| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-09-10 | |||
| 15:59:30 | gibi | thanks | |
| 15:59:35 | gibi | and good luck | |
| 15:59:53 | melwitt | thanks. have a nice weekend o/ | |
| 16:00:36 | gibi | same to you too eventually o/ | |
| 16:01:08 | melwitt | :) | |
| 16:03:12 | opendevreview | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Gracefully power off guest on instance delete https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/808474 | |
| 16:29:04 | sean-k-mooney | artom: ok so that jsut add a call self._power_off_instance | |
| 16:29:15 | sean-k-mooney | are you sure we cant remove self._shutdown_instance(context, instance, bdms) | |
| 16:29:36 | artom | sean-k-mooney, maybe? Seems it does more than just power if off though... | |
| 16:31:53 | sean-k-mooney | it delete the volume attachments and detory the domain xml | |
| 16:31:58 | sean-k-mooney | that seam to be about it | |
| 16:32:09 | sean-k-mooney | presumable _cleanup_volumes would do the same | |
| 16:32:33 | sean-k-mooney | ok _cleanup_volumes does not handel the attachments | |
| 16:32:46 | sean-k-mooney | or calling terminat_connection | |
| 16:32:49 | sean-k-mooney | what about powerofof | |
| 16:32:52 | artom | lulz we just suck at reusing code, do we? | |
| 16:33:45 | sean-k-mooney | poweroff instance just calls driver.power off | |
| 16:34:11 | sean-k-mooney | what we proably shoudl do is remove the call to driver.destry in self._shutdown_instance | |
| 16:34:21 | dasm | hey team. i'm trying to wrap my head around placement for nova. When VCPUs number are changed? When VM is stopped? Or only when deleted? I found this old thread: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/2014-June/008022.html but not sure if it's still valid. | |
| 16:34:22 | sean-k-mooney | and have it call _power_off_isntace | |
| 16:35:42 | artom | sean-k-mooney, yeah, maybe. One thing I don't like about my current (admitedly very quickly hacked up) thing is that we're leaking libvirt driver stuff into the compute manager | |
| 16:35:56 | artom | Though I guess it *kinda* makes sense? | |
| 16:36:14 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/placement master: Call Engine.execute() in func tests for oslo.db 11.0.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/808477 | |
| 16:36:26 | artom | One _power_off_instance() is graceful shutdown, _shutdown_instance() pulls the plug. | |
| 16:36:33 | artom | That's not really driver-specific... | |
| 16:36:59 | sean-k-mooney | and they are reverst in libvirt too | |
| 16:37:06 | sean-k-mooney | poweroff with virsh pulls the plug | |
| 16:37:15 | sean-k-mooney | if i rememebr correctly | |
| 16:37:39 | sean-k-mooney | i think you can just call power_off here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/e276184892250922c96c38415eabbaf7507f7e17/nova/compute/manager.py#L2897-L2898 | |
| 16:37:51 | artom | y haev clear werd wen complixaeted werds maek tings moar fun | |
| 16:37:59 | sean-k-mooney | becasue it will call driver.destroy if the gracefull approch does not work right | |
| 16:39:54 | artom | I think so? _power_off_instance() does the timeout calc for us... | |
| 16:40:41 | sean-k-mooney | yes | |
| 16:40:55 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/e276184892250922c96c38415eabbaf7507f7e17/nova/compute/manager.py#L2833-L2850 | |
| 16:41:14 | sean-k-mooney | huh apparently that is setabel in the image | |
| 16:41:29 | artom | Fun surprises every day | |
| 16:41:41 | sean-k-mooney | that is also not the correct way to get image properties | |
| 16:41:45 | sean-k-mooney | i mean it works | |
| 16:41:54 | sean-k-mooney | but we shoudl be using hte objects | |
| 16:42:52 | sean-k-mooney | oh i see why its not useing the object | |
| 16:42:56 | sean-k-mooney | its not in the object | |
| 16:43:45 | sean-k-mooney | so image_os_shutdown_timeout or os_shutdown_timeout is not a legal image property | |
| 16:43:46 | artom | At this point in the rabbit hole we're going to poke out in Australia | |
| 16:44:10 | sean-k-mooney | this is just code form before we made the image props ovos | |
| 16:44:16 | kashyap | artom: I politely "well-actuallyed" (I strongly avoid this) here on destroy() behaviour: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/808474. Hope you don't mind. :) | |
| 16:44:18 | sean-k-mooney | that was likely an extenion | |
| 16:44:40 | kashyap | artom: But your broader goal is a good catch -- with volumes, i.e | |
| 16:45:38 | artom | kashyap, valid points | |
| 16:45:48 | artom | Well, I guess you're heading out, will continue in the review | |
| 16:46:06 | sean-k-mooney | artom: care to add a todo to remove supprot for image_os_shutdown_timeout or add it to the image proprties properly in the future | |
| 16:46:26 | artom | sean-k-mooney, sure, just stick it in gerrit please | |
| 16:57:20 | sean-k-mooney | artom: ok it should be all there | |
| 17:01:05 | artom | Cheers! | |
| 17:40:03 | melwitt | gibi: here's my patch for fixing the placement func test jobs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/808477 | |
| 17:49:19 | dansmith | melwitt: +2d that | |
| 17:49:30 | dansmith | melwitt: did the other thing to separate the transactions merge? | |
| 17:49:52 | melwitt | dansmith: no it's stuck behind this recent fail. I'm about to rebase onto ^ | |
| 17:50:03 | dansmith | oh really, okay dang | |
| 17:50:06 | melwitt | also thanks for the +2 | |
| 17:50:08 | melwitt | yeah :( | |
| 17:50:26 | dansmith | was going to say, we were still "recheck nova fail"-ing again yesterday | |
| 17:50:39 | dansmith | who else is around to slam this trivial fix in I wonder? | |
| 17:51:06 | melwitt | dansmith: yeah bauzas +W'ed earlier today (the transaction thing) | |
| 17:51:47 | melwitt | oh maybe gmann | |
| 17:52:15 | melwitt | gmann: are you around to review this gate fix for placement? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/808477 | |
| 17:52:30 | dansmith | ++ | |
| 17:52:31 | gmann | melwitt: sure, checking | |
| 17:53:13 | melwitt | \o/ | |
| 17:53:49 | melwitt | hm actually I'm not sure whether I will need to rebase on the fix. I get confused about whether/when zuul does it automatically | |
| 17:57:10 | gmann | melwitt: +A | |
| 17:57:36 | melwitt | gmann: thank you!! :) | |
| 17:58:05 | dansmith | melwitt: rebase.. rebase like the wind! | |
| 17:58:32 | gmann | dansmith: melwitt as it is different file it should not require rebase, and zuul should merge it once fix is merged | |
| 17:58:45 | gmann | we can try recheck once 808477 is merged | |
| 17:58:49 | dansmith | gmann: there's another fix that depends on this | |
| 17:59:04 | dansmith | rebase so we can make sure this lands before that | |
| 17:59:53 | gmann | 807014 this one ? | |
| 18:00:11 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 18:01:13 | gmann | I think 807014 should pass with recheck once 808477 is merged | |
| 18:01:57 | dansmith | right, | |
| 18:02:17 | dansmith | but 807014 is breaking lots of *other* gates, so we want that in the queue ASAP | |
| 18:03:20 | gmann | ohk. | |
| 18:03:47 | gmann | or try re/another +w can trigger gate pipeline directly ? | |
| 18:05:03 | gmann | but it might do check also. yeah rebase is more safer to put it queue asap | |
| 18:05:06 | melwitt | gmann: it's this if you want to try https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/807014 | |
| 18:05:12 | melwitt | ok, will do then | |
| 18:05:24 | dansmith | I think rebasing is better, | |
| 18:05:34 | dansmith | because if they get kicked out, we want them to stay in the right order for the next trip | |
| 18:05:46 | gmann | ok | |
| 18:06:25 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/placement master: Narrow scope of set allocations database transaction https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/807014 | |
| 18:06:53 | dansmith | melwitt: got it | |
| 18:07:09 | melwitt | thanks! | |
| 19:00:05 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/placement master: Call Engine.execute() in func tests for oslo.db 11.0.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/808477 | |
| 19:58:08 | admin1 | hi all .. is this s known error ? is this a known error coming up when launching new instances "Unexpected API Error. Please report this at http://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/ and attach the Nova API log if possible. |
|
| 20:03:32 | melwitt | admin1: that means an unhandled exception bubbled up to the api. need to check the nova-api.log to see what happened | |
| 21:09:25 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/placement master: Narrow scope of set allocations database transaction https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/807014 | |
| 23:35:27 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: [doc] port-resource-request-groups not landed in Xena https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/807564 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2021-09-11 | |||
| 02:57:06 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/placement master: Commonize code for updating and creating allocations https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/808535 | |
| 05:59:03 | gibi | melwitt: thank you. | |
| 09:15:54 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: hardware: Add TODO to remove '(un)pin_cpu_with_siblings' https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/705666 | |