| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2023-11-07 | |||
| 16:39:32 | sean-k-mooney | if we want to also have a servic verion bump and an additon check in the api prior to the call to the schduler we can | |
| 16:39:52 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: we previosly said we didnt want to have a trait for which virt driver is in use | |
| 16:39:58 | bauzas | if two virt drivers were proposing the same feature, then yah a trait sounds good to me | |
| 16:40:07 | sean-k-mooney | we can revert that if we want but i know there was pushback to that in the past | |
| 16:40:30 | bauzas | but here that capability is purely qemu-based | |
| 16:40:37 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: so is the only reason your takign this stance because we did the min libvirt bump last cycle | |
| 16:40:43 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: we have traits for which type of hardware is on the host, this seems similar, but we can also filter on hypervisor type from host state anyway right? so we can do it without a trait | |
| 16:40:50 | bauzas | say some other feature does the same, we gonna add another trait and another prefilter | |
| 16:41:19 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: yes we should anytime thre is a capablity that is not supproted by all supproted drivers | |
| 16:41:25 | bauzas | and boom, traits explosion, plus the fact we yet again push hypervisor features upfront | |
| 16:41:44 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: traits are cheap and placment was built to deal with many of them | |
| 16:41:59 | dansmith | honestly, this particular feature is probably not critical, right? meaning: | |
| 16:42:13 | bauzas | service version checks that can get rid next cycle are cheaper IMHO and, | |
| 16:42:21 | bauzas | no traits is cheaper than a single one :)= | |
| 16:42:29 | dansmith | if we restrict to libvirt hosts with a filter, then it's easy for us to say in the reno that if you're not upgraded that feature request will not be honored by old computes that don't know about it | |
| 16:42:36 | dansmith | after the upgrade it's all good | |
| 16:42:51 | dansmith | this is an optimization not like "I *need* 32G of memory else please reject" | |
| 16:43:01 | bauzas | I just feel we can say in the notes 'please do what you need in case you have mixed hypervisors' | |
| 16:43:43 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: i really dislike that direction as i feel our schduler shoudl ensure you land on a host that can supprot the request feature without additonal admin intervention | |
| 16:44:25 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: in this partical case if we dont have the trait it will be non critical only in that on older host it willl be ignored | |
| 16:44:26 | bauzas | only if you have mixed hypervisors, right? | |
| 16:44:41 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: no even with a singel hypervior | |
| 16:44:45 | bauzas | and in that case, you probably already did the setup in order to shard your cloiud | |
| 16:44:51 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: right, it just seems like a best-effort sort of thing compared to some others | |
| 16:45:06 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: still talking of the 'I want a compute with libvirt recent enough' then ? | |
| 16:45:15 | bauzas | again, doesn't sound to me worth adding a trait for this | |
| 16:45:19 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: if its a flavor extra spec we shoudl always guarentee it abel to work on the slected host | |
| 16:45:43 | sean-k-mooney | so if we are fine with rejecting it on the compute node sure | |
| 16:45:47 | bauzas | anyway, I feel we're arguing right, but the time flies and we're on a meeting | |
| 16:45:49 | sean-k-mooney | im not ok with allowing the vm to boot | |
| 16:46:04 | bauzas | can we drop this until the end of this meeting | |
| 16:46:06 | bauzas | ? | |
| 16:46:10 | dansmith | yep | |
| 16:46:14 | sean-k-mooney | sure or to thet spec review | |
| 16:46:18 | bauzas | and we could try to find a way forward just after | |
| 16:46:29 | bauzas | cool, moving on then | |
| 16:47:13 | bauzas | #topic Review Priorities | |
| 16:47:18 | bauzas | still an action item on me | |
| 16:47:33 | bauzas | I have to create an etherpad as we agreed at PTG | |
| 16:47:46 | dvo-plv | I have some issue with electricity, battery dead, so ping me and i will answer later when I will be back online | |
| 16:47:46 | bauzas | so I'll keep this bullet until I'm set | |
| 16:48:11 | bauzas | #action bauzas to create a tracking etherpad for this cycle | |
| 16:48:38 | bauzas | dvo-plv: np, we also captured this conversation in the meeting logs that'll show up once we end the meeting | |
| 16:48:57 | bauzas | #topic Stable Branches | |
| 16:49:03 | bauzas | elodilles: your time | |
| 16:49:12 | elodilles | #info stable gates don't seem blocked | |
| 16:49:20 | elodilles | (stable/victoria's nova-ceph-multistore looked suspicious as it failed with POST_FAILURE a couple of times, but it has passed now) | |
| 16:49:35 | elodilles | #info stable release patches proposed: https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/releases+is:open+intopic:nova | |
| 16:50:03 | elodilles | last time we agreed to wait for some patches to merge ^^^ | |
| 16:50:24 | elodilles | feel free to update the patch when they are merged | |
| 16:50:27 | bauzas | yeah and noonedeadpunk proposed backports | |
| 16:50:35 | elodilles | ++ | |
| 16:50:38 | bauzas | related to the RPC fixes we wanted to land | |
| 16:50:42 | bauzas | so, we need reviews | |
| 16:50:54 | bauzas | I surely can review things I wrote | |
| 16:51:03 | elodilles | ACK, will review them then :) | |
| 16:51:18 | elodilles | #info stable branch status / gate failures tracking etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-stable-branch-ci | |
| 16:51:30 | elodilles | and that's all from my side | |
| 16:51:35 | bauzas | elodilles: ping me if you need the change numbers | |
| 16:51:41 | bauzas | cool, thanks | |
| 16:51:53 | bauzas | rushing, we have a few time left | |
| 16:51:57 | bauzas | #topic Open discussion | |
| 16:52:07 | bauzas | (gibi): Seeking for specless approval https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/libvirt-migrate-with-hostname-instead-of-ip based on the PTG discussion https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-caracal-ptg#L815. I have a proposed impl https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/900203 | |
| 16:52:17 | gibi | so | |
| 16:52:44 | gibi | as we discussed on the PTG I would like to make it possible for the libvirt driver to use hostnames during cold migration instead of IP addresses | |
| 16:52:45 | noonedeadpunk | bauzas: fwiw, backport to Zed is failing unit tests | |
| 16:52:53 | noonedeadpunk | so some look there is appreciated | |
| 16:53:09 | gibi | the live migration already uses hostnames by default | |
| 16:53:15 | dansmith | gibi: ++ | |
| 16:53:30 | gibi | this specless bp propose a new config option to make the new behavior opt in | |
| 16:53:31 | dansmith | gibi: no new RPC or object stuff needed, just a change on which thing we advertise to the remote side right? | |
| 16:53:31 | bauzas | noonedeadpunk: I have a clue, but let's not discuss this now (I guess this is the rpc version check unittest that fails) | |
| 16:53:46 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: we might need a db change | |
| 16:53:47 | gibi | no rpc, no object, just a config option for the libvirt driver | |
| 16:53:56 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: why/ | |
| 16:53:58 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: no DB change is needed afaik | |
| 16:54:03 | bauzas | and this is per-computes ? | |
| 16:54:06 | dansmith | gibi: cool, ++ for specless BP from me | |
| 16:54:16 | gibi | bauzas: this is per compute for the incoming migrations | |
| 16:54:19 | sean-k-mooney | dont we look up the remote systme "connection" info via fiels in the obejct | |
| 16:54:22 | sean-k-mooney | that are stored in teh db | |
| 16:54:28 | gibi | it is in the migration object | |
| 16:54:32 | gibi | we store the IP there today | |
| 16:54:34 | gibi | as a string | |
| 16:54:39 | dansmith | but it's just a string, AFAIK | |
| 16:54:43 | sean-k-mooney | right so will the content of that change | |
| 16:54:44 | bauzas | yeah | |
| 16:54:46 | gibi | now it will be either IP or a hostname | |
| 16:54:54 | sean-k-mooney | ok that is what i was wondering about | |
| 16:55:12 | bauzas | and we said it was opt-in | |
| 16:55:18 | sean-k-mooney | ok provided we dont assume that its an ip anywhere today | |
| 16:55:19 | bauzas | so this is not a breaking upgrade change | |
| 16:55:23 | sean-k-mooney | and given its opt in | |
| 16:55:30 | sean-k-mooney | i think im fine with that as specless | |
| 16:55:30 | gibi | it is opt-in the default of the new config is to use my_ip as before | |
| 16:55:35 | bauzas | yeah, so I'm favor of approving it | |
| 16:55:44 | bauzas | any concerns ? | |
| 16:56:07 | sean-k-mooney | the only thing we need to do is docuemnt that you shoudl not set the new config option until the cloud is fully upgraded | |
| 16:56:21 | sean-k-mooney | it will likely work with the hostname | |
| 16:56:41 | sean-k-mooney | and old nova | |