Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2024-02-19
17:01:55 sean-k-mooney maybe im thinking of swift
17:01:57 sean-k-mooney https://codesearch.opendev.org/?q=gc.collect&i=nope&literal=nope&files=&excludeFiles=&repos=
17:02:11 sean-k-mooney there are a few project that have an explcit gc.collect() call
17:03:00 sean-k-mooney hum although mainly in test code
17:03:11 dansmith there was also something about python never deflating the heap, which I think gorka can tell us about
17:03:49 sean-k-mooney ya thats what i was recalling. speaking to gorka about the agents growing there memory usage over time
17:03:50 dansmith but I would think that wouldn't be our problem here since we should be good to re-use those portions of the heap over and over, especially with allocations of exactly the same size each time
17:04:35 sean-k-mooney in anycase bumping to 8G of swap will mitigate the issue for now
17:05:26 opendevreview Jay Faulkner proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Sharding: More detailed test plan https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/908673
17:05:52 JayF https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/908673 Heads up, I'm going to be implementing the plan laid out here this week; please make loud noises quickly if it's unacceptable :D
17:07:44 sean-k-mooney ack for 2024.2 or are you still hoping to merge the shard stuff for 2024.1
17:08:05 sean-k-mooney i guess for 2024.1
17:08:36 sean-k-mooney if you can get the testing working in time before FF i guess that is fine
17:09:56 sean-k-mooney for me the minium i think we need is a 2 node job with to set of vms with 2 ironnic compuge service partitioning the vms into shards within the same conducotr group
17:11:59 sean-k-mooney JayF: having tempest test that acttuly assert the toplogy is proably not in the scope of tempest. it would be in the scope of whitebox or could be done via a differnt tempest plugin
17:12:13 gibi Uggla: i responded in the manila series
17:12:17 JayF sean-k-mooney: It was going to be in ironic-tempest-plugin
17:12:27 sean-k-mooney ack thats proably ok then
17:12:33 JayF Two node job is not something we do in Ironic really
17:12:51 JayF And we are working to slim down our job set; try to get more cases in less VMs
17:13:14 sean-k-mooney JayF: can you deploy 2 nova-compute services on a singel node
17:13:15 JayF so adding more extensive jobs works against that -- but if we validate the resource pool only contains sharded nodes, we're golden (and already have code to do this in devstack that I can lift)
17:13:29 JayF sean-k-mooney: We have zero tests where we do >1 configured nova-compute in Ironic.
17:13:40 JayF sean-k-mooney: and the devstack machinery does not support it
17:14:09 sean-k-mooney right so that is why i was expecting to have a 2 node job
17:14:24 sean-k-mooney each runnign a single nova-compute with ironic
17:14:36 sean-k-mooney but ok we can get a similar effect with what your suggesting
17:14:44 sean-k-mooney it just sound like much more work
17:15:12 JayF No, much much less work. I've already looked into this with Julia and we have a good amount of confidence in this approach.
17:15:14 sean-k-mooney well not nessiarly much more just more then i would have expected
17:15:42 sean-k-mooney ack did you have time to respine the patches to nova for the pep8 error
17:15:46 JayF I just don't want to do it and someone come along and say "not good enough" :D
17:15:53 JayF yeah, I just did
17:15:57 sean-k-mooney cool
17:16:01 JayF right before talking in here because I went to link it and saw the V-1 :D
17:17:16 dansmith I guess I'm confused about how we can know the partitioning works with only one node?
17:17:18 sean-k-mooney ok i put the spec update on teh same gerrit topic as teh code
17:17:21 sean-k-mooney "ironic-shards"
17:17:53 sean-k-mooney dansmith: the job will create more then 1 ironic "vm" and only tag a subset of them with the shard key
17:18:05 sean-k-mooney dansmith: so the job will need to assert that not all the nodes in the ironic node list
17:18:14 sean-k-mooney show up in the RPs
17:18:16 JayF Yeah, we'll end up with e.g. 10 nodes configured (fake drivers, no backend), and only 10-N of them configured with a shard
17:18:25 JayF once the good nodes show up, we start a timer and look for any bad nodes
17:18:25 sean-k-mooney and then ones that do march the expected shard key
17:18:28 dansmith so just making sure that the one nova-ironic we have doesn't pick up the other fake resources outside the configured shard?
17:18:31 JayF exactly
17:19:23 dansmith okay the spec doesn't say ten.. so to be clear, it will be a bunch of fake ironic resources and not just .. one real and one fake, right?
17:19:38 dansmith because the existing hash ring thing will get 1/2 right half the time
17:19:41 JayF with fake nodes, the number can be as many as we want
17:19:44 sean-k-mooney which works and covers the gap we had. it just not how i would have approched it
17:19:53 JayF so if we need a large number of "N" to have confidence, it's trivial to do it
17:20:02 JayF where large is like, small two digit number
17:20:26 sean-k-mooney JayF: we dont but it would have been nice to have more then one nova-compute in the same ironic conductor group with diffent shard keys
17:20:28 dansmith okay I was hoping for better, tbh, but I guess it's better than nothing
17:20:34 dansmith right exactly
17:20:37 JayF sean-k-mooney: doing that same test for conductor groups is a follow on
17:20:46 JayF oh, not exactly what you said
17:20:54 JayF but ensuring we have nodes in good/bad conductor groups and testing there
17:21:24 JayF similarly to how we are planning for shards (so then we'll have CI coverage for conductor group based paritioning, too, which AIUI doesn't exist at all today either)
17:21:39 sean-k-mooney so from a nova point of view we want to ensure we can have multiple nova compute services with idffent shard keys in the same cloud
17:21:51 sean-k-mooney and for each to manage ther own slice
17:22:06 sean-k-mooney we kind of get that by what you propose
17:22:14 sean-k-mooney it just would have been nicer to actully test that directly
17:22:19 JayF We are validating up to the virt driver level, but not up to the compute level
17:22:46 JayF and you'd rather us go up a little bit further, which makes sense
17:23:18 JayF This is an MVP is good; but I will keep an eye out for opportunities to test >1 nova compute -- this is likely something to plan and do as a separate project b/c I suspect it'll be a massive change to the ironic devstack plugin to do so
17:23:40 JayF TheJulia: ^ WDYT; tl;dr how hard would it be to do an Ironic test job with >1 nova-compute pulling from the same Ironic?
17:23:43 sean-k-mooney i dont think it would need much work at all
17:24:25 JayF Maybe I'll reword it to be more personal: that is closer to the approach I was taking last year that kept me running into walls; if it's possible/easy I don't see that path myself
17:24:28 sean-k-mooney JayF: the way multi node plugins are ment to work is runnign the same plugin once per node just with bit enabled/disbale as needed
17:24:56 sean-k-mooney JayF: so to add a second nova-comptue with ironic we would jsut turn off all the bits the plugin does for the ironic api extra
17:25:03 JayF I think you're ignoring that we'd have to have the second node talk to Ironic on the first node, which I think would require some network magic
17:25:17 sean-k-mooney and only deploy nova-compute with the ironic driver with a difffen tshard key configured
17:25:43 sean-k-mooney JayF: yes but we have that for all the other multi node jobs
17:26:02 sean-k-mooney anyway when you have a job up for review
17:26:11 sean-k-mooney we can look at makeing a multi node variant later
17:26:38 JayF I am not sure Ironic community at large will be thrilled to add multinode to our gate complexities, but timing-wise that's probably PTG topic anyway.
17:27:09 sean-k-mooney if we are not crating any addtional fake nodes then we can likely do it with just a config overried to change the virt driver to ironic and populate the nova.conf with the ironic details
17:27:11 dansmith ironic has no multinode jobs?
17:27:44 TheJulia We have one, adding further complexity to it is not ideal
17:27:49 Uggla gibi, thx, I will have a look.
17:28:00 dansmith eesh
17:28:14 JayF oh, we do > ironic-tempest-ipa-wholedisk-direct-tinyipa-multinode https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/7a8be5f2987745f390f6078e8ac87d82 : SUCCESS in 1h 14m 03s (non-voting)
17:28:16 JayF non-voting
17:28:18 TheJulia JayF: to the orignal ask, that is how the job operates now
17:28:41 JayF Ack, so as a second step, I can look into making that job also test sharding
17:28:57 TheJulia I think it just would if set, fwiw
17:29:08 dansmith I guess I'm not sure what configuration is more deserving of a multinode layout than the configuration that arranges for more-than-trivial nodes
17:29:39 JayF I honestly don't know what that job tests; it'll be on my plate to look into it
17:30:12 JayF if I can just flip sharding on in that job and use it to test, that'd be even simpler (although I still think there's value in doing the "check resources" type job, because it'll fail more cleanly if we break things)
17:31:03 sean-k-mooney there is some logic in devstack to run multiple fake computes on a single node
17:31:56 sean-k-mooney so we could (next cycle) explore doign that for ironic. but honestly i think all that is need to enable the comptue service on a secnd node and set the virt driver to ironci and set the other config options
17:31:59 TheJulia JayF: multiple ironic-conductors and nova-computes if I'm recalling correctly
17:32:15 TheJulia It has just been a while since I've done any work on it
17:32:30 JayF oooh, so is that the job I dind't know existed that does coverage for conductor_groups
17:32:33 JayF that would make a lot of sense, actually
17:33:57 sean-k-mooney thats one of the two jobs we have in our expermiental pipeline
17:33:59 sean-k-mooney https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/.zuul.yaml#L981-L990
17:34:15 sean-k-mooney we have ironic-tempest-bfv and ironic-tempest-ipa-wholedisk-direct-tinyipa-multinode
17:35:04 JayF I think that is the whole mystery laid out there then

Earlier   Later