| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-03-17 | |||
| 16:29:48 | mriedem | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/rpcapi.py#L720 | |
| 16:29:59 | mriedem | you use your nova config pre_lie_migration_timeout value there | |
| 16:29:59 | cburgess | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/rpcapi.py#L720 | |
| 16:30:01 | cburgess | LOL yeah | |
| 16:30:08 | cburgess | mriedem Just found that same line. | |
| 16:30:09 | mriedem | default to None to get the default from oslo.messaging | |
| 16:30:14 | mriedem | bump to 10 minutes if you need to | |
| 16:30:18 | cburgess | mriedem Yup | |
| 16:30:23 | cburgess | mriedem So fixed value or config option? | |
| 16:30:27 | mriedem | config | |
| 16:30:33 | cburgess | Where is sdague to yell at me about config options? | |
| 16:30:37 | cburgess | mriedem Bug? or Spec? | |
| 16:30:41 | mriedem | this is completely operator side config | |
| 16:30:48 | mriedem | this is a bug i think | |
| 16:31:01 | mriedem | the spec is changing the blocking call to two casts | |
| 16:31:07 | cburgess | mriedem Right | |
| 16:31:27 | cburgess | mriedem OK... I shall file bug with code since this is easy and allow me to get ATC again. :P | |
| 16:31:44 | mriedem | cburgess: ATC isn't a thing anymore | |
| 16:31:45 | mriedem | remember | |
| 16:31:50 | mriedem | your ATC pass is your PTG $100 | |
| 16:32:49 | openstackgerrit | Chris Friesen proposed openstack/nova master: remove unused parameter in rpc call https://review.openstack.org/447055 | |
| 16:33:07 | openstackgerrit | Sarafraj Singh proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Spec to add per instance timeout for LM https://review.openstack.org/442809 | |
| 16:33:17 | cburgess | mriedem ATC = voting rights still | |
| 16:33:39 | cburgess | mriedem Semi-related... any idea who to contact about my ATC pass? I never got that email with details for Boston. | |
| 16:34:14 | cburgess | mriedem I can't vote in elections for TC, or nova unless I'm ATC. Or unless a PTL goes through the special ATC nomination process to make someone an ATC. | |
| 16:34:46 | dtp | johnthetubaguy and jroll, are you guys around? | |
| 16:35:20 | raj_singh | johnthetubaguy: I tried to address your concerns on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/442809/. Can you please have another look, when you get a chance? | |
| 16:35:28 | johnthetubaguy | dtp: I am around | |
| 16:35:39 | cfriesen | cburgess: I had an issue too...ended up emailing summit@openstack.org | |
| 16:35:42 | johnthetubaguy | raj_singh: cool | |
| 16:35:48 | cburgess | cfriesen Cool thanks. | |
| 16:35:59 | dtp | johnthetubaguy - would have have a look at https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/conf-network-metadata-always-static-ip when you have a few minutes, please? | |
| 16:36:07 | cburgess | cfriesen Weird because I recall them even asking me to confirm I was going to boston and my email when I checked in at PTG but nothing. | |
| 16:36:18 | mriedem | cburgess: i don't remember anything about ATC passes for boston | |
| 16:36:23 | mriedem | true for the elections though | |
| 16:36:32 | mriedem | cburgess: did you land any code changes in ocata? | |
| 16:36:45 | cfriesen | cburgess: whoops, make that summitreg@openstack.org | |
| 16:36:49 | mriedem | cburgess: otherwise there is an ATC nomination process but i think we're past that | |
| 16:36:52 | cburgess | mriedem No I haven't landed actual code in... a while... | |
| 16:37:07 | cburgess | mriedem I don't get to code anything. :( | |
| 16:37:26 | sdague | cburgess: we can totally find you some easy bugs to fix :) | |
| 16:37:42 | cburgess | I last landed code on 2/8/2016 | |
| 16:37:52 | sdague | cburgess: nova api-ref is in tree now, I'm sure you can tell us a ton of things we lie about with the API :) | |
| 16:37:52 | cburgess | sdague I just found one. It involves a new config option, you will hate me. | |
| 16:38:03 | cburgess | sdague LOL | |
| 16:38:12 | mriedem | dtp: btw, now that you're around, we should talk about your alternative for https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/service-hyper-pci-uuid-in-api | |
| 16:38:26 | dtp | sure, you want to do that here or privately? | |
| 16:38:31 | mriedem | dtp: here | |
| 16:38:42 | mriedem | unless it involves profanity | |
| 16:38:46 | mriedem | but then still here | |
| 16:39:00 | superdan | since when does that matter? | |
| 16:39:05 | mriedem | superdan: it doesn't | |
| 16:39:16 | dtp | hehe | |
| 16:39:19 | dtp | my main concern is [Then when a request to delete a service is made, if the uuid is provided we can simply iterate cells until we find the service, or error with a 404.] | |
| 16:39:42 | dtp | i would expect to not have to iterate when given an id | |
| 16:39:48 | dtp | or guid | |
| 16:39:52 | superdan | dtp: no, we do | |
| 16:40:01 | superdan | dtp: unless we index services in the api db, which wouldn't be worth the trouble, IMHO | |
| 16:40:04 | superdan | plus the syncing problem | |
| 16:40:49 | dtp | if i understand correctly, the problem w/ id is we don't know which cell to point to, right? | |
| 16:41:00 | mriedem | yes | |
| 16:41:02 | superdan | dtp: the problem with id is that it can be duplicated in multiple cells | |
| 16:41:08 | superdan | not that we don't know what cell it's in | |
| 16:41:11 | mriedem | dtp: we'd need a ServiceMapping in the api db | |
| 16:41:16 | mriedem | like we have for HostMapping and InstanceMapping | |
| 16:41:16 | superdan | -2 on that | |
| 16:41:19 | superdan | please no | |
| 16:41:24 | mriedem | i agree, no to that | |
| 16:41:39 | dtp | so i was thinking we could embed the cell id w/ the object id | |
| 16:41:52 | mriedem | the int? | |
| 16:42:20 | superdan | you mean change id to "%(cell_uuid)s-%(service_uuid)s" ? | |
| 16:42:23 | dtp | yes | |
| 16:42:31 | dtp | something like that | |
| 16:42:38 | mriedem | id is an int primary key right now, | |
| 16:42:43 | mriedem | and expressed that way in the api | |
| 16:42:47 | mriedem | so we can't change that | |
| 16:43:00 | superdan | mriedem: he means in the api after a microversion | |
| 16:43:01 | superdan | which we could do | |
| 16:43:02 | mriedem | unless you're talking about rather than return service uuid in the microversion, just put the cell id in that | |
| 16:43:02 | superdan | however, | |
| 16:43:03 | mriedem | ok | |
| 16:43:05 | superdan | I'd rather not expose cell details out of the api, even subversively | |
| 16:43:26 | superdan | and I don't think this is anywhere near a big enough problem to warrant that | |
| 16:43:27 | mriedem | that is something that exists with cellsv1 right? | |
| 16:43:30 | mriedem | the cell namespace? | |
| 16:43:49 | superdan | mriedem: yeah, and it has problems, and we vowed not to expose cell details out of the api with v2 | |
| 16:44:05 | mriedem | ok, yes, it does feel too special snowflake for a problem that doesn't warrant it | |
| 16:44:23 | superdan | yeah | |
| 16:44:54 | mriedem | because if we did that for services/computes/pci_devices, we'd have to start thinking about doing it for other things too, for consistency, which we don't want to do | |
| 16:45:04 | mriedem | you could restrict an id like that to admin-only type resources, but still | |
| 16:45:18 | superdan | there's just no need for it, IMHO | |
| 16:45:55 | mriedem | dtp: just curious, how many cellsv1 cells are you guys running in production? | |
| 16:46:03 | superdan | we can parallelize the queries anyway, to lower the latency at some point | |
| 16:46:08 | superdan | mriedem: cern has 50 | |
| 16:46:14 | mriedem | because initial deployments that weren't ever cellsv1 to begin with will just be a single cell | |
| 16:46:25 | dtp | we don't have 50 | |
| 16:46:26 | mriedem | so there is no looping | |
| 16:46:26 | superdan | mriedem: service delete has to be an infrequent thing | |
| 16:46:32 | mriedem | superdan: i know | |
| 16:46:52 | dtp | but hypervisor lookup? | |