| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-03-18 | |||
| 16:19:07 | elodilles | nothing to say ;) | |
| 16:19:20 | elodilles | stable gates were quiet this week :) | |
| 16:19:35 | elodilles | i guess due to RC1 rush | |
| 16:19:43 | sean-k-mooney | we probaly will want to do some stable release in the next week or two | |
| 16:19:58 | sean-k-mooney | but obvioulsy finishing 2025.1 is the higher priority | |
| 16:20:04 | elodilles | sean-k-mooney: sure, we can do that | |
| 16:20:15 | elodilles | indeed, 2025.1 is the top prio right now | |
| 16:20:21 | elodilles | and for the coming 2 weeks ;) | |
| 16:20:26 | sean-k-mooney | once that done its good to look at the stable branch and see if any have patches that should be put in a release | |
| 16:20:49 | elodilles | especially as stable/2023.2 (bobcat) will move to End of Life | |
| 16:20:56 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 16:21:03 | sean-k-mooney | do we have a deadlien for that? | |
| 16:21:06 | elodilles | and will be deleted ~1 month after 2025.1 Epoxy release | |
| 16:21:16 | elodilles | sean-k-mooney: ^^^ that | |
| 16:21:19 | sean-k-mooney | :) | |
| 16:21:41 | elodilles | and we should not leave the release at the deadline | |
| 16:22:00 | elodilles | in case we deliver some regression we cannot fix that anymore | |
| 16:22:04 | sean-k-mooney | right we should proably try to do a stable review spritn in like 3 weeks | |
| 16:22:16 | elodilles | which is unlikely, but let's not leave a chance for that ;) | |
| 16:22:30 | elodilles | sean-k-mooney: +1 | |
| 16:23:02 | elodilles | so yeah, that's all about stable i think | |
| 16:23:49 | Uggla | thx @elodilles, so moving on. | |
| 16:24:12 | elodilles | and some of them are waiting for a 2nd +2 if i'm not mistaken o:) | |
| 16:25:01 | gibi | :) | |
| 16:25:29 | Uggla | probably some FUP from my side too... | |
| 16:26:08 | Uggla | ok next topic | |
| 16:26:10 | Uggla | #topic vmwareapi 3rd-party CI efforts Highlights | |
| 16:26:20 | Uggla | #info Investigating another regression on the network side | |
| 16:26:39 | fwiesel | Hi, no update from my side. I am currently on sick leave, so no probably no updates next week either. | |
| 16:26:45 | Uggla | fwiesel, if you want to say something. that's your turn. | |
| 16:26:59 | sean-k-mooney | fwiesel: no worreis, you proably shoudl go rest so instead of being on irc | |
| 16:27:10 | sean-k-mooney | fwiesel: dont feel pressuered to be here if your unwell | |
| 16:27:27 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/nova stable/2025.1: Update .gitreview for stable/2025.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944888 | |
| 16:27:31 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/nova stable/2025.1: Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/2025.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944889 | |
| 16:27:35 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/nova master: Update master for stable/2025.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944890 | |
| 16:27:44 | fwiesel | No, no problem. | |
| 16:28:05 | fwiesel | I take it slowly. So, that's from my side. | |
| 16:28:13 | fwiesel | Back to you Uggla. | |
| 16:29:07 | Uggla | fwiesel, take it easy, I wish you a prompt recovery. | |
| 16:29:46 | Uggla | #topic Open discussion | |
| 16:30:45 | ishanwar[m] | https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2027156 | |
| 16:30:45 | ishanwar[m] | #topic Bug #2027156 Low hanging fruit | |
| 16:30:46 | Uggla | I know @bauzas wants to discuss about being release liaison. I think this is to make the next release point easier. | |
| 16:31:08 | bauzas | oh, it was just because I miss my PTL-Approval gerrit label :D | |
| 16:31:30 | bauzas | and I want to know if anyone has concerns with me continuing to do release liaison ? | |
| 16:31:50 | gibi | having redundancy in our staffing to push a release make sense to me | |
| 16:32:09 | Uggla | no pb on my side. | |
| 16:32:10 | sean-k-mooney | not really, we are allowed to chnage that at any time during the release os we can just propsoe the patch | |
| 16:32:14 | elodilles | +2 from me too | |
| 16:32:15 | sean-k-mooney | and dicuss it ther | |
| 16:32:32 | sean-k-mooney | ishanwar[m]: we will loop back ot you next | |
| 16:32:38 | bauzas | cool cool, then I'll propose myself :) | |
| 16:32:51 | bauzas | that was short and quick :) | |
| 16:32:56 | ishanwar[m] | sean-k-mooney: sure | |
| 16:33:30 | Uggla | so I think we can discuss ishanwar[m] topic. | |
| 16:33:48 | Uggla | ishanwar[m], please go ahead. | |
| 16:34:29 | ishanwar[m] | I wanted to have a discussion on https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2027156 | |
| 16:34:35 | dansmith | that doesn't look like low-hanging fruit to me :) | |
| 16:34:47 | dansmith | is there a review up? | |
| 16:35:05 | ishanwar[m] | no I am still working on it | |
| 16:35:38 | dansmith | okay, if the quota api is not something that we can guarantee is available, then we have to have all the code we have today in nova, plus new code to use the api if present, right? | |
| 16:35:40 | ishanwar[m] | wanted to discuss if I understood it correctly,... (full message at <https://matrix.org/oftc/media/v1/media/download/AZZiNbMs1GZbZLUOwiWvG2I_Dg7_qJ2sHecbqrafIK6K_9GcmEgBnqAHwcu-vfVKIV_6lx6PmdvT59UIS_UEVuBCeV8jVjWgAG1hdHJpeC5vcmcvekZxaUt3b3hkYnpmanJ2dkZqQ2lESFJY>) | |
| 16:36:30 | ishanwar[m] | as the candidate for change but i am not sure, if we are counting in ports in that function. | |
| 16:36:30 | ishanwar[m] | the bug mentions https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/network/neutron.py#L2654 | |
| 16:36:39 | ishanwar[m] | am i right ? | |
| 16:37:15 | sean-k-mooney | so part of the problem is the orginal bug report does not use permalinks | |
| 16:37:28 | sean-k-mooney | so they dont nessiarly link to the correct code any more | |
| 16:37:28 | dansmith | ishanwar[m]: that bug was filed by a neutron person so I suspect we won't be able to answer your question authoritatively without really digging in | |
| 16:38:08 | sean-k-mooney | ishanwar[m]: you are correct that validate_networks does use the quota api already https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/network/neutron.py#L2714 | |
| 16:38:50 | sean-k-mooney | i guess the real quetion is do we use that in all places we do quota checks | |
| 16:39:05 | sean-k-mooney | this was orginaly reported downstream for trian | |
| 16:39:13 | sean-k-mooney | so its very possibel that htis was fixed already in master | |
| 16:39:25 | ishanwar[m] | Yes correct, but it's still listing all ports to count them, rather than using show_quota_details, right ? | |
| 16:40:07 | sean-k-mooney | we do a port list in get_requested_resource_for_instance | |
| 16:40:43 | sean-k-mooney | but that not listing all ports for the porject | |
| 16:40:49 | ishanwar[m] | sean-k-mooney: not sure if this is fixed elsewhere, I was only able to find one usage of len(ports) | |
| 16:40:52 | sean-k-mooney | that is geting port for the current instnace wihch is fine | |
| 16:41:03 | ishanwar[m] | sean-k-mooney: yes | |
| 16:41:16 | dansmith | we fetch the quota, but we do our own usage calculation it looks like | |
| 16:41:31 | sean-k-mooney | oh its this second call https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/network/neutron.py#L2721 | |
| 16:41:42 | dansmith | we don't ask if the quota is exceeded, we ask what the quota is and then sum the current+new and see if it's over | |
| 16:41:45 | sean-k-mooney | that ^ is the line that shoudl be updated | |
| 16:41:49 | ishanwar[m] | dansmith: yes in https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/network/neutron.py#L2714 | |
| 16:41:49 | ishanwar[m] | we are still counting all the ports | |
| 16:42:06 | sean-k-mooney | ishanwar[m]: so the bug is this | |
| 16:42:23 | sean-k-mooney | there is another extention that gives use both the quota and the uses cont in one call | |
| 16:42:34 | ishanwar[m] | yes correct, i think we can use show_quota_details here right ? | |
| 16:42:42 | ishanwar[m] | sean-k-mooney: which one ? | |
| 16:42:48 | sean-k-mooney | so instead of getting all the ports for the curent project just to count them we can use show_quota_details | |
| 16:43:02 | sean-k-mooney | ishanwar[m]: so the performace bug is still there | |
| 16:43:04 | dansmith | ...if available | |
| 16:43:07 | sean-k-mooney | on this line https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/6042300453411133652dd8d3b789f5057a084075/nova/network/neutron.py#L2721 | |
| 16:43:24 | sean-k-mooney | but ya as dan impleid we have to fall back if the extension is not there | |
| 16:43:45 | dansmith | it's also racy either way, which is unfortunate | |
| 16:43:55 | ishanwar[m] | so we can use a try catch mech to check if the extension is available or not | |
| 16:43:55 | ishanwar[m] | sean-k-mooney: correct I agree | |
| 16:44:06 | ishanwar[m] | dansmith: oh, how is that ? | |
| 16:44:27 | dansmith | ishanwar[m]: if we calculate the quota, allow to proceed and other things in parallel use more quota, we'll be wrong and run out of quota while actually creating the ports | |
| 16:45:06 | dansmith | since we already need to handle that, why check quota at all? Just try to create the ports and roll back if you run out.. I guess maybe to provide a quick answer via API, but it will never be guaranteed | |
| 16:45:25 | sean-k-mooney | well we do prot creation on the comptues | |