sicne there is the main thread + the heatbeat thread | |
| 21:26:38 | melwitt | :\ | |
| 21:27:16 | sean-k-mooney | i did not say it woudl definetly work :P | |
| 21:27:23 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: there's only one thread, | |
| 21:27:25 | sean-k-mooney | but its better then 1 in 9 | |
| 21:27:45 | imacdonn | so if I set threads=0, will it be 100% ? :) | |
| 21:27:50 | melwitt | lol | |
| 21:28:02 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: the rabbitmq direver spawn a thread to run the heatbeat check | |
| 21:28:14 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/oslo.messaging/blob/9.5.0/oslo_messaging/_drivers/impl_rabbit.py#L884 | |
| 21:28:14 | dansmith | and I think that if we're monkeypatched, any io we do will always guarantee that we run the waiting greenthreads, so we'd consume the dead connection with the heartbeat right? | |
| 21:28:22 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: green thread | |
| 21:28:50 | sean-k-mooney | ah your right if its monkey patched then its a greenthread | |
| 21:29:17 | dansmith | right, | |
| 21:29:22 | dansmith | so we'll always run that stuff on first io | |
| 21:29:43 | sean-k-mooney | i guess it depends on how many io operation were pending or had yeilded | |
| 21:29:46 | dansmith | I think if it was 50% we'd have heard about it | |
| 21:29:57 | dansmith | howso? | |
| 21:30:43 | efried | cmart: It looks like that name is being assigned in this neighborhood: https://opendev.org/openstack/nova/src/branch/stable/queens/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py#L3510 | |
| 21:30:46 | sean-k-mooney | well in the scater gater case at least we are querying a bunch of gread threads to execute then waiting | |
| 21:30:59 | dansmith | the heartbeat gthread is always schedulable work on any io switch if we've not run it in t/2 or whatever it's period is | |
| 21:31:33 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: right but on the first io that we do, to even start that, we'll run all the greenthreads pending, which is at least the heartbeat gthread, before we do much of anything else | |
| 21:31:38 | efried | cmart: that line or L3533 | |
| 21:32:01 | sean-k-mooney | ya we should | |
| 21:33:05 | cmart | efried thank you for the orientation | |
| 21:33:30 | efried | cmart: Good luck :) | |
| 21:38:36 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Remove fake_libvirt_utils from connection tests. https://review.opendev.org/642557 | |
| 21:39:09 | imacdonn | I wonder if part of the issue is that the AMQP message is not being resent in the case where the connection reset is detected during publish, vs. during heartbeat | |
| 21:40:20 | melwitt | I wonder that too | |
| 21:40:43 | dansmith | imacdonn: meaning if we hit it on publish, we reconnect, but didn't actually send, think we did, and wait for it until timeout? | |
| 21:40:50 | dansmith | if so that would be a giant o.msg bug | |
| 21:41:12 | imacdonn | yeah, smth like that | |
| 21:41:26 | melwitt | but I think we know it won't reconnect on publish right | |
| 21:41:45 | melwitt | otherwise the 500 wouldn't happen | |
| 21:41:49 | dansmith | no, | |
| 21:41:55 | dansmith | the 500 is from timeout right? | |
| 21:42:02 | melwitt | yeah | |
| 21:42:02 | dansmith | which means it's waiting for a reply | |
| 21:42:11 | imacdonn | 504 from timeout, yeah | |