| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2024-02-14 | |||
| 10:18:56 | Uggla | bauzas, thx | |
| 10:26:38 | opendevreview | Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Separate OSError with ValueError https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/908825 | |
| 10:26:38 | opendevreview | Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Added context manager for instance lock https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873648 | |
| 10:26:39 | opendevreview | Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Removed explicit call to delete attachment https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/891289 | |
| 10:26:39 | opendevreview | Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Disconnecting volume from the compute host https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/877446 | |
| 12:50:10 | stephenfin | Uggla: Are you happy with https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/893505 now? Sounds like you figured out the issues you were having using SDK for Manila so that doc is probably correct? | |
| 12:59:01 | Uggla | stephenfin, tbh not really I did not manage to use the service token. So for the moment I left it behind. | |
| 12:59:15 | stephenfin | ah, okay | |
| 13:11:24 | ganso | gibi, dansmith, sean-k-mooney: hi! could you please review this small patch when you have a few minutes? thanks in advance! https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/906053 | |
| 13:12:29 | sean-k-mooney | ganso: its currenlty in merge conflict so it needs a rebase | |
| 13:13:29 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: it is? I thought it was predicting a merge conflict with other unmerged patches. Let me rebase it and fix the conflits then, just a sec | |
| 13:14:01 | sean-k-mooney | ganso: no when it says merge conflcit on the left like that its not mergable with master | |
| 13:14:50 | sean-k-mooney | this is really a feature by the way but ill try and load some context | |
| 13:15:48 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: oh I was looking at a stale page. I had to ctrl+F5 for it to show up | |
| 13:15:59 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: a feature? you mean it wouldn't be backportable? | |
| 13:19:02 | opendevreview | Rodrigo Barbieri proposed openstack/nova master: Use dedicated live migration network during pre-migration https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/906053 | |
| 13:25:57 | sean-k-mooney | ganso: without new config option i dont think it is backportable no | |
| 13:26:13 | sean-k-mooney | ganso: any change in what network are used could break an existing deployment | |
| 13:26:35 | sean-k-mooney | ganso: im on a call by the way so i have only skimed the patch so perhaps that not a concern | |
| 13:26:54 | sean-k-mooney | we ahve a new related feature | |
| 13:27:10 | sean-k-mooney | which allows configuing what network we use for cold migration | |
| 13:27:26 | sean-k-mooney | which is i belive the same code that is deictating what network we are usign itn pre-migration | |
| 13:28:17 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: I understand the concern. I have a customer that is running into this issue. They have 2 networks, one for controller and one for migration. The bug causes the controller network to be used and the patch actually addresses the use of the correct migration network. It doesn't change their setup. | |
| 13:28:37 | sean-k-mooney | we added https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/configuration/config.html#libvirt.migration_inbound_addr | |
| 13:29:15 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: yep, that is the setting my customer is using to determine the migration network. The issue is that the setting is being ignored by the pre-live-migration step | |
| 13:29:39 | sean-k-mooney | ganso: migration_inbound_addr is somethign we are adding this cycle | |
| 13:29:57 | sean-k-mooney | so unless they are using master they are suign live_migration_inbound_addr | |
| 13:30:01 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: hmmmmmm let me confirm the naming, maybe it is similar to the other one I'm referring to | |
| 13:30:02 | sean-k-mooney | which is currently only for the libvirt part | |
| 13:31:00 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 13:31:00 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: so the pre-live-migration code is using the wrong address, derived from the same way cold migration determine its address | |
| 13:31:00 | sean-k-mooney | right so for cold migration there was no way to use a diffent netwrok before now | |
| 13:31:00 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: yes they are using libvirt | |
| 13:31:00 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: yes! live_migration_inbound_addr | |
| 13:31:20 | sean-k-mooney | so on master you could "fix this" by settin gboth option to use the migration network | |
| 13:31:48 | sean-k-mooney | for older release it may be valid to change but it not valid to make cold migratoin use the live migration network | |
| 13:32:07 | sean-k-mooney | based on only live_migration_inbound_addr | |
| 13:32:14 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: I am not familiar with the patch code, I just found the fix proposal that I need, but I am a bit surprised that the fix needs an object versioning bump to make it use the correct network config instead of the wrong one | |
| 13:32:45 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: certainly, wouldn't make sense the change the cold-migration behavior, that indeed would be a new feature | |
| 13:32:48 | sean-k-mooney | so its not clear its using the wrong netwrok | |
| 13:33:02 | sean-k-mooney | techncially the exisitng option is only for the libvirt traffic | |
| 13:33:25 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: but fixing something that is a broken behavior in a previously accepted feature is kinda not really a new feature IMO | |
| 13:33:45 | sean-k-mooney | ganso: based on the docs for live_migration_inbound_addr | |
| 13:33:47 | sean-k-mooney | tis not broken | |
| 13:33:57 | sean-k-mooney | there expecation is incorrect based on teh docuemtned behavior | |
| 13:34:07 | sean-k-mooney | ganso: im not saying what you ask for is not an imporvement | |
| 13:34:24 | sean-k-mooney | im just sayting that is not what the docs say the config option does | |
| 13:34:34 | sean-k-mooney | """This option indicates the IP address which should be used as the target for live migration traffic when migrating to this hypervisor. This metadata is then used by the source of the live migration traffic to construct a migration URI.""" | |
| 13:34:46 | sean-k-mooney | copying the disk for block migration is not part of the live migration traffic | |
| 13:35:00 | ganso | well, pre-live-migration is part of live-migration, and if live-migration is not using live-migraiton-inbound-addr then it is somewhat diverging from expected behavior | |
| 13:35:08 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: oh copying the disk is not part of live migration traffic | |
| 13:35:20 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: I see, the devil is in the details xD | |
| 13:35:32 | sean-k-mooney | right this option is litrrally jsut for the data copied by libvirt | |
| 13:35:47 | sean-k-mooney | not the addtional actoins taken by nova | |
| 13:36:13 | sean-k-mooney | but i agree the enhacment that you are asking for makes sense btu that is why its kind of a feature not a bug | |
| 13:37:09 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: yea I understand the reasoning now. The fact that it changes the object versioning already makes it non-backportable If I understand correctly, so the fix would need to be coded differently to be backportable anyway | |
| 13:37:35 | sean-k-mooney | yes | |
| 13:38:57 | ganso | I need to analyze the code to see if that would be possible, but then also whether it would be acceptable as an backportable enhancement to an existing feature (pending more discussion) | |
| 13:39:00 | sean-k-mooney | ganso: so the new feature we added https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/6bca37e904e9e56b250b123abde1901e951c8c9a | |
| 13:39:02 | ganso | I will talk to my customer first | |
| 13:39:05 | sean-k-mooney | i think would solve this usecase | |
| 13:39:20 | sean-k-mooney | and that is coded in a way that is backportable | |
| 13:39:31 | sean-k-mooney | so we coudl disucss if we wanted to backport this upstream to adress that bug | |
| 13:39:39 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: ^ | |
| 13:40:29 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: it is? but it is introducing a new config option (and it is indeed a new feature) so I assumed even if the code is backportable, it wouldn't be accepted to be | |
| 13:40:30 | sean-k-mooney | do you think https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1939869 is a vaild reason to backport the new migration_inboud_address config option | |
| 13:41:24 | sean-k-mooney | ganso: we normally would not backport it unless there is a large pain point that affects operators | |
| 13:42:10 | sean-k-mooney | we do sometime back port new config options the impoarnt thing with a backport of this kind is it must not change behaivor by default | |
| 13:42:57 | sean-k-mooney | which is true in this case if you want to move all traffic to the migratoin network with that feature you have to set the config option to use the dedicated networks ip/fqdn/hostname | |
| 13:43:10 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: if the default value of the new config options retains the existing behavior, that is less concerning impact for existing deployments while backporting | |
| 13:43:36 | sean-k-mooney | yep it does which is and we also did that for upgrades | |
| 13:43:50 | sean-k-mooney | we did not want to change the behavior on upgade for the same config file | |
| 13:44:33 | sean-k-mooney | elodilles: ^ i know this is borderline but i think gibis feature is a more reasoable approch then https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/906053 | |
| 13:45:15 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: yea if it solves the issue I am happy with backporting that instead. I need to test to be 100% sure, but it probably does as you say | |
| 13:45:52 | ganso | that other patch may even not be that much necessary anymore | |
| 13:46:09 | sean-k-mooney | ganso: i bleivle https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/6bca37e904e9e56b250b123abde1901e951c8c9a#diff-486ddc37ce8e7c105a51566dd2cffbda034f28fae7eaad2e74abf470ab296352L4514 is the important part | |
| 13:47:27 | sean-k-mooney | i belive get_host_ip_addr is the common fucntion that is causing hte current behavior so yes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/906053 shoudl not be requried anymore | |
| 13:49:04 | ganso | yep | |
| 14:55:38 | opendevreview | Rodrigo Barbieri proposed openstack/nova stable/2023.2: [libvirt]Add migration_inbound_addr https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/908995 | |
| 14:56:27 | ganso | sean-k-mooney: I proposed the backport just to get the discussion started ^. Waiting to hear gibi's thoughts on this | |
| 14:56:42 | sean-k-mooney | ack | |
| 15:02:19 | dougszu | Thanks for looking at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/906053. It comes from a time before the other patch. I will take a look at it shortly. | |
| 15:02:50 | elodilles | sean-k-mooney: well, if it's more like a feature than a bugfix, then best to avoid the backport, though, there can be exceptions, i mean, if the stable cores agrees that it worth the risk and most probably won't cause any regression, then it can be backported. (the only thing is NOT to change the current behaviour for existing deployments, i'd say) | |
| 15:03:41 | sean-k-mooney | elodilles: ya for upgrade reasons when we added this it preserved the existing behavior | |
| 15:04:07 | sean-k-mooney | elodilles: so if we were to backport it as with master you would have to modify the config option to use it | |
| 15:04:14 | elodilles | +1 | |
| 15:04:35 | sean-k-mooney | elodilles: tl;dr we supprot movign the libvirt traffic to a dedicate network but only for live migraton | |
| 15:04:43 | sean-k-mooney | the feature enables that for cold migration | |
| 15:05:15 | sean-k-mooney | and as a sideffect also move the block copy done by nova wich is common for live migration to the new network if you opt in with the config option | |
| 15:05:45 | sean-k-mooney | not all users were aware that the live_migration_inbound_adr is just for the libvirt traffic | |
| 15:05:54 | sean-k-mooney | not also for novas data transfers | |
| 15:06:52 | sean-k-mooney | https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1939869 is partly a misundertaing of how thing work but i dont think its an unresobale expectation and other operator may have fallen faul of that too | |
| 15:08:34 | elodilles | i see, thanks for the details | |
| 15:19:51 | elodilles | sean-k-mooney: added my (long) comment to the backport o:) | |
| 15:21:52 | sean-k-mooney | ack we proably should chat about this either in the channel or in the team meetign to get import form stable folks in general | |
| 15:22:02 | elodilles | +1 | |
| 15:30:07 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: HyperV: Add todo to remove HyperVLiveMigrateData object https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/906636 | |
| 16:01:57 | dougszu | sean-k-mooney: Perhaps I missed something, but for https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1939869, i'm not sure how https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/908995 is going to 'fix' it. Since the source HV is calling the target HV by RPC, which then needs to get the IP of the source HV (not the hostname) | |
| 16:04:58 | sean-k-mooney | dougszu: it wont because it should not | |
| 16:05:20 | sean-k-mooney | howeve if you set the other config option then those calls shoudl use that for the data transfer | |