| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-01-26 | |||
| 14:51:27 | johnthetubaguy | so does a compute node die if it doesn't have placement configured? | |
| 14:51:29 | bauzas | dansmith: okay, so I need to set a new version | |
| 14:51:34 | bauzas | johnthetubaguy: nope | |
| 14:51:38 | dansmith | will ocata computes fail to start if the placement config is not done? | |
| 14:51:39 | cdent | bauzas: yes, but earlier you were complaining that making people change their configs to upgrade to ocata was in violation? | |
| 14:51:52 | dansmith | bauzas: I dunno what a new version would signal, TBH | |
| 14:52:21 | snikitin | sfinucan: Hi! thank you for comments! I updated https://review.openstack.org/#/c/399613 | |
| 14:52:38 | dansmith | bauzas: if they don't die, then maybe we should make them die and make that a new service version, and then check for that version in the scheduler | |
| 14:52:41 | bauzas | dansmith: good question about nova computes refusing to start | |
| 14:52:51 | bauzas | dansmith: I agree with that plan | |
| 14:52:54 | johnthetubaguy | cdent: its not as bad, because the old compute could have had that same config, but its sure borderline | |
| 14:52:57 | dansmith | I think it's what johnthetubaguy was saying too | |
| 14:52:59 | bauzas | dansmith: that's the move defensive one | |
| 14:53:12 | johnthetubaguy | yeah, make it obvious things are bad | |
| 14:53:22 | snikitin | alex_xu: Hi Alex! I got two +2 on this patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/394480/ can I get a +W, please? | |
| 14:53:41 | dansmith | johnthetubaguy: do you think it's too borderline? | |
| 14:53:49 | bauzas | but we said placement is mandatory for ocata, right? | |
| 14:54:02 | dansmith | johnthetubaguy: I feel like we've already agreed we're going to make this decision | |
| 14:54:03 | bauzas | so that means you have to access it when restarting your services | |
| 14:54:03 | dansmith | right | |
| 14:54:04 | dansmith | what bauzas said | |
| 14:54:05 | dansmith | and we're logging on newton | |
| 14:54:28 | johnthetubaguy | dansmith: I think I am OK because we get a massive gain, so we stick with it | |
| 14:54:31 | bauzas | here, we're just trying to allow newton computes that are untouched to still be able to get instances on them | |
| 14:54:58 | dansmith | johnthetubaguy: but really, it was optional in newton, required in ocata, and this is just enforcing that no? | |
| 14:55:21 | bauzas | dansmith: to summarize, if I'm bumping the service version now, that would mean I'm sure the service is upgraded to ocata | |
| 14:55:49 | johnthetubaguy | dansmith: I think the key bit that makes me OK, is they just need to update the config on the old system before they do the upgrade, if they haven't done that | |
| 14:55:54 | mriedem | o/ | |
| 14:56:05 | dansmith | bauzas: you don't need to bump it now, but if you're going to make the computes refuse to start, I'd call that a service version.. otherwise you're adding a number that doesn't have any real meaning | |
| 14:56:06 | bauzas | now, the only question would be : should we silently soft-fail and do nothing with the risk for operators that they could loose capacity if they misconfigure ? | |
| 14:56:19 | johnthetubaguy | big fire, always the big fire | |
| 14:56:24 | dansmith | johnthetubaguy: right, and they could have done that in newton months ago if they wanted to be proactive | |
| 14:56:29 | bauzas | dansmith: the thing is that we haven't bumped the version in Ocata | |
| 14:56:36 | johnthetubaguy | dansmith: yeah, I think thats what makes me OK with it | |
| 14:56:36 | dansmith | bauzas: not at all? | |
| 14:56:52 | bauzas | dansmith: I'm still seeing version 15 in my local master branch | |
| 14:56:59 | dansmith | mriedem: read back to my "let me summarize" comment to cdent | |
| 14:57:03 | mriedem | what are we doing with a min service version check? | |
| 14:57:04 | dansmith | bauzas: then yes you need to add one | |
| 14:57:12 | johnthetubaguy | yeah, just add one | |
| 14:57:23 | dansmith | mriedem: thinking we will add a fallback to RT data _if_ the computes are not all upgraded | |
| 14:57:23 | bauzas | on it | |
| 14:57:27 | dansmith | mriedem: in the scheduler | |
| 14:57:38 | bauzas | and we hard-fail, as johnthetubaguy said | |
| 14:57:39 | dansmith | mriedem: which will let us get past grenade, and give the deployers a little longer grace period | |
| 14:58:15 | dansmith | mriedem: once they upgrade all their computes, scheduler will stop looking at RT data | |
| 14:58:29 | dansmith | mriedem: which means if they only change config during the upgrade they will still be fine | |
| 14:58:55 | dansmith | mriedem: whereas before, we had to make them configure their newton computes before starting the controller upgrade | |
| 14:59:25 | mriedem | we only fallback if we don't get any RPs *and* minimum compute isn't new enough right? | |
| 14:59:26 | sfinucan | claudiub|2: I looked at that and it seems fine, but I think one of Moshe's questions still stands | |
| 14:59:41 | dansmith | mriedem: no we have to always fallback if computes are old | |
| 14:59:54 | mriedem | so don't even check placement until then? | |
| 14:59:56 | johnthetubaguy | otherwise you get incomplete data, and the test we want to pass will still fail | |
| 14:59:57 | sfinucan | ...and I don't think I can approve until one of ye proves it's not a problem :) | |
| 15:00:02 | dansmith | mriedem: because otherwise after one compute reports RPs you'd hard switch and have a 1-compute cloud | |
| 15:00:46 | mriedem | johnthetubaguy: the test would pass if we would fallback to computenodelist.get_all if there were 0 RPs, but yes i understand we'd have a 1 compute cloud for awhile | |
| 15:00:57 | mriedem | fwiw we talked about that weeks ago and people thought that was ok and a small window | |
| 15:01:04 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: I was thinking the force host thing, but yeah | |
| 15:01:18 | dansmith | mriedem: I think that was about waiting for the 60-second timer, | |
| 15:01:27 | dansmith | mriedem: but it could be weeks if you upgrade one compute as a test | |
| 15:01:43 | dansmith | mriedem: in this scenario | |
| 15:03:56 | mriedem | dansmith: was refering to this http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-December/109060.html | |
| 15:04:16 | sfinucan | snikitin: Done and done | |
| 15:04:57 | mriedem | but whatever, that was before we had a blocking issue with grenade | |
| 15:04:58 | dansmith | mriedem: right but that was a thing that is triggered by doing the controller upgrade, right? this would be a thing triggered by the first compute upgrade | |
| 15:05:09 | sfinucan | claudiub|2: Call me a fool, but wasn't this kind of request what we were implementing qualitative resources for? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/420960 | |
| 15:06:19 | snikitin | sfinucan, thanks! | |
| 15:06:27 | dansmith | mriedem: meaning, I think before we were assuming 1. Configure computes for placement, 2. upgrade controllers, 3. wait 60s for data to filter before scheduling works properly | |
| 15:06:29 | sfinucan | johnthetubaguy: would it be too cheeky of me to +2 this, given that I addressed comments on it? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/415597 | |
| 15:06:32 | claudiub|2 | sfinucan: sure, but that is being used for the ImageMetaProps object. that still has to exist | |
| 15:06:40 | dansmith | mriedem: now, it would be 1. upgrade controllers, 2. upgrade one compute, 3. stuck until you upgrade more computes | |
| 15:07:49 | sfinucan | claudiub|2: Ah, that's how the instance would request those properties while resource providers is for hosts publishing that information | |
| 15:08:01 | claudiub|2 | yep | |
| 15:08:06 | sfinucan | gotcha | |
| 15:08:35 | mriedem | dansmith: maybe, i know there have been several threads on this, and basically at this point those don't really matter :) | |
| 15:08:48 | dansmith | aye | |
| 15:08:51 | mriedem | i'm just reading back through the responses from the ML from earlier today | |
| 15:09:13 | sfinucan | snikitin: If you could take a look at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/405954/ (and the follow up) today, I'd appreciate it. Think you should know enough about that code to comment | |
| 15:09:47 | johnthetubaguy | sfinucan: usually I would say no, depends how you feel I guess. | |
| 15:10:40 | sfinucan | johnthetubaguy: Sweet - I'll go for it so. It looks good and would be good to get it in | |
| 15:10:51 | snikitin | sfinucan, sure | |
| 15:11:01 | bauzas | dansmith: question, what should I hard-fail ? | |
| 15:11:34 | bauzas | dansmith: just that the placement section is empty, or that we aren't able to call the placement API by doing a query? | |
| 15:11:54 | bauzas | dansmith: I'd favor a real test call | |
| 15:12:02 | dansmith | bauzas: just that the config isn't there I think | |
| 15:12:07 | dansmith | bauzas: doing a real call in the middle of init_host to check that and failing would be terrible | |
| 15:12:16 | dansmith | bauzas: because if it fails for some legit reason, computes wouldn't start | |
| 15:12:24 | bauzas | dansmith: okay | |
| 15:13:25 | mriedem | what do we need to touch init_host in the compute for? | |
| 15:13:53 | bauzas | mriedem: for preventing ocata computes to start if they haven't filled in their placement section | |
| 15:14:02 | dansmith | mriedem: to drive home that placement config is required | |
| 15:14:10 | dansmith | mriedem: i.e. like anything else, there's not much point in starting if we don't have sufficient config to do anything | |
| 15:14:29 | claudiub|2 | sfinucan: so, VFs / PFs won't show up as assignable PCI devices, rather those are requested from Hyper-V, and Hyper-V will then assign them to the VMs. | |
| 15:14:49 | sfinucan | claudiub|2: as what? VIFs? | |
| 15:14:53 | johnthetubaguy | bauzas: +1 what dansmith said, that sounds right | |
| 15:15:15 | bauzas | johnthetubaguy: dansmith: and it would raise an exception if not CONF.placement? | |
| 15:15:33 | mriedem | ok so the grenade case should be ok b/c newton subnode will be running and ocata compute will have config so will start | |
| 15:15:42 | dansmith | mriedem: right | |
| 15:15:43 | mriedem | but scheduler will use the old RT data because of the newton compute | |
| 15:15:47 | dansmith | yes | |