Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2024-07-23
16:22:06 bauzas__ okay, I'll tell about that again next week
16:22:12 bauzas__ that's it for me
16:22:23 weanew Hi! I've submitted a patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/923395 Could someone take a look at it please?
16:22:25 bauzas__ anything else people want to discuss ?
16:22:47 bauzas__ weanew: we try to avoid review requests during nova meetings
16:22:59 sean-k-mooney that is a pretty old bug
16:23:15 sean-k-mooney and im not sure its one we really want to fix
16:24:02 sean-k-mooney i dont have time today to review but it will depend on the perfomace impact of the fix
16:24:11 sean-k-mooney we proably dot want to downcall to all cells for example
16:25:47 sean-k-mooney with that said ill try and review it properly in the next few days
16:26:02 sean-k-mooney if there is nothign else i think we can close the meeting
16:26:41 weanew Thank you, I don't have quations
16:26:57 bauzas__ cool
16:27:04 bauzas__ then we can close this meeting
16:27:06 bauzas__ thanks all
16:27:09 opendevmeet Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2024/nova.2024-07-23-16.00.log.html
16:27:09 opendevmeet Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2024/nova.2024-07-23-16.00.txt
16:27:09 opendevmeet Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2024/nova.2024-07-23-16.00.html
16:27:09 opendevmeet Meeting ended Tue Jul 23 16:27:09 2024 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
16:27:09 bauzas__ #endmeeting
16:27:32 fwiesel thanks a lot
16:32:34 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [DNM] testing nova-live-migation fix https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924762
16:34:04 opendevreview Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Follow up for "libvirt: AMD SEV-ES support" https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/924563
16:38:38 tkajinam bauzas: Could you check the follow up of SEV-ES spec when you have time ? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/924563
16:39:10 tkajinam I left the comment in it as well as https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/907702 (original one)
16:39:51 clarkb frickler: I think the correct fix is to bump https://opendev.org/openstack/requirements/src/branch/stable/2023.1/upper-constraints.txt#L339 to package 22.0 or newer
16:40:03 clarkb and note that I expect 2023.1 is broken and not just unmaintained
16:40:13 clarkb due to upper contraints specifying 21.3 there
16:41:05 sean-k-mooney fun are there fixes in flight for that
16:42:09 clarkb not that I am aware of. The only thing I've seen is the patch taht disable the dbcounter which isn't really a fix
16:42:18 clarkb https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/4483 is the upstream issue fwiw
16:45:46 sean-k-mooney so we could fix this by pinning setuptools on stable until they move to unmaintainted
16:45:54 sean-k-mooney welll or after i guess
16:46:04 sean-k-mooney specificlay 2023.1 and older
16:46:25 clarkb no you cannot pin setuptools
16:46:30 sean-k-mooney no ?
16:46:42 sean-k-mooney i know we cant do it in requrieemnts
16:46:54 clarkb setuptools must be installed before your package installations occur. It is a chicken and egg problem unless you use pyproject.toml universally (which we do not)
16:46:58 sean-k-mooney but cant we do it explcitly in the jobs to <70.0.0
16:47:05 clarkb no
16:47:17 sean-k-mooney ok cause im pretty sure we pinned in in the past
16:47:20 clarkb I mean maybe you could make the ci jobs do that but it is a bad approach because you can't do that in the outside world
16:47:25 sean-k-mooney im aware of the chicken and egg situration
16:47:38 clarkb its the wrong approach until you switch to pyproject.toml
16:47:48 clarkb once you do that you can specify what packages you need to build and install your package
16:47:50 sean-k-mooney well the other option is to raise the min of packaging on stable
16:48:02 clarkb until then you need to assume someone is pulling latest setuptools and it will explode for them
16:48:06 sean-k-mooney which we coudl do but its agaisnt stable policy to raise miniums
16:48:22 clarkb yes this is a perfect example of where that policy should probably be bent
16:48:42 clarkb the software is broken as is. The fix is to change the constraints. Policy shouldn't stand in the way of that
16:48:50 sean-k-mooney is there a patch to do that? it would be good to get ci results and see what the fallout is
16:49:32 clarkb I am not aware of any such patch
17:07:51 clarkb I ended up pushing https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/924764
17:08:19 clarkb We can see if testing works and take it from there
17:40:28 sean-k-mooney clarkb: sorry was on an internal call but yes that is what i was thinking of doing too
17:43:28 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: update nova-live-migration to use corrrect disk-formats https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924746
17:43:57 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [DNM] testing nova-live-migation fix https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924762
18:05:50 opendevreview Merged openstack/os-vif master: Remove old excludes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/917611
18:45:37 opendevreview Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: Test additional AMI exclusion https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924775
18:45:47 dansmith sean-k-mooney: we can squash this ^ if it works
18:46:02 dansmith might as well start the check timer on it while we look further
18:57:49 sean-k-mooney ack
19:19:18 _colby Hey All. We have been runing vGPU on openstack Yoga on centos 8 just fine. We recently added a new hypervisor and went with centos9 since 8 has been moved to EOL. The node with CentOS9 seems to be acting very differently. Its creating all the resource providers (even though we specify the addresses to use in nove). Are there issues with the software versionf of libvirt in centos 9 that are causing issues?
19:38:13 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: Change force_format strategy to catch mismatches https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924731
19:57:34 _colby also when we attempt to spin up a vgpu instance it does not seem to be creating any of the mediated devices. Is there a way to get this working on centos9? We plan to upgrade openstack versions soo but would like to get this hypervisor running
20:00:04 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/2024.1: Change force_format strategy to catch mismatches https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924732
20:03:04 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/2024.1: Change force_format strategy to catch mismatches https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924732
20:03:54 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/2023.2: Change force_format strategy to catch mismatches https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924733
20:05:47 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/2023.1: Change force_format strategy to catch mismatches https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924734
20:07:30 sean-k-mooney _colby: it is possibel to use vgpus on centos 9 however nvidia chagned the feature set for some of there existign gpus in later driver version and remvoed vgpu support for some older cards
20:07:45 sean-k-mooney _colby: that may be whaat you are encoutering but im not sure
20:08:43 _colby we are using A40 cardsd
20:09:33 _colby I did upgrade the nvidia drivers from the other hypervisors
20:17:14 _colby Ill try reverting nvidia software version to match other hypervisors and see what happens
20:22:19 sean-k-mooney _colby: bauzas know more about this then i do and might be able to tell you what version things changed in
20:22:43 sean-k-mooney _colby: but they are based in france and done for today so they may be able to respond in the morning
20:28:37 _colby ok thanks @sean-k-mooney
21:23:11 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova master: conf: Clarify '[api] response_validation help' text https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924501
23:39:59 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova master: Change force_format strategy to catch mismatches https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924731
#openstack-nova - 2024-07-24
05:41:53 ykarel Hi after https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924731 - Change force_format strategy to catch mismatches
05:42:07 ykarel many tests are failing involving snapshot/rescue, is this something known already?
05:43:56 ykarel may be now as don't see any recent bug for it, will report
05:57:28 ykarel reported https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2073944
06:11:06 ralonsoh sean-k-mooney, ^
06:11:18 ralonsoh bauzas, ^
06:11:33 ralonsoh upsss maybe you didn't see the message
06:11:39 ralonsoh https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2073944
06:11:46 ralonsoh since https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924731
07:18:35 opendevreview Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: test downstream cross repo testing https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924823
07:59:23 sean-k-mooney ralonsoh: is that on neutron ci
08:00:15 sean-k-mooney ykarel: ralonsoh: if i recall correctly neutron is using the uec images (ami format) and has not neessialy configure tempest correctly for that
08:00:36 ralonsoh let me check that
08:01:40 sean-k-mooney https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/master/zuul.d/tempest-multinode.yaml#L89-L90
08:02:49 ralonsoh sean-k-mooney, that change was to address https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1939108
08:02:51 sean-k-mooney tempest is by default configured ot expect qcow
08:02:53 ralonsoh https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/916629
08:03:29 sean-k-mooney ralonsoh: right we have since determined that, using the uec image does not actully fix the probelm
08:03:44 sean-k-mooney it makes it less likely but we did it last cycle and the issue didnt go away for us
08:03:58 ralonsoh sean-k-mooney, ok, I'll revert the neutron patch then
08:05:10 sean-k-mooney reverting is one approch the other is to set the approrate disk/container formats in the tempest config

Earlier   Later