| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-09-04 | |||
| 14:54:29 | bauzas | but then it's okay | |
| 14:54:39 | sean-k-mooney | but ya ill take a look after i look at gibis patches | |
| 14:54:52 | bauzas | np, just wanted to make sure this was an expected behaviour | |
| 14:55:02 | bauzas | ie. to not limit to the existing segment | |
| 14:55:08 | bauzas | (for moves) | |
| 14:55:24 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: amirite ? | |
| 14:57:29 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Revert "Handle Neutron errors in _post_live_migration()" https://review.opendev.org/747443 | |
| 14:59:12 | gibi | stephenfin: thanks | |
| 14:59:19 | gibi | bauzas: I will check soon | |
| 14:59:32 | bauzas | cool, ta | |
| 14:59:42 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: for move you have to move ot the same segment | |
| 14:59:50 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: you cannot move to another segment | |
| 15:00:06 | bauzas | ah | |
| 15:00:11 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: since the ip cannot change and is only valid in the specific segment it is allcoated form | |
| 15:00:16 | bauzas | then it's not good | |
| 15:00:38 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: yeah, I was thinking of this | |
| 15:00:52 | sean-k-mooney | thats the main point of the feature to only migrate in the same segment | |
| 15:01:52 | sean-k-mooney | by the way this part of why i want to put the segment in the vif object | |
| 15:02:25 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: right now without that you need to check which subnet the ip is from and hten use that to figure out which segment it is | |
| 15:02:56 | bauzas | again I need to verify why I got a host from another segment then | |
| 15:03:21 | bauzas | that's not me who wrote the functest so I need to verify a few things | |
| 15:03:22 | sean-k-mooney | i havent looked at your code but ill keep an eye out for that | |
| 15:35:34 | gmann | dansmith: any reason we did not add nova-ceph-multistore in gate pipeline though it is voting | |
| 15:36:06 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: do we need it there. we dont add all jobs to gate | |
| 15:36:15 | dansmith | gmann: I think because the ceph job wasn't there, right? but no reason not to, IMHO | |
| 15:36:16 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: we need to add if voting | |
| 15:36:30 | sean-k-mooney | we have several voting jobs that are not in gate | |
| 15:36:41 | gmann | dansmith: ohk, and ceph job was made voting later. | |
| 15:37:20 | dansmith | the ceph-multistore job vastly increases coverage of nova and ceph and glance, IMHO, so it's not bad to have it gating, IMHO | |
| 15:37:45 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: compare https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/.zuul.yaml#L480-L494 vs https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/.zuul.yaml#L425-L479 | |
| 15:37:57 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: im not against adding it | |
| 15:38:09 | sean-k-mooney | just the idea that voting = in gate and check | |
| 15:38:16 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: okay, I think I found the problem | |
| 15:38:32 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: for create, we don't need to verify the segments | |
| 15:38:39 | bauzas | for a network | |
| 15:38:43 | bauzas | but for a port, we do | |
| 15:38:47 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: correct | |
| 15:38:49 | bauzas | and then, for a move op, too | |
| 15:38:55 | sean-k-mooney | well for a port only if it has an ip | |
| 15:39:00 | bauzas | we need to look at the port to know the segment | |
| 15:39:16 | bauzas | it has a port when moving, right? | |
| 15:39:30 | sean-k-mooney | yes | |
| 15:39:31 | bauzas | I mean, it does have an ip address | |
| 15:39:37 | sean-k-mooney | yes | |
| 15:39:40 | bauzas | okay, so for create, meh | |
| 15:39:49 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: there is no voting job which is not running on gate pipeline except the ceph one - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/747443/ | |
| 15:39:55 | bauzas | unless if it has a specific address | |
| 15:40:00 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: nova-lvm | |
| 15:40:05 | gmann | it is n-v | |
| 15:40:08 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: that is only in check | |
| 15:40:29 | gmann | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/.zuul.yaml#L136 | |
| 15:40:36 | sean-k-mooney | also the linux bridge one | |
| 15:40:59 | sean-k-mooney | oh we shoudl stop setting that there | |
| 15:41:03 | sean-k-mooney | and move it down | |
| 15:41:04 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: fwiw, the spec is then invalid for the pseudo-code | |
| 15:41:13 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/victoria/approved/routed-networks-scheduling.html#proposed-change | |
| 15:41:15 | bauzas | but meh | |
| 15:41:27 | bauzas | i'll look at the requested network | |
| 15:41:38 | bauzas | if it has a ip address, I'll look at the segment | |
| 15:41:56 | bauzas | if it doesn't have an ip address, I'll just look at all the segments from the network | |
| 15:42:02 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: lgty ? ^ | |
| 15:42:25 | sean-k-mooney | am ya that sound viable | |
| 15:42:32 | bauzas | cool | |
| 15:42:45 | bauzas | we're getting the fixed IPs from the VIF | |
| 15:42:54 | bauzas | (in the instance infocache) | |
| 15:43:00 | sean-k-mooney | yes | |
| 15:43:07 | bauzas | so I can look at them and ask for the related segments | |
| 15:43:11 | bauzas | amirite ? | |
| 15:43:22 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: yeha only neutron-tempest-linuxbridge is 2nd one not in gate, i did not notice this as it is defined in neutron side | |
| 15:43:37 | bauzas | now, the big question is : how can I get a segment from an IP address, but I'll figure this out | |
| 15:43:54 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: you need to get the subnet with is in the vif too | |
| 15:44:01 | bauzas | ah, right | |
| 15:44:03 | sean-k-mooney | so instead of looking at the ips | |
| 15:44:08 | sean-k-mooney | you cna look at teh subnet | |
| 15:44:08 | bauzas | then this is better | |
| 15:44:32 | sean-k-mooney | so i would like to update the subnet object ot have the segment id in it optionally at some point | |
| 15:44:43 | bauzas | okay, lemme look | |
| 15:44:55 | sean-k-mooney | well proably beter to put the segment in the vif object | |
| 15:45:05 | bauzas | eek | |
| 15:45:06 | sean-k-mooney | we should not have a singel port on multipel segment | |
| 15:45:07 | bauzas | can't do it | |
| 15:45:21 | sean-k-mooney | that is the correct place to put it | |
| 15:46:43 | sean-k-mooney | we can put it in the subnet but even though a port can have multipel ips form multiple subnets in general that is not true for routed networks | |
| 15:47:07 | sean-k-mooney | well... | |
| 15:47:08 | gibi | bauzas: I think looking at the ip_allocation of the port is a better source of information than checking if it has an ip or not | |
| 15:47:25 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: I can try to lookup directly in the pre-filter | |
| 15:47:36 | bauzas | gibi: good point | |
| 15:47:37 | sean-k-mooney | no it cant because of limitation in the neutron implemation | |
| 15:47:45 | bauzas | but grrrr, I need to stop working | |
| 15:48:09 | bauzas | parents-teacher meeting at 6pm, since kids are back at school | |
| 15:48:10 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: we could but i think caching it in the VIF is better | |
| 15:48:32 | sean-k-mooney | to avoid needign to call neutron during the prefileter | |
| 15:48:35 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: for move operations I'm OK with that | |
| 15:48:49 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: ya for create since we dont have the vif objects | |
| 15:48:50 | gibi | bauzas: no worries, enjoy your weekend | |
| 15:48:56 | bauzas | thinking out loud, this is unrealistic to merge it before victoria-3 | |
| 15:48:58 | sean-k-mooney | we need to look it up if we are passed a port | |
| 15:49:27 | sean-k-mooney | proably altough viable for early m1 | |
| 15:49:31 | bauzas | so, I'll continue working on it, but let's all agree this will be a Wallaby merge | |
| 15:49:43 | bauzas | yeah, can continue investigating during RC1 | |