| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-03-10 | |||
| 13:48:27 | brinzhang | gibi, lyarwood:such as https://review.opendev.org/#/c/706897/ and https://review.opendev.org/#/c/700072/ | |
| 13:49:28 | brinzhang | From their zuul log, I am not find some useful message caused by live migration failed, or I missing something | |
| 13:50:44 | brinzhang | I think we should find why it always failed, IMO, that always a hidden danger | |
| 13:54:05 | brinzhang | lyarwood: I saw you want to migrate nova-live-migration job https://review.opendev.org/#/c/711604/3, that can fix this issue? I will check together :) | |
| 13:57:17 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/nova master: Run sdk functional tests on nova changes https://review.opendev.org/712092 | |
| 13:57:26 | sean-k-mooney | brinzhang: i dont think that lyarwood new job will fix it | |
| 13:57:34 | sean-k-mooney | brinzhang: but it will make it less complex | |
| 13:57:45 | sean-k-mooney | so that might help us determin why its failing | |
| 13:58:01 | mordred | gibi, jkulik, smcginnis: ^^ sake of argument patch to run sdk functional tests over here | |
| 13:58:24 | brinzhang | sean-k-mooney: cool, that good | |
| 13:59:28 | brinzhang | sean-k-mooney: maybe lyarwood wants to migrate this job to zuulv3 | |
| 14:00:28 | brinzhang | I remembered he looks for that migrate v3 documents the day before yesterday | |
| 14:01:32 | sean-k-mooney | brinzhang: yes that is what he is doing | |
| 14:02:31 | sean-k-mooney | brinzhang: so i was suggesting spliting the job into two 1 for ceph image backend and one for cinder/lvm and qcow block migration | |
| 14:02:51 | sean-k-mooney | that will avoid the reconfiguration of the services in the post script and create 2 shorter jobs | |
| 14:03:14 | sean-k-mooney | brinzhang: lyarwood was also considering if the evacuation tests should be seperate. or not | |
| 14:03:30 | sean-k-mooney | i think they should stay in the same job | |
| 14:03:58 | sean-k-mooney | we should be able to merge the nova-livemiration-ceph job with devstack-plugin-ceph-tempest-py3 | |
| 14:04:07 | sean-k-mooney | and just run that multinode with live migration enabled | |
| 14:04:42 | brinzhang | sean-k-mooney: yeah, agree | |
| 14:05:25 | sean-k-mooney | so ideally the total job cout wont increase and devstack-plugin-ceph-tempest-py3 will just get sligly longer since it will be multi node and and nova-livemigation with cinder/qcow will get shorter | |
| 14:05:39 | lyarwood | brinzhang: it isn't going to help stable/pike | |
| 14:05:59 | brinzhang | they should stay in the same job, but when find that issue that we can separate it as two job, but finally we should merged | |
| 14:06:08 | lyarwood | there's an open bug for the vif plugging issue in master | |
| 14:06:25 | sean-k-mooney | lyarwood: there is? | |
| 14:06:39 | sean-k-mooney | that sound like something i should proably be aware of | |
| 14:07:20 | lyarwood | sean-k-mooney: it's an old one, I'll dig it up in a min | |
| 14:07:41 | lyarwood | sean-k-mooney: http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/#1813789 | |
| 14:08:11 | sean-k-mooney | ah ok | |
| 14:08:48 | sean-k-mooney | oh right this si a rache with registering for the event | |
| 14:08:58 | sean-k-mooney | *this is a race | |
| 14:09:05 | gibi | mordred: I have a meeting in paralle. I will read back later | |
| 14:09:11 | lyarwood | brinzhang: for stable/pike we might want to make the LM job NV tbh unless anyone steps up to fix it | |
| 14:09:21 | brinzhang | lyarwood: Maybe vif plug has some influence, let's take a look | |
| 14:10:33 | brinzhang | lyarwood: For stable / pike, I agree with you. | |
| 14:11:26 | sean-k-mooney | we skipped this on master https://review.opendev.org/#/c/663405/ | |
| 14:14:21 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/667177/ i think is the final fix | |
| 14:14:28 | sean-k-mooney | we went back and fort a few times | |
| 14:14:53 | brinzhang | sean-k-mooney: this is in stable/stein, right? so from stable/stein we skip to test the migration | |
| 14:15:41 | brinzhang | sean-k-mooney: oh..sorry, that's vif-plug issue | |
| 14:16:25 | sean-k-mooney | ya but that should already be on rock too | |
| 14:16:34 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/670648/2 | |
| 14:17:29 | dansmith | I wonder if it's time to consider dropping the vmware driver? http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-March/013066.html | |
| 14:17:30 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1813789 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Evacuate test intermittently fails with network-vif-plugged timeout exception" [Medium,In progress] - Assigned to Artom Lifshitz (notartom) | |
| 14:17:30 | sean-k-mooney | right so ^ is marked as a partial fix for https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1813789 | |
| 14:18:44 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: well one devstack failure is proably not enough but if we have no idea how to fix it an no one responds the maybe | |
| 14:19:15 | artom | sean-k-mooney, that patch was very specific to revert resize tho | |
| 14:19:23 | sean-k-mooney | it would help if they had included the compute agent patch | |
| 14:19:29 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: point being that was a week ago with no answer | |
| 14:19:42 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: and I don't even know who to point them to these days | |
| 14:19:59 | sean-k-mooney | artom: yes it was but i think there were other cases too | |
| 14:20:16 | artom | sean-k-mooney, yeah, but IIRC those were a different cause? | |
| 14:20:17 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: ya i would say cdent but ya | |
| 14:20:22 | artom | I don't think we ever dug into those | |
| 14:20:48 | sean-k-mooney | artom: probably i just remember this being really hairy to untangel | |
| 14:20:55 | artom | sean-k-mooney, that it as | |
| 14:20:56 | artom | *was | |
| 14:20:56 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: and no vmware CI reporting lately, that I've seen | |
| 14:21:37 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: i guess we could propose deprecation if its not fix by ussuring and drop it in Victoria? | |
| 14:21:45 | sean-k-mooney | *ussuri | |
| 14:22:05 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: we have to give 1 cycle notice right | |
| 14:22:37 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: yeah, all I mean by "consider dropping" is starting the clock | |
| 14:23:22 | sean-k-mooney | ya did we ever follow through on the xen support | |
| 14:23:54 | sean-k-mooney | was it xen we talked about one of the other dirvers a few months ago right | |
| 14:26:09 | dansmith | yep, it's been deprecated and warning on startup for a while | |
| 14:26:13 | dansmith | don't think I've heard anything from anyone | |
| 14:26:40 | dansmith | Well, only since september I guess.. maybe that's too soon still | |
| 14:28:40 | dansmith | I guess we did merge a trivial log message fix to xenapi in January | |
| 14:28:47 | dansmith | hardly indicates heavy usage though :) | |
| 14:29:51 | dansmith | quality warning has been in place since May 2019 | |
| 14:30:24 | dansmith | last actual change was Feb 2019, but from canonical which may or may not indicate actual usage, just a failed test or something | |
| 14:34:48 | lyarwood | stephenfin: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/706900/ - could you hit this again when you have time? | |
| 14:35:47 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: ya well we could always move it out of tree, into a repo in the x namespace and if people care they can use it or step up to support it for xen | |
| 14:36:01 | dansmith | -2 on that plan :) | |
| 14:36:13 | sean-k-mooney | i know you hate out of tree drivers | |
| 14:36:13 | dansmith | it's in the git tree if they want to find it | |
| 14:36:36 | sean-k-mooney | well i was wondering should we be removing it form in tree | |
| 14:37:08 | sean-k-mooney | i assume that was what you were evenutally proposing for vmware if we start the clock and no one steps up | |
| 14:38:33 | mordred | people still use xen? | |
| 14:39:36 | dansmith | mordred: no, that's the point :) | |
| 14:39:56 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: removing it from the tree does't remove it from the git history and previous releases | |
| 14:40:03 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: and it's likely not working now anyway | |
| 14:40:37 | mordred | yeah - I agree with dansmith - it's always there - if new people want to work on it, they can always start with a revert patch reverting the removal | |
| 14:41:00 | mordred | doesn't need an x/ repo | |
| 14:41:57 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: oh that is what you ment by it being in git | |
| 14:42:06 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: ok that makes more sense | |
| 14:42:52 | sean-k-mooney | mordred: i think one of the issue with the xenserver driver is that it relise on python 2 | |
| 14:43:34 | sean-k-mooney | mordred: libvirt/xen does not have that limitaion as far as i am aware but the xen direct driver definetly had issues with python 3 elast year | |
| 14:44:57 | sean-k-mooney | lyarwood: the privsep discussion has come up a bunch of times. be we did not want to change how we use privsep until we had finished the rootwrap removal | |
| 14:47:17 | sean-k-mooney | lyarwood: the hacking check i was refing too was the one that require you to do "import nova.privsep.x" instead of from nova.privsep import x | |
| 14:47:35 | sean-k-mooney | so that when you use a privaldaged function it must be fully spelled out | |
| 14:48:43 | lyarwood | sean-k-mooney: kk wasn't aware of the previous discussion then or I've conveniently forgtten them :) | |
| 14:50:14 | sean-k-mooney | lyarwood: nova currently only has 1 privsep context which basically give all privladged calls full root permissions | |
| 14:50:17 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/privsep/__init__.py | |
| 14:50:38 | sean-k-mooney | so the way we currently use it provides very little securtiy benifit | |
| 14:50:39 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Deprecate the vmwareapi driver https://review.opendev.org/712101 | |
| 14:52:22 | lyarwood | sean-k-mooney: I can follow up and tighten this up under https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:bug/1861071_followups but for the intital bugfix series that I want to backport I'd like to avoid as much churn as possible tbh | |
| 14:52:51 | sean-k-mooney | lyarwood: what we should be doing is creating multiple context with a limited set of permission and only granting the permissions that are needed. | |
| 14:53:30 | sean-k-mooney | ya that is fair. i think we should be considring this a potential blueprint/work item for victoria at this point | |
| 14:54:02 | sean-k-mooney | i would prefer not to propagate more examples of the patteren but i agree wew should not mix this with the bug fix | |