| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-02-15 | |||
| 21:23:46 | opendevreview | Vasyl Saienko proposed openstack/nova master: Do not review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941823 | |
| 22:40:48 | opendevreview | Vasyl Saienko proposed openstack/nova master: Do not review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941823 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2025-02-16 | |||
| 08:06:07 | opendevreview | Vasyl Saienko proposed openstack/nova master: Do not review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941823 | |
| 10:07:28 | opendevreview | Vasyl Saienko proposed openstack/nova master: Do not review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941823 | |
| 10:23:11 | opendevreview | Vasyl Saienko proposed openstack/nova master: Do not review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941823 | |
| 10:34:31 | opendevreview | Vasyl Saienko proposed openstack/nova master: Do not review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941823 | |
| 11:06:05 | vsaienko | sean-k-mooney[m]: can you please restore this patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/471815, I'll updated it | |
| 19:09:32 | opendevreview | Vasyl Saienko proposed openstack/nova master: Add trunk subports to network metadata https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941227 | |
| 19:42:15 | opendevreview | Vasyl Saienko proposed openstack/nova master: Do not review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941823 | |
| 20:46:30 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: api-ref update: Move the service APIs in a separate section https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/864655 | |
| 20:46:57 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Add service role context in policy tests https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/864594 | |
| 21:10:19 | opendevreview | Vasyl Saienko proposed openstack/nova master: Add trunk subports to network metadata https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941227 | |
| 21:10:20 | opendevreview | Vasyl Saienko proposed openstack/nova master: Do not review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941823 | |
| 21:26:03 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: api-ref update: Move the service APIs in a separate section https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/864655 | |
| 21:26:37 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Add service role in server_external_events API https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/892633 | |
| 21:27:00 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Default os-assisted-volume-snapshots APIs to service role https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/892635 | |
| 22:39:42 | opendevreview | Vasyl Saienko proposed openstack/nova master: Do not review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941823 | |
| 22:54:53 | opendevreview | Vasyl Saienko proposed openstack/nova master: Do not review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941823 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2025-02-17 | |||
| 03:26:20 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/os-vif master: Deprecate linux bridge plugin https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/941585 | |
| 03:58:13 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/os-vif master: Deprecate linux bridge plugin https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/941585 | |
| 11:23:43 | gibi | dansmith, sean-k-mooney (maybe bauzas) can we get this over the line https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22bug/2097359%22 It is very closem | |
| 11:24:40 | sean-k-mooney | so the only reason i didnt +w the bottom patch is i would like all 3 to merge togehter ot for the latter two to be squashed | |
| 11:24:57 | sean-k-mooney | i am +2 on all 3 | |
| 11:25:19 | gibi | I see, thanks. Then we need dansmith | |
| 11:26:31 | sean-k-mooney | the second patch does not account for instnaces partly migrated by my intail fix patch which is why the thrid patch is imporant IMO | |
| 11:31:12 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: yes 3rd is important, dansmith asked me to do it separately as it has bit more invasive changes hence the 3 separate patch | |
| 11:31:21 | gibi | I will keep them separate but I'm OK to land them as a whole | |
| 11:31:32 | sean-k-mooney | ack | |
| 12:38:29 | opendevreview | Vasyl Saienko proposed openstack/nova master: Do not review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941823 | |
| 12:42:02 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: gibi https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/939476 is the change to disable the heal info cache perodic | |
| 12:42:27 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: bauzas: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/938523 is the review for the schduler discover host perodic change | |
| 12:42:56 | sean-k-mooney | can we try and get those approved today? | |
| 12:47:59 | stephenfin | sure | |
| 13:21:07 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: sent to the gate, thanks | |
| 13:21:57 | bauzas | btw. can some other core like gibi look at disabling heal_instance_info cache https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/939476 ? | |
| 14:28:51 | dansmith | gibi: sorry didn't realize I hadn't circled back to that. looks like the bottom two are in the gate right? I'll get the third one in a bit after coffee | |
| 14:36:09 | gibi | dansmith: thanks | |
| 14:36:49 | gibi | dansmith: the first patch also needs a +w, but it is OK to get it after you reviewed the 3rd patch | |
| 14:37:36 | tkajinam | sean-k-mooney, hi could you re-review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/931582 when you have time ? | |
| 14:37:56 | tkajinam | I had to add the ugly mock to fix failures caused by openstacksdk (which internally calls the same psutil interface) | |
| 14:38:29 | sean-k-mooney | i tought we merged that already so sure | |
| 14:39:05 | tkajinam | thanks ! | |
| 14:39:13 | tkajinam | and also thanks for the discussions in os-vif patch | |
| 14:39:48 | sean-k-mooney | i still need to create the deprecation patch for nova that disable the linux bridge job | |
| 14:39:55 | sean-k-mooney | i assume you dont have one for that | |
| 14:40:03 | sean-k-mooney | i added the topic to the irc meeting for tomorrow | |
| 14:40:04 | tkajinam | you are correct | |
| 14:40:14 | sean-k-mooney | ack ill push one later today | |
| 14:40:32 | sean-k-mooney | im hoping we can get them merged tomorrow or wednesday and then do a release of os-vif | |
| 14:40:45 | tkajinam | that sounds nice ! | |
| 16:46:15 | opendevreview | Vasyl Saienko proposed openstack/nova master: Do not review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941823 | |
| 17:20:59 | bauzas | dansmith: you had good concerns on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941601 | |
| 17:21:07 | bauzas | can I try to clarify what I wrote ? | |
| 17:21:46 | bauzas | because I stupidely copy/pasted a lot of docstrings from the metrics conf option which led to confusion | |
| 17:22:59 | bauzas | basically, with https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941601/1/nova/scheduler/weights/image_props.py the weight is a sum of subweights dependent on the per-property weigh | |
| 17:23:32 | bauzas | that weight would then be multiplied by the main conf option | |
| 17:24:11 | bauzas | so, yes, properties would be weighed between themselves, but then the main image_props_weight_multiplier would balance the weighed value against other weighers | |
| 17:25:39 | bauzas | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941601/1/nova/tests/unit/scheduler/weights/test_weights_image_props.py shows you that | |
| 17:26:25 | bauzas | I just configured the weight multiplier to 1.0 to keep it understandable, but say if I was using 2.0 for the multiplier, then each of the host weights would be doubled | |
| 17:26:43 | dansmith | bauzas: replied to the comments on the firs tone | |
| 17:28:16 | bauzas | okay, I think I then need to upload the first patch | |
| 18:15:11 | opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: Add a new ImagePropertiesWeigher https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940642 | |
| 18:15:12 | opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: per-property ImageMetaPropsWeigher https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941601 | |
| 18:16:26 | dansmith | bauzas: were you going to snip out the reno from the first patch or no? didn't see a reply about that, but otherwise ^ looks good | |
| 18:17:05 | bauzas | dansmith: well, I just amended the original reno file with the latter patch | |
| 18:17:22 | bauzas | so depending on what we merge, we'll either have one note or an amended note | |
| 18:17:47 | dansmith | alright, I guess I thought that was less good but fair enough | |
| 18:17:54 | bauzas | that said, if the latter goes merged after FF, then we could potentially need to create another reno | |
| 18:18:07 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: Uggla i replied in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937649 what gibi found is a bug. i also explaind why false and "false" have different behavior | |
| 18:19:03 | sean-k-mooney | tl;dr it because we do a json load on the dict because its really a multioptStr with json content | |
| 18:19:09 | sean-k-mooney | https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1915282 | |
| 18:20:18 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas:... i didn hit reply on my comment this morning | |
| 18:20:33 | sean-k-mooney | but ill check if they are stilll relevent or not | |
| 18:21:17 | sean-k-mooney | sort of but not worth a respin unless your fixing somethign else | |
| 18:22:53 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: if its after FF then it would be a seperate releae note anyway because the behavior would differ across release | |
| 18:23:01 | sean-k-mooney | but amending it is fine IMO | |
| 18:23:26 | sean-k-mooney | as long as its i nthe same release i think that is preferable | |
| 18:23:41 | bauzas | I need to hardstop now, I'm basically fried | |
| 18:23:53 | bauzas | but I'll look at your comments tomorrow for sure | |
| 18:24:19 | bauzas | and yeah for the reno, it was just a tradeoff : if we merge both, that's simplier than an additional note | |
| 18:24:44 | bauzas | if we can only merge the bottom patch, then I'll respin for not breaking our release notes | |
| 18:25:07 | sean-k-mooney | i think im +2 on the first patch as well but im goign to step away for a sec and ill reivew both properly when i get back and leave +w then to gibi | |
| 18:52:05 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: i commeted on teh normailzeation for what its worth i think the code is correct | |
| 18:54:55 | dansmith | I don't think the code is wrong as-is, it's just not what I was expecting | |
| 18:55:10 | dansmith | I think it's also not wrong to normalize the actual ratio values | |
| 18:55:56 | dansmith | totally independent of the cross-weigher normalization that happens | |
| 18:56:12 | sean-k-mooney | correct but there is also intra weigher nomralistaion | |
| 18:57:05 | sean-k-mooney | before the corss weigher nomalisation hapens we normaliase the wighet for each whost within a weigher | |
| 18:57:25 | sean-k-mooney | this was added for the disk weigher orgianlly but we did it geneically for all weighers | |
| 18:58:50 | dansmith | um, maybe I'm missing something | |
| 18:59:35 | dansmith | if I set os_distro=5000 then it will score os_distro on the same scale as like disk usage or any other weigher in this situation, no? | |
| 18:59:48 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/weights.py#L144-L146 takes all the final restuls for a given wieher and normaises them in a range of -1 to 1 | |
| 19:00:00 | sean-k-mooney | no it wont | |
| 19:01:02 | sean-k-mooney | for that host it that was all that was set 5000 would be the result of the wight for tha host | |
| 19:01:34 | sean-k-mooney | then we will get the min/max values fo the weigher and normalise the weighte to the range for 0-1.0 | |
| 19:01:36 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/weights.py#L144-L146 | |
| 19:02:16 | dansmith | okay I didn't think it worked that way, but that's good.. why can't we just use integers for the per-property weights then? Just seems cleaner than floats (as I noted on an earlier patch) | |
| 19:02:28 | sean-k-mooney | we can | |
| 19:02:42 | sean-k-mooney | it does not need to be a flot but it was for the metrics weigher | |
| 19:02:54 | sean-k-mooney | so that you could exprss 0.5 | |