| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-11-14 | |||
| 17:26:08 | mriedem | or with that trait i guess | |
| 17:26:32 | mriedem | so, "i want to do x but the slow way" | |
| 17:26:42 | bauzas | mriedem: yup, that's what I'm changing as of now, instead of looking at Nova RCs, I'm just looking whether the root RP is havint the trait | |
| 17:26:45 | bauzas | having* | |
| 17:26:48 | efried | Okay, that was the missing piece: if we're truly not trying to implement support for nested (or sharing) then using the trait will get you back all and only roots in one query. | |
| 17:27:12 | efried | though I'm not fully grasping why we wouldn't include logic for nested right now. | |
| 17:27:18 | mriedem | efried: i'm not saying those aren't cases to consider, but i wouldn't in v1 | |
| 17:27:30 | mriedem | efried: he's been working on this for like a year | |
| 17:27:32 | bauzas | mriedem: the current patch is managing nested | |
| 17:27:34 | efried | heh | |
| 17:27:50 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: thanks i have added them to my review list | |
| 17:27:54 | bauzas | mriedem: nah, I was working on it since maybe 3 weeks of time | |
| 17:28:11 | mriedem | bauzas: but you've been *talking* about this audit command for a long time | |
| 17:28:11 | bauzas | and I just want to get rid of it | |
| 17:28:18 | bauzas | oh hell yeah | |
| 17:28:28 | mriedem | so you know, i'm just saying shit or get off the pot | |
| 17:28:37 | mriedem | do the more complex stuff in v2 | |
| 17:28:44 | bauzas | I can split the change | |
| 17:28:53 | mriedem | fwiw heal_allocations still doesn't supported nested | |
| 17:28:58 | bauzas | the change is actually already big | |
| 17:29:06 | mriedem | well, except qos ports which gibi added and that took awhile | |
| 17:29:12 | mriedem | bauzas: right that's my point | |
| 17:29:18 | bauzas | makes sens | |
| 17:29:20 | bauzas | sense* | |
| 17:29:27 | bauzas | I'll try to split into two | |
| 17:34:35 | bauzas | artom: we really wanted to leave it optional | |
| 17:34:51 | bauzas | I mean, that would be a totally separate and desperate API | |
| 17:35:02 | bauzas | all words thought | |
| 17:35:05 | mriedem | gum? | |
| 17:35:16 | mriedem | jim? | |
| 17:35:20 | mriedem | are you chewing on jroll?! | |
| 17:35:27 | jroll | O_o | |
| 17:35:32 | jroll | pls don't. | |
| 17:35:46 | mriedem | jroll requires consent to be chewed upon | |
| 17:35:53 | jroll | my baby bites me enough as it is | |
| 17:36:22 | mriedem | babies are like puppies, just give it a chew toy | |
| 17:36:30 | mriedem | and let it poop somewhere random | |
| 17:36:51 | jroll | indeed | |
| 17:38:35 | bauzas | mriedem: I guess you saw the flavor explosion thread | |
| 17:38:44 | mriedem | i'm not getting involved | |
| 17:39:22 | bauzas | mriedem: most of the crux is to say : "whatever you want, make it not impactful to any other API that already exists, and don't change what a flavor means" | |
| 17:39:33 | bauzas | hah, that was dansmith and efried, my bad :) | |
| 17:41:23 | efried | I need to catch up on that thread, but unless we got a bunch of hands in the air in the last two weeks saying "Oh, I love this and I'm gonna use it in my cloud," I'm still likely to think it's not worth the effort to implement. | |
| 17:42:56 | dansmith | none of my deeply-rooted concerns are addressed in the discussion | |
| 17:43:19 | dansmith | more definition of how it's expected to be used (although still missing stuff), but nothing about how to provide some affinity | |
| 17:43:42 | dansmith | and I'm super concerned about altering this fundamental part of nova, especially without serious planning | |
| 17:43:51 | bauzas | efried: sounded like people were interested in, including mnaser | |
| 17:44:16 | bauzas | dansmith: that's the reason why we asked to *not* change the notion of a flavor | |
| 17:44:25 | bauzas | a flavor remains a flavor | |
| 17:45:00 | bauzas | they can compose bits of something, but the result of this API is a flavor | |
| 17:45:01 | dansmith | yep, and that helps, but it still brings a lot of complexity to everything that looks at flavors (which is lots of stuff) and also, with no affinity, it's just a toy for single-tenant clouds where everyone is trusted, IMHO | |
| 17:45:26 | efried | dansmith: I all along have assumed that backward compat of current flavor usage would not be affected, period. Agree that part is worth -1ing all day until addressed in the spec. My -2 was for "not worth the effort" -- but if folks are clamoring, I can be persuaded otherwise. | |
| 17:45:35 | bauzas | dansmith: honestly, that's why I don't want this to be in for example POST /servers | |
| 17:45:59 | bauzas | it would be just a os-stuff-my-flavor API, that's it | |
| 17:46:21 | mriedem | aren't you describing basically a flavor template? | |
| 17:46:24 | dansmith | efried: keeping the flavor whole helps the loss of feature, but doesn't help needing to touch everywhere that handles flavors | |
| 17:46:27 | bauzas | mriedem: -ish | |
| 17:46:44 | mriedem | wouldn't a flavor template be a lot simpler? | |
| 17:47:10 | mriedem | create a flavor based on a generic template with extra specs and then override whatever things are unique to that flavor | |
| 17:47:15 | efried | dansmith: Also been assuming/pushing for the composition to happen just once, at spawn time, whereupon all the contents go into the instance's existing flavor record. | |
| 17:47:17 | bauzas | mriedem: that's one of the approaches | |
| 17:47:26 | mriedem | though that doesn't help with the explosion | |
| 17:47:41 | bauzas | mriedem: correct, and we said that too | |
| 17:47:57 | mriedem | nested flavors! | |
| 17:47:59 | efried | That (composition at spawn only) hits POST /servers, but nothing else. No explosion. | |
| 17:48:01 | bauzas | I just feel people want a Domino's Make-My-Pizza generator thingy | |
| 17:48:12 | mriedem | efried: if you add it to spawn people are going to want it in resize also | |
| 17:48:19 | efried | yes | |
| 17:48:31 | bauzas | that's a reasonable concern | |
| 17:48:34 | dansmith | I think people that want the pair-anything-with-anything also don't realize how much that is going to kill their packing and capacity planning, | |
| 17:48:35 | efried | okay, but not "everywhere that touches flavors" (internally). | |
| 17:48:49 | bauzas | dansmith: I exacly had that concern ! | |
| 17:48:56 | dansmith | so when we do that, it will be not very usable even by the people that think they want it, and we will have to iterate | |
| 17:49:14 | bauzas | dansmith: and I said 'well, let's not overthink over that API, it's the operator's responsibility to stuff in it' | |
| 17:49:22 | mriedem | bauzas: do they counter the capacity management argument with "we'll just use watcher to fix things in post" | |
| 17:49:41 | bauzas | watcher never went into discussion | |
| 18:11:06 | openstackgerrit | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: block rebuild when numa topology changed https://review.opendev.org/687957 | |
| 18:11:07 | openstackgerrit | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: Disable NUMATopologyFilter on rebuild https://review.opendev.org/689861 | |
| 18:37:33 | efried | What does "signed-off-by" actually mean in a commit message, to those who care about it? | |
| 18:38:20 | jroll | efried: it means it was signed by that person's GPG key | |
| 18:38:39 | jroll | wait, no | |
| 18:39:28 | jroll | https://git-scm.com/docs/git-commit#Documentation/git-commit.txt--s | |
| 18:39:46 | efried | specifically for the vtpm patch, which bears almost no resemblance to when it was last touched by cfriesen or Paul-Emile, I'm wondering if I should remove their Signed-off-by lines | |
| 18:40:10 | jroll | I think I would | |
| 18:40:25 | efried | I was actually considering putting it under a new change-id. | |
| 18:40:38 | efried | but decided no harm in having the history in one place. | |
| 18:40:55 | dansmith | efried: S-o-B is a legal construct from the linux kernel community | |
| 18:41:16 | dansmith | efried: it's their accepted mechanism to declare that you have permission to submit the code you're submitting | |
| 18:41:40 | dansmith | some people have hooks in their git config to add it automatically, and/or some orgs may require people to put it in there regardless of the community for some perceived legal shield | |
| 18:42:07 | efried | Okay. So it's really only relevant when it's the same as the uploader for a given patch set, because otherwise it's n/a whether you have permission to submit, because you're not submitting. | |
| 18:42:43 | dansmith | well, not quite | |
| 18:42:47 | efried | Really in the case of openstack gerrit, you've already declared that by signing the things, which are a prereq to being able to submit code at all. | |
| 18:43:01 | dansmith | right which is why it's just noise for our patches | |
| 18:43:04 | dansmith | and really shouldn't be in there | |
| 18:43:33 | efried | ack, makes sense. I'll just axe it. | |
| 18:43:55 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Add support for resize and cold migration of emulated TPM files https://review.opendev.org/639934 | |
| 18:43:55 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Add emulated TPM support to Nova https://review.opendev.org/631363 | |
| 18:44:58 | efried | jroll: I should do a visual inspection quick, but I think the bottom patch ^ is "done" from the impl & docs side. Test is basically not started, but if you want to skim the non-test bits and let me know if anything stands out horribly, that would be helpful. | |
| 18:45:12 | efried | dansmith: I fully expect you to say "split this sucker". | |
| 18:45:13 | jroll | efried: can do today or tomorrow sometime | |