| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-02-03 | |||
| 13:42:38 | mriedem | jroll: but the scheduler in newton doesn't use placement | |
| 13:42:38 | jroll | oh wait, the scheduler in ocata checks compute version, doesn't it | |
| 13:43:25 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: if you have got a moment would you have any objection to me creating an experimatal job for nova to run a subset of what is currently run in the intel NFV ci? we will be moving where the NFV ci is hosted in then next 2-4 months and now seems like a good opurtnity to upstream the tests that dont require special hardware. those that do will remain in the nfv ci. | |
| 13:43:27 | jroll | the scheduler in ocata does, though, I just don't know if it waits for computes to be upgraded before using placement | |
| 13:44:22 | cdent | jroll: it does | |
| 13:44:23 | cdent | recent change | |
| 13:44:44 | jroll | ok cool, so builds don't break until you upgrade everything to ocata | |
| 13:44:55 | jroll | thanks cdent | |
| 13:46:08 | cdent | here's a stab at the reno: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/bug-1661258-reno | |
| 13:46:13 | cdent | rather hand wavey | |
| 13:47:08 | cdent | or should it be an issue instead of fixes? | |
| 13:47:24 | jroll | maybe both? | |
| 13:48:03 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: sure | |
| 13:48:34 | mriedem | cdent: jroll: i'd just have 'issues' as in known issue | |
| 13:48:54 | cdent | is leading to a reschedule the only outcome? I thought it could be more dire | |
| 13:50:02 | mriedem | it triggers a reschedule | |
| 13:50:06 | jroll | hm, is there any way to trigger this for not ironic nodes? | |
| 13:50:09 | mriedem | of which you get 3 and then NoValidHost | |
| 13:50:29 | mriedem | jroll: you'd have to delete the compute node records manually for non-ironic | |
| 13:51:16 | jroll | mriedem: right, because n-cpu wouldn't be running for a hyp that went away right | |
| 13:51:36 | jroll | s/went away/was thrown in the dumpster/ | |
| 13:51:43 | mriedem | n-cpu can be running and if it is, it will recreate the compute node record in the db | |
| 13:51:47 | mriedem | but the service record might be gone | |
| 13:51:54 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: ok ill start working on the job. after a while i would hope we can move it to the check pipeline as non voting and then eventually voteing once it is shown to be stable. | |
| 13:52:26 | jroll | mriedem: right-o | |
| 13:53:20 | jroll | okay, I think I'm happy with that reno | |
| 13:53:28 | cdent | jroll, mriedem I we're happy with that content I can smooth it | |
| 13:53:31 | jroll | and I'm good with the fix as-is, for now, given the reno | |
| 13:53:37 | jroll | cdent: ++ | |
| 13:53:58 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: im also going to work on some jobs for os-vif and a few other repos. i may have an update at the ptg on nfv testing in general. | |
| 13:54:53 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: splendid | |
| 13:54:57 | mriedem | thanks for working on that | |
| 13:56:20 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: well its been kindof buging me that we dont have a linux bridge job for os-vif there are some other gaps in the unit testing in os-vif and nova that i want to take a look at too to tighten up the testing a little | |
| 13:58:32 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: Delete a compute node's resource provider when node is deleted https://review.openstack.org/428375 | |
| 13:58:39 | cdent | ^^ adds the reno and changes one bug to partial-bug | |
| 13:58:45 | bauzas | mriedem: FWIW, saw your discussion with dansmith and melwitt yesterday about BFV instances | |
| 13:59:21 | jroll | cdent: trailing space on the reno, not sure if that breaks some check job | |
| 13:59:26 | bauzas | mriedem: so I saw your comment on gerrit and replied to it by saying that we should still verify the disk resource in placement | |
| 13:59:30 | cdent | dag nab it | |
| 13:59:36 | bauzas | mriedem: unless the disk value is 0 | |
| 14:00:02 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: Delete a compute node's resource provider when node is deleted https://review.openstack.org/428375 | |
| 14:00:03 | bauzas | mriedem: because once we will have Cinder RPs, then we will still take a allocation for the disk size | |
| 14:01:15 | jroll | cdent: +1'd. now I'm wondering if we want to catch NodeNotFound and have a better error message, but it's probably fine | |
| 14:01:50 | mriedem | jroll: you could still probably get the NodeNotFound for other reasons | |
| 14:01:58 | mriedem | like some kind of race to delete the node and schedule to it at the same time | |
| 14:02:01 | mriedem | i'd just leave it | |
| 14:02:18 | jroll | mriedem: good point | |
| 14:02:38 | mriedem | bauzas: i don't really have that all in my head, but dansmith has a WIP up for some of this | |
| 14:02:55 | mriedem | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/428481/ | |
| 14:07:55 | figleaf | cdent: thanks for picking up https://review.openstack.org/428375 | |
| 14:08:39 | mriedem | +2 from me | |
| 14:08:53 | cdent | figleaf: you're welcome, seemed like that one had some rush on it. If you're busy today I could also pick up the allocation schema stuff too (on which I left some comments about some wrongness) | |
| 14:09:34 | figleaf | cdent: No, not busy. Just getting started, and the caffeine hasn't yet kicked in | |
| 14:09:47 | figleaf | Gonna look at those next | |
| 14:09:48 | cdent | roger that | |
| 14:09:54 | jroll | figleaf: it's 8am already, why so late | |
| 14:10:19 | figleaf | jroll: had to get the rest of the house out to work/school | |
| 14:10:24 | cdent | I guess that means I should think about writing a "placement update" which I've been avoiding because I have no clue, probably because caffeine | |
| 14:10:27 | figleaf | jroll: gotta be able to focus! | |
| 14:10:35 | jroll | figleaf: that was a joke, to be clear :P | |
| 14:10:54 | figleaf | jroll: so was my response :) | |
| 14:11:11 | jroll | :D | |
| 14:11:31 | cdent | s/before/because/ | |
| 14:16:26 | cdent | mriedem: imma fix that nit | |
| 14:17:12 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: Delete a compute node's resource provider when node is deleted https://review.openstack.org/428375 | |
| 14:20:08 | bauzas | cdent: figleaf: open questions in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/428375/9 | |
| 14:20:42 | figleaf | cdent: regarding https://review.openstack.org/#/c/416752/8/nova/api/openstack/placement/handlers/inventory.py, what should be the value for 'max_unit' in the INVENTORY_DEFAULTS (line 109) ? | |
| 14:22:06 | cdent | figleaf: I would think since we want to set a schema minimum of 1 (since less than that is meaningless or wrong) then the default should be 1 as well? | |
| 14:22:09 | cdent | bauzas: looking | |
| 14:23:18 | bauzas | mriedem: when are you removing -W for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/428531/ ? | |
| 14:24:39 | mriedem | bauzas: probably after https://review.openstack.org/#/c/428375/ is merged now | |
| 14:24:46 | mriedem | johnthetubaguy: +2 on ^ now | |
| 14:25:01 | johnthetubaguy | looking... | |
| 14:25:11 | figleaf | cdent: didn | |
| 14:25:13 | mriedem | cdent: figleaf: a functional report client test as noted by bauzas for deleting RPs would be good, but i'd do that in a follow up | |
| 14:25:13 | figleaf | doh | |
| 14:25:38 | mriedem | bauzas: i already talked to tonyb about blocking requirements yesterday, it's not a big deal right now | |
| 14:25:52 | figleaf | cdent: didn't seem right to set the default 'max' to 1 | |
| 14:25:52 | mriedem | dims_: was telling everyone that yesterday was a soft date for rc1 and monday would be ok | |
| 14:26:03 | mriedem | bauzas: but i'll get rc1 out today if we get this last fix in | |
| 14:26:03 | cdent | figleaf: it is weird yeah, but is better than 0 | |
| 14:26:29 | figleaf | cdent: sure, but even db.MAX_INT felt better (even though that seems wrong, too) | |
| 14:26:48 | bauzas | mriedem: okay, cool with me about RC1 | |
| 14:26:59 | mriedem | i've got to get my kid on the bus and head into the office | |
| 14:27:02 | bauzas | cdent: mriedem: about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/428375/8/nova/scheduler/client/report.py@772 my question is rather | |
| 14:27:49 | bauzas | cdent: mriedem: if we're deleting a compute node, are we also deleting the nested instances elsewhere ? | |
| 14:27:49 | cdent | figleaf: hmmm. yeah. a good point. that is probably better than 1 as it results in things being left in a working state if a max is not provided | |
| 14:28:22 | cdent | figleaf: which is what DEFAULTS ought to be going for | |
| 14:28:54 | cdent | figleaf: so yeah, step_size 1, min_unit 1, max_unit MAX_INT seems right for the defaults | |
| 14:29:00 | figleaf | cdent: "Hi, I'd like 1 MEMORY_MB for my VM, please" | |
| 14:29:29 | cdent | it's more that 640k so it's gotta be enough | |
| 14:31:08 | cdent | metoo@aol.com | |
| 14:35:51 | bauzas | johnthetubaguy: I had a concern on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/428375/ | |
| 14:36:07 | bauzas | I did +1 because I didn't wanted to pollute and say it was a blocker | |
| 14:36:19 | bauzas | but I'm still wondering if all goes the right way | |
| 14:37:21 | johnthetubaguy | bauzas: most of the time the list of instances will be empty, I think | |
| 14:37:45 | johnthetubaguy | bauzas: its hitting the 409 from placement I guess, that would cause an issue | |
| 14:38:16 | bauzas | johnthetubaguy: I need to look at code, because I wonder that | |
| 14:38:42 | bauzas | johnthetubaguy: say I'm booting inst1, then deleting computeA, do I get a nova list empty? | |
| 14:38:50 | bauzas | I suppose so | |