| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-08-03 | |||
| 18:42:41 | dansmith | er, cancel that wait | |
| 18:42:57 | jaypipes | heh | |
| 18:42:57 | dansmith | jaypipes: this guy: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/490085/7 | |
| 18:43:22 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage: Deprecate '--version' parameters https://review.openstack.org/453808 | |
| 18:43:30 | jaypipes | dansmith: ah, yeah, totes. I didn't touch that guy | |
| 18:43:43 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage: Deprecate '--version' parameters https://review.openstack.org/453808 | |
| 18:43:44 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 18:43:45 | jaypipes | dansmith: +2 from me. | |
| 18:43:52 | dansmith | mriedem: you okay with me +2ing that even though I did the test bit? | |
| 18:45:22 | mriedem | for my change? | |
| 18:45:23 | mriedem | sure | |
| 18:45:28 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 18:45:30 | mriedem | it wasn't much - just removing TODOs | |
| 18:46:00 | mriedem | not to make your contribution to the change seem small or otherwise unimportant, of course :) | |
| 18:47:57 | dansmith | jaypipes: just unit tests I need to look at right? functional all work? | |
| 18:48:24 | jaypipes | dansmith: nope, all units should work fine. it's one functional test in tests/functional/compute/test_resource_tracker.py. | |
| 18:48:32 | dansmith | oh okay | |
| 18:48:55 | jaypipes | dansmith: it's expecting instance_claim() to have written allocation records for an ironic instance but it's not writing those allocations for some reason. | |
| 18:49:06 | dansmith | okay | |
| 18:49:14 | jaypipes | dansmith: and if I had to guess, maybe something to do with how we're pulling resources now with extra specs? | |
| 18:49:36 | dansmith | yeah found it | |
| 18:49:40 | dansmith | the test I mean | |
| 18:50:36 | prashkre | mriedem: Hi. Have you created a LP bug for issue with patch in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/391113/? | |
| 18:52:12 | mriedem | prashkre: i did but invalidated it once i understood how the policy rules were being linked | |
| 18:54:28 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add track_instance_changes note in disable_group_policy_check_upcall https://review.openstack.org/490627 | |
| 18:56:31 | prashkre | mriedem: I got confused with your query, now I got it why we had made it like that. due to compatablitiy with people who already started using that rule, it was made like that.. | |
| 18:58:28 | mriedem | melwitt: L35 in here about cell caches https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-pike-cells-v2-todos - i think we have that covered in the FAQs page | |
| 18:58:35 | mriedem | but let me know if you were thinking of something else | |
| 19:08:07 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: hardware offload support for openvswitch https://review.openstack.org/398265 | |
| 19:10:30 | openstackgerrit | Ed Leafe proposed openstack/nova master: Handle addition of new nodes/instances in ironic flavor migration https://review.openstack.org/487954 | |
| 19:15:53 | mriedem | dansmith: ok i traced this ServerGroupAntiAffinityFilter test which is doing min_count=2 so multi-create, and the filter scheduler correctly puts the instances on different hosts | |
| 19:16:19 | mriedem | because of this https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/filter_scheduler.py#L229 | |
| 19:16:29 | dansmith | mriedem: because one scheduling request for N instances maintains the state, but two parallel requests do not, right? | |
| 19:16:33 | mriedem | the first host chosen for the first instance is put in the request spec hosts list | |
| 19:16:46 | mriedem | yeah this is single request, | |
| 19:16:51 | mriedem | parallel would require the upcall safety check | |
| 19:16:56 | dansmith | right | |
| 19:16:59 | mriedem | single request, 2 instances, seems ok | |
| 19:17:02 | dansmith | I thought that's what I was tryin gto say | |
| 19:17:26 | mriedem | ah ok | |
| 19:17:49 | mriedem | so if you care about affinity/anti-affinity, the user has to do multi-create or stagger their create requests | |
| 19:18:03 | mriedem | i'd think most are doing multi-create in this kind of use case anyway... | |
| 19:18:08 | dansmith | well, if you are about it, presumably you want it to actually work, not just work in some circumstances | |
| 19:18:15 | dansmith | I dunno, maybe | |
| 19:18:36 | dansmith | if you're booting two nodes to be mirrors, then maybe | |
| 19:18:39 | mriedem | yeah if you don't care that much, you create the server group using the soft affinity/anti-affinity policy | |
| 19:19:22 | mriedem | if i'm creating 2 db VMs and want them on different hosts for protection, then i want it to work | |
| 19:19:59 | dansmith | right, which might be a num_instances=2 thing | |
| 19:20:08 | dansmith | but if you're bursting, | |
| 19:20:09 | cfriesen | mriedem: what about heat? | |
| 19:20:25 | dansmith | two things might be adding more webserver processes in parallel in response to load | |
| 19:20:26 | cfriesen | mriedem: we've had a bunch of issues due to heat issuing requests in quick succession | |
| 19:20:30 | dansmith | and those wouldn't be the single request | |
| 19:20:38 | mriedem | dansmith: yeah | |
| 19:21:14 | mriedem | sucks for the end user since the way this is going to behave is not up to them, it's dependent on the configuration of the cloude, | |
| 19:21:15 | mriedem | *cloud, | |
| 19:21:20 | mriedem | but in the beforetimes, | |
| 19:21:23 | mriedem | this could fail due to load anyway | |
| 19:21:26 | mriedem | or dropped messages | |
| 19:22:14 | dansmith | well, the late check will fail and error the instance if it can't verify | |
| 19:22:39 | cfriesen | dansmith: weren't we dropping the late check with cellsv2? or did that get added back? | |
| 19:22:50 | dansmith | cfriesen: that's what we're discussing | |
| 19:23:02 | mriedem | sweet my test passed http://logs.openstack.org/54/489754/6/experimental/gate-tempest-dsvm-neutron-multinode-full-ubuntu-xenial-nv/a4fbbb3/console.html#_2017-08-03_18_04_43_399430 | |
| 19:23:29 | cfriesen | dansmith: for what it's worth, we're missing an equivalent late check in the live-migration path. we found a race there. | |
| 19:23:59 | mriedem | we need an equivalent to dan's "HA and Pray" slogan for live migration | |
| 19:24:40 | dansmith | live migration is always prayer-powered | |
| 19:25:39 | dfisher | i shouldn't have laughed that hard | |
| 19:28:12 | cfriesen | seems like to close these sched races we need something like "make the choice, store the choice in the DB, verify the choice was valid and retry if not". | |
| 19:28:16 | dansmith | jaypipes: you're gone right? | |
| 19:28:27 | dansmith | cfriesen: that's placement | |
| 19:32:45 | dansmith | mriedem: I think I've fixed jaypipes' thing | |
| 19:32:50 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: remove provider allocs in confirm/revert resize https://review.openstack.org/488510 | |
| 19:33:53 | cfriesen | dansmith: so are we leaving races in there (due to parallel schedulers for example)? As I understand it we originally needed the re-verification because we didn't store the scheduler decision to the DB until after the request hit the compute node. | |
| 19:34:05 | mriedem | sdague: these old images actually seem pretty useful https://review.openstack.org/#/c/478470/ | |
| 19:34:10 | mriedem | i wonder why they were no longer used | |
| 19:34:42 | dansmith | cfriesen: when we track affinity in placement we won't need any of this because we'll be making the writing to the db as part of making the decison | |
| 19:34:43 | mriedem | although the might be inaccurate now | |
| 19:35:22 | cfriesen | dansmith: ah, okay. | |
| 19:36:16 | dansmith | gdi there's some gabbit failure now | |
| 19:36:20 | dansmith | which I suck at | |
| 19:38:40 | sdague | mriedem yeh, sfinucan and I went back and forth on that patch. I pushed for wanting to keep them, but they aren't used today, and it is more important that we get things merged | |
| 19:39:32 | mriedem | sdague: we also have https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/reference/vm-states.html | |
| 19:39:38 | mriedem | which is probably due for an audit also | |
| 19:39:50 | sdague | mriedem: many things are due for an audit | |
| 19:39:51 | mriedem | i'm trying to find the ironic doc that has all of their state machinery | |
| 19:40:14 | sdague | while I was fixing up the all misrendered block quotes I got a survery through what's there | |
| 19:40:33 | mriedem | why don't we have a search toolbar with the new docs theme? | |
| 19:40:34 | sdague | we need a pretty concrete discussion on information architecture at the PTG | |
| 19:40:41 | sdague | mriedem: I don't know | |
| 19:41:03 | mriedem | oh i found it | |
| 19:41:04 | mriedem | way at the bottom | |
| 19:42:37 | sdague | that's not search in our docs though, what is that? | |
| 19:43:52 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: remove provider allocs in confirm/revert resize https://review.openstack.org/488510 | |
| 19:43:53 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Add resource utilities to scheduler utils https://review.openstack.org/490514 | |
| 19:55:51 | mriedem | efried: what am i supposed to call powervm again? so as to not confuse it with powervm support via libvirt (phyp?) | |
| 19:56:33 | efried | mriedem PowerVM. That other thing doesn't exist. thorst_afk ? | |
| 19:57:09 | mriedem | PowerVMv2: the re-powering | |
| 19:58:35 | efried | mriedem Is there some context in which that other thing is actually present an causing confusion? | |
| 19:58:40 | efried | and* | |
| 20:00:06 | thorst_afk | It was my understanding that the libvirt code for powervm is not fully functional (I'll have to investigate a bit). I know there was some work on it several years ago, but I don't know that anyone has been maintaining or updating it for years. | |