| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-05-30 | |||
| 13:12:35 | shilpasd | here at https://review.opendev.org/#/c/609960/8/specs/train/approved/placement-req-filter-forbidden-aggregates.rst@203 | |
| 13:12:37 | efried | shilpasd: Are you implementing it? | |
| 13:12:49 | shilpasd | yes | |
| 13:12:50 | gibi | efried: yes, there was no resource tracking | |
| 13:13:33 | shilpasd | efried: We have added code to sync traits set on aggregates for command "nova-manage placement sync_aggregates". | |
| 13:14:24 | efried | okay | |
| 13:15:06 | shilpasd | efried: further observed that 'syncing of traits set on aggregate is required for the other scenarios' like aggregate-create/delete/aggregate-remove-host/aggregate-set-metadata | |
| 13:15:18 | efried | yes, that makes sense to me. | |
| 13:15:52 | efried | though I'm not sure what we should do on delete or remove-host ... | |
| 13:16:52 | efried | perhaps we need a --flush-traits option of some sort, so the admin can choose. | |
| 13:17:09 | shilpasd | efried: for delete, will remove entry from placement.placement_aggregates and for remove-host will remove host association from aggragte | |
| 13:17:43 | efried | right, but the question is whether you should remove the aggregate's listed traits from the compute node resource providers in that aggregate | |
| 13:18:11 | efried | answer is probably: "it depends" :\ | |
| 13:18:45 | sean-k-mooney | efried: gibi three minor nits but yep that looks good to me | |
| 13:19:33 | efried | shilpasd: This would probably be a good topic for the ML. | |
| 13:19:54 | efried | gibi: I +2ed. The spelling nits probably aren't worth fixing, want me to merge? | |
| 13:21:17 | sean-k-mooney | i would eihter fix them and fast approve or just merge it as the content is correct modulo a few typos | |
| 13:22:34 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add heal_instance_mappings command https://review.opendev.org/655908 | |
| 13:22:50 | gibi | efried: merge it please | |
| 13:22:58 | gibi | thanks | |
| 13:23:06 | efried | gibi: done | |
| 13:23:14 | gibi | awesome | |
| 13:23:26 | efried | shilpasd: I suppose another option is to namespace the traits to be used for this feature. | |
| 13:24:46 | efried | shilpasd: e.g. if trait name contains '_AGGREGATE_ISOLATION_', automatically remove it when the agg is deleted or the host is removed. (Unless of course the host belongs to *another* aggregate which still has that trait...) | |
| 13:26:13 | efried | gibi: assume this is for train, yah? | |
| 13:26:23 | efried | (gibi: I'm doing the bp paperwork) | |
| 13:26:24 | gibi | efried: yes, it is for train | |
| 13:26:34 | efried | k | |
| 13:26:56 | gibi | I have couple of patches up already but more work is needed there which i will do in the coming days weeks | |
| 13:29:07 | efried | gibi: are the patches tracked against this bp? The "Implementation" is not showing as started. | |
| 13:29:25 | shilpasd | efried: aggregate can have any trait and that we need to be sync with placement, irrespective of namespace, right? | |
| 13:29:25 | gibi | efried: I guess the bp rename did not helped | |
| 13:29:30 | gibi | efried: let me fix it | |
| 13:29:39 | efried | (I could go look, but I'm being lazy, aka doing a bunch of other things at the same time) | |
| 13:30:08 | efried | shilpasd: When you create an aggregate or add a host, I would say yes, you should add all the traits. | |
| 13:30:20 | efried | shilpasd: I'm just trying to come up with a way to handle *deletion*. | |
| 13:30:33 | shilpasd | efried: understood, okay | |
| 13:30:53 | gibi | efried: I guess the implementation status will be updated if I push a new patch up targeting the renamed bp | |
| 13:30:53 | efried | shilpasd: For example, if you're creating an aggregate to isolate your hosts that have HW_CPU_X86_AVX, it makes zero sense to remove that trait if you destroy that aggregate. | |
| 13:31:10 | efried | gibi: yeah, it's totally no big deal, I really don't care, just happened to notice. | |
| 13:31:14 | gibi | efried: but the patches are here https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:bp/support-move-ops-with-qos-ports+(status:open+OR+status:merged) | |
| 13:31:19 | gibi | efried: ack | |
| 13:31:34 | efried | shilpasd: And in fact that trait would be reasserted on the host the next time the periodics run | |
| 13:32:14 | efried | shilpasd: ...but that is definitely not a behavior we should rely on to "heal" such traits. | |
| 13:33:53 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Change InstanceFaultRollback handling in _error_out_instance_on_exception https://review.opendev.org/633212 | |
| 13:33:54 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Raise InstanceFaultRollback for UnableToMigrateToSelf from _prep_resize https://review.opendev.org/633227 | |
| 13:35:17 | shilpasd | efried: ML is good suggestion to brain storm this, will generate the same, thanks | |
| 13:35:42 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Server move operations with ports having resource request https://review.opendev.org/652608 | |
| 13:36:10 | efried | - Define a "namespace" - a trait substring - and remove only traits in that namespace. | |
| 13:36:10 | efried | - Support a new option so the caller can dictate whether the operation should remove the traits. (This is all-or-none.) | |
| 13:36:10 | efried | - Leave all traits alone. If they need to be removed, it would have to be manually via a separate step. | |
| 13:36:10 | efried | shilpasd: Cool. To summarize the alternatives we've come up with so far, on delete/remove type operations, we could: | |
| 13:36:38 | efried | shilpasd: ...but on create/add type operations, I think we should always add the traits to the hosts. | |
| 13:45:12 | shilpasd | efried: clear, thanks | |
| 13:55:37 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/stein: Fix the server group "policy" field type in api-ref https://review.opendev.org/662224 | |
| 13:58:23 | mriedem | gibi: on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/512623/ i guess you re-ordered the series so the functional test, which depends on the fake driver global conf changes, could just be on master and the bug fix can be backported, is that right? | |
| 13:58:55 | gibi | mriedem: yes. lyarwood convinced me that it is better that way | |
| 13:59:20 | gibi | mriedem: this means no functional re-create and functional coverage on stable branches | |
| 13:59:27 | mriedem | i was hoping we could get the functional test backported as well so that's why i was pushing on slimming down the fake driver stuff, but alas i guess it wasn't possible | |
| 13:59:41 | mriedem | if we're good on master i think that's sufficient | |
| 13:59:50 | gibi | mriedem: it was hairy due to the fake driver stuff | |
| 13:59:56 | mriedem | that's a lot better than a lot of bug fixes we've had in the past which are just unit test coverage | |
| 14:00:06 | efried | nova meeting now | |
| 14:00:34 | mriedem | speaking of functional regression recreate tests https://review.opendev.org/#/c/661822/ | |
| 14:00:42 | mriedem | i could use some eyes on that since it's going all the way back to ocata | |
| 14:01:02 | gibi | mriedem: added it to my queue | |
| 14:01:12 | mriedem | thanks | |
| 14:02:30 | gibi | mriedem: btw, I'm reading your cross-cell resize review guide and I have to tell it helps me a lot. thanks for writing that up | |
| 14:03:04 | mriedem | gibi: thanks, i was about to ask if anyone had actually read it | |
| 14:03:57 | efried | mriedem: I fully intend to, if I ever get around to reviewing that series. | |
| 14:04:16 | efried | I've been kinda hoping others would have approved it by the time I got around to it. | |
| 14:11:44 | openstackgerrit | Adrian Chiris proposed openstack/nova stable/queens: Allow driver to properly unplug VIFs on destination on confirm resize https://review.opendev.org/661572 | |
| 14:11:44 | openstackgerrit | Adrian Chiris proposed openstack/nova stable/queens: Move get_pci_mapping_for_migration to MigrationContext https://review.opendev.org/661571 | |
| 14:18:45 | sean-k-mooney | oh ^ are backports. i was confused as i had thought it had merged on master | |
| 14:19:04 | sean-k-mooney | also nova team meeting is not right | |
| 14:39:50 | gmann | johnthetubaguy: on policy spec- base defined role mapping to check_str is enough or you want complete list of policy and their propoed check_str ? | |
| 14:47:41 | mriedem | adrianc_: do you care about this old bug fix? https://review.opendev.org/#/c/361438 if so please ack on it that you'll take it over otherwise i'm going to abandon it | |
| 14:47:57 | mriedem | starlingx probably cares as well but cfriesen isn't around to ask | |
| 14:50:14 | johnthetubaguy | gmann: I was thinking just the base, as examples, maybe add in keypairs too, but the rest we meet those problems as we hit them? | |
| 14:50:38 | johnthetubaguy | gmann: do you think my suggestion works, with changing the base rule based on that config? | |
| 14:51:12 | gmann | johnthetubaguy: +1 on base rule details i will add those. | |
| 14:51:55 | efried | mriedem: dtroyer might be able to answer starlingx care-about questions. | |
| 14:52:09 | gmann | johnthetubaguy: but till enforce_scope is false, scope_type will not have any effect so out old deprecated rule with old roles will work fine right ? | |
| 14:52:29 | gmann | i forgot to reply config things on gerrit. | |
| 14:53:00 | cdent | oh I had an open an missed it, but it's mostly directed at mriedem | |
| 14:53:04 | mriedem | f i suppose they have an irc channel | |
| 14:53:15 | johnthetubaguy | good question... its more than enforce_scope isn't enough, because its basically system or project for almost anything | |
| 14:53:35 | cdent | you remember a couple weeks ago when 10,000 allocation candidates was around 36 seconds? it's down to 6 now after "various changes" | |
| 14:53:45 | cdent | so that's like a | |
| 14:53:47 | efried | \o/ | |
| 14:53:51 | johnthetubaguy | gmann: if we add the scope check in the rule by default all the time, boom, all current admins are busted | |
| 14:54:00 | cdent | #success 10000 allocation candidates got faster | |
| 14:54:02 | openstackstatus | cdent: Added success to Success page (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Successes) | |
| 14:54:07 | johnthetubaguy | cdent: nice job | |
| 14:54:34 | gmann | johnthetubaguy: we will keep old check_str as deprecated rule , for example: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/645427/5/nova/policies/services.py | |
| 14:54:48 | sean-k-mooney | cdent: just faster in aggreate or was there one change in partcalar that stood out | |
| 14:54:59 | gmann | ^^ above patch was for granular change but it can be same for check_str change also | |
| 14:55:01 | sean-k-mooney | but also cool | |
| 14:55:20 | cdent | sean-k-mooney: i'll take the details to the placement channel | |
| 14:55:20 | mriedem | cdent: cool | |