| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-07-31 | |||
| 16:38:25 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: api-ref: fix security_groups response parameter in os-security-groups https://review.openstack.org/489274 | |
| 16:38:25 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: api-ref: requested security groups are not applied to pre-existing ports https://review.openstack.org/489275 | |
| 16:38:56 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: Test resize with placement api https://review.openstack.org/487958 | |
| 16:55:25 | cdent | mriedem, jaypipes : on the topic of "live" placement tests: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-July/120369.html | |
| 17:14:55 | cdent | jaypipes: did you already have a plan in mind for https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1707252 or is that one still open? | |
| 17:14:55 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1707252 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Claims in the scheduler does not account for doubling allocations on resize to same host" [Medium,Confirmed] | |
| 17:26:47 | jaypipes | cdent: I'd like to see if gibi's test runs successfully with the fix for 1707669 up | |
| 17:27:11 | cdent | i rebased that one on to your latest stuff | |
| 17:27:39 | cdent | he said it had worked with local mods | |
| 17:28:28 | cdent | jaypipes: if you're responding to my question about 1707252, it won't make any different will it. If you're making conversation then: ✔ | |
| 17:29:10 | jaypipes | cdent: sorry, yeah, doesn't handle the resize same host problem. you want to handle that? | |
| 17:29:47 | jaypipes | cdent: though I'm not sure how the scheduler can tell if it's a resize-to-same-host situation... | |
| 17:30:08 | cdent | jaypipes: yes, that's part of why I haven't done it yet | |
| 17:30:20 | jaypipes | cdent: :) | |
| 17:30:25 | cdent | I've poked around at deeper inspection of the allocations | |
| 17:30:35 | cdent | but anything I can think of feels very hacky | |
| 17:31:04 | cdent | but basically: | |
| 17:31:37 | jaypipes | yeah, same | |
| 17:31:38 | cdent | if there are same rps in the source and dest allocs, where one of the resource classes is VCPU that signals a local resize | |
| 17:32:02 | jaypipes | cdent: yeah, same thought I had. | |
| 17:32:09 | jaypipes | cdent: ugly, but I suppose it would work... | |
| 17:32:18 | jaypipes | what does dansmith think of that? | |
| 17:32:50 | dansmith | jaypipes: I think I said that last week as the way we could tell | |
| 17:33:09 | cdent | that's 3/3, shall I go ahead then? | |
| 17:33:17 | dansmith | jaypipes: that goes away once we get to queens and don't have computes managing the allocations anyway right? | |
| 17:33:19 | jaypipes | dansmith: k. still agree it's ugly though, eh? | |
| 17:33:34 | dansmith | aside from the fact that the destination will eventually put the single one | |
| 17:33:35 | jaypipes | dansmith: no, this needs to go in the scheduler... | |
| 17:33:37 | dansmith | jaypipes: of course it's ugly | |
| 17:33:50 | jaypipes | dansmith: because the scheduler is the thing that creates that "doubled-up" allocation. | |
| 17:34:11 | dansmith | jaypipes: oh I thought you were talking about how to clean up the doubled-for-same-host allocation on the compute | |
| 17:34:50 | dansmith | jaypipes: why does the scheduler need to probe which is the compute by looking at vpcu? it just needs to add the new allocation to the existing one, and if the RPs are the same then sum the values | |
| 17:35:08 | jaypipes | dansmith: that's part of it I yeah, and that would be unnecessary once we remove the allocations on compute stuff, but there's the first step needed to actually create the doubled-up alloc in the scheduler. | |
| 17:35:41 | jaypipes | dansmith: ack, yeah that's true. | |
| 17:36:00 | cdent | no if the rps are the same, it might be shared | |
| 17:36:21 | cdent | so we need a way to distinguish a same rp that is a "host" | |
| 17:36:29 | cdent | and don't want to double the shared | |
| 17:36:34 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Add cinder keystone client opts to config reference https://review.openstack.org/488530 | |
| 17:37:08 | dansmith | cdent: that's not necessarily true | |
| 17:37:12 | dansmith | cdent: if you have a shared ceph provider, | |
| 17:37:26 | dansmith | you still need a double allocation during the migration, since you copy (even if COW) the disk | |
| 17:37:41 | cdent | the current code isn't doing that | |
| 17:37:45 | dansmith | you don't for a live migration, but I think that's something we can ignore as the scheduler doesn't know | |
| 17:38:36 | cdent | if we're happy to over-allocate for the duration of the move, this gets a lot simpler | |
| 17:39:01 | cdent | but the current code tries rather strenuously to not over-allocate, nor to be resource class conscious | |
| 17:39:08 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Increase cpu time for image conversion https://review.openstack.org/486642 | |
| 17:39:24 | dansmith | cdent: well currently things are wrong, but point me at something specific if you want :) | |
| 17:39:32 | cdent | heh | |
| 17:40:07 | jmlowe | cdent: thank you kindly, you are on a pretty reliable 4k messages between bourbons | |
| 17:41:35 | cdent | dansmith: in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/487589/ we added the doubling code | |
| 17:42:01 | cdent | it doesn't double shared providers | |
| 17:42:25 | cdent | jmlowe: i have no response to that | |
| 17:43:14 | cdent | dansmith: are you suggesting: merge the source and dest into one, if the rps are the same, sum ? | |
| 17:44:18 | dansmith | cdent: ah I see what you mean.. however, that's the broken code | |
| 17:44:43 | jmlowe | cdent: nova is supposed to take over managing network interfaces? | |
| 17:44:51 | dansmith | cdent: it would assume that the whole compute is shared because there are already allocations for that node right? | |
| 17:45:17 | cdent | dansmith: yes | |
| 17:45:18 | dansmith | cdent: the only way around this, aside from looking for compute providers by VCPU, is to have traits, which we don't have | |
| 17:45:21 | jmlowe | cdent: specifically adding and removing them from instances | |
| 17:46:03 | dansmith | cdent: personally, I don't know why we wouldn't just unceremoniously allocate the additional things (summing where there are existing allocations) | |
| 17:46:08 | dansmith | because for cold migration, resize, etc, you *do* need the doubled allocation for the shared provider, | |
| 17:46:14 | dansmith | live migration being the only one where you don't, AfAIK | |
| 17:46:28 | dansmith | jaypipes: right? | |
| 17:46:31 | cdent | dansmith: I'd be happy with that | |
| 17:46:40 | cdent | jmlowe: wat? | |
| 17:47:59 | diablo_rojo | mriedem, any idea how many people will be coming for Nova to the PTG? | |
| 17:48:09 | jaypipes | dansmith: I think you're on to something here... | |
| 17:49:15 | dansmith | diablo_rojo: how would mriedem know that? | |
| 17:49:37 | jaypipes | dansmith: that would definitely mean the cleanup process would be ickier, though. in that confirm_resize() block we'd need to somehow figure out how to also remove the shared provider doubled allocations | |
| 17:50:01 | dansmith | jaypipes: I think it's wrong otherwise | |
| 17:50:10 | diablo_rojo | dansmith, being your elected leader I quessed he might have some notion :) | |
| 17:50:33 | dansmith | diablo_rojo: I don't think his elected status means he tracks individual plans :) | |
| 17:50:39 | dansmith | diablo_rojo: if you're asking because of ticket sales, | |
| 17:50:43 | diablo_rojo | Just looking for an approximation. More or less than last time etc. | |
| 17:50:49 | dansmith | diablo_rojo: we _just_ got approval for the first round of people last week, so.. | |
| 17:50:54 | diablo_rojo | dansmith, not for ticket sales. For room allocation. | |
| 17:51:05 | diablo_rojo | I can always put nova in a closet ;) | |
| 17:51:37 | jmlowe | cdent: I thought I remembered something about moving the add and remove of instance nics out of neutron and into nova, could have been imagining that | |
| 17:51:48 | diablo_rojo | dansmith, I know estimates are rough for everyone, but a general idea of how many would be a huge help. | |
| 17:52:28 | jaypipes | diablo_rojo: 25-35 would be my guess. | |
| 17:52:56 | cfriesen_ | question about resource tracking...why do we need the "reserved_host_cpus" config option when we already have "vcpu_pin_set"? | |
| 17:53:06 | cdent | jaypipes: does the confirm resize have access to the flavor/requestspec/whatever against which it could compare the values of a retrieve allocation against? | |
| 17:53:11 | diablo_rojo | jaypipes, that works. Thanks :) | |
| 17:53:26 | jaypipes | cdent: yes. | |
| 17:54:47 | cdent | jaypipes: actually, why compare, just write the allocation that is the result of the spec, it will cleanup the shared doubling there and then, no math required? | |
| 17:55:23 | dansmith | cdent: the allocation that is the result of the old flavor is non-trivial to determine.. size, yes, but RP, not so much | |
| 17:55:40 | cdent | we don't care about the old flavor | |
| 17:55:45 | cdent | we're going to clobber the old flavor | |
| 17:55:51 | cdent | the allocations that resulted from the old flavor | |
| 17:55:55 | jaypipes | cdent: because unfortunately the source host is what runs confirm_resize() and doesn't know the UUID of the dest host so the only way to do it is to look for the source host's UUID in the allocation list and delete those, leaving the others | |
| 17:56:07 | dansmith | cdent: well, if you meant subtract the old one to get the new net, but I don't think we know enough to generate a full new one | |
| 17:56:09 | cdent | argh! | |
| 17:56:10 | dansmith | because yeah, that& | |
| 17:56:31 | jaypipes | though I suppose the source host *could* look up the uUID of the dest host by looking at the Migration object | |
| 17:56:45 | cdent | I know understand why there was so much table flipping last week | |
| 17:56:47 | dansmith | please no | |
| 17:56:48 | cdent | now | |
| 17:57:01 | jaypipes | dansmith: yeah, I don't want to do that either. | |
| 17:57:36 | jaypipes | cdent: ok, so do you have all the answers and ideas you need to work on that bug? | |
| 17:57:51 | cdent | jaypipes: apparently not | |