| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-07-01 | |||
| 16:01:29 | efried | swhat I'm saying | |
| 16:01:30 | mriedem | and i really don't want to chase CLIs | |
| 16:01:52 | gibi | mriedem: we need a very similar piece of code in the rollback code https://review.opendev.org/#/c/668184/3/nova/cmd/manage.py@1947 | |
| 16:02:54 | gibi | mriedem: so I can drop https://review.opendev.org/#/c/637955/29/nova/cmd/manage.py@1876 from that patch, but then I will re-introduce a similar CLI generating code in the rollback patch https://review.opendev.org/#/c/66818 | |
| 16:03:14 | gibi | mriedem: or shall I only tell the admin to clean the allocation key but not generate the CLI for it? | |
| 16:04:50 | gibi | efried: if we go and try to heal the port allocations then generating CLIs is cheap. But if we are asked not to heal port allocations with --skip-port-allocations then we don't even call neutron to see if there is anything to heal. So in that case it is expensive to generate CLIs | |
| 16:05:11 | mriedem | i just don't really like generating CLIs from a CLI | |
| 16:05:40 | mriedem | i think i'd prefer to describe something in https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/admin/support-compute.html and just link to that | |
| 16:06:40 | mriedem | i think i'd also prefer to squash the changes | |
| 16:06:45 | gibi | mriedem: I can dump the port id's that needs to be updated and link to https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/admin/support-compute.html where I write a CLI template. But I don't see why I the admin needs to go through these hops to run a CLI at then end | |
| 16:07:35 | mriedem | it seems easier and more future proof to document the situation and recovery solution in the docs than in code is all | |
| 16:07:48 | mriedem | if this needs to change, it would be easier to do it in the docs i think | |
| 16:08:04 | gibi | mriedem: OK, I will go with your suggestion and write the CLI in the doc. (and squash the changes) | |
| 16:08:07 | gibi | mriedem: thanks | |
| 16:10:11 | mriedem | stephenfin: a couple of comments in this queens backport https://review.opendev.org/#/c/629597/ | |
| 16:15:40 | efried | gibi: You going to fold in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/668062/ as well? | |
| 16:16:30 | mriedem | just rebase on top of it | |
| 16:16:33 | mriedem | don't squash it in | |
| 16:17:29 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: Fix double word hacking test https://review.opendev.org/665788 | |
| 16:25:13 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/stein: Delete resource providers for all nodes when deleting compute service https://review.opendev.org/666840 | |
| 16:25:20 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/stein: Init HostState.failed_builds https://review.opendev.org/668282 | |
| 16:27:00 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: Init HostState.failed_builds https://review.opendev.org/668520 | |
| 16:29:13 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/queens: Move get_pci_mapping_for_migration to MigrationContext https://review.opendev.org/661571 | |
| 16:33:02 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/rocky: Grab fresh power state info from the driver https://review.opendev.org/667955 | |
| 16:37:32 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/queens: Allow driver to properly unplug VIFs on destination on confirm resize https://review.opendev.org/661572 | |
| 16:41:47 | mriedem | lyarwood: you can pull the trigger on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/661572/ | |
| 16:41:54 | mriedem | and then that's everything for queens and the next release | |
| 16:42:10 | mriedem | https://review.opendev.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:stable/queens+label:Code-Review=2 | |
| 16:42:34 | mriedem | melwitt: can you review this queens backport? https://review.opendev.org/#/c/662471/ | |
| 17:29:40 | admin0 | hi all .. in horizon, right after login, in the usage summary, when I enter the date and click submit, the data comes out .. how is that data taken out? is it some sort of nova/compute api ? | |
| 17:57:48 | sean-k-mooney | admin0: i think its from the simple tenant usage api endpoint | |
| 17:58:24 | sean-k-mooney | admin0: https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/compute/?expanded=show-usage-statistics-for-tenant-detail#show-usage-statistics-for-tenant | |
| 18:01:19 | admin0 | sean-k-mooney, thanks | |
| 18:13:44 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: by the way i am bumping the minium version fo os-traits in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/666914/ too. should we split that out into its own change so we both can depend on it too avoid our prefilter changes conflicting? | |
| 18:14:11 | melwitt | mriedem: can do | |
| 18:18:28 | gibi | efried, mriedem: I will rebase on top of https://review.opendev.org/#/c/668062/ | |
| 18:21:59 | sean-k-mooney | efried: for https://review.opendev.org/#/c/651269/4/specs/train/approved/libvirt-pmu-configuration.rst@11 i understand what you ment by topic and commit message but what did you mean by filename? it already matches correct | |
| 18:22:04 | sean-k-mooney | fixing the other two now | |
| 18:22:31 | efried | sean-k-mooney: yup | |
| 18:23:53 | sean-k-mooney | oh you are just saying make all 3 match | |
| 18:24:31 | openstackgerrit | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Libvirt: add vPMU spec for train https://review.opendev.org/651269 | |
| 18:25:04 | sean-k-mooney | ok they should all match now | |
| 18:26:09 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: i'm not too worried about conflicts at this point | |
| 18:26:58 | sean-k-mooney | ok was just wondering if i made sense to have the requiremetns bump be its own thing but its also trival to fix anyway so ill leave it for now | |
| 18:29:45 | Nick_A | does kvm instance I/O get "paused" so to speak during snapshots by default? | |
| 18:30:10 | sean-k-mooney | it depends on the image backend | |
| 18:30:26 | sean-k-mooney | but generally yes | |
| 18:30:30 | sean-k-mooney | at least file io is | |
| 18:31:27 | sean-k-mooney | we quiesce disk io the guest while we do the online snapshot | |
| 18:32:01 | sean-k-mooney | network io should not be affected unless it would have to write to disk as part of the packet processing | |
| 18:32:28 | sean-k-mooney | i think we rely on the qemu guest agent to do this | |
| 18:32:49 | sean-k-mooney | at least when using local qcow2 images | |
| 18:33:21 | sean-k-mooney | for rbd or cinder backed instances the storage backend does the snapshot and im not sure if we quiesce the guest or not | |
| 18:33:37 | mriedem | efried: guess what https://review.opendev.org/#/c/641138/1//COMMIT_MSG@16 | |
| 18:33:48 | mriedem | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/666959/1/nova/tests/functional/regressions/test_bug_1825537.py@51 | |
| 18:34:32 | Nick_A | thanks sean-k-mooney | |
| 18:34:51 | efried | mriedem: waitwait, do I get an I-told-you-so?? | |
| 18:34:55 | mriedem | you do | |
| 18:35:01 | efried | f'in aye | |
| 18:35:06 | efried | okay, I'm done. | |
| 18:35:20 | mriedem | luxuriate | |
| 18:36:51 | Nick_A | could you also explain why snapshots take up twice the instance's used disk space on compute before they're uploaded to glance? | |
| 18:37:16 | lyarwood | mriedem: sorry was out, just getting to the stable reviews you pinged about earlier | |
| 18:39:14 | Nick_A | by that I mean if there's an instance using 4.9G, the snapshots dir will have two files of 4.9G each before upload | |
| 18:41:10 | sean-k-mooney | Nick_A: one is likely the snapshot and the other the root disk | |
| 18:41:33 | sean-k-mooney | i have not really looked at the code so not sure | |
| 18:42:46 | Nick_A | Why would they be the same size then? | |
| 18:43:24 | mriedem | Nick_A: the source code is freely available so you could also dig into this | |
| 18:43:45 | mriedem | this isn't really a support channel | |
| 19:19:48 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/stein: Drop source node allocations if finish_resize fails https://review.opendev.org/667155 | |
| 19:19:48 | openstack | bug 1825537 in OpenStack Compute (nova) stein "finish_resize failures incorrectly revert allocations" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1825537 - Assigned to Matt Riedemann (mriedem) | |
| 19:19:48 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/stein: Add functional recreate test for regression bug 1825537 https://review.opendev.org/666959 | |
| 19:29:28 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: left an idea in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/667177/ on how to avoid the driver interface change for backports | |
| 19:29:48 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: heh you thought of the same, "maybe there is a way we can use the migration_context which we have to lookup the migration object?" | |
| 19:31:50 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: hehe ya i looked at that very breifly in v1 https://review.opendev.org/#/c/667177/1/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py@9138 and didnt foolow up as i didnt thinkwe initally needed too until artom looked at the logs. | |
| 19:33:39 | sean-k-mooney | the migration context does not have the migration object in it directly right | |
| 19:34:01 | mriedem | no but it has the id primary key you can use to get it | |
| 19:34:26 | sean-k-mooney | this https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/objects/migration_context.py#L45 | |
| 19:34:31 | sean-k-mooney | ok | |
| 19:34:59 | sean-k-mooney | that was where i got lost and was not sure where to go from next to get the migration object | |
| 19:36:11 | sean-k-mooney | so we can just do nova.objects.migration.get_by_id https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/objects/migration.py#L137 | |
| 19:37:28 | sean-k-mooney | ya that simpler then i thought it would be. are we ok with the extra db lookup or is the api chage preferable? | |
| 19:44:38 | openstackgerrit | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova-specs master: add libvirt pqos spec https://review.opendev.org/662264 | |
| 19:46:04 | sean-k-mooney | when a spec is under review should the blueprint definition be in Review, New or Pending Approval? or do we just not use that at and just go from new to approved when the spec is approved | |
| 19:51:22 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: oh just noiced you already said that in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/667177/5/nova/virt/driver.py@741 | |
| 20:01:58 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: "or do we just not use that at and just go from new to approved when the spec is approved" mostly that | |
| 20:02:11 | mriedem | definition isn't really used (i didn't use it really anyway) | |
| 20:02:21 | mriedem | if there was a spec i'd mark the definition as review or pending approval | |
| 20:18:01 | efried | mriedem, sean-k-mooney: If I cared more, I would enforce that "Direction: Approved" means "we want to do this" and "Design: Approved" means "and we know how we're gonna do it" (i.e. spec approved). | |
| 20:20:50 | sean-k-mooney | efried: i set https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/libvirt-pqos since the spec is under review | |
| 20:21:19 | sean-k-mooney | the direct is still needs approval and the implemetation technically should not started but i left it at teh default of unknown | |
| 20:21:34 | efried | sfine | |
| 20:23:43 | efried | mriedem: favor... | |
| 20:23:47 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Clean up TestDriverBlockDevice helper Of DOOOOOM https://review.opendev.org/668556 | |
| 20:26:26 | efried | mriedem: if you would please review (and hopefully merge) https://review.opendev.org/#/c/566153/46 so nobody ever has to do it again, and it doesn't have to keep being rebased... | |
| 20:26:46 | efried | I've proposed a fup (see above) to address the issues I noted there. | |
| 20:27:17 | efried | (and that one is much smaller) | |
| 20:27:49 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/queens: Stop logging traceback when skipping quiesce https://review.opendev.org/660328 | |
| 20:28:12 | mriedem | jesus i really don't want to review a nearly 600 LOC mox->mock conversion patch | |
| 20:28:48 | mriedem | as you know i've never really been on board with the push to de-mox-ify everything as a goal | |