| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-08-02 | |||
| 16:14:30 | mriedem | we can figure out the resize to same host case | |
| 16:14:33 | dansmith | then yeah I'll look at that too | |
| 16:14:37 | mriedem | in the scheduler, that's what i was going to poke at | |
| 16:17:22 | dansmith | cdent: can you look at my comment on the top one just now? | |
| 16:18:16 | cdent | oh yeah that. every single time I read that chunk of code I get confused | |
| 16:18:20 | cdent | they are different structures | |
| 16:18:46 | cdent | i’m not sure how we ended up there | |
| 16:19:07 | dansmith | cdent: they're supposed to be different you mean? | |
| 16:19:11 | dansmith | GET vs PUT? | |
| 16:19:15 | cdent | yeah | |
| 16:19:27 | dansmith | how is that restful? | |
| 16:19:42 | cdent | it isn’t very | |
| 16:19:50 | dansmith | okay, glad we agree on that :) | |
| 16:19:55 | cdent | but there was a disagreement between you/me and jay at some point | |
| 16:20:10 | cdent | you and i wanted the GET to return a dict because it made processing the response easy | |
| 16:20:19 | cdent | (this was at the end of last summer or so) | |
| 16:20:24 | dansmith | not about that, that I know of, but maybe it ended up with a disparity as a side effect? | |
| 16:20:46 | cdent | side effect of? | |
| 16:21:08 | dansmith | meaning, I would never argue for GET/PUT to be different structures, so I'm wondering if we just never made PUT match the changed GET or something and nobody realized? | |
| 16:21:55 | cdent | oh, possibly? | |
| 16:22:05 | openstackgerrit | Ildiko Vancsa proposed openstack/nova master: Implement new attach Cinder flow https://review.openstack.org/330285 | |
| 16:22:20 | dansmith | mriedem: you're working on the scheduler doubling or what? I kinda need to do it to test any changes I make for the un-doubling, so I might as well do it unless you've already started | |
| 16:22:30 | cdent | but I also think there was some dislike (I don’t recall why) of the rp uuid being a key in the POST | |
| 16:22:36 | dansmith | cdent: that's pretty disappointing | |
| 16:22:41 | dansmith | regardless of how we ended up here | |
| 16:22:45 | cdent | indeed | |
| 16:22:58 | cdent | there are quite a lot of disappointments | |
| 16:23:12 | mriedem | dansmith: was just starting with a unit test for the scheduler | |
| 16:23:26 | dansmith | mriedem: okay I guess I'll hold off them | |
| 16:23:27 | dansmith | *then | |
| 16:23:59 | mriedem | i'll throw up the wip shortly | |
| 16:24:00 | dansmith | I'm really kinda confused about this doubling anyway | |
| 16:25:17 | dansmith | I guess it's the attempt to account for shared storage that makes this complicated, | |
| 16:25:22 | dansmith | and which avoids doubling for same-host | |
| 16:25:30 | cdent | dansmith: yes | |
| 16:26:03 | mriedem | yup | |
| 16:26:38 | mriedem | "Remove any allocations against resource providers that are | |
| 16:26:38 | mriedem | # already allocated against on the source host (like shared storage | |
| 16:26:39 | mriedem | # providers)" | |
| 16:26:49 | mriedem | so i guess the intention was to specifically not double up shared storage | |
| 16:26:51 | mriedem | on a mov | |
| 16:26:52 | mriedem | *move | |
| 16:26:55 | dansmith | which is wrong anyway | |
| 16:27:00 | dansmith | for certain types of shared storage | |
| 16:27:11 | mriedem | seemed like the right idea at the time?! | |
| 16:27:13 | dansmith | it's not wrong for a volume, but is wrong for a compute node using ceph | |
| 16:27:21 | mriedem | which was 72 hours ago? | |
| 16:27:52 | dansmith | I know, looking at this, I swear I've never seen it before, but I'm pretty sure I +2d it not long ago | |
| 16:28:31 | mriedem | ha yeah same here | |
| 16:28:54 | mriedem | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/487589/ | |
| 16:29:01 | openstackgerrit | Ildiko Vancsa proposed openstack/nova master: Implement new attach Cinder flow https://review.openstack.org/330285 | |
| 16:30:58 | mriedem | dansmith: melwitt: skip the cells v2 meeting yeah? | |
| 16:31:55 | dansmith | oh heh, I meant to say I have a conflict today anyway | |
| 16:31:56 | dansmith | so yeah | |
| 16:39:32 | openstackgerrit | Ildiko Vancsa proposed openstack/nova master: Implement new attach Cinder flow https://review.openstack.org/330285 | |
| 16:42:31 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1708205 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "placement allocation representation asymetric on PUT and GET" [Low,Confirmed] | |
| 16:42:31 | cdent | dansmith: in honor of your pain, I created a bug, which we can decided to care about or not: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1708205 | |
| 16:42:40 | dansmith | oh I care | |
| 16:42:42 | dansmith | I care bigly | |
| 16:42:50 | cdent | tremendous | |
| 16:47:03 | mriedem | ok got the patch | |
| 16:47:08 | mriedem | pushing soon | |
| 16:47:10 | mriedem | prepare | |
| 16:50:49 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Sum allocations in the scheduler when resizing to the same host https://review.openstack.org/490085 | |
| 16:50:52 | mriedem | dansmith: cdent: ^ it's not the prettiest, and it doesn't account for a case that we'd have shared storage | |
| 16:51:09 | jangutter | I've got a newbie question here regarding attaching/detaching SR-IOV ports in Nova. I presume it's not going to be "just something simple" and would need work in Queens at the very least? (ref: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/139910/ ) | |
| 16:51:26 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Avoid error log on 405 response https://review.openstack.org/490021 | |
| 16:52:17 | dansmith | ack I will build on it when I'm done with my thing | |
| 16:54:07 | cdent | mriedem: If were on a non-shared some host resize, there will only be one allocation, so perhaps we can avoid some of the looping, which makes my brain explore? | |
| 16:54:14 | cdent | s/some/same/ | |
| 16:54:28 | mriedem | dansmith: ok, i have a todo question in the test - which is i'm not sure if we even need the compute to adjust things, e.g. if the new alloc for vcpu is smaller than the current alloc, wouldn't we just not sum those? in other words, shouldn't the new allocations when we're done be the max of the current + new? | |
| 16:54:41 | jangutter | Has someone taken a look at attaching/detaching SR-IOV ports recently? If not, I can try to take a stab at it. | |
| 16:54:49 | mriedem | jangutter: no | |
| 16:54:53 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: doc: Start using oslo_config.sphinxext https://review.openstack.org/482961 | |
| 16:54:53 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: doc: Rework README to reflect new doc URLs https://review.openstack.org/480074 | |
| 16:54:54 | cdent | mriedem: for the duration of the resize we need room for both vms, don’t we? | |
| 16:54:54 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: doc: Start using oslo_policy.sphinxext https://review.openstack.org/479358 | |
| 16:54:54 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: policies: Fix Sphinx issues https://review.openstack.org/480516 | |
| 16:54:55 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: doc: Rework index page per new sections https://review.openstack.org/478485 | |
| 16:54:56 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: doc: Rewrite index page https://review.openstack.org/490088 | |
| 16:54:56 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: doc: Remove dead files https://review.openstack.org/478470 | |
| 16:55:05 | dansmith | mriedem: I don't think we should be that discriminating | |
| 16:55:06 | mriedem | cdent: even if it's on the same host? | |
| 16:55:18 | dansmith | cdent: his point is that vcpus are somewhat ephemeral, not a strict quantity of things that go away | |
| 16:55:23 | dansmith | except for pinning, but... | |
| 16:55:24 | mriedem | cdent: yes i tried a few ways to do this w/o the looping and stuff and it hurt my brain | |
| 16:55:37 | dansmith | I think the scheduler should stay out of deciding what it does and doesn't know about the hypervisor | |
| 16:55:44 | mriedem | if i'm resizing from 1 cpu to 2 cpu on the same host, my total allocation on that host should be 2, not 3 | |
| 16:56:20 | mriedem | yeah it's fair to say we don't want to bake all that logic into the scheduler | |
| 16:56:33 | mriedem | just seems a bit wasteful | |
| 16:56:39 | mriedem | until you confirm and we fix thigns | |
| 16:56:41 | cdent | and for vmware and powervm and maybe others, the resize may not be on the same host, just the same n-cpu? | |
| 16:56:54 | mriedem | powervm should be fine | |
| 16:56:56 | dansmith | cdent: we're accounting based on node though | |
| 16:56:58 | mriedem | vmware is the freak | |
| 16:57:12 | dansmith | still, | |
| 16:57:31 | mriedem | but yeah it's per node | |
| 16:57:33 | dansmith | for a hypervisor with very concrete resources, we don't know that some resources add and others don't | |
| 16:57:36 | dansmith | and, | |
| 16:57:48 | dansmith | we're not using double the disk in most cases, | |