| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-07-07 | |||
| 19:35:16 | mriedem | mayhap i'll update the spec quick | |
| 19:38:43 | melwitt | superdan: can you tell where I would need to put an "objects.register_all()" to call object classmethods in the websocketproxy? would it have to be here or is there a way it could only be done once? https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/console/websocketproxy.py#L71 | |
| 19:39:41 | superdan | melwitt: you could do it at module-level.. it is only needed once per process | |
| 19:40:07 | melwitt | superdan: okay, cool. thanks | |
| 19:40:12 | superdan | you wouldn't want to do it per-request like that | |
| 19:41:02 | melwitt | yeah, that's what I was thinking | |
| 19:42:45 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Convert websocketproxy to use db for token validation https://review.openstack.org/333990 | |
| 19:55:04 | mriedem | superdan: oh i guess that allocations thing was mentioned in the deps section https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/pike/approved/custom-resource-classes-in-flavors.html#dependencies | |
| 19:55:25 | mriedem | maybe that was supposed to or expected to happen in http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/ocata/implemented/custom-resource-classes.html | |
| 19:55:25 | superdan | mriedem: that part is done already | |
| 19:55:41 | mriedem | "This depends on work to change the resource tracker to allow drivers to expose allocations of custom resource classes" | |
| 19:55:43 | superdan | the migration of existing instances is different from what is described there, and is specific to ironic | |
| 19:55:51 | superdan | right that depends-on is done | |
| 19:55:56 | mriedem | we don't expose allocations for custom resource classes | |
| 19:56:04 | mriedem | we expose inventory for custom resource classess | |
| 19:56:05 | superdan | we can from the driver, hang on | |
| 19:56:14 | superdan | oh | |
| 19:56:20 | mriedem | that's what i was talking about in https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/client/report.py#L141 | |
| 19:56:28 | superdan | yeah okay | |
| 19:56:36 | superdan | I was glossing over the allocation word there | |
| 19:57:25 | superdan | there's still the migration work that needs doing which is neither of these | |
| 19:57:56 | mriedem | yeah i think i've covered that here in this spec update, hold on | |
| 19:58:06 | superdan | cool, I gotsta jump on a call | |
| 19:59:13 | mriedem | geez another one | |
| 19:59:18 | mriedem | these aren't 900 numbers are they? | |
| 19:59:25 | superdan | I have a problem | |
| 20:11:05 | melwitt | grr, internet is on the fritz again | |
| 20:15:11 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Amend spec for "Allow custom resource classes in flavor extra specs" https://review.openstack.org/481748 | |
| 20:15:12 | mriedem | superdan: leakypipes: figleaf: ^ | |
| 20:15:27 | melwitt | mriedem: I think that tempest test works because the common.get_instance() method gets the instance via compute/api and that does a set_target_cell() that targets the context to the cell the instance is in | |
| 20:15:44 | mriedem | melwitt: so the same reason that normal attach works | |
| 20:15:48 | mriedem | so even though the instance isn't on a host, | |
| 20:15:51 | mriedem | it's still mapped to the original cell | |
| 20:16:02 | mriedem | tricksy baggins | |
| 20:16:09 | mriedem | melwitt: i told you you were the only one that could figure it out | |
| 20:16:28 | mriedem | ha | |
| 20:17:58 | mriedem | mayhap you'd like to +W https://review.openstack.org/#/c/481683/ | |
| 20:18:40 | mriedem | actually, | |
| 20:18:44 | mriedem | so maybe this means we don't need that fix | |
| 20:19:30 | mriedem | yeah, it was'nt failing b/c the context is already targeted | |
| 20:19:54 | melwitt | mriedem: yeah I was wondering, what broke that brought up the bug? | |
| 20:20:18 | mriedem | nothing :( | |
| 20:20:27 | mriedem | i noticed the local creation part during a review of something unrelated, | |
| 20:20:36 | mriedem | and because of how local delete has bit us with cells, | |
| 20:20:38 | melwitt | ah, okay | |
| 20:20:48 | mriedem | i immediately thought this was also busted in a similar way | |
| 20:21:32 | melwitt | yeah, the set_target_cell is so hidden that it's hard to tell when we need an extra target cell or not | |
| 20:33:31 | openstackgerrit | Andrey Kurilin proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Fix cropping the endpoint url https://review.openstack.org/479818 | |
| 20:53:21 | superdan | mriedem1: ah yeah, so we probably don't need that | |
| 20:53:29 | superdan | mriedem1: hence my asking where/how this came hup | |
| 20:53:32 | superdan | up even | |
| 20:55:09 | mriedem1 | sorry | |
| 20:55:26 | mriedem | the local create thing scared me because of local delete issues | |
| 20:55:37 | superdan | hah | |
| 20:55:47 | mriedem | leakypipes: i went through https://review.openstack.org/#/c/476632/ - we can't actually allocate in the scheduler until we've done the changes in the compute to not claim if the allocations are already done, right? | |
| 20:56:02 | mriedem | otheriwse we allocate in scheduler and still claim in compute | |
| 20:56:05 | superdan | mriedem: we already have that right? | |
| 20:56:11 | mriedem | do we? | |
| 20:56:24 | superdan | mriedem: compute just checks the allocations in placement, changing them only if need be | |
| 20:56:35 | mriedem | but i thought the big win was not doing the claim at all | |
| 20:56:38 | mriedem | in the resourc etracker | |
| 20:56:52 | superdan | we can't drop the RT until this is in place | |
| 20:56:56 | mriedem | plus, | |
| 20:57:04 | mriedem | there should be a minimum compute version check somewhere i thought, | |
| 20:57:17 | mriedem | we had the whole back and forth about sending the actual allocations down to the compute over rpc | |
| 20:57:18 | superdan | mriedem: I dunno, ocata computes did the allocation stuff right? | |
| 20:57:21 | mriedem | to tell the compute if it should claim | |
| 20:57:43 | superdan | that's to tell it if it should forego the normal RT claiming right? | |
| 20:57:44 | mriedem | and i thought we settled on not sending hte allocations claimed over rpc, but instead just have the compute check to see if the allocations were already done for it | |
| 20:57:48 | mriedem | and by pass the claim (noop) | |
| 20:58:51 | superdan | yeah | |
| 20:59:16 | superdan | here's the short and curly of it: | |
| 20:59:37 | superdan | there is BBQ hurling its way towards me at about 60MPH, so I stop caring about this when it gets here | |
| 21:00:17 | mriedem | at 2pm? | |
| 21:00:30 | superdan | hell yes.. taylor gets half day fridays in the summer | |
| 21:01:33 | mriedem | so https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/pike/approved/placement-claims.html#other-deployer-impact | |
| 21:01:37 | mriedem | and https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/pike/approved/placement-claims.html#work-items | |
| 21:01:44 | mriedem | "Make compute nodes GET /allocations/<instance_id> for verifying if already created, and if so, don’t POST allocations to Placement service." | |
| 21:01:50 | mriedem | that's what i'm thinking of | |
| 21:02:02 | mriedem | we can sort it out on monday when everyone is actually around | |
| 21:02:07 | mriedem | including his bauzasness | |
| 21:02:30 | superdan | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/client/report.py#L859-L877 | |
| 21:02:52 | superdan | L868 stops if they're equal | |
| 21:03:01 | mriedem | yeah i know about that, | |
| 21:03:39 | superdan | bypassing the existing RT still needs to happen | |
| 21:03:44 | mriedem | but we're still doing all of this other claim checking stuff in the compute that seems unnecessary - although there are going to be things the compute side claim will pick up that we don't in the scheduler, like pci/numa and overhead | |
| 21:03:50 | superdan | yep | |
| 21:04:07 | mriedem | i wasn't sure what we were going to do about the nfv resources | |
| 21:04:27 | mriedem | and i thought in boston for overhead we said, well, you adjust the reserved amount configs to buffer your inventory | |
| 21:04:54 | superdan | we said we'd do the simple thing first, expecting the op to reserve enough, | |
| 21:05:02 | superdan | potentially updating reserved automatically after that yeah | |
| 21:06:40 | mriedem | i'll just go back to my corner with https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471899/ where things make sense | |
| 21:30:37 | Apoorva | Our Cinder CI is failing with following error http://paste.openstack.org/show/614811/. Is this a known issue? | |
| 21:44:21 | sgordon | so i am looking at this thread http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/2017-July/thread.html#45139 | |
| 21:44:31 | sgordon | "[Openstack] Live Migration and LibVirt CPU Mode" | |
| 21:44:52 | sgordon | and i could swear there was a legit bug around this at some point but am struggling to pin down where it was discussed/fixed | |
| 21:45:46 | sgordon | specifically "Therefore it appears if a VM XML CPU definition contains "cpu mode='host-model'" the cpu model is ignored and the 2 host CPU models are compared." | |
| 21:45:51 | openstackgerrit | Mathieu Gagné proposed openstack/nova master: Add ability to signal and perform online volume size change https://review.openstack.org/454322 | |
| 21:50:48 | sgordon | ring any bells for anyone? | |
| 21:51:58 | superdan | sgordon: I think maybe kashyap was discussing that with someone at some point? | |