| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-08-13 | |||
| 18:53:29 | dansmith | efried: there are some legacy cases where aggregate methods got called from the compute, like when the xen driver was doing some sync | |
| 18:53:44 | dansmith | and potentially also just people adding them because they see the decorator elsewhere and don't understand | |
| 18:53:53 | efried | yes, that's certainly what I would have done | |
| 18:58:43 | openstackgerrit | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: lxc: make use of filter python3 compatiable https://review.opendev.org/676263 | |
| 18:59:57 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: done im going to grab something to eat so ill be afk for a while | |
| 19:06:23 | efried | o/ cfriesen! how are things? | |
| 19:06:55 | cfriesen | efried: just got back from long road trip with family. now recovering from my vacation | |
| 19:06:59 | cfriesen | :) | |
| 19:07:07 | efried | ah yes, I know the feeling | |
| 19:18:53 | mriedem | easy fix https://review.opendev.org/#/c/676263/ | |
| 19:21:31 | dansmith | mriedem: sean-k-mooney won't list() fix it without the six thing? | |
| 19:23:20 | mnaser | mriedem: about https://review.opendev.org/#/c/675496/ would it make sense to make a patch updating the index? | |
| 19:23:28 | mnaser | (in master, so that one alone is backportable) | |
| 19:24:25 | mriedem | dansmith: yeah i think so | |
| 19:25:00 | dansmith | mriedem: so am I missing why we don't just do that? I mean, this works too but I don't think it's what we've done elsewhere | |
| 19:25:29 | mriedem | that's what i was doing in my local patch, but sean-k-mooney beat me to it and used six here so... | |
| 19:25:35 | mriedem | i'm fine with removing the six.moves | |
| 19:26:03 | mriedem | mnaser: you mean change the unique index from just uuid to uuid + deleted? | |
| 19:26:09 | mnaser | yeah | |
| 19:26:12 | dansmith | I know he'll be back.. should we wait to see if he had some reason or just go ahead and fix it? | |
| 19:26:15 | dansmith | not sure if it's a rush | |
| 19:26:38 | mriedem | mnaser: the schema change is a bit wonkier b/c the unique index is defined on the uuid column rather than an actual index | |
| 19:26:49 | mriedem | it's not a rush, can wait for sean | |
| 19:27:17 | mnaser | mriedem: i guess the only issue with that is if you put your entire fleet into maintenance mode and then bring it back | |
| 19:27:20 | mnaser | you just doubled your db | |
| 19:27:32 | mriedem | mnaser: nvm, i guess it's not defined on the column https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/db/sqlalchemy/models.py#L115 | |
| 19:27:35 | mnaser | so i think i rather not end up with that type of thing | |
| 19:27:37 | mriedem | it's just a unique index | |
| 19:28:38 | mnaser | my suggestion was to drop the update-deleted workaround | |
| 19:28:52 | mnaser | and make it so that it creates a new entry anyways | |
| 19:28:57 | mnaser | actually i havent had enough coffee | |
| 19:29:00 | mnaser | ignore me :) | |
| 19:31:31 | mriedem | what tz are you in? | |
| 19:32:03 | dansmith | he's a millenial | |
| 19:32:15 | mriedem | the order of the columns in the index also matters and i'm not sure what order we'd use for that unique index | |
| 19:32:16 | dansmith | so, start work at 11am, lunch at 12, etc | |
| 19:33:58 | efried | dustinc: You handy? | |
| 19:35:18 | efried | dustinc: I just put up https://review.opendev.org/676268 which, until it's merged, you should Depends-On from https://review.opendev.org/#/c/642899/ which should also bump the ksa minimum to 3.16.0. | |
| 19:35:35 | efried | mriedem: Is devstack automatically a required-projects? | |
| 19:36:13 | efried | i.e. can I Depends-On a devstack patch from nova without twaddling .zuul.yaml? | |
| 19:37:38 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add nova-lxc job to the experimental queue https://review.opendev.org/676024 | |
| 19:38:06 | mriedem | you said twaddle | |
| 19:38:37 | mriedem | eventually the job inherits from devstack-base which requires devstack | |
| 19:40:59 | efried | okay, cool | |
| 20:31:22 | mriedem | efried: i volunteer alex_xu and gibi for the project update in shanghai | |
| 20:31:46 | efried | ++ | |
| 20:31:52 | efried | dual language | |
| 20:35:15 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Microversion 2.75 - Multiple API cleanup changes https://review.opendev.org/676275 | |
| 20:39:44 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: API microversion 2.76: Add 'power-update' external event https://review.opendev.org/666792 | |
| 20:49:41 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/stein: rt: only map compute node if we created it https://review.opendev.org/676278 | |
| 21:09:30 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: rt: only map compute node if we created it https://review.opendev.org/676280 | |
| 21:17:59 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: technically yes just list would be fine. but on python 2.7 you would be constucting the list twice, six.move.filter is itertools.iflter on py27 and just the filter builtin on py3 so six.moves.fiter alway return an interator which we colapse into a list | |
| 21:18:31 | sean-k-mooney | we proably dont care too much for that specifc case | |
| 21:24:02 | sean-k-mooney | efried: mriedem dansmith want me to drop the use of six? or just fix typos/nits or leave it as is | |
| 21:26:16 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/ocata: Replace non-nova server fault message https://review.opendev.org/674908 | |
| 21:26:23 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: you're listifying twice on py27 anyway yeah? | |
| 21:26:27 | mriedem | so dropping six is fine | |
| 21:26:48 | sean-k-mooney | with six.moves.filter no | |
| 21:28:15 | sean-k-mooney | by that i mean it will only build the list once with six.move.filter regardless of the version of python | |
| 21:28:38 | sean-k-mooney | but i also dont partaclly care too much for this so ill do whatever ye prefer | |
| 21:31:41 | melwitt | can anyone link me a shortcut to where the "strict host isolation" work is going on at this point? is it called "dedicated CPUs" now? | |
| 21:31:42 | efried | This is up to dansmith and his passive-aggressive no-vote | |
| 21:32:08 | efried | melwitt: are you talking about forbidden aggregates? | |
| 21:32:08 | sean-k-mooney | strict host isolation? | |
| 21:32:32 | efried | melwitt: https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:bp/placement-req-filter-forbidden-aggregates+(status:open+OR+status:merged) | |
| 21:32:41 | melwitt | it's the thing where if you have windows licenses or something, you only want certain tenants landing on those and other tenants not allowed to land on them | |
| 21:33:02 | sean-k-mooney | ya that the forbidden aggretates thing | |
| 21:33:02 | efried | Yeah, that ^ | |
| 21:33:08 | efried | not at all related to "dedicated CPUs" https://review.opendev.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:bp/cpu-resources | |
| 21:33:12 | melwitt | ok, thanks. I lost track of what it was called today | |
| 21:33:19 | melwitt | haha, well, glad I asked | |
| 21:33:23 | efried | heh, yeah, now we're calling it "isolated aggregates" | |
| 21:33:26 | efried | yes, yes you are | |
| 21:33:41 | melwitt | customers asking about it | |
| 21:33:58 | sean-k-mooney | efried: well to melwitt defence until this relase you have to isolate dedicated cpu into there own host aggreate | |
| 21:34:07 | sean-k-mooney | so i get why she might link those | |
| 21:34:12 | efried | you wouldn't have wanted to get entrenched in that series only to realize it wasn't the one you cared about :P | |
| 21:34:18 | melwitt | because today they have to label all aggregates with something in order to have guests not land on certain aggregates and it's a pain | |
| 21:34:37 | efried | melwitt: you still kinda have to do that. | |
| 21:34:57 | efried | oh, you mean you even have to label the ones you're *not* isolating? | |
| 21:35:03 | melwitt | yes | |
| 21:35:05 | sean-k-mooney | unless you use my/rdolfos out of tree filter... | |
| 21:35:07 | efried | mm | |
| 21:35:22 | sean-k-mooney | well actuly that still neede you to put stuff in aggrate metaddata | |
| 21:35:36 | melwitt | because if something lacks a label, a guest can still land there. if I'm thinking about this right | |
| 21:35:45 | melwitt | lacks a key, I mean | |
| 21:36:40 | melwitt | and what they want is, guests can only land on this host if flavor key=value matches aggregate key=value and aggregates that do not have that key will not match | |
| 21:37:07 | sean-k-mooney | if you want to requrie traits to be request to land on a host. you need either https://github.com/openstack/nfv-filters/blob/master/nfv_filters/nova/scheduler/filters/aggregate_instance_type_filter.py or my reverse required tratis featrue i wand in plamcneet | |
| 21:37:19 | mriedem | melwitt: yes you are correct | |
| 21:37:48 | melwitt | yesss I was right once | |
| 21:37:49 | mriedem | with current in-tree filters you can restrict things to host aggregates but not exclude other unrestricted things from landing on those same hosts | |
| 21:38:02 | mriedem | which is why you have to create aggregates for everything to strictly isolate everything | |
| 21:38:06 | mriedem | which is the mgmt pain in the ass | |
| 21:38:16 | melwitt | yeah exactly | |
| 21:38:40 | melwitt | they've labeled everything like, windows=YES and windows=NO, for example, to get the strict isolation | |
| 21:39:10 | mriedem | https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/admin/configuration/schedulers.html#aggregatemultitenancyisolation has an example as well about the exclusion problem | |
| 21:39:12 | sean-k-mooney | yes but we fixed that and the sylvain fast revreted it | |
| 21:39:29 | efried | melwitt: the series is pretty close to landing, just a couple of little tweaks requested by dansmith, so if you want in, now's the time. | |
| 21:39:55 | melwitt | thanks for the pointers. I'll read through that so I can let them know where upstream is at with the feature | |
| 21:40:50 | melwitt | they asked for the feature but I know it's been in the works for a long time and wasn't sure what it was being called now :) thanks all | |