| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-03-31 | |||
| 18:41:10 | mriedem | on commit and rollback, if the reservation is not set, it's a noop | |
| 18:41:11 | mriedem | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/objects/quotas.py#L100 | |
| 18:41:16 | mriedem | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/objects/quotas.py#L111 | |
| 18:41:22 | mriedem | i was wondering why we didn't fail | |
| 18:41:38 | mriedem | but those are really invalid operations, if you're trying to commit or rollback reservations before you made the reservation, it's a bug | |
| 18:41:40 | mriedem | right? | |
| 18:41:51 | melwitt | fwiw, I think it's a no-op at the db/api level too, so I don't think it matters | |
| 18:42:06 | mriedem | i'm not sure that's a good reason though | |
| 18:42:13 | melwitt | sure | |
| 18:42:27 | mriedem | but yeah, in the db api methods, if they don't find a reservation, they don't do anything | |
| 18:42:36 | mriedem | i was wondering why we didn't get a NotFound error on delete | |
| 18:42:36 | melwitt | yeah, it's not valid to do a commit/rollback without a reserve first | |
| 18:42:55 | mriedem | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/db/sqlalchemy/api.py#L3934 | |
| 18:43:11 | mriedem | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/db/sqlalchemy/api.py#L3922 | |
| 18:43:13 | melwitt | I'm not sure what the reasoning is to do a no-op, if there's some case where that would be a thing | |
| 18:43:15 | mriedem | reservations are just uuids right? | |
| 18:43:29 | melwitt | reservations are records in the reservations tables | |
| 18:43:32 | melwitt | *table | |
| 18:43:36 | mriedem | with a uuid | |
| 18:43:36 | mriedem | yeah | |
| 18:43:40 | mriedem | filter(models.Reservation.uuid.in_(reservations)).\ | |
| 18:44:00 | mriedem | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/db/sqlalchemy/api.py#L3866 | |
| 18:44:03 | mriedem | is on reserve | |
| 18:44:06 | mriedem | we get the list of uuids back | |
| 18:44:09 | mriedem | and store that in the Quota object | |
| 18:44:20 | artom | Can an instance have multiple fixed IPs? | |
| 18:44:36 | mriedem | so maybe i'll tinker with making commit/rollback w/o a reservation in the object a failure | |
| 18:44:42 | melwitt | artom: I think so, if it's on multiple networks | |
| 18:44:43 | mriedem | and see what falls out | |
| 18:44:49 | artom | melwitt, thanks :) | |
| 18:44:51 | mriedem | artom: yeah definitely | |
| 18:44:53 | clarkb | mriedem: artom also ipv4 + ipv6 | |
| 18:44:54 | mriedem | multinic | |
| 18:45:03 | clarkb | er melwitt artom ^ | |
| 18:45:08 | mriedem | and ipv8 | |
| 18:45:11 | mriedem | it's secret | |
| 18:45:12 | mriedem | and new | |
| 18:45:19 | mriedem | full of tomatoe | |
| 18:45:27 | artom | Are we running out of quarks to give IPv6s to? | |
| 18:45:38 | artom | IoSAP? | |
| 18:45:47 | artom | Internet of SubAtomic Particles... | |
| 18:47:05 | artom | Eesh, one bad joke and everyone shuts up? | |
| 18:47:52 | artom | Wear a bib next time ;) | |
| 18:48:05 | mriedem | you'd have to warn me | |
| 18:48:12 | mriedem | unless i start wearing one full time | |
| 18:48:49 | melwitt | mriedem: yeah, might be worth it to do an experiment. I can't imagine why no-op would be valid other than some sort of race where commit could possibly hit before the reserve and that leaving an orphan reservation is okay | |
| 18:49:12 | melwitt | I can't think of such a race, but I have heard of having a lot of orphaned reservations in the db. so that implies it happens somehow | |
| 18:49:16 | mriedem | maybe comstud is lurking | |
| 18:51:44 | mriedem | interesting https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/quota.py#L1401 | |
| 18:52:09 | mriedem | same with rollback https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/quota.py#L1425 | |
| 18:52:11 | mriedem | we just ignore exceptions | |
| 18:52:13 | mriedem | any exceptions | |
| 18:52:25 | mriedem | no matter how much Vek says that's safe, it seems unsafe | |
| 18:52:40 | melwitt | heh | |
| 18:52:48 | mriedem | " because the usage resynchronization will resolve the issue" | |
| 18:52:53 | mriedem | we don't re-sync by default do we? | |
| 18:53:00 | melwitt | we do. on every reserve | |
| 18:53:39 | melwitt | it will do a sync for that project/user combo | |
| 18:53:56 | melwitt | it doesn't help if some other user in your project is out of sync though | |
| 18:54:34 | mriedem | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/conf/quota.py#L278 | |
| 18:54:37 | mriedem | i was thinking of ^ | |
| 18:54:40 | melwitt | also a reminder that quota counting will remove reservations and usages | |
| 18:54:56 | melwitt | oh, hm | |
| 18:54:59 | mriedem | and https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/conf/quota.py#L267 | |
| 18:55:05 | mriedem | so i think by default, we don't refresh any of that stuff | |
| 18:55:07 | mriedem | or resync | |
| 18:55:19 | mriedem | so maybe the comment from Vek was more about, it will fix it, because we at rackspace turn those on... | |
| 18:55:19 | melwitt | yeah, okay. I didn't realize that defaulted to off | |
| 18:55:38 | melwitt | if it's on, then on every reserve it does a refresh if needed | |
| 18:55:48 | mriedem | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/db/sqlalchemy/api.py#L3647 | |
| 18:55:50 | mriedem | yeah if needed | |
| 18:56:00 | mriedem | based on age and until_refresh count | |
| 18:56:05 | melwitt | I think most operators turn it on, since going out of sync happens a fair bit | |
| 18:56:45 | mriedem | so if blindly handling all exceptions https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/quota.py#L1425 and assuming we're ok is dependent on those config options, which default to not doing the thing that comment says we do automatically, | |
| 18:56:52 | mriedem | it seems we should reraise the exception if those options aren't set | |
| 18:56:55 | mriedem | at least one of them | |
| 18:57:02 | mriedem | otherwise we're just silently failing | |
| 18:57:05 | melwitt | I guess I mean if usage != resource count if refreshes. not that that saves a lot I guess | |
| 18:57:55 | melwitt | maybe. it's going to be moot soon, we hope | |
| 19:01:57 | mriedem | what kind of state is that series in now? | |
| 19:03:25 | melwitt | I'm working on it and plan to push the series up today and see what tempest thinks of it | |
| 19:04:07 | melwitt | there is light at the end of the tunnel finally | |
| 19:12:00 | mriedem | ok so by default, reservations expire after 24 hours, | |
| 19:12:13 | mriedem | and there is a periodic task in the scheduler manager that triggers the expire routine | |
| 19:12:13 | openstackgerrit | dane-fichter proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Trusted flavors https://review.openstack.org/312225 | |
| 19:15:34 | JayF | Is there a standard username expected for login when an instance is rescued via `nova rescue`? | |
| 19:15:41 | JayF | There is not one documented in the client docs, afaict | |
| 19:21:00 | mriedem | https://espaces.edu.au/vwrangler/nectar-topics/nectar-how-tos/using-nova-rescue-to-repair-a-nectar-instance | |
| 19:21:23 | JayF | that one says "admin" | |
| 19:21:28 | mriedem | i'm not totally sure, but i think the username depends on the image used | |
| 19:21:29 | JayF | Rackspace uses root | |
| 19:21:36 | JayF | Yeah, that's what I was afraid of | |
| 19:21:42 | JayF | since ironic provides the image we have to just decide | |
| 19:22:16 | clarkb | fwiw if it were me, I would expect root | |
| 19:22:56 | JayF | We have it written today for "rescue@" | |
| 19:23:13 | JayF | I think root is more reasonable... but it's unfortunate that it's not dictated | |
| 19:23:19 | JayF | someone, just tell me what to do :P | |
| 19:24:02 | mriedem | dictated by the user making the rescue request? | |
| 19:24:14 | JayF | dictated by a document, or something like that | |
| 19:24:25 | mriedem | because the admin on a windows rescue image is going to be Administrator, right? | |