| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2023-01-26 | |||
| 10:26:33 | sahid | bauzas, sean-k-mooney[m] humm i may missing somethinhg, this is not what you are looking for? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/858384/34/nova/tests/unit/api/openstack/compute/test_evacuate.py#431 | |
| 10:27:16 | sahid | that is when using microversion 2.95 with a hosts that are not fully upgraded | |
| 10:27:22 | sean-k-mooney[m] | no | |
| 10:27:39 | sean-k-mooney[m] | that is pininng the min compute service version | |
| 10:27:57 | sean-k-mooney[m] | we were talking about the rpc version pin | |
| 10:28:47 | sean-k-mooney[m] | the ones you pin in https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/configuration/config.html#upgrade-levels | |
| 10:29:26 | sean-k-mooney[m] | so [upgrade_levels]/compute=6.0 | |
| 10:30:41 | bauzas | sahid: the missing unittest I was referring was to verify that you return an exception if you set the parameter and call a old compute | |
| 10:31:09 | bauzas | sahid: for the functest in the other change (the microversion one), yeah, what sean-k-mooney said | |
| 10:32:41 | sahid | bauzas: this part? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/858383/25/nova/compute/manager.py#3831 | |
| 10:33:13 | bauzas | sahid: no sorry | |
| 10:33:15 | bauzas | sec | |
| 10:33:53 | bauzas | sahid: in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/858383/25/nova/compute/rpcapi.py#1108 | |
| 10:33:59 | bauzas | sahid: you return an exception | |
| 10:34:10 | bauzas | and I'm eventually OK with it (sorry for the comments) | |
| 10:34:37 | bauzas | sahid: butn | |
| 10:36:12 | bauzas | sahid: I don't see any unittests for verifying the RPC call | |
| 10:36:41 | sahid | yes good point | |
| 10:37:20 | bauzas | and we also need to have unittests for the conductor RPC API, unfortunately :( | |
| 10:37:37 | bauzas | sahid: sec, will find you where we have unittests for both | |
| 10:42:52 | bauzas | sahid: one example of a simple unittest for testing it https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/tests/unit/conductor/test_conductor.py#L4734-L4752 | |
| 10:43:13 | bauzas | gosh, our tests are so horrible to read :( | |
| 10:43:32 | bauzas | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/tests/unit/conductor/test_conductor.py#L4754-L4788 are also good examples | |
| 10:43:43 | bauzas | just add two checks there and I'm all good (for the conductor API) | |
| 10:43:56 | bauzas | (even if we apparently missed the other version checks...) | |
| 10:44:14 | sahid | working on it! thank for you help guys | |
| 10:45:32 | bauzas | sahid: for the compute RPC API, here is the existing test https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/tests/unit/compute/test_rpcapi.py#L883-L916 | |
| 10:45:40 | bauzas | HTH | |
| 10:45:58 | bauzas | sahid: np, you're next in my review queue once you're all set | |
| 10:51:41 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney[m]: Sorry for my delay, just reading back the scroll of your analysis | |
| 10:54:39 | sean-k-mooney | tl;dr the io on those nodes that timeed out looks like its about 33% slower then normal. we are normally at 75% of the timeout so we dont have the headroom in that case | |
| 11:09:18 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: bauzas can we land gmann's placement service role patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/865618 | |
| 12:41:38 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Handle InstanceInvalidState exception https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/861738 | |
| 13:15:20 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Thanks for the summary. It's nearly 2-ish hours, and still no sign of a vote - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/870794 | |
| 13:16:39 | sean-k-mooney | its in gate | |
| 13:16:49 | sean-k-mooney | its been runing for 1hr 46mins | |
| 13:17:05 | sean-k-mooney | and tempest-integrated-compute passed already | |
| 13:17:15 | sean-k-mooney | you can watch it here if you like https://zuul.openstack.org/status#870794 | |
| 13:21:55 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Thank you :) | |
| 13:33:22 | ierdem | Hi, when I try to cold migrate VMs via cli by specifying destination host, it throws an exception after first migrate "No valid host was found" -no more details, just this message-, but destination host has enough resource. Does nova-scheduler cause this? If is, how can I force it to migrate more than one VMs to the same host? Thanks for all your assistance. (I have kolla-ansible stein-eol) | |
| 13:35:22 | bauzas | gmann: sean-k-mooney: dansmith: sorry, but maybe I'm confused but I thought system readers can scope resources of a deployment. If so, why are we returning HTTP403 on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/865618 ? | |
| 13:36:38 | bauzas | (Alice in the spec, obviously) | |
| 13:37:41 | kashyap | (Third time lucky, the job indeed passed) | |
| 13:38:09 | kashyap | (We'll see if everythig else succeeds.) | |
| 13:38:39 | bauzas | oh wait | |
| 13:38:45 | bauzas | "Alice can list or retrieve specific endpoints. Alice cannot do any project specific operations since her authorization is limited to the deployment system." | |
| 13:38:54 | bauzas | including list, IIRC | |
| 13:43:35 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: we are remvoing system reader form the placment polices | |
| 13:44:40 | sean-k-mooney | for most project we are geting rid fo scope entirly based on operator feedback in yoga? | |
| 13:46:10 | bauzas | but okay | |
| 13:46:18 | bauzas | I can understand we restrict the roles then | |
| 13:46:49 | bauzas | and which can be updated as long as we implement the features | |
| 13:48:04 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: libvirt: At start-up rework compareCPU() usage with a workaround https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/870794 | |
| 13:50:05 | kashyap | Christ, it merged at last | |
| 13:53:05 | gibi | kashyap: it wasn't that long:) | |
| 13:53:40 | kashyap | gibi: You're right though. I tend to be a bit of a drama queen sometimes; please ignore me :) | |
| 13:54:14 | kashyap | gibi: Thank you both for the help! Now hope the API replacement patch goes through soon | |
| 13:54:21 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: any docs you could point me out on the new direction for system roles ? | |
| 13:54:25 | kashyap | (Thanks, sahid for rechecking it while I was away :)) | |
| 13:56:08 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: gmann might have the links more redilaly but i think we updated the goal with it too | |
| 13:56:22 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: like this was a very very big thing that we have talked about before | |
| 13:56:48 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/governance/commit/1909d4f7a0dc2920fc04ab5bfac112a671547cee | |
| 13:56:54 | bauzas | " In yoga cycle, we redefined this goal with the changes mentioned above so that allowing system administrators to access system level resources APIs only and allow project users to access project-level resource APIs. These changes have been done for nova and neutron. " | |
| 13:57:06 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: problem is, sometimes my brain splits | |
| 13:57:14 | sean-k-mooney | it was actully in zed | |
| 13:57:43 | bauzas | so it looks to me I probably heard about it, but then it wasn't ringing the bell in my brain when I saw today's change | |
| 13:57:45 | sean-k-mooney | well it depnes but that commit has the relevent info in it | |
| 14:01:53 | sahid | kashyap: sure :-) | |
| 14:10:33 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: now all you have to do is backport it all the way to train and then cerry pick it downstream :P | |
| 14:11:20 | sean-k-mooney | so for 2 patchs that only 20 ish commits to create and review | |
| 14:11:56 | sean-k-mooney | with that said im not sure we need to backport the second patch | |
| 14:12:09 | sean-k-mooney | the frist we should but using the new api is less imporant | |
| 14:18:50 | opendevreview | Alexey Stupnikov proposed openstack/nova stable/zed: Remove deleted projects from flavor access list https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/870053 | |
| 14:26:13 | opendevreview | Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui proposed openstack/nova master: compute: enhance compute evacuate instance to support target state https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/858383 | |
| 14:26:14 | opendevreview | Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui proposed openstack/nova master: api: extend evacuate instance to support target state https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/858384 | |
| 14:27:30 | sahid | ^ fixed compute part, and owrking on the API one | |
| 14:29:59 | sahid | for the API part, is a BadRequest returned sounds good? in case that the rpc is not right and user is using new version? | |
| 14:30:17 | sahid | or do you have in mind an other http status? | |
| 14:30:42 | sahid | sean-k-mooney, bauzas ^ if you have a sec | |
| 14:31:23 | bauzas | sahid: we agreed yesterday on returning a HTTP409 Conflict | |
| 14:31:29 | sahid | ack | |
| 14:31:45 | bauzas | I think we have existing exceptions that do those | |
| 14:46:12 | sean-k-mooney | we do | |
| 14:46:35 | sean-k-mooney | we use 409 conflict anythime we dont meet the required min compute service version and in a few other cases | |
| 14:46:55 | sean-k-mooney | we used to have a mix of code but we normalised on 409 about 3 cyles ago | |
| 14:47:19 | sean-k-mooney | it used to be diffent between pmem cyborg, numa/sriov migrations ectra | |
| 14:49:02 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Heh, on the backports ... I need a bit of a breather for a few hours first from it | |
| 14:49:40 | sean-k-mooney | no worries but please propose them upstream before the downstream ones so we get the ci coverage | |
| 14:50:28 | kashyap | Ah, definitely | |
| 14:50:33 | kashyap | How far back we wanna go upstream? | |
| 14:51:31 | sean-k-mooney | so 16 is train if you want to go to 16 downstream then please do it upstream to trian too | |
| 14:51:42 | sean-k-mooney | if this is just for 17/wallaby you can stop there | |
| 14:51:45 | opendevreview | Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui proposed openstack/nova master: api: extend evacuate instance to support target state https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/858384 | |
| 14:52:52 | sean-k-mooney | this change shoudl be pretty safe to backprot and i dont really expect confligt | |
| 14:52:58 | sean-k-mooney | so hopefully its simple to do | |
| 14:52:58 | kashyap | Yep | |
| 14:54:11 | kashyap | I only wonder about the small logical change of the switch to using _get_cpu_model_mapping() | |
| 14:55:09 | sean-k-mooney | not using that in my view was an existing bug that shoudl have been fixed anyway | |
| 14:55:19 | sean-k-mooney | so i think its ok | |
| 14:55:28 | sean-k-mooney | we can see what elodilles thinks | |