Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2025-11-04
19:51:12 Zhan[m] *downtime for failure cases
19:52:31 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [DNM] testing early activation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/966106
19:53:39 sean-k-mooney Zhan[m]: in the happy path i think that is effectivly what you want to do
19:53:53 Zhan[m] yes
19:54:15 Zhan[m] the only concern I think is the unhappy path :)
19:56:08 sean-k-mooney ya, so the reason im debating this in my head is this is already complciated and im not sure we want to make it more complicted by adding aother event handeler
19:57:47 Zhan[m] To ease the process a little bit, so basically: 1. activate port bindings when paused 2. If migration ok later, all is well 3. If migration not ok later, delete, recreate, reactivate the port binding on the source side
19:58:22 sean-k-mooney well you just activate them again and delete the dest ones
19:58:24 Zhan[m] It is complicated :( I spent quite some time digging all these too
19:58:49 sean-k-mooney but you also have to cater for neturon backend that dont supprot multipel port bidnign
19:58:59 sean-k-mooney because we have not made those unsupproted yet
19:59:42 sean-k-mooney there are some network backend that dont supprot the multipe prot bidnging exteion and in those case we only have one and we jsut update the bindings:host field
19:59:42 Zhan[m] I'm not sure on that, I got exceptions when I try to re-enable the source bindings and I saw some fields are missing in DB, so that's why I recreated the bindings, but this is not important, the idea is the same.
20:00:09 sean-k-mooney i gues it depend on if they are delete or not
20:00:22 Zhan[m] right, if backend doesn't support I think the port binding extension will not be used right?
20:00:33 sean-k-mooney but ya we have to recrate them if they are i though activating them only deactived teh souce one but didnt delete tehm
20:00:37 Zhan[m] yeah in that case migrate_instance_start won't do anything, so
20:01:38 Zhan[m] they are not deleted, but as far as what I'm seeing in the DB, some metadata are deleted so hmmm not very sure on that
20:01:46 sean-k-mooney so what i woudl like is if we do have a dedicated port biding activation phase we use it for both pre and post copy
20:01:55 sean-k-mooney that is how it works today
20:02:36 sean-k-mooney what i dont wnat to have is 1 way to activate them for pre-copy, 1 way for post copy adn 1 way for backend that dont suprot it
20:02:38 Zhan[m] ok so like extracting it out of post live migration and event handler function?
20:02:52 sean-k-mooney right
20:03:30 sean-k-mooney we woudl pull out the networkign bits and do them alwsy in a new funciton that woudl be before psot-copy and move post copy to happen alwasy on the migration complete event
20:03:46 Zhan[m] I see, let's put that maybe as a stage 2 thing? I'll work on this first and see how we refactor this process later
20:04:04 sean-k-mooney well we woudl want ot have both before merging any code
20:04:06 Zhan[m] obviously the spec will come first
20:04:23 sean-k-mooney but ya spec first to fiutre out exaclty how it shoudl look
20:04:44 sean-k-mooney is this somehtin you think you would have time to work on this cycle
20:04:46 Zhan[m] ok let's start with the spec first, thanks for looking into this too!!
20:05:01 Zhan[m] I'll see and get back to you on this.
20:05:08 sean-k-mooney ack no worries
20:21:06 Zhan[m] Ok so I'll be working on the spec now and submit it soonish, but regarding the code (the refining part) may come later in Q1, consider we may have some back and forth in the spec.
20:21:56 Zhan[m] I'll put the goal of spec to be 1. this change 2. put networking bits in the right place.
20:26:36 sean-k-mooney Zhan[m]: we have selected december 4 or 8th for spec feeze
20:26:51 sean-k-mooney with feature freeze aroudn the middle fo febuary
20:27:02 sean-k-mooney just for context so you are not surpised
20:27:14 sean-k-mooney normally sepc freeze would be around january 8th
20:34:08 Zhan[m] understood, thanks for the heads up. In this case I think I'll submit the spec before Dec 4 and I can open a PR in Q1 but it can definitely wait until the freeze is over.
20:44:46 sean-k-mooney well its better to submit it early not late as if it comes in mid to late q1 it will be unlikely to land this cycle
20:46:09 sean-k-mooney the offical release is Wednesday, April 1, 2026. freautre freeze is February 26, 2026
20:46:45 sean-k-mooney so fi you only puth the patch up for review in late january or early febuary we likely wont have time to review it
20:50:49 Zhan[m] Ok, I'll see if I can make it there, if not, what will be the next cycle?
#openstack-nova - 2025-11-05
05:41:31 opendevreview Masanori Kuroha proposed openstack/nova master: Copy applied provider config https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948304
06:32:38 opendevreview Masanori Kuroha proposed openstack/nova master: Copy applied provider config https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948304
09:01:50 mkuroha bauzas: gibi: sean-k-mooney: I’ve updated the feature that copies the applied provider config files. I’d appreciate it if you could review it when you have time. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948304
09:23:06 zigo gmaan: Since you wrote these tests, any idea what could have gone wrong? https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2130703
10:00:44 bauzas mkuroha: as said in the change, pease reprovide the spec for 2026.1 so we could reapprove it
10:09:49 mkuroha bauzas: I see, understood. I'll recreate it for the 2026.1 spec.
10:10:40 bauzas mkuroha: thanks, ping me again once you're done, just copy the file and add in the history section something like "2025.2: Approved; 2026.1: Reproposed"
10:10:52 bauzas should be quick
10:14:00 mkuroha ok! thanks.
10:18:00 opendevreview Masanori Kuroha proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Copy the spec approved in 2025.2 to 2026.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/966151
10:20:20 mkuroha bauzas: Thank you for the comment, I created: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/966151
11:14:46 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova master: api: Pre-query not deleted members in server groups https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959696
11:15:54 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova master: setup: Remove pbr's wsgi_scripts https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/902688
11:40:03 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova stable/2025.1: Update start_service() function in test https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/963845
11:40:14 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova stable/2025.1: Adds regression test for bug LP#2085135 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/963846
12:25:07 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova stable/2025.1: Reset the mapped field of nodes at service deletion https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/963847
12:26:24 sean-k-mooney Zhan[m]: if you have input on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/966106/comment/80b6a2a0_591c5cab/ feel free to add to it
12:27:22 sean-k-mooney for context of others ^ is related to https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2128665 which is a very specific edgecase that results in live migration downtime when using calico
12:27:44 sean-k-mooney it could impact other backend but shoudl not impact ml2/ovs or recent version fo ml2/ovn
12:28:44 sean-k-mooney im conflcited on if this shoudl be fixed, if it should be fixed as a bug or as a feature to split post-live-migration into networking and the rest
12:52:33 opendevreview Masanori Kuroha proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Copy the spec approved in 2025.2 to 2026.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/966151
14:00:01 Zhan[m] sean-k-mooney: Thanks, I will put comments there too.
14:02:06 Zhan[m] Just for my own understanding, because we are not using ovn: from what you describe, the ovn driver in some sense is not really depending on the port binding activation but via the RARP packet (which I assume will be sent as soon as the destination QEMU process is resumed)?
14:03:30 Zhan[m] calico is more of using the port binding activation as the trigger for switching the network to the dest QEMU so yes that's why we're hitting
14:11:06 sean-k-mooney Zhan[m]: so the ml2/ovs ml2/linuxbrige (before they deleted it) and as of about a year ago ml2/ovn driver
14:11:24 sean-k-mooney all wired up the port is there was a portbinidng for the host
14:11:30 sean-k-mooney not just an active one
14:11:42 sean-k-mooney for calico this si tricky because the tap does not exsit yet
14:12:21 sean-k-mooney Zhan[m]: hoever we coudl modify the supprot for vif_type=tap to create the tap in pre-live-migrtion
14:12:30 sean-k-mooney we are condiering doing that for ovn
14:12:39 sean-k-mooney becuse ovn while it strcitly sepaking does not need it
14:12:49 sean-k-mooney can take a long time to install the flow in larger clouds
14:13:20 sean-k-mooney basically whith many vm and port the ovn db perfromcen cna resulting in reconsitaion taking over 30s in some cases
14:14:07 sean-k-mooney Zhan[m]: we modifed ovn to allow the trafic swithc to be triggred by the RARP packet sent by qemu when the vm unpauses
14:14:40 sean-k-mooney Zhan[m]: for ml2/ovs and ml2/linux bridge because they relyied on mac learning the RARP is the only thing that cause the traffic to be rerouted
14:15:17 sean-k-mooney for calico that a bit harder becuase its an l3 backend so the mac learning frames are likely entirly ignored
14:15:49 sean-k-mooney Zhan[m]: if you wanted to improve downtime mroe in calico then using the RARP to triger the update would be a consitent approch
14:26:24 Zhan[m] Indeed it's tricky I think for l3 in general, thanks for the explanation.
14:27:46 Zhan[m] but wondering if ml2/ovs can switch traffic with the RARP, what is the role that the port binding is playing here?
14:28:15 Zhan[m] the way we use calico that i do see port bindings to the destination are created in pre live migraiton
14:29:26 opendevreview Julien LE JEUNE proposed openstack/nova stable/2024.2: Adds regression test for bug LP#2044235 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/961602
14:29:57 opendevreview Julien LE JEUNE proposed openstack/nova stable/2024.2: nova-conductor puts instance in error state https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/961775
14:34:57 opendevreview Julien LE JEUNE proposed openstack/nova stable/2024.2: nova-conductor puts instance in error state https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/961775
15:18:33 opendevreview Henry Richter proposed openstack/nova master: Preserve vTPM state between power off and power on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/955657
15:29:34 opendevreview Nicolai Ruckel proposed openstack/nova master: Preserve UEFI NVRAM variable store https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959682
15:40:59 nicolairuckel sean-k-mooney, thanks for your feedback. That fixed almost everything.
15:41:24 nicolairuckel I was so sure I already tried that but maybe that was before you told me that I need to recreate the VM.
15:41:30 sean-k-mooney cool ill pull in your updated code later in the week
15:41:36 nicolairuckel thanks
15:41:56 sean-k-mooney i tried the version i comment on but i didnt try removing the code i commened on
15:44:19 nicolairuckel I also had to revert my changes to one of the tests because the XML changed.
15:44:38 nicolairuckel That's fine, you shouldn't have to spend extra time on my mistakes. :D
15:45:00 sean-k-mooney well this is part of doing code review
15:45:12 sean-k-mooney makign sure we only change what needs to be changed
15:45:27 sean-k-mooney so its fine i have that devstack set up so ill test it when i have time
15:46:28 sean-k-mooney nicolairuckel: you left a coulpe of prints
15:46:38 sean-k-mooney https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959682/9/nova/tests/functional/libvirt/test_uefi.py#61

Earlier   Later