| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-07-02 | |||
| 20:37:55 | clarkb | (that is because rackspace doesn't do metadata in the way normal clouds do iirc and they don't have their custom image for noble yet (or ever) so the only way it works with standard tools is config drive) | |
| 20:39:09 | clarkb | naively I'm not sure what the issue is. From the end user standpoint config drive is simple and bullet proof | |
| 20:40:26 | clarkb | the ability to mount iso9660 or fat32 devices is near univeral, the data is small and static. Using a complicated api service that requires hosts know how to magically negotiate a protocal more complicated than `mount` is always going to be more error prone. | |
| 20:40:53 | clarkb | iirc there are layers of proxies involved ont he backend too (which I want to say was the assumed source of the flakyness when we shifted all our ci nodes to config drive) | |
| 21:00:54 | mikal | I am not sure there is an issue, I am just surprised given config drive was meant to be a temporary fix which seems to have "rusted on". If it's genuinely around forever it could probably do with some love. | |
| 21:07:30 | clarkb | I think the primary downside to config drive is that it consumes one of your disk slots. I know this is a problem for Xen. Not sure about KVM | |
| 21:08:11 | clarkb | with Xen you only get something like 16 disks. One of which is implicitly owned by the root disk then config drive consumes a second. This limits you to 14 devices which may limit the total storage attachable to the instance if you also have volume size limits | |
| #openstack-nova - 2025-07-03 | |||
| 01:45:58 | sean-k-mooney[m] | i dont think we should supprot the dmi info at all | |
| 01:46:28 | sean-k-mooney[m] | its a libvirt internal implation detail so im really not a fan of building on that for config drive or any other metadata mechanium | |
| 01:47:12 | sean-k-mooney[m] | i certainly dont want to rush into adding supprot for this as a bug fix without propper discussion as this si an undocumjented internal detail | |
| 01:51:04 | sean-k-mooney[m] | if your using virtio-scsi you can have 100s of disks if needed but iconfig drive does consume a pci/pcie sloct by default but iits not generally a problem | |
| 06:43:33 | mikal | sean-k-mooney[m]: I finally have all the USB and sound changes passing CI, so that's nice. | |
| 09:00:03 | Uggla | sean-k-mooney[m], fyi I did a first review pass on 953940: support iothread for nova vms | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/953940 | |
| 09:25:49 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney[m]: honestly, I'd prefer to leave the current owner to provide a new revision from him | |
| 09:54:34 | mikal | For what its worth, https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22libvirt-vdi%22 is a series of four patches all with passing CI and a +2 on them if someone has a spare minute or two. | |
| 10:01:26 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: well i wanted to hevilaly revise there proposal, also i have propsoed thie in some form twice before so i wrote it form scratch based on my prior exploration of this in past cycles | |
| 10:38:14 | opendevreview | Alexey Stupnikov proposed openstack/nova master: Don't create instance_extra entry for deleted instance https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/412771 | |
| 11:49:18 | opendevreview | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Show finish_time field in instance action show https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/929780 | |
| 12:10:16 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova-specs master: support iothread for nova vms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/953940 | |
| 12:43:01 | opendevreview | Biser Milanov proposed openstack/nova master: Hardcode the use of iothreads for KVM. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/918669 | |
| 12:43:31 | opendevreview | Biser Milanov proposed openstack/nova master: Hardcode the use of iothreads for KVM. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/918669 | |
| 12:54:22 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Warn on long task wait time for executor https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/952666 | |
| 12:54:22 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Run nova-api and -metadata in threaded mode https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/951957 | |
| 12:54:23 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Run unit test with threading mode https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/953475 | |
| 12:54:23 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Allow to start unit test without eventlet https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/953436 | |
| 12:54:24 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: [test]RPC using threading or eventlet selectively https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/953815 | |
| 12:59:19 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Do not yield in threading mode https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/950994 | |
| 12:59:20 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Warn on long task wait time for executor https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/952666 | |
| 12:59:20 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Run nova-api and -metadata in threaded mode https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/951957 | |
| 12:59:21 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Run unit test with threading mode https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/953475 | |
| 12:59:21 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Allow to start unit test without eventlet https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/953436 | |
| 12:59:22 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: [test]RPC using threading or eventlet selectively https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/953815 | |
| 13:04:32 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: can you provide input on specifcly this comment https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/953940/comment/c0db3aad_9199e6e7/ do you want me to move hw:iothreads_per_disk to the alternitives or only update the iothread on reboot for this cycle. | |
| 13:04:53 | sean-k-mooney | ill simplfy the spec based on that input. | |
| 13:06:14 | sean-k-mooney | long term we defintly shoudl supprot hw:iothreads_per_disk btu we dont need to supprot it initally my expection is we will enhance the iothrad funciotnaltiy incremnetally over a few rleases as we need too. | |
| 13:08:31 | sean-k-mooney | the ohter thing i was undeceded on was shoudl it be hw:iothreads_per_disk or hw:iothreads_per_volume i.e. the number of addtional io treads to add per cinder volume or per any disk assocated with the guest i.e. swap or ephemreal | |
| 13:09:21 | sean-k-mooney | i think for simplictly to have a baseline this cycle we shoudl just simplfy and move all the per disk part to a diffent spec for next cycle like you were suggesting | |
| 13:15:46 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: yeah my concern was about to say "given all the discussions we need to have for iothreads per disk, maybe we should just do that by another spec" | |
| 13:16:30 | bauzas | and my main concern with that is the fact that we need to restart an instance for using other io threads if we modify the number when we add a new volume | |
| 13:18:50 | sean-k-mooney | so we dont actuuly need the restart as far as i can tell but we can just update the xml we need to call a sperat api to add or remove the iothread | |
| 13:19:31 | sean-k-mooney | so ok ill move alll fo that to alterniivs and simplfy the spec to only static iothread set via the hw:iothreads extra spec | |
| 13:20:19 | bauzas | oh, the libvirt API accepts a specific call to add a new iothread ? | |
| 13:20:44 | bauzas | if so, tell that please :) | |
| 13:21:13 | sean-k-mooney | so you can do it on the cli to a live domain. i commented on that in my reply | |
| 13:21:29 | sean-k-mooney | so there is an api but i need to go find what virsh is calling | |
| 13:21:47 | sean-k-mooney | but we do need to track/assign the iothread id to use it | |
| 13:22:02 | sean-k-mooney | so we can use it but its more complexity then i would ike to do this cycle | |
| 13:29:10 | sean-k-mooney | im going to simplfy the cpu affintiy too. | |
| 13:51:30 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova-specs master: support iothread for nova vms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/953940 | |
| 14:05:50 | opendevreview | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Show finish_time field in instance action show https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/929780 | |
| 14:30:35 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova-specs master: support iothread for nova vms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/953940 | |
| 14:34:33 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova-specs master: support iothread for nova vms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/953940 | |
| 14:43:56 | sean-k-mooney | Uggla: bauzas ^ the only open quesiton left in that version is triat or compute service bump. a triat is simpler in my view and will be a better ux but i am not going to update the spec until folks provide feed back. i need to go test somethign else for a bit | |
| 14:51:03 | Uggla | sean-k-mooney, I'm more in favor of trait, but I'm not sure I have rational behind that. I need to think about it. | |
| 14:51:54 | sean-k-mooney | i do it work for mixed clouds with diffent virt drivers | |
| 14:52:13 | sean-k-mooney | either differnt version or vmware + libvirt or libvirt + ironic ectra | |
| 14:52:27 | sean-k-mooney | we can do it th eother way but to me its harder to implement correctly | |
| 16:50:55 | opendevreview | Masahito Muroi proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add spec for virtio-blk multiqueue extra_spec https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/951636 | |
| 16:55:07 | masahito | Thanks for the quick reviews. I narrow down the spec scope only supporting multiqueue to enable the incremental supports and to simplify the discussion. | |
| 16:58:40 | sean-k-mooney | masahito: im sorry that we didnt really have tiem to work on this mroe closely earlier in the cycle | |
| 16:59:59 | sean-k-mooney | masahito: im not entrily sure what the right thing to do is. technial the approval deadline is end of buisse today | |
| 17:00:46 | sean-k-mooney | ill try and take a look at your spec again shortly | |
| 17:00:55 | sean-k-mooney | btu im not sure if other will have time today | |
| 17:09:56 | masahito | it's ok. I understand the iothreads part needs extra discussion now because of the entire Nova consistency. | |
| 17:11:13 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Use futurist for _get_default_green_pool() https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948072 | |
| 17:11:32 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: my request is that instead of you proposing a competing spec, you propose a revision on top of masahito's for whatever you think needs to be different | |
| 17:11:41 | masahito | and if we keep talking the iothreads part we could merge it early timing of G development cycle even though the spec is slipped from F release. | |
| 17:11:51 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: they are not descibign very diffent things | |
| 17:11:53 | dansmith | it will make it much easier to understand any differences and avoid the appearance that we're going to choose one or the other | |
| 17:11:59 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: cool, then should be easy | |
| 17:12:22 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: masahito spec if for block multi queue only and mine is only for iothreads | |
| 17:12:28 | sean-k-mooney | and the two compose together | |
| 17:13:04 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: masahito's orginally did both in a more adanced way the either not propose | |
| 17:13:36 | masahito | ^ iothreads part means mapping disk to iothread. | |
| 17:14:13 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: okay I only skimmed them but I thought yours was proposing both | |
| 17:15:12 | dansmith | multi-queue has the same concerns for blk as eth I assume, where you have to scale them appropriately without using up all the .. what is it, pci root ports or something? | |
| 17:15:12 | sean-k-mooney | no i was going to rely on the fact multi is enable by default by qemu for now and focus only on the iothrad part | |
| 17:15:27 | sean-k-mooney | no | |
| 17:15:31 | masahito | yup. sean's spec gives me clear view of road to goal. | |
| 17:15:59 | sean-k-mooney | so multi queue for blk is on by default but you get i think 1 queue per vcpu? masahito is that correct | |
| 17:16:17 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: for networkign the problem was that on the host side all the quese were used by ovs | |
| 17:16:30 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: but you and to enable them manually in the guest driver | |
| 17:16:53 | sean-k-mooney | about 2-3 year ago the virtio net driver in the guest was updated to enabel all the queue if the nic has more then one | |
| 17:17:13 | sean-k-mooney | so you dont actully need to do anyting to have netowrking work propelry with a moderen kernel | |
| 17:18:35 | masahito | right. 1 queue per vcpu is default from 5.2 | |
| 17:19:12 | dansmith | okay so blk multiqueue on its own gets you more queues, but limited actual parallelism by the default of $vcpu threads to service them, | |
| 17:19:50 | dansmith | and iothreads lets you increase that past that number if you want, say 16 queues, 2 vcpus, and 16 io threads to serve those queues? | |
| 17:20:24 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: no by default it create a virtual device with 1 queue pre vcpu but all the io is handel by the single emulator thread | |
| 17:20:41 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: so the only thing it gives you is lock free reade/write in the guest kernel | |
| 17:20:52 | sean-k-mooney | if you mape one queue to each core or somethign like that | |
| 17:20:53 | dansmith | by default, I understand | |
| 17:21:18 | dansmith | er, well, okay, | |
| 17:21:40 | dansmith | by default one queue per vcpu, all funneling through a single thread shared with emulator right? | |
| 17:21:48 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 17:22:00 | dansmith | so two devices, four vcpus means 8 queues for one thread shared with emulator to handle | |
| 17:22:09 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 17:22:33 | dansmith | so even more iothreads with the default queues will improve performance | |
| 17:22:41 | sean-k-mooney | masahito can correct me if im wrong but what they ahve observied is if you have too many queue it does not actully help with perfoamce | |
| 17:23:20 | dansmith | I'm not sure why multiple queues per device would really help with performance if you don't increase threads, but maybe it's because block devices are scheduled and have barriers unlike nics? | |
| 17:23:27 | sean-k-mooney | so if you ahve a vm with 64vcpus and 4 qeues it can perfroae better the 64Qs in some cases | |