| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-04-24 | |||
| 08:41:19 | johnthetubaguy | Nova then (eventually) will send to neutron the os-vif response to say what the host supports | |
| 08:41:35 | johnthetubaguy | neutron then picks from that what it thinks its best from its side of things | |
| 08:42:07 | johnthetubaguy | the port binding info is then returned as a serialized os-vif object, that needs to tell os-vif exactly what needs to get setup | |
| 08:42:19 | johnthetubaguy | or something like that (wibble inspect the instance and the host, etc) | |
| 08:42:36 | johnthetubaguy | its not clear how this all fits into that pattern, for me at least | |
| 08:43:46 | johnthetubaguy | sfinucan: is that the kinda stuff you were thinking, or is that orthogonal? | |
| 08:47:50 | moshele | johnthetubaguy: this is orthogonal because we to doument the plug/unplug of each vif plugin | |
| 08:50:24 | moshele | johnthetubaguy: basiclly doumenting parts like https://github.com/openstack/os-vif/blob/master/vif_plug_ovs/ovs.py#L154-L174 as it become to match complex. sfinucan are we on the same page? | |
| 08:53:16 | johnthetubaguy | moshele: ah, understood, that certainly looks out of hand | |
| 08:54:08 | johnthetubaguy | moshele: I was kinda expecting each of those vif objects to do the thing they needed, rather than having massive If statement | |
| 08:57:10 | moshele | johnthetubaguy: the ovs-plugin just say it used with the OVS mechanism driver, but there are several ways to achieve binding (plain ovs/ hybrid with lb/DPDK/windows) each one is an if statement | |
| 08:58:00 | sfinucan | moshele: Yeah, exactly | |
| 08:58:03 | sfinucan | As a start | |
| 08:58:12 | johnthetubaguy | moshele: yeah thats certainly the current state, that seems bad, you could use the object structure to remove the all the ifs I would have thought | |
| 08:58:37 | johnthetubaguy | I guess I was expecting those to all get advertised as separate things in some ways, just sharing a common set of utils | |
| 08:58:38 | sfinucan | johnthetubaguy: There's definitely good reason to go the way you're suggesting but that'd be a different series | |
| 08:58:45 | johnthetubaguy | sfinucan: oh, totally | |
| 08:58:52 | johnthetubaguy | just thinking out loud really | |
| 08:58:57 | openstackgerrit | Zhenyu Zheng proposed openstack/nova master: Rework descriptions in os-hypervisors https://review.openstack.org/452030 | |
| 08:59:58 | sfinucan | moshele: So if you wanted to add a document with description of that particular VIF driver, I'd be happy enough for now | |
| 09:00:47 | sfinucan | We could collectively expand it out to all the other VIF types after the fact | |
| 09:01:34 | moshele | sfinucan: sure I will start something and let see where we go with it | |
| 09:01:41 | sfinucan | (y) Cheers :) | |
| 09:13:39 | abhi89 | johnthetubaguy: Hi | |
| 09:14:45 | johnthetubaguy | abhi89: hi | |
| 09:16:33 | abhi89 | i have thought of a solution to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/455118/3 & commented after your comments.. can you please take a look & let me know about whether that would be the right way to proceed | |
| 09:19:22 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Always disconnect_volume after rebase failures https://review.openstack.org/458807 | |
| 09:19:29 | johnthetubaguy | abhi89: can we get a stack trace out the system that is seeing this error | |
| 09:19:46 | johnthetubaguy | abhi89: your current patch still doesn't look like it would fix the problem, based on what is described | |
| 09:20:51 | abhi89 | johnthetubaguy: stacktrace will have VolumeLimitExceeded() exception, i will attach the stacktrace also | |
| 09:21:29 | abhi89 | johnthetubaguy: i haven't made those changes to my current patch. i have just proposed a solution that i thought of | |
| 09:21:33 | johnthetubaguy | abhi89: right, thats what I expected, the code you have added is not reachable | |
| 09:21:46 | johnthetubaguy | abhi89: ah... sorry, let me read the comments not the code | |
| 09:22:12 | abhi89 | yes.. please go through my comment of proposed solution once | |
| 09:23:00 | johnthetubaguy | abhi89: we do need to translate the exception, its a common patter we have for all cinder errors. What I would do is just add additional information into the translated exception | |
| 09:24:37 | sfinucan | johnthetubaguy: Could you stick these on your review queue? https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+topic:bp/move-nova-cmds-to-cliff | |
| 09:24:47 | johnthetubaguy | abhi89: I would recommend you instead look at this line of code: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/5a6d4e089dca2515c0f7e083a8b903ac7a166773/nova/volume/cinder.py#L203 | |
| 09:24:54 | sfinucan | I'd like to get them merged this cycle so I can push on with that bp next cycle | |
| 09:26:36 | abhi89 | johnthetubaguy: yes. we can even add additional information to the translated exception at https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/5a6d4e089dca2515c0f7e083a8b903ac7a166773/nova/volume/cinder.py#L203 | |
| 09:27:11 | johnthetubaguy | sfinucan: possibly, my queue is getting a bit silly right now, particularly given I don't have a job by the time the summit happens, AFAIK :( | |
| 09:27:11 | abhi89 | johnthetubaguy: i will try this out | |
| 09:27:23 | johnthetubaguy | abhi89: thanks, I think thats probably going to be easiest way to fix it | |
| 09:27:42 | abhi89 | johnthetubaguy: yes, thanks for your suggestion | |
| 09:28:05 | johnthetubaguy | abhi89: no problems, sorry I didn't add that on the first set of comments, I should have. | |
| 09:28:55 | johnthetubaguy | sfinucan: oh, wait, I see, its tiny | |
| 09:31:08 | sfinucan | johnthetubaguy: Yeah they're tidy enough. If you've enough on your plate though then they certainly wait | |
| 09:38:27 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add os-quota-class-sets-query-update https://review.openstack.org/459185 | |
| 10:01:57 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: List/show all server migration types https://review.openstack.org/430608 | |
| 10:06:48 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for limits endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/458805 | |
| 10:18:15 | bhagyashris | cdent: Hi, | |
| 10:21:54 | cdent | hi bhagyashris, what's up? | |
| 10:31:48 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for hosts endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/459231 | |
| 10:32:35 | bhagyashris | cdent: Fine. I have one doubt. Actually I have configured the multinode setup and tried to use the nfs shared storage. so How can I used the single resource provider in multinode setup? | |
| 10:34:06 | cdent | bhagyashris: are you saying you want to track the nfs share as a resource provider? If so, that's not yet supported. It's still the case that the compute-node will report the disk to which it has access. Shared resource providers is something we hope to get done before the end of this current cycle | |
| 10:34:15 | cdent | bhagyashris: if you mean something else, what is it? | |
| 10:35:25 | bhagyashris | cdent: yeah i want to track nfs share as a resource provider. | |
| 10:36:35 | cdent | bhagyashris: there's a blueprint for that here, but progress is stalled while we work some other things out first: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/shared-resources-pike | |
| 10:37:24 | bhagyashris | cdent: ok. means on current master we can not configure the shared disk resource provider for multinode set up right? | |
| 10:37:24 | cdent | you could, if you wanted, track the nfs share as a resource provider and manage its inventory with your own tooling, now, but that information wouldn't yet be used in scheduling decisions | |
| 10:37:31 | cdent | correct | |
| 10:37:41 | bhagyashris | cdent: ok i will go through the blueprint. | |
| 10:38:22 | bhagyashris | cdent: i look in to the blueprint regading the resource pool but not sure that the implementation is completed. | |
| 10:38:40 | bhagyashris | cent: thank you for information | |
| 10:44:31 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: use plain routes list for hypervisor endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/459235 | |
| 10:49:30 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for limits endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/458805 | |
| 10:49:30 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for flavors-access endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/456589 | |
| 10:49:31 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for '/servers' endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/445864 | |
| 10:49:31 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for flavor endpoint instead of stevedore[1] https://review.openstack.org/456549 | |
| 10:49:32 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for hosts endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/459231 | |
| 10:49:32 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for '/os-aggregates' endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/456825 | |
| 10:49:33 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for flavors-extraspecs endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/456585 | |
| 10:49:34 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Use plain routes list for '/os-keypairs' endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/456478 | |
| 10:49:35 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: use plain routes list for hypervisor endpoint instead of stevedore https://review.openstack.org/459235 | |
| 12:00:58 | openstackgerrit | Moshe Levi proposed openstack/os-vif master: HW offload support for openvswitch https://review.openstack.org/398277 | |
| 12:00:59 | openstackgerrit | Moshe Levi proposed openstack/os-vif master: add documentation for vif plug ovs https://review.openstack.org/459258 | |
| 12:14:59 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Add description for /consoles https://review.openstack.org/459266 | |
| 12:25:45 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: List/show all server migration types https://review.openstack.org/430608 | |
| 12:43:26 | mriedem | lyarwood: i replied in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456896/ - i'm not sure i get your concern though | |
| 12:45:08 | lyarwood | mriedem: morning, yeah I missed the optimisation, I just assumed we were doing this to allow non-local connectors to be passed in as a kwarg that we would default to None when we wanted to use the local connector. | |
| 12:49:14 | mriedem | lyarwood: when i looked at the change that were passing a connector in, none of them had a local connector | |
| 12:49:28 | mriedem | *was | |
| 12:52:12 | lyarwood | mriedem: into _terminate_volume_connections? Sorry I don't follow. | |
| 12:52:44 | mriedem | earlier version of the patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456896/3/nova/compute/manager.py@3615 | |
| 12:52:54 | mriedem | was going out of it's way to get the connector and then pass it in to justify the kwarg | |
| 12:52:56 | mriedem | i don't know why | |
| 12:53:17 | mriedem | so until we actually need a connector=None kwarg on _terminate_volume_connections, i've omitted that | |
| 12:53:47 | lyarwood | mriedem: yeah that didn't make sense but that's the local compute connector, thus my confusion above ;) | |
| 12:54:07 | lyarwood | mriedem: and yeah, until we have a stashed connector to pass in the kwarg doesn't make sense | |
| 12:54:32 | lyarwood | mriedem: I just missed the optimisation and assumed we wanted to add the kwarg early | |
| 12:55:04 | lyarwood | anyway, back to these LM failures on stable | |
| 12:55:26 | mriedem | lyarwood: so are you still -1 on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456896/ ? | |
| 12:55:36 | lyarwood | mriedem: no, I'll clean that up now | |
| 12:56:05 | mriedem | thanks | |
| 12:58:14 | mriedem | jgriffith: when you're around, i had some questions marked with TODOs in the swap volume change for using the new cinder attachment APIs https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456971/4/nova/compute/manager.py | |
| 12:58:30 | mriedem | like, will deleting an attachment mess up migrate_volume_completion on the cinder side? | |
| 12:59:10 | mriedem | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456971/4/nova/compute/manager.py@4993 and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456971/4/nova/compute/manager.py@5017 specifically | |
| 13:00:29 | lyarwood | mdbooth: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/458807/ updated if you have anytime this afternoon | |
| 13:00:36 | lyarwood | kashyap: ^ also | |
| 13:00:55 | lyarwood | kashyap: could you also take a look at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/458854/1 | |
| 13:01:04 | kashyap | lyarwood: Struggling with something else at the moment :-( | |