| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-03-17 | |||
| 14:18:25 | mriedem | edmondsw: https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/ocata/approved/use-service-tokens.html#performance-impact | |
| 14:18:53 | mriedem | "Rally benchmark tests will be ran with and without the “service_user” config options set to compare the results for long running tasks like snapshot or live migration." | |
| 14:19:14 | mriedem | edmondsw: if you have some people familiar with scale testing and rally, it would be helpful to pitch in on the testing there | |
| 14:19:25 | mriedem | i'm not sure if raj_sing- or the osic people are focusing on that right now | |
| 14:19:27 | lbragstad | aunnam around? | |
| 14:20:07 | mriedem | dansmith: i wouldn't trust the unit tests at all, | |
| 14:20:20 | mriedem | dansmith: i'd probably just write a functional test in the novaclient tree that does what you need for how this is supposed to work | |
| 14:20:27 | edmondsw | mriedem that all makes sense. We don't use rally but we do some scale testing. I can ask about trying this there | |
| 14:20:30 | dansmith | mriedem: clearly not, the same tests pass before and after this | |
| 14:20:30 | mriedem | see it break on the bug, and then show it passing with the fix | |
| 14:20:32 | kashyap | mdbooth: Quick clarification, before I head out for a few: IIUC, you want the loopback device to be the overlay, yes? | |
| 14:20:45 | mriedem | dansmith: like what i've been doing with the functional regression tests in nova lately | |
| 14:21:09 | mdbooth | kashyap: I want both source and destination to be loopback devices backed by sparse files | |
| 14:21:22 | mdbooth | kashyap: They should both be the same size | |
| 14:21:34 | mdbooth | kashyap: The source should contain some data, but the dest should initially be blank | |
| 14:21:34 | mriedem | edmondsw: cool. i'm thinking a long-running volume-backed migration where the token will expire and have to be revalidated for cinder and neutron, | |
| 14:21:47 | dansmith | mriedem: okay I forgot about the functional ones in here.. looks like we don't have any for aggregates | |
| 14:21:50 | mriedem | edmondsw: or a long-running snapshot of a large instance (note you'll need the unmerged glance patches for that) | |
| 14:22:27 | mriedem | dansmith: at first glance i'm not seeing anyway | |
| 14:22:33 | mriedem | but they are pretty simple to add | |
| 14:22:56 | mriedem | like https://github.com/openstack/python-novaclient/blob/master/novaclient/tests/functional/v2/legacy/test_extended_attributes.py | |
| 14:22:59 | dansmith | yeah, I'll work on it | |
| 14:23:01 | mriedem | specify the base 2.1 version, | |
| 14:23:05 | edleafe | kashyap: mdbooth: still trying to get the repro for the failure. Didn't give up (yet) :) | |
| 14:23:07 | kashyap | mdbooth: Okay, noted. Just to restate: The backing file(s) must be sparse; and the overlays are loopback devices -- then try a copy among the overlays and see if sparseness is preserved | |
| 14:23:08 | mriedem | extend base class, and that gives you most of what you need | |
| 14:23:12 | mriedem | self.nova() runs the command | |
| 14:23:21 | mdbooth | kashyap: Bingo | |
| 14:23:29 | kashyap | edleafe: Don't give up! One simply does not give up in #openstack-nova channel! | |
| 14:23:38 | mdbooth | kashyap: I think that accurately represents the issue as described | |
| 14:23:57 | kashyap | Okay, with that clarity, bbiab | |
| 14:24:01 | edleafe | kashyap: heh, I figured it was taking me so long you might have thought that I just went back to bed or something | |
| 14:24:25 | ijw | The Nova team has beds now? | |
| 14:24:31 | ijw | Luxury. | |
| 14:24:37 | edleafe | Indeed! | |
| 14:24:51 | mriedem | i have a dugout in the dirt | |
| 14:24:55 | mriedem | it serves my needs | |
| 14:27:07 | markus_z | mriedem: AFAIK I provided all information for your concerns on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/406898/ Can I do anything else there? | |
| 14:30:30 | mriedem | markus_z: i've removed the -1 | |
| 14:30:37 | markus_z | thanks | |
| 14:31:56 | mriedem | markus_z: so basically there are some things backported, like the console refactor patches, which were not functionally needed, but made the target bug fix backport easier | |
| 14:32:25 | mriedem | and all of those groundwork backports are already merged by now anyway | |
| 14:33:19 | markus_z | mriedem: The refactor patches were not backported as they weren't functionally needed. That's why there are conflicts. | |
| 14:34:18 | markus_z | *if* we would have backported the "groundwork" patches, then there wouldn't have been conflicts. | |
| 14:34:35 | mriedem | sure, but that refactor series also introduced a regression in ocata, | |
| 14:34:40 | mriedem | the one about xen and libvirtd | |
| 14:34:46 | mriedem | *virtlogd | |
| 14:35:04 | markus_z | ah, damn, you're right | |
| 14:35:13 | mriedem | right, so we don't want those backports | |
| 14:35:15 | mriedem | for the refactor patches | |
| 14:35:21 | mriedem | or did we backport that to newton? | |
| 14:35:36 | markus_z | sec, I have to check the fix again, need a minute | |
| 14:35:58 | mriedem | looking at the topic branch for newton i don't think we did https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:%22bug+1455252%22 | |
| 14:36:23 | mriedem | i think that was https://review.openstack.org/#/c/385367/ | |
| 14:36:41 | mriedem | hmm maybe not | |
| 14:38:42 | markus_z | That was your fix: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/442550/ | |
| 14:40:43 | markus_z | I think it was this one: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/407450/3/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py | |
| 14:41:32 | markus_z | yep, pretty sure. That's where I screwed up the log_path. | |
| 14:41:41 | mriedem | yup | |
| 14:41:45 | markus_z | That's not backported. | |
| 14:41:49 | mriedem | ok | |
| 14:43:06 | raj_sing- | mriedem: edmondsw Performance testing with service token enabled is part of our plan for Pike. I am not sure yet how to do that, but will focus once glance patch land. Currently we are debugging some errors on that patch. | |
| 14:43:13 | mriedem | markus_z: +W my german friend | |
| 14:43:29 | mriedem | sorry for the delay | |
| 14:43:30 | edmondsw | raj_sing- great, tx | |
| 14:44:53 | mriedem | mtreinish: sdague: can you take a look at these ocata backports? fixes the retry regression: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bug/1671648+branch:stable/ocata | |
| 14:45:07 | markus_z | mriedem: Thanks a lot my american hero ;P | |
| 14:45:23 | gibi | mriedem, mdbooth: I looked into the circular reference bug you found yesterday. Here is the easiest way to solve it https://review.openstack.org/#/c/446948/ | |
| 14:45:26 | sdague | mriedem: mtreinish is in singapore, so it's sat already | |
| 14:45:27 | mriedem | mtreinish: what was the anime new york hero guy again? | |
| 14:45:31 | mriedem | damn | |
| 14:45:46 | mriedem | bauzas: can you take a pass through these backports? https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bug/1671648+branch:stable/ocata | |
| 14:46:49 | markus_z | frickler: Got a second about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/444164/3 ? That's the VNC setup patch. | |
| 14:49:20 | Dinesh_Bhor | Hi all, Can someone take a look at these two small patches: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/445338/ , https://review.openstack.org/#/c/445782/ Both are having one +2. | |
| 14:52:42 | openstackgerrit | Sean Dague proposed openstack/nova master: Improve descriptions for hostId, host, and hypervisor_hostname https://review.openstack.org/446761 | |
| 14:53:03 | sdague | mriedem / melwitt how about that wording ^^^^ | |
| 14:55:04 | mriedem | sdague: typos | |
| 14:55:12 | mriedem | plus other unaddressed stuff from PS1 | |
| 14:55:22 | mriedem | otherwise the new wording is good, and the example of why it's useful | |
| 14:55:51 | sdague | mriedem: I'll fix the typos, I think the adminstrator only adds are just consistent with other fields that have it | |
| 14:55:54 | sdague | so are fine | |
| 14:56:11 | mriedem | i'm pretty sure nothing else in the os-hypervisors api ref says "this field is only for admins" | |
| 14:56:31 | mriedem | https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/compute/?expanded=show-hypervisor-details-detail#show-hypervisor-details | |
| 14:56:51 | mriedem | so if we say that for hypervisor_hostname in that API ref, then say it for all, | |
| 14:56:52 | mriedem | or none | |
| 14:57:05 | mriedem | if you're going to chew gum in class, you have to bring enough for everyone | |
| 14:57:47 | openstackgerrit | Sean Dague proposed openstack/nova master: Improve descriptions for hostId, host, and hypervisor_hostname https://review.openstack.org/446761 | |
| 14:58:04 | sdague | damn, the inline editor doesn't let you make 2 edits as once | |
| 14:59:17 | openstackgerrit | Sean Dague proposed openstack/nova master: Improve descriptions for hostId, host, and hypervisor_hostname https://review.openstack.org/446761 | |
| 14:59:40 | openstackgerrit | Sean Dague proposed openstack/nova master: Improve descriptions for hostId, host, and hypervisor_hostname https://review.openstack.org/446761 | |
| 14:59:45 | mriedem | jesus | |
| 14:59:55 | mriedem | at some point you just have to pull it down sean :() | |
| 15:00:22 | sdague | because changesets are expensive? | |
| 15:00:59 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Fix aggregate_update name and availability_zone clash https://review.openstack.org/447009 | |
| 15:01:08 | mriedem | sdague: because it keeps getting messed up | |
| 15:01:14 | mriedem | you fix one thing but not another, and then vice-versa | |
| 15:01:24 | sdague | mriedem: ok, oh is it reverting the old ones? | |
| 15:01:28 | sdague | gah, ok | |
| 15:01:34 | mriedem | i guess? | |
| 15:01:37 | mriedem | idk man, just pull it down | |