Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2024-05-07
16:01:12 tkajinam o/
16:01:16 auniyal o/
16:01:16 gibi bauzas is off today, so I will be your chair
16:01:25 elodilles o/
16:01:45 sean-k-mooney dansmith: using local.sh works too
16:01:51 sean-k-mooney o/
16:01:54 gibi #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Nova#Agenda_for_next_meeting
16:01:54 fwiesel o/
16:01:55 dansmith o/
16:02:35 gibi #topic Bugs (stuck/critical)
16:02:51 gibi #info No Critical bug
16:03:12 gibi is there any bug that needs discussion today?
16:03:26 erlon Must be critical I suppose?
16:04:33 auniyal gibi, not critical but seems imp to me https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2063342
16:04:38 tkajinam this is not very critical now but there is one remaining follow-up about excludes cleanup. would be nice if it can get 2nd +2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-traits/+/917713
16:04:40 gibi erlon: if you feel it worth discussing with the foks then sure
16:05:50 erlon So, I need some reviews on the RBAC support patch. Its the last one fron the series: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/811521?usp=search
16:06:40 gibi erlon: OK, noted.
16:06:50 erlon thanks
16:07:16 gibi auniyal: my immediate reaction that bug is to ask if they tried to archive deleted rows
16:07:20 erlon Should I add it to the etherepad or you do?
16:07:58 gibi erlon: I will
16:08:11 erlon Thanks
16:08:22 gibi auniyal: but reading it more it is about instance action
16:08:35 gibi growing without bound for non deleted instances
16:09:26 sean-k-mooney erlon's patch is for a blueprint that is not approved
16:09:27 auniyal yes, can we add some preodic updated nova can do to DB
16:09:28 gibi and I see they proposed a nova-manage command to trim the action list. We at least need a blueprint for it
16:09:49 sean-k-mooney so it need to be appoved here first before we can proceed with it
16:10:02 sean-k-mooney https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/shared-security-groups
16:10:14 erlon what does that require? to aprove?
16:11:06 sean-k-mooney agreement that this does not requrie a spec and that we are ok to proceed with adding supprot for neutron SRBC for security groups to nova
16:11:52 sean-k-mooney basically this is a case of the new feature was added to neutron a few release ago and the nova side was not done
16:11:56 erlon ok, so I suppose that the blueprint was mostly a formality
16:12:26 sean-k-mooney well no the blueprint is alwasy requried for features like this but the quetion is does it also need a spec
16:13:14 erlon a spec seems a overkill
16:13:15 gibi erlon: does it need any nova API, db, RPC, or object model changes? Does it have upgrade impct?
16:13:33 sean-k-mooney in this particalr case there is not direct api impact. do we want to move this to the opendicussion stection by the way
16:13:36 sean-k-mooney or resolve this now
16:14:16 gibi lets resolve it
16:14:17 sean-k-mooney the reason i say there is no direct api impact is the api bechiaov changes but the requesst does not and i dont think we need a microversion
16:14:28 gibi OK.
16:14:42 gibi I see it depends on a new neutron extension
16:14:42 sean-k-mooney so without this feature you can only reference secuirty groups that are created in your project
16:14:55 erlon @gibi, no, just adds some calls to neutron client
16:15:04 sean-k-mooney with this feature you can use a secrutiy group defiend in another project but shread with your project
16:15:27 sean-k-mooney so before the change you would have got a error and after the vm would boot
16:15:46 gibi sean-k-mooney: that is a reasonable behavior change
16:16:02 sean-k-mooney yep its tradign a vm in error due to SecurityGroupNotFound: Security group 0c649378-1cf8-48e0-9eb4-b72772c35a62 not found. in swpan
16:16:05 sean-k-mooney for a booting vm
16:16:20 sean-k-mooney so i dont think that a breaking change and therfor no api impact
16:17:24 sean-k-mooney gibi: erlon has a patch for review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/811521 and the code changes are confied to the neutorn module in nova
16:17:25 gibi There is a preformance impact discussed in the impl, does that sever enough to pull it out to a spec?
16:17:54 sean-k-mooney the performace impact is 1 addtion call to list security group that are shared with you
16:18:26 gibi as far as I see if you don't use shared SG then you don't have the extra overhead
16:18:36 sean-k-mooney based on the trace back in the bug it got to the comptue manger beforfe that happend
16:18:39 sean-k-mooney so i think that ok
16:18:54 sean-k-mooney am well no we dont know fi its shared or not
16:18:54 gibi OK. I'm not against approving this without a spec
16:19:14 sean-k-mooney but we only need to make the call if neutron has the extention
16:19:34 gibi sean-k-mooney: I mean if the deployment doesn't use share SGs the the first query will find the grouo
16:19:53 gibi scratch it, I'm wrong
16:20:20 sean-k-mooney well if we reorded https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/811521/8/nova/network/neutron.py
16:20:25 sean-k-mooney we proably could avoid that ya
16:20:30 gibi anyhow I'm OK to approve this and continue discussing the impl
16:20:43 gibi do we feel we have chorum without bauzas ?
16:20:45 sean-k-mooney so im not against doing this as specless and ya defering to the gerrit review
16:20:56 sean-k-mooney dansmith: what do you think?
16:21:01 gibi quorum even
16:21:25 sean-k-mooney i dont know if gmann is around either
16:21:42 sean-k-mooney im tentivly ok with saying yes but mabey we can double check next week
16:22:08 sean-k-mooney "yes" -> approve this as specless and move discuuion to gerrit review
16:22:10 gibi OK. lets discuss it next week with the others around
16:22:20 dansmith yeah, sorry, multitasking
16:23:22 gibi ack, lets get back to this next week then
16:23:23 dansmith looks like basic enablement of a neutron feature though,
16:23:41 dansmith so unless it breaks some nova-side model it seems like specless would be fine
16:23:46 gibi OK
16:23:57 dansmith but also think it's probably fine/good to wait for bauzas anyway
16:24:13 gibi then I will let bauzas know that is it OK to approve from our side
16:24:17 dansmith ++
16:24:20 gibi thanks
16:24:58 gibi #action bauzas to approve //blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/shared-security-groups if he don't disagree
16:25:01 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Update and Re-propose "Allow Manila shares to be directly attached to an instance when using libvirt" for Dalmatian https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/913997
16:25:52 gibi tkajinam: I will check https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-traits/+/917713 after the meeting
16:26:07 gibi any other bug to discuss?
16:27:12 tkajinam gibi, thx
16:27:26 gibi moving on
16:27:39 gibi #topic Gate status
16:27:49 gibi #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.tag=gate-failure Nova gate bugs
16:28:03 gibi #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-ci-failures-minimal
16:28:11 gibi #link https://zuul.openstack.org/builds?project=openstack%2Fnova&project=openstack%2Fplacement&pipeline=periodic-weekly Nova&Placement periodic jobs status
16:28:32 gibi emulation job failed on zed and antelope
16:29:02 gibi ohh actually failed on every branch
16:29:27 sean-k-mooney fun anything obvious
16:29:54 gibi this is the master failure https://f267574198a517c003d1-a40b9478ae1bd073dc32f331038fe6d7.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com/periodic-weekly/opendev.org/openstack/nova/master/nova-emulation/825cc9a/testr_results.html
16:30:30 gibi I did not dig deeper
16:30:45 gibi would be nice to see if the failures on each branch are the same or not
16:30:45 auniyal it only adds req-id
16:30:45 auniyal I added this https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/918439 for same - is there a way we can run priodic depends on this ?

Earlier   Later