Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-05-26
18:00:51 mriedem the person in the bug report said that nova hard-coding /v3/ in the url prefix is wrong
18:00:52 lbragstad mriedem: i'm digging into some stable maintenance things for keystone at the moment, but i'll look into that next
18:00:53 openstackgerrit Sean Dague proposed openstack/nova master: Migrate to oslo request_id middleware - mv 2.46 https://review.openstack.org/467998
18:01:12 sdague right, this is the versioned vs. unversioned keystone endpoint issue
18:01:22 mriedem ok - only thing that gives me pause is the v3 api-ref uses /v3/ too https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/identity/v3/#show-project-details
18:01:31 sdague https://review.openstack.org/#/c/438049/
18:01:58 sdague mriedem: so that's the result they will get if they made their identity url use the versioned one
18:02:21 sdague it's the same thing tripleo hit
18:03:18 sdague there is other keystoneauth magic we could lean on here
18:03:30 sdague the half baked patch I had died on the vine
18:04:38 sdague actually, I think https://review.openstack.org/#/c/438049/6/nova/api/openstack/identity.py might be the fix for them as well
18:04:54 sdague I didn't like it at the time because of how much magic hiding of issues it does
18:04:55 mriedem hit kolla too https://review.openstack.org/#/c/463500/
18:06:28 sdague yeh.
18:06:33 mriedem so with that patch of yours,
18:06:49 mriedem they go from a 400 (because of endpoint not found) to a 404 (Because endpoint not found)
18:06:55 mriedem but with a helpful message
18:07:18 sdague actually, they wouldn't get a 404
18:07:19 mriedem or does ksa actually do magic to find the right v3 endpoint?
18:07:25 sdague yep, it does
18:07:30 mriedem oh well that's neat
18:07:38 sdague that's the magic I wasn't all that comfortable with
18:07:43 mriedem oh
18:07:47 mriedem well
18:07:53 sdague but, honestly, it's probably the right UX for operators
18:07:59 mriedem yeah, plus upgrade impact isn't fun
18:08:03 sdague yep
18:08:35 sdague ok, so how about the following deal. You look at mv 2.46 again, and I'll fix this patch
18:08:42 sdague which we'll probably want to backport
18:08:48 openstackgerrit John Griffith proposed openstack/nova master: cinder: add attachment_create method https://review.openstack.org/459111
18:08:49 openstackgerrit John Griffith proposed openstack/nova master: cinder: add attachment_update method https://review.openstack.org/459113
18:08:49 openstackgerrit John Griffith proposed openstack/nova master: WIP/POC Implement new attach Cinder flow https://review.openstack.org/330285
18:09:16 mriedem sdague: ok
18:18:44 mriedem1 superdan: want to update the link in the channel topic to https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/Pike_Release_Schedule ?
18:18:58 superdan oh alright
18:24:37 mriedem1 2.46 reviewed
18:25:49 openstackgerrit John Griffith proposed openstack/nova master: WIP/POC Implement new attach Cinder flow https://review.openstack.org/330285
18:28:55 lbragstad mriedem: so you don't need anything from a ksa perspective, just double checking
18:31:21 mriedem lbragstad: sean is on it
18:31:22 mriedem thanks
18:32:49 mriedem leakypipes: figleaf: cdent: is there anything that merged recently which might be causing this? http://logs.openstack.org/32/468232/1/gate/gate-tempest-dsvm-cells-ubuntu-xenial/ad969ba/logs/screen-n-cpu.txt.gz?level=TRACE#_May_26_17_29_52_292260
18:32:58 mriedem looks like a race to cleanup allocations in the resource tracker when an instance is deleted
18:33:04 mriedem https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1693899
18:33:04 openstack Launchpad bug 1693899 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Cleaning up stale resource allocations can fail with InstanceNotFound" [Undecided,New]
18:33:08 mriedem just started in the last 24 hours or so
18:33:32 mriedem https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/439f67e7bc795f171af8248400c3f3e17a0bbe7e ?
18:33:43 mriedem yup
18:36:24 artom mriedem, the InstanceNotFound test thing - better to squash the two patches into one in the backport, or leave separate?
18:36:56 mriedem artom: gonna be hard to separate them since it's writing a test for something already fixed on master
18:37:27 artom mriedem, it could be fix first then test in the top patch. But yeah, squash makes more sense
18:37:34 mriedem unless you mean the test backport comes after the fix backport on stable too
18:37:38 mriedem ok
18:37:41 mriedem either way
18:38:34 mriedem cdent: figleaf: anyone want to pick that up? seems like just needs to handle that InstanceNotFound in RT, but i didn't review that original patch
18:38:53 cdent mriedem: i can give it a try, that's what I was thinking too
18:39:07 artom I noticed lyarwood proposed the fix for ocata too - if you're still around lyarwood, mind if I jump in in your patch and add the test?
18:39:36 mriedem why is this a warning? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/460177/12/nova/compute/resource_tracker.py@1013
18:40:01 mriedem because the RT shouldn't be cleaning up allocations when the scheduler/conductor is?
18:41:31 openstackgerrit Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Test InstanceNotFound handling in 'nova usage' https://review.openstack.org/468514
18:41:50 cdent warning seems wrong to me.
18:42:29 mriedem "WARNING I AM DOING THAT THING YOU ASKED ME TO DO"
18:42:55 cdent i'll change that too?
18:43:02 mriedem separate
18:43:09 mriedem but wow http://logstash.openstack.org/#dashboard/file/logstash.json?query=message%3A%5C%22Deleting%20stale%20allocation%20for%20instance%5C%22%20AND%20tags%3A%5C%22screen-n-cpu.txt%5C%22&from=7d
18:44:05 mriedem cdent: it was latent https://review.openstack.org/#/c/460177/12/nova/scheduler/client/report.py@a929
18:44:10 figleaf cdent: sorry, was heads down and just saw the above. You got it?
18:44:10 mriedem and if that's in ocata we'll want to backport that
18:44:59 cdent figleaf: yeah, you carry on on your stuff, should be fine
18:45:01 mriedem crap it's all the way back to newton https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/9374566d194be1e861e7d08dd0e3b2a615ff408c
18:45:08 mriedem cdent: i'll open a separate bug for the warning
18:45:14 cdent ✔
18:47:35 mriedem https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1693903
18:47:35 openstack Launchpad bug 1693903 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Excessive "Deleting stale allocation for instance" warnings in nova-compute logs" [Undecided,New]
18:47:39 openstackgerrit Sean Dague proposed openstack/nova master: Be more tolerant of keystone catalog configuration https://review.openstack.org/438049
18:47:58 sdague lbragstad / mriedem ^^^
18:58:19 mriedem sdague: commented. some issues in the release note
18:58:38 mriedem i thought the validation in the quota sets api happened in ocata so i was wrong there, we probably do want the new note under the upgrade section
18:58:43 mriedem but let's do it in a separate new release note please
19:00:32 sdague mriedem: ok, I'm trying to understand what you wanted as release notes
19:00:34 sdague because in the last patch you said make it a dedicated one
19:01:04 sdague oh, that it shows up so much later that we just need a whole other file?
19:01:27 sdague walk me through your ideal world here, I'll make it :)
19:01:44 sdague also, irc client crash, so my back buffer is gone
19:02:04 mtreinish sdague: I want world peace
19:04:32 mriedem sdague: the release note you're updating is already in a tagged release,
19:04:36 mriedem so it should be a separate file
19:04:43 mriedem tox -e venv -- reno new <something>
19:05:11 openstackgerrit John Griffith proposed openstack/nova master: WIP/POC Implement new attach Cinder flow https://review.openstack.org/330285
19:05:15 mriedem sdague: i was also confused because i thought we had this validation in the quotas api in ocata,
19:05:18 mriedem but we don't,
19:05:41 sdague ok, separate file is fine
19:05:44 mriedem so i think you just need to add a new release note with an upgrade impact that notes the thing about not being able to find keystone v3 will result in a 400 for these apis now
19:06:04 sdague I don't think this is an upgrade impact
19:06:09 sdague I actually think it mitigates one
19:06:15 mriedem if ksa does the magic to find v3 and the only issue is if v3 isn't there, then maybe the upgrade impact is just, 'nova requires keystone v3 now'
19:06:37 sdague the previous patch actually required unversioned keystone endpoint
19:06:44 mriedem it's an upgrade impact if you don't have keystone v3 right?
19:06:51 sdague sure
19:07:00 lbragstad yeah - i was going to say something like that in the comment here - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/438049/7/nova/api/openstack/identity.py,unified
19:07:00 mriedem which i dont think we required before this

Earlier   Later