| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2026-01-19 | |||
| 16:10:04 | elodilles | actually, nothing to report | |
| 16:10:12 | elodilles | #info stable gates seem to be in good state | |
| 16:10:19 | elodilles | that's all from me for now | |
| 16:10:53 | Uggla | thx elodilles | |
| 16:10:56 | elodilles | np | |
| 16:11:14 | Uggla | #topic vmwareapi 3rd-party CI efforts Highlights | |
| 16:11:26 | Uggla | fwiesel, anything to report from your side ? | |
| 16:12:04 | fwiesel | No, nothing from my side. | |
| 16:12:09 | fwiesel | Uggla: Back to you | |
| 16:12:14 | gibi | fwiesel: one thing | |
| 16:12:46 | gibi | would it be possible to run the vmware job with nova-compute switched to threaded mode and using this patch? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/973468 | |
| 16:14:20 | gibi | https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/admin/concurrency.html#selecting-concurrency-mode-for-a-service this gives you the hint how to configure nova-compute to run in threaded mode | |
| 16:14:31 | fwiesel | Sure, should I activate the threaded mode by default? Or just one run? | |
| 16:14:58 | gibi | you need to pull in the nova-compute patches from that series | |
| 16:15:08 | gibi | and the oslo.vmware patches form the depends on | |
| 16:15:22 | gibi | and set the env variable OS_NOVA_DISABLE_EVENTLET_PATCHING=true | |
| 16:15:27 | gibi | for the nova-compute process | |
| 16:15:32 | fwiesel | So one manual run for now... I can do that. | |
| 16:16:01 | gibi | yepp just to see if the smokes comes out or nit | |
| 16:16:02 | gibi | not | |
| 16:16:03 | gibi | thank | |
| 16:16:04 | gibi | s | |
| 16:16:46 | fwiesel | You're welcome. | |
| 16:17:01 | fwiesel | Uggla: Now back to you, I presume. | |
| 16:17:18 | Uggla | thx | |
| 16:17:29 | Uggla | #topic Gibi's news about eventlet removal | |
| 16:17:41 | gibi | thanks | |
| 16:17:46 | gibi | no big news | |
| 16:18:03 | gibi | we made review progress in the nova-compute series | |
| 16:18:09 | gibi | that is all for now | |
| 16:18:23 | gibi | back to you | |
| 16:20:38 | Uggla | thx gibi. | |
| 16:20:39 | bauzas | we had back-to-back meetings but I saw your reply, I still wonder whether we're missing some libvirt event but fair | |
| 16:21:01 | bauzas | I'll accept your patch but I'll continue to monitor the jobs | |
| 16:21:34 | Uggla | #topic Open discussion | |
| 16:21:54 | Uggla | We have one topic from womax | |
| 16:21:59 | Uggla | (womax) Potential future use of tempURL in nova | |
| 16:22:06 | womax` | yes | |
| 16:22:09 | Uggla | womax` the floor is yours | |
| 16:22:53 | womax` | so for context, I recently worked in ironic to add support for multi store and s3 image stored. Ironic is using temp URL as way to download image on baremetal machine | |
| 16:23:43 | womax` | the work lead me to write code very similar on what is present in glance, and so I'm currently trying to propose moving the handling of tempURL in glance. But glance is not so keen on having features in glance that would only be used in ironic | |
| 16:24:39 | womax` | While working on temp URL we also saw a way to avoid glance being a bottleneck while downloading image, and so I wanted to ask opinions, on wether such a feature would exist, is it something that would be accepted to be used also in nova | |
| 16:25:22 | womax` | Idea would be in nova rather than downloading image directly from glance it would ask glance for a tempURL and then download the image from there (so directly from the storage backend) | |
| 16:28:45 | fwiesel | Funny thing, the vmware driver (in nova and cinder) could profit from it. We implemented in our fork that we generate a tempURL, because then the vcenter can download the image directly instead the having to pipe it through the nova-compute agent. | |
| 16:29:19 | Uggla | womax` I don't have strong opinion on that, because I don't know well that part. Clearly I would like to know what dansmith thinks about it. | |
| 16:29:25 | nicolairuckel | I have a topic for open discussion too (of course after that). | |
| 16:29:29 | tkajinam | sounds sensible to me | |
| 16:29:50 | gibi | what is the benefit of the direct download? | |
| 16:30:09 | tkajinam | gibi, IIUC it does not require proxy by glance | |
| 16:30:11 | fwiesel | gibi: Saving one hop | |
| 16:30:33 | tkajinam | in case glance uses swift backend currently when nova downloads an image from glance the data goes in swift -> glance -> nova | |
| 16:30:35 | gibi | OK so the use case here is better performance. | |
| 16:30:39 | tkajinam | but the proposal removes glance from the path | |
| 16:30:40 | fwiesel | Ah, and no token based authentication. | |
| 16:30:58 | gibi | any drawback? | |
| 16:31:03 | womax` | better performance for downloads but also avoiding glance being overloaded | |
| 16:31:25 | gibi | doea glance provide aome service we lose if we not go through it? | |
| 16:31:52 | womax` | gibi: from glance side, a token revocation would have take time to propagate, as tempURL have no to being revokated, but ttl is in order of minutes | |
| 16:32:05 | womax` | aome? | |
| 16:32:19 | gibi | sorry 'some' | |
| 16:33:24 | womax` | glance provide caching to avoid hitting too much the storage backend, temp URL would that, but it would be configurable and up to operators to see what is better for them | |
| 16:33:46 | womax` | other than that I don't think we would lose anything | |
| 16:34:12 | womax` | tempURL would bypass caching* | |
| 16:34:22 | gibi | OK. Based on these I feel like it make sense to draw up a spec to get quorum, but looks good to me so far | |
| 16:34:43 | womax` | spec in nova I assume? | |
| 16:34:45 | fwiesel | Well, another issue is reliability. tempUrls are shortlived by design, and if the tempURL expires during your download you cannot retry (by design). Openstack authentication is stronger, and has retry methods | |
| 16:35:17 | gibi | womax yepp spec in nova and in glance | |
| 16:35:36 | womax` | in glance it already drafted and they are currently waiting for nova opinions before going further | |
| 16:35:37 | gibi | i assume it impacts both | |
| 16:35:44 | gibi | cool | |
| 16:35:52 | womax` | I can also do it for nova to have more opinions | |
| 16:36:01 | tkajinam | fwiesel, yeah. we have service user token but it may not work for tempurl . | |
| 16:36:06 | gibi | yes please, and link the glance spec | |
| 16:36:27 | gibi | fwiesel: good point, lets include that to the spec to solve | |
| 16:36:31 | womax` | gibi: ok | |
| 16:37:06 | tkajinam | we probably need know better about the interaction between nova and glance so that we won't leak anything problematic | |
| 16:37:14 | tkajinam | especially in case a image is a shared one | |
| 16:37:45 | tkajinam | (We can discuss details in the spec) | |
| 16:37:50 | gibi | ++ | |
| 16:38:15 | fwiesel | swift_store_multi_tenant=True is another edge case | |
| 16:38:39 | womax` | ok, i'll start drafting and come back when it is ready, to discuss more in details | |
| 16:38:59 | tkajinam | sounds nice :-) | |
| 16:40:51 | Uggla | Are we ok with that topic ? womax` ? | |
| 16:41:06 | womax` | Uggla: yes | |
| 16:41:30 | Uggla | ok so nicolairuckel, please go ahead with your topic | |
| 16:41:49 | nicolairuckel | I was wondering if it makes sense to move the discussion about how to deal with secure boot and resetting the NVRAM (https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959682?tab=comments) from my patch to another place. This is relevant for cold migration which we excluded from my patch. The discussion is of course important for my (hopefully) next patch but I'm not sure where to put that/how to deal with that. | |
| 16:41:51 | nicolairuckel | Unless it is a blocker for my current patch of course. Last week it sounded like we need to discuss that beforehand but after reading the comments I'm not so sure anymore. | |
| 16:47:15 | Uggla | nicolairuckel my understanding, your patch just need a small addendum: prohibiting migration with os_secure_boot='optional' is an option. per haps its a suffience one for the short term | |
| 16:47:54 | nicolairuckel | I thought that's only an issue for cold migration. | |
| 16:48:27 | tkajinam | no it also affects bare hard reboot and hard reboot after live migration. | |
| 16:49:09 | nicolairuckel | Ah, somehow I missed that. | |
| 16:49:12 | nicolairuckel | Thank you. | |
| 16:49:17 | nicolairuckel | I'll work on that then. | |
| 16:49:18 | tkajinam | I think the point is that it's difficult to fix these all. I think we need an agreement about what we accept while fixing an annoying reset behavior | |
| 16:49:26 | Uggla | I don't think so, it seems something sean-k-mooney would like to have for this patch and then another one with a long term solution. | |
| 16:50:16 | nicolairuckel | But then it makes sense to have the discussion there and we don't really need to discuss that here. | |
| 16:50:27 | sean-k-mooney | oh o/ | |
| 16:50:29 | sean-k-mooney | reading back | |
| 16:51:04 | nicolairuckel | i just missed that there's actually something else I need to do before the review can continue. | |
| 16:51:10 | sean-k-mooney | Uggla: honestly i think the os_secure_boot=optional stuff is out of scope | |