Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2020-06-18
13:53:13 sean-k-mooney rmart04: yes but i dont know if that fully disables pinning
13:53:58 sean-k-mooney so the issue is that the wya libvirt appliees the cgrpus it also confines the allcoations of kernel memory
13:54:37 sean-k-mooney one of the fixes that was only a partial fix was to move that later so that the dma region could be allocate before the cpus are pinned
13:54:55 sean-k-mooney that was done in https://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt.git;a=commit;h=7e72ac7878
13:55:24 sean-k-mooney but that was backin 2014 so it obviouslyu was not a full fix or it was broken angain later
13:56:01 rmart04 OK :/
13:59:57 sean-k-mooney rmart04: this was the final kernel fix i belive https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=ee6268ba3a68
14:00:01 sean-k-mooney that was in 4.19
14:00:15 rmart04 ah ok, my bad I said 4.14 earliar
14:01:00 rmart04 How easy is it to find out whether it was backported in C7?
14:03:43 sean-k-mooney its in the rhel kernel-3.10.0-957.26.1.el7 pacakge and needs libivrt ibvirt-4.5.0-13.el7 or higher
14:06:26 rmart04 OK thats amazing thank you. I think i'll see how far we are away from those package versions and expidite moving to them
14:46:06 mordred sean-k-mooney: you remember every conversation we've had about things from the past, right?
14:46:29 sean-k-mooney mordred: ocourse i was right and you were ....
14:46:42 sean-k-mooney mordred: is there a converstation in partcalar?
14:46:47 mordred sean-k-mooney: what's the story with the api_servers config option for glance - we've asked about deprecating/removing it and getting rid of the idea of being a poor-mans-client-side-load-balancer
14:47:03 mordred but I can't remember where the discussion got to on that
14:47:33 sean-k-mooney right we wanted to not do the crappy round robin thing we do in nova anymore
14:47:37 mordred (I'm trying to help cyborg with their glance support, but since it's copied from nova I wnat to make sure anything I do would eventually be transferrable back to nova)
14:47:41 sean-k-mooney i belive dansmith was onboard with that
14:47:54 sean-k-mooney i dont know if we have done anything to change it in nova
14:47:58 mordred yeah. I guess I should look to see if we marked the option as deprecated yet
14:48:15 sean-k-mooney mordred: efried did bring it up but then he had to move on
14:48:38 dansmith I was not on board with removing it,
14:48:46 dansmith but I think I was the only nova person in that position
14:49:01 mordred Support for image service configuration via standard keystoneauth1 Adapter
14:49:02 mordred options was added in the 17.0.0 Queens release. The api_servers option was
14:49:04 mordred retained temporarily to allow consumers time to cut over to a real load
14:49:06 mordred balancing solution.
14:49:14 mordred there's the help text- so it implies that post-queens its existence is temporary
14:49:24 mordred but with no official deprecation story :)
14:50:00 mordred basically - I would like to either kill this or if we can never kill it support it in ksa so that we can stop it with copying the round-robin code everywhere
14:50:02 sean-k-mooney dansmith: oh i just rememebered you had an opion and i generally rememeber when you dont like something so i assume you were ok with it
14:51:08 efried I would have deprecated it if I had been allowed to. I may be misremembering, but I think we put out a RFC on the ML and someone put up their hand and said they were still using it. Might even have been dansmith :P
14:51:45 mordred efried: :)
14:51:48 dansmith no, wasn't me,
14:52:14 dansmith but there are people in redhat, tripleo and edge-related IIRC, that definitely don't want to lose it
14:52:33 sean-k-mooney because its used for rabbit mq?
14:52:34 efried Also, I think I commented on the cyborg stuff when it went in, saying they really shouldn't be carrying all this warty stuff over from nova -- that is, they *never* should have supported [glance]api_servers. But I think they wound up just merging it for expediency.
14:52:40 mordred I thought all those people thought k8s was super sexy - why is a lb hard?
14:53:04 dansmith the history is a little dim for me without digging that back up, but basically for a very small number of remote edge machines, a "real load balancer" is not an option and having nova be able to try multiple glance servers is a major win
14:53:15 mordred nod
14:53:26 efried If ^ is not an issue for cyborg, I say they kill it, with prejudice.
14:53:33 mordred ok - that's fair enough I suppose
14:53:39 sean-k-mooney dansmith: really? ha proxy is pretty light weight
14:53:59 efried esp if it means they're no longer anchored to ksa and can cut over to sdk
14:54:04 sean-k-mooney im not sure i by that given it will be handleing very little traffic
14:54:14 dansmith sean-k-mooney: it's not just the haproxy of course, it's the config, the need for shared L2 failover VIP, pacemaker to manage it, etc
14:54:36 dansmith it's all the complexity that comes with deploying that architecture
14:55:11 mordred sure. although I'll again point my fingers at all of the people rushing to install k8s in those contexts so they should have an easier time of it
14:55:53 dansmith I haven't heard any consistent plans about how to do that in a non-toy arrrangement, fwiw.. lots of chest-puffing and hand waving
14:56:01 dansmith not that it doesn't exist, but just I haven't heard a clear plan
14:56:09 dansmith and all I'm doing is communicating the request
14:56:14 mordred dansmith: fair
14:56:39 efried If there really is a need for api_servers, then I guess we should support it in sdk so that's not something that blocks $consumer from cutting over.
14:56:43 mordred I guess from my end I actually don't care other than wanting to mock people who think they can deploy a cloud but can't deploy a load balancer ...
14:56:46 mordred efried: exactly
14:56:49 dansmith personally, I do not understand how relying on a centralized (even if HA'd) load balancer is better than the clients knowing the options and being able to help themselves out of a failure to talk to one
14:56:51 mordred if this is a thing that has to stay around
14:56:52 efried Easy for me to say, I won't be the one doing it.
14:57:01 sean-k-mooney dansmith: ok that more hevy wait then kolla does so i guess that is different in ooo
14:57:15 mordred then I want to just say screw it and support it in the client layer
14:57:34 efried dansmith: ftr, api_servers isn't really a load-balancer. I think it's a deafdumbandblind round robin.
14:57:36 mordred it's way too fundamental of a piece of config to stich in in the way it's being done
14:57:44 mordred a very dumb one
14:57:46 mordred it doesn't do retries
14:57:53 efried or failovers, or anything.
14:57:55 mordred yah
14:57:59 efried You simply get the next one on each subsequent api req
14:58:14 mordred it's probalby _less_ HA
14:58:17 efried heh
14:58:22 efried indeed
14:58:37 mordred maybe it's time to one-more-time go to the mailing list
14:58:40 dansmith I understand, but it still gets you 66% success instead of zero if 1/3 is down, and it could be made to do the right thing
14:58:44 mordred maybe life has changed for peopel since queens
14:58:56 dansmith mordred: this was not queens when we had this discussion, fwiw
14:58:59 sean-k-mooney mordred: for the better?
14:59:09 mordred dansmith: no? that's the release mentioned in the nova config docs
14:59:14 dansmith mordred: anyway, don't use my name in the email, I'm not prepared to argue for it anymore
14:59:21 mordred dansmith: I won't
14:59:28 dansmith mordred: that's when it was deprecated I think, but the concern about removing it was within the last year
14:59:34 mordred nod
14:59:49 dansmith but also, we were told that it was going to go away regardless so those people are assuming it's going or gone I think
15:00:06 mordred oh - well that's something perhaps
15:00:27 artom stephenfin, did the flavor extra spec validation spec ever go anywhere?
15:00:38 stephenfin artom: it landed last cycle
15:00:47 stephenfin API microversion 2.84, I think?
15:01:43 artom stephenfin, 2.86, but yeah, thanks for the pointer
15:01:56 artom So we could use that for the cpu_dedicated_mask, right?
15:02:08 efried I don't see a patch (at least owned by me) proposing removing it.
15:02:08 efried Deprecate: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/692227/ (merged)
15:02:09 artom Context is my latest comment on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/468203/15
15:03:19 efried Comments in above patch contain ML links mordred
15:03:45 efried and also refers to some people who wanted to keep it.
15:04:04 stephenfin artom: fair comment. In the middle of something at the moment but I'll get a reply to it
15:04:30 artom stephenfin, no rush. Today's my "upstream day", trying to do some reviews where I can :)
15:04:30 stephenfin we can't rely on the validation though, mind you, since it's an API change
15:04:42 stephenfin *in an API microversion
15:07:55 mordred efried: ooh! so it is deprecated!
15:08:42 mordred efried: how many releases do we have to wait to remove a deprecated thing? can we remove that now in victoria? or do we have to wait until w?

Earlier   Later