Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2022-06-28
11:48:48 sean-k-mooney we wont create a second binding
11:48:54 sean-k-mooney we will just update the host-id
11:49:20 sean-k-mooney but if neutron is still binding it form the first failed attempet we woudl get a concurrent error
11:49:39 sean-k-mooney frickler: did you check the logs to see if the vm was retired on a second host?
11:51:55 frickler sean-k-mooney: it is a single-node job, I would be surprised if that happened
11:53:38 sean-k-mooney frickler: ok well the only other thing i can think of is the client retry
11:54:03 sean-k-mooney ralonsoh: could this happen if nova retryed creating the port binding because thet inital call timed out
11:54:08 sean-k-mooney i think we try 3 times
11:54:54 sean-k-mooney this being "Concurrent port binding operations failed on port ..."
12:19:57 opendevreview Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Add regression test for bug 1838392 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/847965
13:08:13 bauzas gibi: sean-k-mooney: jkulik: fwiw, this is not a new meat https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/130005
13:08:36 sean-k-mooney bauzas: yep i know
13:08:50 bauzas sure, but I provided the existing context
13:09:02 sean-k-mooney there are other specs more recnet then that
13:09:05 bauzas just look at the gerrit comments
13:09:30 sean-k-mooney but ya we have rejected dynmic server groups and adding other affinity policies in the past
13:10:14 bauzas yes and no, this is just the fact that the spec was split https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/139272 and https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/136487
13:10:22 bauzas look again about the comments
13:10:44 bauzas sean-k-mooney: not for you, but rather jkulik
13:11:15 jkulik bauzas: thanks, will take a look
13:11:20 sean-k-mooney bauzas: ack
13:13:22 bauzas jkulik: there was by then a try to have a new API instead of server groups https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/183837/4/specs/liberty/approved/generic-scheduling-policies.rst
13:13:54 sean-k-mooney bauzas: im not sure how that would help
13:14:07 sean-k-mooney the issue with server groups is adding an instance that violates the policy
13:14:10 bauzas just saying this is a can of worms
13:14:30 sean-k-mooney it is
13:14:38 bauzas sean-k-mooney: the problem with server groups is that if we touch it, it creates more races than the ones it fixes
13:14:42 sean-k-mooney but that is a sperate topic form the orginal thing that jkulik raised
13:15:00 bauzas sean-k-mooney: well, this is all about colocality
13:15:12 bauzas we express this in Nova with server groups
13:15:23 sean-k-mooney well affinity and anti affity
13:15:27 sean-k-mooney with differnt granularity
13:15:29 sean-k-mooney but yes
13:15:52 bauzas but the question remains about the best UX we may have
13:18:24 bauzas anyway, me goes back at bug scrub
14:29:45 Uggla question, from the api, I try to check that a scheduling is impossible. To do that I look at 'No valid host found for unshelve instance' in the log. My test seems to work, but I have to wait before checking the logs. Is there a proper way to do that ?
14:30:54 Uggla bauzas, gibi ^
14:33:03 sean-k-mooney using notifications
14:33:15 sean-k-mooney but in general we dont tend to use logs in tests
14:33:25 sean-k-mooney we do sometimes but there are often better way to do that
14:33:45 Uggla is _wait_for_action_fail_completion a possible option ?
14:43:15 gibi Uggla: you wait for the server to go to ERROR state then you can check the fault in the server to see if it is a no valid host
14:43:22 gibi give me a sec and I will find an example
14:45:23 gibi Uggla: for example https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/c53ec4e48884235566962bc934cbf292ad5b67b8/nova/tests/functional/test_servers.py#L4100-L4108
14:45:28 Uggla gibi, ok probably better that what I have just done using wait_for_assert().
15:07:24 bauzas Uggla: not sure I understand your question
15:07:36 bauzas you're asking how nova-api could know there is a scheduling error ?
15:07:53 Uggla bauzas, no worries Gibi is helping me right now.
15:08:06 bauzas oh, for testing
15:08:41 sean-k-mooney yep testing
15:08:46 sean-k-mooney presumable functional testing
15:08:51 sean-k-mooney rather then unit
15:11:24 gibi yepp func testing
15:11:58 gibi Uggla just found the limitation of the our nova.tests.functional.integrated_helpers.InstanceHelperMixin._wait_for_instance_action_event assert
15:12:18 gibi it always checks the first action of a given type from the list of instance actions
15:12:27 gibi and he had two unshelve actions in the test case
15:12:35 gibi and the assert only checked the first
15:12:43 gibi even though the second was in error state
15:29:27 bauzas reminder: nova meeting in 30 mins
15:31:07 sean-k-mooney oh fun
15:31:16 sean-k-mooney i was not aware we had that limitation
15:40:06 gibi me neither, but now Uggla can improve on that :)
15:42:15 Uggla gibi, sean-k-mooney , currently not completely sure but no the code looks ok. It is more the event I'm looking for which is not the good one.
15:43:38 gibi it can be that the listing of the instance actions are not stable so sometimes the code founds the proper unshelve action sometimes not
15:48:34 gibi I mean the sorting is not stable
16:00:11 bauzas #startmeeting nova
16:00:11 opendevmeet The meeting name has been set to 'nova'
16:00:11 opendevmeet Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:11 opendevmeet Meeting started Tue Jun 28 16:00:11 2022 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is bauzas. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:15 bauzas hello everyone
16:01:09 bauzas mmmm
16:01:21 bauzas heyhoooooooo
16:02:00 gibi o/
16:02:19 bauzas hah, I hear some sound
16:02:30 gibi crickets ?
16:02:42 bauzas I'm maybe in a cave
16:03:22 bauzas gibi: not sure we have quorum for today's meeting :(
16:03:23 elodilles o/
16:03:37 gibi sean-k-mooney already gone for today
16:03:58 gibi I guess melwitt is still on PTO
16:03:59 bauzas hah
16:04:05 bauzas yes indeed + artom
16:04:30 bauzas what would you want ?
16:05:03 gibi do we have somebody here for the todays nova meeting to talk about specific things? (if not then we can close this)
16:05:39 bauzas we still have one critical bug
16:05:41 elodilles nothing special news from stable point of view, so -
16:06:05 bauzas I can be the bug baton owner for the next week
16:06:28 bauzas that said, next week we will have a spec review day
16:06:38 bauzas I'll email it
16:06:49 bauzas that's it for me
16:07:21 gibi nothing from me I spent most of the week downstream
16:07:28 bauzas #info Next bug baton is still for bauzas
16:07:37 bauzas #info One Critical bug
16:07:46 bauzas #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?search=Search&field.status=New 8 new untriaged bugs (-4 since the last meeting)
16:07:51 bauzas #link https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/project/openstack/placement 27 open stories (+1 since the last meeting) in Storyboard for Placement
16:07:54 bauzas #link https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2010108 new Placement bug
16:08:01 bauzas but I'll tell it again next week
16:08:17 bauzas #info Spec review day on July 5th
16:08:32 bauzas that's basically it
16:08:40 gibi I guess in the critical bug we keep the job non-votig while waiting for the fix to be released in centos stream 9

Earlier   Later