Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-04-20
08:49:51 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: conf: Deprecate 'default_floating_pool' https://review.openstack.org/431038
08:49:51 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: conf: Add neutron.default_floating_pool https://review.openstack.org/431037
08:53:00 openstackgerrit Dao Cong Tien proposed openstack/nova master: Stop using mox int unit/virt/xenapi/image/test_utils.py https://review.openstack.org/342626
09:04:56 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Make 'get_domain' private https://review.openstack.org/417378
09:06:19 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: conf: Set default for live_migration_scheme https://review.openstack.org/457716
09:06:20 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: conf: Add three new '[libvirt] live_migration_*' options https://review.openstack.org/456571
09:06:20 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: conf: Gather 'live_migration_scheme', 'live_migration_inbound_addr' https://review.openstack.org/456572
09:06:21 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: conf: Convert 'live_migration_inbound_addr' to HostAddressOpt https://review.openstack.org/456573
09:15:45 openstackgerrit Andy McCrae proposed openstack/nova master: Allow CONTENT_LENGTH to be present but empty https://review.openstack.org/455710
10:30:10 kashyap johnthetubaguy: Hi there
10:30:23 kashyap johnthetubaguy: You abandoned this one with: "There are some other threads on this now."
10:30:26 kashyap https://review.openstack.org/#/c/377756/
10:30:30 kashyap Care to point those threads?
10:40:41 openstackgerrit Huan Xie proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: XenAPI use os-xenapi v2 in nova https://review.openstack.org/453493
10:41:25 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Microversion 2.43 - Enable cold migration with target host https://review.openstack.org/406707
10:42:06 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Microversion 2.43 - List/Show all server migration types https://review.openstack.org/430839
10:42:12 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Microversion 2.43 - List/Show all server migration types https://review.openstack.org/430839
11:10:28 johnthetubaguy kashyap: the API WG has a spec, and we have a new one, I should have linked to those
11:10:43 kashyap johnthetubaguy: Thanks.
11:10:53 kashyap It's just dizzying about where we stand with all those abandoned specs
11:11:00 johnthetubaguy kashyap: I think this is the new one: https://review.openstack.org/454792
11:11:22 johnthetubaguy kashyap: they were all abandoned largely due to un answered -1s for several months
11:11:34 johnthetubaguy kashyap: but like we do for patches
11:11:35 kashyap johnthetubaguy: jaypipes: Is this also reproposed? "Standardize capabilities using Enums" -- https://review.openstack.org/#/c/309762/
11:12:02 kashyap johnthetubaguy: Yeah, figured as much. Can't keep inactive specs around forever
11:12:23 johnthetubaguy kashyap: I think thats alex_xu's work around traits
11:13:25 johnthetubaguy kashyap: yeah, exactly that
11:13:32 alex_xu kashyap: johnthetubaguy, yea that is replaced by trait
11:14:07 alex_xu kashyap: the standard trait is in https://github.com/openstack/os-traits now
11:14:41 alex_xu kashyap: this is for traits api http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/pike/approved/resource-provider-traits.html
11:14:46 kashyap johnthetubaguy: alex_xu: So, about instance live resize up / down, etc, was there a discussion about its status yet?
11:15:00 kashyap (I mean at the past Summit)
11:15:10 johnthetubaguy kashyap: at the ptg I think we said still blocked behind getting agreement on capabilities
11:15:45 kashyap johnthetubaguy: Ah-ha
11:15:57 johnthetubaguy ... but the folks who stepped up to do that just got laid off, so thats going to need another new owner
11:16:32 alex_xu :(
11:17:15 kashyap johnthetubaguy: Oh, from which company are the said folks, if I may ask?
11:17:25 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Abort Cold Migration https://review.openstack.org/334732
11:17:29 johnthetubaguy rackspace/OSIC
11:17:33 kashyap Ah-ha
11:17:43 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Specify keymap on server boot https://review.openstack.org/448830
11:18:58 johnthetubaguy kashyap: I think matt is getting a list of all the impacted priority items that need owners now, but still not sure whats happening to everyone yet
11:19:16 kashyap johnthetubaguy: Yeah, understood. Thank you
11:29:27 openstackgerrit Zhenyu Zheng proposed openstack/nova master: Support tag instances when boot https://review.openstack.org/394321
11:32:21 zioproto dansmith: hey are here ?
11:32:54 zioproto dansmith: remember when we fixed something in the nova migrations for the db upgrade from mitaka to newton ?
11:33:54 zioproto dansmith: I am testing now the migration of my production database... and I get these output
11:34:05 zioproto dansmith: https://pastebin.com/NU85iyqN any ideas ?
11:35:08 zioproto all those ERROR message dont look any good
11:36:34 johnthetubaguy I see "not all services that access the DB directly are updated to the latest version"
11:37:16 johnthetubaguy zioproto: not sure if that helps, but has you got everything upgrade before you do the data migrations for that release?
11:38:18 zioproto what I am doing here
11:38:27 zioproto I just get a dump of the production database
11:38:37 zioproto and I put it on a new db, that no other software touches
11:38:42 zioproto I install nova on this server
11:38:50 zioproto and I just run the commands you see in the pastebin
11:38:54 zioproto it is just to test the migrations
11:39:13 zioproto the database is my mitaka production database
11:39:42 zioproto and the packages I install are ubuntu nova Installed: 2:14.0.4-0ubuntu1.2~cloud0
11:39:55 zioproto johnthetubaguy: makes sense to do the test in this way ?
11:57:09 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Fix unnecessary code block in a release note https://review.openstack.org/458472
11:57:18 johnthetubaguy zioproto: sorry, just heading for my lunch, I think you need to update the service records to pretend they are running newton, before you can run the newton data migrations
12:07:07 zioproto johnthetubaguy: thanks I will try that
12:25:25 zioproto johnthetubaguy: I had to fix the thing with 'delete from services where deleted_at is not NULL;'
12:25:52 zioproto looks like if you have in your database services flagged as deleted this can break the migration
12:32:31 johnthetubaguy zioproto: ah, that rings a bell, I think dansmith has patch that already https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/2e05c82b807624b8420df4c94d68b75563b230d2 I guess its not in the package
12:32:58 johnthetubaguy actually, yeah, looks like thats not in a tagged release quite yet
12:33:01 asettle nicolasbock: Hey if you're around, I need a nova docs CPL ;) https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+bug/1683104 and https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+bug/1683071
12:33:01 openstack Launchpad bug 1683104 in openstack-manuals "instance is not created rightly" [Undecided,New]
12:33:02 openstack Launchpad bug 1683071 in openstack-manuals "error installing nova-common" [Undecided,New]
12:33:17 asettle I just need someone to help verify :(
12:33:25 zioproto Yes but this commit is in Mitaka
12:33:31 zioproto I am confused
12:33:47 nicolasbock asettle, ok, let me have a look
12:33:51 asettle Thanks :)
12:36:04 zioproto johnthetubaguy: maybe you are right, this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/438630/ is only in 14.0.5
12:36:14 zioproto and I have 14.0.4
13:21:15 efried mriedem Good morning. When you have a sec - I noticed in your "Reflections" email the term "shared storage pools" - was wondering what that means?
13:23:32 mriedem a pool, of shared storage
13:23:55 mriedem efried: https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/newton/implemented/generic-resource-pools.html
13:25:32 efried mriedem Okay, thanks. PowerVM has Shared Storage Pools (capitals intentional) which is a very specific technology based on a cluster of VIOSes etc. Just wanting to anticipate future confusion that will be caused by e.g. https://review.openstack.org/443189
13:26:16 mriedem it's just a file share isn't it?
13:26:31 dansmith zioproto: yep, what johnthetubaguy said.. there are some data migrations that won't run without the services having been updated yet
13:26:38 dansmith zioproto: specifically one, that PciDevice one
13:26:50 dansmith zioproto: if you don't use any pci devices in your deployment then it won't do anything when it runs anyway
13:27:01 johnthetubaguy dansmith: it sounds like he was missing your fix up for the delete services thingy
13:27:15 johnthetubaguy old packages
13:27:16 johnthetubaguy well... older
13:27:18 traskat hey, what i have to do apply to apply extra specs to running VMs for examaple disk IO limitations?
13:27:27 dansmith johnthetubaguy: ah maybe
13:27:28 sfinucan mriedem: Could you take a look at these today? https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:bump-min-libvirt
13:27:39 mriedem sfinucan: i can
13:28:01 sfinucan mriedem: Cheers
13:28:15 efried mriedem PowerVM SSP? No. The VIOSes share a pool of SAN disks and carve out LUs, which can then be attached to VMs. Things like thin clones are supported. Aforementioned patch allows multiple separate hosts (which otherwise don't communicate with each other) to share a SSP, including sharing images.
13:29:16 efried The VIOSes use an AIX-specific cluster technology, and an AIX-specific shared file system type.
13:29:32 mriedem efried: at a high level it's the same concept for modeling it in the placement service
13:29:39 mriedem it's a shared storage resource provider,
13:29:54 mriedem which will be in an aggregate relationship with the compute node resource providers that it serves disk to
13:30:19 efried mriedem Cool, maybe we ( thorst ) can look into folding PowerVM SSP into that concept. Thanks.
13:30:53 mriedem so rather than each compute node resource provider reporting it has 100TB of disk or whatever the pool size is, which would be a lie if you have 10 computes for the same storage (10*100TB), you'd model it so that the 10 compute RPs share the same disk RP with 100TB

Earlier   Later