| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2024-01-10 | |||
| 16:31:59 | bauzas | I wouldn't recommend to use it, but that's your choice | |
| 16:32:15 | bauzas | I just want to not have a oslo.versioned field for that | |
| 16:32:33 | bauzas | some internal attribute for this object would work for it | |
| 16:32:38 | bauzas | for me* | |
| 16:33:05 | bauzas | noonedeadpunk: got my concern ? we run filters and weighers once per instance per host | |
| 16:33:32 | noonedeadpunk | yeah, totally | |
| 16:33:46 | bauzas | so if we were calling the list of AZs in the weigher, we would run it N times, N being the number of filtered hosts | |
| 16:35:26 | bauzas | noonedeadpunk: you could stuff the list of AZs somewhere in https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/manager.py#L299 | |
| 16:40:58 | noonedeadpunk | will adjust spec with your notes | |
| 16:42:59 | opendevreview | Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Refactor vf profile for PCI device https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/905134 | |
| 17:20:54 | opendevreview | Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/nova-specs master: [spec] Add Cross-AZ scheduling blueprint https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/900296 | |
| 17:25:56 | noonedeadpunk | bauzas: I've tried to address your concerns ^ | |
| 17:26:22 | noonedeadpunk | but actually now I get a bit more your concerns for getting AZs out of filter itself | |
| 17:28:02 | noonedeadpunk | because eventually, here we should be caring about "aggregates" rather then individual host and also weight based on that | |
| 17:30:30 | sean-k-mooney | noonedeadpunk: i was too hasty with reviewing your spec | |
| 17:30:42 | sean-k-mooney | if forgot there was also a second spec on this topic | |
| 17:30:45 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/890779/3/specs/2024.1/approved/availability-zone-affinity-filters.rst | |
| 17:30:57 | sean-k-mooney | and that we have to do some non trivial stuff with the request spec | |
| 17:31:08 | sean-k-mooney | noonedeadpunk: for contiend we need to suport multi create | |
| 17:31:18 | sean-k-mooney | i.e. one reuest that ask for n vms | |
| 17:31:26 | sean-k-mooney | as well as parallal create | |
| 17:32:16 | sean-k-mooney | sorry not parralle serial non overlapping creates of instance one after another waiting for each to go to active before doing the next | |
| 17:34:32 | noonedeadpunk | I probably should jsut abandon mine I guess as it indeed now looks like a duplicate one | |
| 17:38:36 | noonedeadpunk | I guess the one you posted originated from Vacouver PTG, as this discussion was raised there as well.... | |
| 17:46:07 | noonedeadpunk | It really slipped my attention, though I was checking for simmilar existing blueprints :( | |
| 17:46:56 | bauzas | noonedeadpunk: you somehow need to flip between hosts | |
| 17:47:49 | bauzas | but ya, looks to me a bit difficult | |
| 17:48:03 | bauzas | anyway, I need to go off | |
| 18:11:52 | sean-k-mooney | so we have example code that we can reuse for this for the normal host based affinity | |
| 18:12:15 | sean-k-mooney | i just dont think i will have time to track that down and provide links to it before sepc freeze | |
| 21:29:30 | JayF | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/900831 needs an additional core review, it is a bugfix for the Ironic driver. Your reviews would be appreciated o/ | |
| #openstack-nova - 2024-01-11 | |||
| 01:12:06 | opendevreview | Yalei Li proposed openstack/nova master: Implement get_power_state using domain.state https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/904970 | |
| 03:24:26 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: remove use of eventlet.queue.LightQueue https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/900681 | |
| 03:24:26 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: add bin dir for non eventlet console_scripts https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/904424 | |
| 03:24:27 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: use futureist for scater_gather https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/905285 | |
| 03:24:27 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: set rpc executor based on monkey patch state https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/905284 | |
| 04:37:23 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: move context executor to utils and remove eventlet.tpool https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/905287 | |
| 05:00:35 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Lower num_pcie_ports to 12 in the nova-next job https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/902175 | |
| 09:02:40 | sahid | o/ | |
| 09:03:11 | sahid | anychance that you make progress on that one? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/896512 I think we are good with it, no? something else is needed? | |
| 09:03:41 | sahid | s/you make/we make :-) | |
| 10:04:11 | noonedeadpunk | I actually have question slightly realted to this ^ | |
| 10:04:42 | noonedeadpunk | Like right now looking at AggregateMultitenancyIsolation and fail to understand a way to make an aggregate isolated for tenant. | |
| 10:05:23 | noonedeadpunk | Isolated in term - only tenants specified in aggregate can create instances in the aggregate. And not on any other computes - just this aggregate | |
| 10:05:57 | noonedeadpunk | I assumed, that using placement isolation together with AggregateMultitenancyIsolation will do that, but seems it's not... | |
| 10:06:31 | noonedeadpunk | Or well, maybe I have to add all other computes to different aggregate.... | |
| 10:08:00 | noonedeadpunk | So I have this: enable_isolated_aggregate_filtering = True, limit_tenants_to_placement_aggregate = True, placement_aggregate_required_for_tenants = False | |
| 10:12:12 | opendevreview | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova-specs master: List requested availability zones https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/904368 | |
| 10:13:59 | bauzas | sahid: unfortunately, we haven't yet accepted https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/aggregatemultitenancyisolation-to-support-unlimited-tenant as a specless bp | |
| 10:14:13 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney was having some concern when we discussed it on a team meeting | |
| 10:14:25 | bauzas | for me I'm OK but we don't have consensus | |
| 10:15:39 | noonedeadpunk | So my assumption was, that if request comes from a tenant that is not in filter_tenant_id, AggregateMultiTenancyIsolation will filter out all hosts that belong to aggregates with filter_tenant_id defined. And if request comes from tenant with filter_tenant_id - placement will return only hosts that have this metadata | |
| 10:15:58 | noonedeadpunk | But in fact, aggregate is not restricted for "outsiders" | |
| 10:17:41 | noonedeadpunk | oh, I see now..... | |
| 10:18:37 | noonedeadpunk | https://opendev.org/openstack/nova/src/branch/master/nova/scheduler/filters/aggregate_multitenancy_isolation.py#L47 | |
| 10:19:53 | noonedeadpunk | suffix is only applicable for placement isolation: https://opendev.org/openstack/nova/src/branch/master/nova/scheduler/request_filter.py#L115 | |
| 10:21:02 | noonedeadpunk | So kinda.... I can't define even 2 tenants to be working both for placement and filter? | |
| 10:24:57 | noonedeadpunk | as placement is not trying to split on comas, and filter not trying to search for suffixes :( | |
| 10:26:02 | noonedeadpunk | ok, so I'm actually facing exact same usecase that sahid patch covers.... | |
| 10:26:59 | bauzas | I think we could approve sahid's blueprint today and then we could discuss on his change then with sean-k-mooney | |
| 10:27:05 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: are you okay then ? | |
| 10:34:29 | noonedeadpunk | ugh, I for some reason thought that this flow is already working though and was counting for it ;( | |
| 11:46:11 | noonedeadpunk | I still have a feeling I'm missing smth in tenant isolation topic though... | |
| 11:48:34 | noonedeadpunk | oh, maybe I can have both pre and post enabled indeed, huh | |
| 12:02:16 | noonedeadpunk | In terms - define list of tenants for post filter in `filter_tenant_id` through comma, and then have `filter_tenant_id_suffix` for pre-filter. While `filter_tenant_id` will be invalid for pre-filter, rest should work... | |
| 12:02:41 | noonedeadpunk | Slightly nasty, but looks like working at scratch... | |
| 12:02:52 | noonedeadpunk | *at a glance | |
| 12:07:16 | ratailor | bauzas, noonedeadpunk could you please review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/904368 spec, I have updated it as per yesterday's discussion. | |
| 12:08:15 | ratailor | sean-k-mooney, gibi_off please review ^^ | |
| 13:53:34 | dvo-plv | sean-k-mooney, Thank you. I will try to finc some examples | |
| 14:19:35 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: gibi_off: we missed to ask auniyal to provide a blueprint for https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/2024.1/approved/enforce-remote-console-session-timeout.html | |
| 14:19:47 | bauzas | I'll be creating the blueprint | |
| 14:31:00 | sean-k-mooney | ack | |
| 15:16:51 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/nova master: Fix test failures with oslo.limit 2.3.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/905314 | |
| 15:29:29 | opendevreview | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: Test glance new location api https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/891207 | |
| 15:29:29 | opendevreview | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Support glance's new location API https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/891036 | |
| 15:29:30 | opendevreview | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Catch ImageNotFound on snapshot failure https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/905316 | |
| 16:10:52 | opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova-specs master: add the blueprint link to the spec https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/905342 | |
| 16:11:10 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: could you quickly +2 this ^ | |
| 16:13:54 | bauzas | noonedeadpunk: fwiw looks like we gonna miss https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/890779 for Caracal due to the spec approval freeze | |
| 16:14:29 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/nova master: Fix test failures with oslo.limit 2.3.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/905314 | |
| 16:15:17 | bauzas | noonedeadpunk: so that's cool you abandoned your spec proposal but fwiw I don't see any new revision for the other spec since 6 months :( | |
| 16:16:50 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: done | |
| 16:17:03 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: cool thanks | |
| 16:18:00 | bauzas | fwiw, I have some concerns when some good contributor abandons some change due to some other existing but the other is not revised from 6 months :( | |
| 16:18:32 | noonedeadpunk | bauzas: yeah, that's clear at this point :( | |
| 16:19:19 | noonedeadpunk | But realizing complexity more I'm not that self-confident anyway to pick implementation alone | |
| 16:20:56 | noonedeadpunk | As that sounds slightly like leveraging taskflow | |
| 16:40:32 | pmarsais | Hi nova community, I am looking at enabling TPM for my instances in my openstack cluster. Looking at nova source code, it seems that the shelving/unshelving workflow designed in https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/victoria/implemented/add-emulated-virtual-tpm.html#shelve-offload-and-unshelve is currently not implemented (no references to "tpm_object_id" and "tpm_object_sha256"). Is that correct or am I mi | |
| 16:40:35 | pmarsais | If so, are there plan to get this in, or should I try to take a stab at implementing it ? (I already started the CCLA process internally with my employer) | |
| 17:24:27 | auniyal | ] | |
| 17:24:27 | auniyal | hi sean-k-mooney, can you please have another look on this - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/905134 [Refactor vf profile for PCI device | |
| 17:28:38 | sean-k-mooney | pmarsais: no there is no plan to proceed with storing the tpm data in swrift for shelve/unshleve | |
| 17:29:22 | sean-k-mooney | if we wanted to od that we woudl have to repropose it as a feature via a new spec. | |
| 17:30:03 | sean-k-mooney | it was not implmented because we felt it was overly complext and we were not sure we wanted to require swift to be present to use it | |
| 17:31:06 | sean-k-mooney | today is the spec freeeze deadline for calacal os this woudl be a topic of next cycle (starting in march) | |
| 17:35:56 | pmarsais | Ok, thanks for the context ! | |
| 17:43:25 | sean-k-mooney | melwitt: im going to set up a devstack vm to test your disk encyprtion series so i can start reviewing it next week | |
| 17:43:36 | sean-k-mooney | melwitt:do you have a local.conf you can share | |
| 17:47:15 | sean-k-mooney | i belive i need barbican correct | |