| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-03-23 | |||
| 12:56:18 | hrw | sean-k-mooney: yeah | |
| 12:56:21 | kevinz | hrw: thanks for the comments, I will check | |
| 12:56:56 | hrw | sean-k-mooney: there are attempts to run linux natively on those snapdragon based win10 laptops | |
| 12:57:00 | sean-k-mooney | hrw: ya basically that :) | |
| 12:57:38 | sean-k-mooney | that could be intersting but do they supprot hardware virtualisation so you could do openstack dev on them | |
| 12:58:06 | hrw | in theory virtualization is mandatory on aarch64 | |
| 12:58:17 | sean-k-mooney | oh good to know | |
| 12:58:53 | sean-k-mooney | i guess even on a mobile/laptop chip it might be useful for sandboxing | |
| 12:59:24 | sean-k-mooney | e.g. for secure contianer technology/linux subsystem for windows | |
| 12:59:44 | openstackgerrit | Kevin Zhao proposed openstack/nova master: Add default cpu model for aarch64 https://review.opendev.org/709494 | |
| 13:00:41 | hrw | sean-k-mooney: https://paste.centos.org/view/975095f5 - how many mistakes I made? | |
| 13:00:50 | hrw | sean-k-mooney: CI job | |
| 13:01:39 | hrw | sean-k-mooney: 'check-arm64' is pipeline in zuul - used at same time as 'check' | |
| 13:02:32 | sean-k-mooney | if the nodeset is already defiend somewhere else you do not need to redefine it. | |
| 13:02:51 | sean-k-mooney | other then that it looks more or less correct | |
| 13:03:03 | hrw | sean-k-mooney: in kolla we created one | |
| 13:03:37 | sean-k-mooney | zuul collects all the definition form all projects | |
| 13:03:52 | sean-k-mooney | so if its already defeined in another repo you can just reuse it | |
| 13:03:56 | hrw | I know, looking at tempest one now | |
| 13:04:10 | hrw | sean-k-mooney: aarch64 is not quite popular in CI so far | |
| 13:05:04 | sean-k-mooney | if you want to redfine the node set then you might need to give it a new name | |
| 13:05:13 | sean-k-mooney | the other think is the voting:false | |
| 13:05:29 | sean-k-mooney | that should be in the where you use the job under check-arm64 | |
| 13:05:42 | sean-k-mooney | not in the job definition | |
| 13:06:52 | hrw | sean-k-mooney: you use both form ;) | |
| 13:07:02 | hrw | nova-lvm has voting in definition | |
| 13:07:46 | sean-k-mooney | i think if you set it in the defition it will apply to all uses of the job | |
| 13:07:53 | sean-k-mooney | basically chanign the default | |
| 13:07:54 | hrw | ok | |
| 13:08:04 | sean-k-mooney | people dont expect to have to set voting:true | |
| 13:08:22 | hrw | yep | |
| 13:08:50 | sean-k-mooney | i would do something like this http://paste.openstack.org/show/791022/ | |
| 13:08:59 | sean-k-mooney | but ya i think way you had would work | |
| 13:09:43 | hrw | on it | |
| 13:10:12 | alex_xu | dansmith: last question for this https://review.opendev.org/#/c/631244/68/nova/conductor/manager.py@1621, Sundar said you are more clear on this. The question is why we don't fail directly when binding failed at build_instances instead of try next alt host. The build_and_run_instances looks like will fail directly when binding arq failed. | |
| 13:10:31 | hrw | sean-k-mooney: https://paste.centos.org/view/61a2b0ca | |
| 13:11:15 | hrw | sean-k-mooney: openstack-single-node-bionic-aarch64 copied from devstack | |
| 13:11:30 | hrw | sean-k-mooney: openstack-single-node-bionic-aarch64 copied from devstack openstack-single-node-bionic one | |
| 13:11:35 | hrw | to be exact | |
| 13:16:41 | gibi | lyarwood: I saw yet another evacuation problem in the live-migration task on master | |
| 13:16:51 | gibi | lyarwood: VirtualInterfaceCreateException happens during evac | |
| 13:16:57 | gibi | https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/2703656a683043a6b741fa4c2283b314/log/job-output.txt#7708 | |
| 13:17:01 | gibi | https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/2703656a683043a6b741fa4c2283b314/log/logs/screen-n-cpu.txt?severity=4#7865 | |
| 13:17:22 | gibi | I don't knowi if you already see this | |
| 13:20:08 | artom | stephenfin, so I've finally gotten around to removing the 2/3 NUMA split in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672595/ | |
| 13:20:29 | artom | Mind taking a look when you get a chance? I'll revisit your hugepages bugfix in the meantime | |
| 13:22:25 | sean-k-mooney | hrw: yes that woudl be better since you have the group dfinition that are used for the ansible roles | |
| 13:22:50 | sean-k-mooney | using primary may have worked but like would have caused issues | |
| 13:23:34 | hrw | sean-k-mooney: 'primary' was taken from kolla ;D | |
| 13:23:36 | sean-k-mooney | hrw: is there a reason that you are not defineing this in devstack and using a depends-on | |
| 13:23:49 | sean-k-mooney | ah i know that seamed familar | |
| 13:24:27 | sean-k-mooney | they use primary and secondary instead of subnode terminology | |
| 13:24:37 | sean-k-mooney | that we use for devstack | |
| 13:24:56 | hrw | sean-k-mooney: after playing with devstack in past there is no stick long enough to touch it (forgive poor idiom use) | |
| 13:25:39 | sean-k-mooney | hrw: devstack and kolla-ansible are my two favorite installers | |
| 13:25:45 | hrw | ;) | |
| 13:25:46 | sean-k-mooney | depending on what im doing | |
| 13:25:50 | hrw | yoctozepto: ^^ idea? | |
| 13:26:13 | lyarwood | gibi: sorry was out at lunch, no I hadn't seen any issues since my changes landed :/ | |
| 13:26:17 | hrw | sean-k-mooney: I only use k-a for deployment. at least I know that it works and gives me sane setup | |
| 13:26:40 | hrw | sean-k-mooney: when I used devstack the way of dealing with issues was 'restart and hope' | |
| 13:26:50 | sean-k-mooney | hrw: ya i use k-a for any long lived setup and use devstack for everything else | |
| 13:27:40 | sean-k-mooney | devstack is actully pretty reliable you just need to learn how to use it | |
| 13:27:51 | sean-k-mooney | and how to fix common issues | |
| 13:28:18 | sean-k-mooney | normally when it breaks its because of a depency did a new release | |
| 13:29:07 | sean-k-mooney | once you know what to look for fixing it get much simpler | |
| 13:29:13 | gibi | lyarwood: I hope this is just a one time issue. I've rechecked the patch see if it goes now | |
| 13:29:13 | hrw | possible | |
| 13:29:42 | openstackgerrit | Marcin Juszkiewicz proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] CI: add tempest-integrated-compute-aarch64 job https://review.opendev.org/714439 | |
| 13:29:48 | hrw | let's see | |
| 13:30:50 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: whats the current state fo the cyborg series | |
| 13:31:03 | sean-k-mooney | actully i have to join a meeting | |
| 13:31:08 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: I've just re-reviewed before lunch | |
| 13:31:15 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: it looks pretty close | |
| 13:31:39 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: I have one deeper question about the amount of ARQ delete calls nova makes | |
| 13:31:48 | openstackgerrit | Marcin Juszkiewicz proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] CI: add tempest-integrated-compute-aarch64 job https://review.opendev.org/714439 | |
| 13:31:48 | gibi | the rest is mostly easy fixes | |
| 13:32:00 | sean-k-mooney | ok so i would proably be worth my time looking at it again today | |
| 13:32:57 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: yes. I also pinged dansmith as I think he can re-review now as well | |
| 13:33:12 | dansmith | yep, I'm looking at alex_xu's query on that | |
| 13:36:51 | dansmith | gibi: will start going over that in a little bit | |
| 13:37:03 | gibi | cool | |
| 13:37:32 | openstackgerrit | Marcin Juszkiewicz proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] CI: add tempest-integrated-compute-aarch64 job https://review.opendev.org/714439 | |
| 13:44:47 | lyarwood | kashyap / stephenfin / melwitt ; https://review.opendev.org/#/c/696834/ - can you hit this again (rbd_swap) today if you have time. FWIW with the increase in required versions I'm not going to be able to test this upstream until I get Fedora 31 images built | |
| 13:45:02 | lyarwood | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/708416/ in this change | |
| 13:45:25 | kashyap | lyarwood: Hi, it's on TODO for today. | |
| 13:49:56 | lyarwood | kashyap: thanks | |
| 14:08:22 | openstackgerrit | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Expose instance action event details out of the API https://review.opendev.org/694430 | |
| 14:09:59 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Bump python-subunit minimum to 1.4.0 https://review.opendev.org/713611 | |
| 14:11:44 | openstackgerrit | jayaditya gupta proposed openstack/nova master: Support for nova-manage placement heal_allocations --cell https://review.opendev.org/714454 | |
| 14:21:52 | openstackgerrit | jayaditya gupta proposed openstack/nova master: Support for nova-manage placement heal_allocations --cell https://review.opendev.org/714459 | |
| 14:25:32 | openstackgerrit | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance actions v283 samples test https://review.opendev.org/706251 | |
| 14:26:19 | brinzhang | gibi: Done, thanks | |
| 14:33:42 | openstackgerrit | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance actions v283 samples test https://review.opendev.org/706251 | |
| 14:43:35 | kashyap | lyarwood: Should the blockCopy() change then be dependent on the F31 change - to prove testability? | |
| 14:48:18 | lyarwood | kashyap: I've already proven it with F30 and 5.10/4.3 tbh | |
| 14:48:56 | kashyap | lyarwood: Ah, then your comment here confused me :) | |
| 14:50:00 | sean-k-mooney | lyarwood: whats the minium qemu you need | |
| 14:50:04 | sean-k-mooney | will 4.2 work | |
| 14:50:21 | lyarwood | kashyap: so the new version constrats you suggested to avoid some known issues is what's causing us to be unable to test this prior to F31 | |