Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2024-12-30
07:56:48 opendevreview Takashi Natsume proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Replace neutronclient with openstacksdk https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-novaclient/+/932057
10:03:31 opendevreview Michael Still proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: direct SPICE console database changes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/926877
10:03:31 opendevreview Michael Still proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: direct SPICE console object changes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/926876
10:03:32 opendevreview Michael Still proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Add extra spec for sound device. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/926126
10:03:32 opendevreview Michael Still proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: allow direct SPICE connections to qemu https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924844
10:03:33 opendevreview Michael Still proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Add extra specs for USB redirection. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/927354
10:32:07 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova master: [tox] add LOCALE_ARCHIVE to passenv https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/929353
12:07:14 opendevreview Jakub Darmach proposed openstack/nova master: Add context switch chance to other thread during get_available_resources https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/938215
#openstack-nova - 2024-12-31
02:45:59 songwenping hi team, does nova support create vm with special ipv4 and ipv6?
05:35:10 songwenping hi team, does nova support create vm with special ipv4 and ipv6?
08:36:00 frickler songwenping: not sure what you mean by "special", but a vm with both ipv4 and ipv6 is perfectly possible. though the details are likely more of a topic for neutron rather than nova
08:39:55 songwenping not special, appoint. sorry
08:40:58 songwenping i send an email to openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org and attach the error message.
09:00:22 frickler oh, so this is about fixed ips, I see. no idea though, sorry
#openstack-nova - 2025-01-02
07:12:56 frickler just noting this in case someone wants to followup with the submitter https://github.com/openstack/nova/pull/108
11:30:10 opendevreview zhaixiaojuan proposed openstack/nova master: Add loongarch64 support https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/938355
14:12:35 opendevreview Kaloyan Kotlarski proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Fetch the available vCPUs from the respective cgroup https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/927474
14:43:18 opendevreview Kaloyan Kotlarski proposed openstack/nova master: Hardcode the use of iothreads for KVM. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/918669
#openstack-nova - 2025-01-03
10:49:14 opendevreview Kaloyan Kotlarski proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Fetch the available vCPUs from the respective cgroup https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/927474
13:10:05 zigo It fixed https://launchpad.net/bugs/2085709 for us in production !
13:10:05 zigo FYI, I'm vouching for this patch: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/938215
13:48:48 opendevreview Kaloyan Kotlarski proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Fetch the available vCPUs from the respective cgroup https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/927474
15:09:26 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Update driver to deal with managed flag https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/938405
15:09:26 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add managed flag to PCI device specification https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937649
17:18:59 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Migrate VFIO devices using kernel variant drivers https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/937615
#openstack-nova - 2025-01-06
02:07:54 opendevreview Wenping Song proposed openstack/nova master: support create vm with ipv4 and ipv6 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/938427
05:44:26 opendevreview benlei proposed openstack/nova master: Abort live migration task when stop nova compute service https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/938223
08:53:13 nimesh_ Encountered following error in nova logs while trying to attack cinder volume to a vm. Jan 06 12:52:09 root1-10 nova-compute[1281]: DEBUG os_brick.initiator.linuxfc [-] Could not get HBA channel and SCSI target ID, path: /sys/class/fc_transport/target8:*, reason: Unexpected error while running command. Jan 06 12:52:09 root1-10 nova-compute[1281]: Command: grep -Gil "500507681012b195" /sys/class/fc_transport/target8:*/port_name Jan 06 12:52:09 root1
08:56:31 harsh Hello everyone. we are getting the above error in attaching a volume using cinder driver. Has anyone come across this in your environment? we have not made any changes in the switch config or backend config. Our OpenStack deployment is done using DevStack.
08:57:22 sean-k-mooney hum fiberchannel i suspect that is coming form os-brick rather then nova
08:57:45 sean-k-mooney nimesh_:^
08:58:15 sean-k-mooney oh yes its in the message os_brick.initiator.linuxfc
09:00:16 harsh We can see that the host's WWPN : 500507681012b195 is present on the storage backend and when we try to attach a volume directly on the storage backend to this host, it works fine. But on openstack, it triggers the addvdiskhostmap and then immediately triggers rmvdiskhostmap to terminate the host attach.
09:00:37 harsh and so the volume goes from available to reserved and back to available.
09:02:02 sean-k-mooney the cider folks may be able to help more but it sound like the volume is not appearing on the host with the expect identifier
09:02:14 sean-k-mooney i.e 500507681012b195
09:41:30 nimesh_ Thanks for the reference to os_brick.initiator.linuxfc
09:43:10 sean-k-mooney this could be a case where if you could just reboot the compute node it might fix itself. my guess is there is some invlaid state that is preventign the attachemnt fo the volume via the host fiberchannel adapter but i dont really have expecice with FC to say exactly how to detect/fix that
09:43:21 sean-k-mooney although i think a host reboot might resolve it
09:43:45 sean-k-mooney the cider folks have much more expirnce debugging that then we do
12:10:47 aaron Hey Nova folks. I’m trying to figure out how I can migrate a VM from a Centos 8 Stream system to an Ubuntu 22 host. Both running Yoga. The main issue I have right now is that the VM uses machine type 'pc-i440fx-rhel7.6.0' which isn't available on my Ubuntu host. Does anyone have any ideas on how I can work around this, or perhaps if I've missed any Nova tricks to get this working? I am trying to avoid recompiling qemu with the rhel m
13:13:04 sean-k-mooney aaron: unfortunetly the only way to do that is to cold migrate
13:13:30 sean-k-mooney that for two reasons 1 the machine type and 2 the qemu instnace path is diffent on centos vs ubunutu
13:13:40 sean-k-mooney so we cant live migrate but cold migrate will work
13:14:37 sean-k-mooney the fact its currently using the rhel specific pc machine type means that there is not operturnity to live migrate the instnace as that cannot be changed while the guest is running.
13:21:42 sean-k-mooney bauzas: this sound kind of like my boreign host weigher https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/image-metadata-props-weigher a weigher idea. not quite the same but similar. i wanted to select the most boring host based on traits rather then image properties. i also suggesstign adding image/flavor affinity weigher that would prefer packing/spreading instnace based on the
13:21:44 sean-k-mooney image/flavor they request and the instance already on a host in this case i guess you wanted to pack/spread isntance based on the image propeies on the current instance adn those requested by instances alredy ona host
13:25:45 sean-k-mooney we do have access to the instnace on a host already in the hoststate object
13:25:57 bauzas sean-k-mooney: not sure I understand what you say
13:26:00 bauzas sorry
13:26:22 bauzas sean-k-mooney: which host weigher are you explaining ?
13:27:12 sean-k-mooney so for hte last couple of release i have been debating adding 3 new weigher based on internal converstaion and customer bugs
13:27:44 sean-k-mooney the 3 i was condiering implemtiing were a image affinity weigher, flavor affinity weigher and boaring host weigher
13:27:54 sean-k-mooney the image propertiy weigher in https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/image-metadata-props-weigher
13:28:06 sean-k-mooney sounds like its similar to those in intent
13:28:46 sean-k-mooney i assume the intent is ot look at the image propertites in the current request and prefer or avoid host that have instnace with the same properites correct?
13:29:19 bauzas ah, ok
13:29:29 sean-k-mooney so rather then soft affinity/anti based on the flavor/image have soft affinity/antiaffinty based on the image properites
13:30:03 sean-k-mooney so you can pack/spread similar image in this case OS_TYPE=windows it the motivating example
13:30:15 bauzas yeah indeed, some *people* would want to be able to have Windows instances in some hosts
13:30:20 bauzas like, being packed
13:30:30 sean-k-mooney but without forcing it right
13:30:34 bauzas exactly
13:31:08 bauzas just because of the money you need to pass to Microsoft :)
13:31:09 sean-k-mooney and would this use host aggrate metadata or just the instnace on the host
13:31:34 bauzas I discussed about the aggregate with the *people*
13:32:00 sean-k-mooney ok the reason i asked that is i could see both as options but i think this would be the first aggrate aware weigher
13:32:09 sean-k-mooney its not actully a blocker either way
13:32:10 bauzas but the problem with aggregates is that you need to know *how many* hosts you will need to use per the aggregate (for example for Windows)
13:32:11 sean-k-mooney just wondering
13:32:31 sean-k-mooney ya so that why i was wondier if we woudl od this more organically
13:32:45 sean-k-mooney by looking at the instance already on a host rather then using aggreate metadata
13:32:51 bauzas of course, you can add a new host to an existing aggregate, but if you want to remove one host from an aggregate, then you need to move the instances
13:33:07 sean-k-mooney not nessiasrly
13:33:17 bauzas that's why they prefer to have a way to pack the windows instances
13:33:20 sean-k-mooney well ya kind of
13:33:31 bauzas without creating aggs
13:33:58 sean-k-mooney so i would be inclided ot do this without relying on aggreats
13:34:47 sean-k-mooney the image affiinity weigher i was condierding was a more restrctive version of that i.e. it would only look at the image uuid rather the the perperteis and try and pack/sptread based on that
13:35:31 sean-k-mooney if i was to implement https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/image-metadata-props-weigher i would not depend on host aggartes or provide two diffent implamtions
13:36:20 sean-k-mooney one that looked at the instnace already on the host and a second that would look at metadat on the hosts aggreates
13:37:09 sean-k-mooney but i think as an operator i woudl want this to work more or less automatically without requireing me to add aggreate metadata or a lot of config
13:37:16 bauzas exactly
13:37:36 bauzas that's what I wrote in the description
13:37:57 sean-k-mooney well the reason i started this converstaion is i did not find the descript partically clear
13:38:05 bauzas ha
13:38:27 sean-k-mooney i could read between the lines but if you wanted to ask for a specless blueprint tomorrwo i think you need a clearer description
13:38:34 bauzas well, I wrote the problem and I explained why aggregates can be used but why we need to create a new weigher
13:38:49 bauzas without using such aggs
13:38:49 sean-k-mooney so "That's why we would like to create a specific ImageMetadataPropsWeigher for looking at how many instances have a specific prop and then operators could use it for that case or for something else (like packing instances by machine types)"
13:38:52 sean-k-mooney the last line
13:38:58 sean-k-mooney is really want you want ot do right
13:39:11 sean-k-mooney it was not clear to me that you wanted to avoid aggreates
13:39:24 bauzas I can surely modify the description :)
13:40:41 sean-k-mooney if you can add someting explict like "This blueprint propsoes addign a new weigher that will pack/spread instance based on teh image properies requested by the instance and the image propeteis of existing instnace on indivugale hosts"
13:40:47 sean-k-mooney then i think it will be fine
13:42:06 sean-k-mooney the other comment i have is more na implemation detail but since all weigher are enabeld by default the multipler for this oen should likely be 0 to avoid any upgrade impact and then +/- can be used for spread/pack
13:43:07 bauzas sean-k-mooney: done :)
13:43:20 sean-k-mooney im in two minds about if this shoudl requrie a spec or not but i assuem we will discuss that in the team metting tomorow
13:43:39 sean-k-mooney i dont think its particallary contoverial

Earlier   Later