| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-08-31 | |||
| 20:41:09 | edleafe | artom: one of the things that came up in discussions in Austin about CAPI and such was that management of dynamic resources would never be handled by nova | |
| 20:41:15 | dansmith | but in reality, I think most cases will be satisfied by carving up your GPUs into chunks | |
| 20:41:34 | edleafe | so if your resources change, the virt driver has to report that change | |
| 20:41:49 | artom | edleafe, they would, I'm pretty sure | |
| 20:41:51 | dansmith | efried: sure, I know, but it'll go a lot quicker in person I think | |
| 20:42:06 | artom | edleafe, nova would still have to update its inventories though | |
| 20:42:37 | edleafe | artom: it does that periodically, based on what the virt driver tells it | |
| 20:42:40 | efried | Yeah, I'd like to understand more about how it breaks the model for me to change the inventory of something - for whatever reason I see fit. | |
| 20:42:45 | artom | edleafe, ah, we're fine then | |
| 20:42:51 | efried | ^ me == virt driver in this case | |
| 20:43:12 | cristicalin | hy, anyone have an idea why instances libvirt.xml may be missing metadata for user_id / project_id ? | |
| 20:43:13 | dansmith | efried: I said in response to allocation | |
| 20:43:14 | edleafe | efried: I always thought you looked like a virt driver | |
| 20:43:33 | efried | dansmith Well, yeah, it's sort of in response to allocation. | |
| 20:43:49 | efried | I guess I would call it in response to actually doing the virt driver work of satisfying the allocation. | |
| 20:43:51 | dansmith | efried: you should be exposing how much of a thing you have and the allocations come out of that | |
| 20:43:57 | dansmith | efried: you don't expose "available" you expose "total" | |
| 20:44:56 | efried | Hm, so I guess in this scenario I don't expose SRIOV_VF=48; instead I expose SRIOV_VF_EGRESS_PERCENTAGE_POINT=100 | |
| 20:45:44 | efried | but that doesn't allow me to model the max #VFs as 48 at the same time. Or two separate VFs in the same claim. | |
| 20:46:13 | efried | ick | |
| 20:47:23 | dansmith | efried: regardless, | |
| 20:47:39 | dansmith | if your NIC has 10G of bandwidth, you can have your provider expose CUSTOM_GIGS=10, | |
| 20:47:55 | dansmith | and have your flavor consume some number of those to avoid over-subscribing | |
| 20:50:35 | cfriesen_ | efried: wouldn't you still say that you have 48 VFs total, and allocate from that? | |
| 20:50:56 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Modernize set_vm_state_and_notify https://review.openstack.org/499799 | |
| 20:51:07 | dansmith | presumably if you have 3 VFs left, but no GIGs left, you don't want to allocate any more | |
| 20:51:11 | cfriesen_ | efried: presumably you could also model total bandwidth, and divide it up nonuniformly between the VFs | |
| 20:52:16 | efried | dansmith So the VFs and the GIGs would be separate resource classes sitting next to each other, and you have to claim VF=1,GIG=2 or whatever in your request | |
| 20:52:28 | efried | cfriesen_ Could, but that kills the flexibility | |
| 20:52:45 | efried | cfriesen_ No idea at the outset how the end user is gonna want to split 'em up. | |
| 20:52:50 | dansmith | efried: yeah, so you end up with either one capping the things that can be there | |
| 20:53:13 | dansmith | either you run out of tiny VFs or GIGs from requests with large bandwidth requirements | |
| 20:53:19 | tonygunk | Just upgraded from Ocata to Pike and trying to upgrade nova DB - getting error: "AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'get_rpc_transport'" | |
| 20:53:27 | tonygunk | http://paste.openstack.org/raw/620137/ | |
| 20:53:28 | efried | dansmith So in that scenario a claim that specifies VF=1 but doesn't specify GIG would have to fail. | |
| 20:53:44 | efried | I can't default GIG because placement wouldn't know about it. | |
| 20:53:48 | efried | But | |
| 20:53:54 | efried | I would have to fail at compute | |
| 20:53:54 | dansmith | efried: that'd be up to the guy making out the flavors yeah | |
| 20:53:55 | tonygunk | Anyone know what is going on? | |
| 20:54:15 | dansmith | tonygunk: you have an outdated oslo_messaging I think | |
| 20:54:36 | edleafe | efried: sounds analogous to vcpu/ram/disk in splitting a physical server | |
| 20:54:46 | edleafe | efried: it's all in how the flavors are configured | |
| 20:54:48 | dansmith | edleafe: right, you waste some memory if you run out of disk | |
| 20:54:59 | dansmith | which is why we have flavors anyway, | |
| 20:55:07 | dansmith | so you can pack things so you don't waste stuff if you care about that | |
| 20:55:20 | dansmith | instead of just letting users request 1 cpu and 20TB of disk | |
| 20:55:25 | tonygunk | dansmith: Ok - thanks - I'll see if that resolves it | |
| 20:55:28 | efried | And a flavor that specifies CPU but not memory is useless. | |
| 20:55:51 | efried | Okay, I dig it. Thanks again. | |
| 20:56:23 | cfriesen_ | efried: I meant what dansmith is saying....two separate resource classes | |
| 20:56:52 | efried | (dansmith edleafe - that's the other thing I want to avoid in Denver - being the only one in the room needing to have basic concepts explained to him, and wasting everyone else's time.) | |
| 20:56:56 | efried | cfriesen_ Dig. | |
| 20:57:15 | dansmith | efried: understood, it's just not as fun for me if we do it this way | |
| 20:57:17 | mriedem | nova meeting in 3 minutes | |
| 20:57:55 | cfriesen_ | is it possible for an admin user to boot an instance "on behalf" of another user/project? | |
| 20:57:57 | dansmith | mriedem: dude I cannot effing wait | |
| 20:57:59 | dansmith | mriedem: PC BROS! | |
| 20:58:01 | efried | Sorry dansmith. I'll allocate you a predetermined number of units of your libation of choice. | |
| 20:58:15 | dansmith | efried: traits=wheat,unfiltered | |
| 20:58:25 | efried | noted | |
| 20:59:50 | mriedem | dansmith: better check your privilege | |
| 20:59:56 | dansmith | heh | |
| 21:01:49 | tonygunk | dansmith: now I'm getting this error after upgrading oslo.messaging to 5.30 | |
| 21:01:52 | tonygunk | http://paste.openstack.org/raw/620138/ | |
| 21:02:09 | dansmith | tonygunk: paste is old? :P | |
| 21:03:19 | dansmith | tonygunk: I can't help you as much with that one, sorry | |
| 21:11:49 | tonygunk | dansmith: actually uninstalling and reinstalling PasteDeploy was the solution.. weird.. | |
| 21:12:03 | dansmith | *shrug* but good | |
| 21:12:28 | efried | tonygunk Seen that a hundred times. Curse PasteDeploy! | |
| 21:12:42 | efried | Sorry I didn't punch through your last paste, woulda been able to tell you right off. | |
| 21:13:03 | tonygunk | efried: :-) | |
| 21:22:38 | efried | I think if you give me nested resource providers, with some careful modeling I can do everything in the virt driver. The rest of nova doesn't need to know about a device as being any different from any other resource. | |
| 21:27:48 | efried | edleafe You mentioned earlier that "we still have some work to do with traits and nested providers before any of this will actually work" - somewhere I can find a summary of what's still on the table? | |
| 21:33:29 | cfriesen_ | efried: I think the PTG etherpad has some links | |
| 21:33:39 | efried | ah, cool | |
| 21:33:42 | efried | thanks cfriesen_ | |
| 21:37:29 | cfriesen | efried: I think this is the nested providers work: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/nested-resource-providers,n,z | |
| 21:38:06 | edleafe | efried: yeah. There's the series from alex_xu starting with https://review.openstack.org/#/c/489206/, as well as Jay's nested RP series starting with https://review.openstack.org/#/c/470575/ | |
| 21:38:17 | efried | edleafe cfriesen Thanks. Looks like not toooo much; hopefully containable in early q? | |
| 21:38:48 | edleafe | efried: only when you look at the code with light-red-tinted lenses | |
| 21:38:59 | cfriesen | efried: edleafe: I think there's also a missing piece to wire it up to live migration | |
| 21:39:02 | efried | Sigh. | |
| 21:39:17 | efried | I just thought you were blushing. | |
| 21:40:04 | mriedem | there are bugs that still need to be fixed from claims in the scheduler before we can add nested and shared RPs | |
| 21:40:16 | mriedem | the move operations are all over the floor | |
| 21:40:28 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Modernize set_vm_state_and_notify https://review.openstack.org/499799 | |
| 21:41:13 | mriedem | for anyone that cares, the main ones i'm tracking for backports to pike are | |
| 21:41:15 | mriedem | 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1713786 | |
| 21:41:16 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1713786 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Allocations are not managed properly in all evacuate scenarios" [High,In progress] - Assigned to Matt Riedemann (mriedem) | |
| 21:41:26 | mriedem | 2. https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1713796 | |
| 21:41:27 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1713796 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Failed unshelve does not remove allocations from destination node" [High,Triaged] | |
| 21:41:47 | mriedem | i think that's it for right now | |
| 21:41:57 | mriedem | once those are fixed and backported to pike and merged, we can do a pike patch release | |
| 21:42:17 | mriedem | i've got the fix for half of the first bug up for review | |
| 21:42:27 | bauzas | roger. | |
| 21:42:28 | mriedem | starting here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/499678/2 | |
| 21:43:08 | mriedem | tomorrow i'm going to work on the 2nd half, which is if evacuate fails on the compute, we have to cleanup the allocations created by the scheduler for the dest node | |
| 21:43:30 | mriedem | like, if the rebuild claim fials | |
| 21:43:32 | mriedem | *fails | |