| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-09-29 | |||
| 15:50:33 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: each resource provider has a name attribute. | |
| 15:50:41 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: that is set to hypervisor_hostname value | |
| 15:50:49 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: so yeah, you can already do that. | |
| 15:50:55 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: and that name is unique BTW | |
| 15:51:24 | sean-k-mooney | leakypipes: yes i know we require that all hostnames be unique in the openstack cloud | |
| 15:51:47 | sean-k-mooney | leakypipes: the issue is the get resouce provider api to day i think need you to pass the uuid | |
| 15:51:50 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: you can find the compute node by hostname, and from the compute node uuid look up the RP | |
| 15:51:53 | mriedem | that's what our functional tests do | |
| 15:51:58 | sean-k-mooney | i dont know if we have a rest api call to get it by name | |
| 15:52:06 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: no, I mean when resource providers are added by the compute node, the resource provider's name attribute is set to the hypervisor_hostname | |
| 15:52:32 | sean-k-mooney | fried_rice: cool if GET /resource_providers?name={hostname} works that perferct | |
| 15:52:34 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: GET /resource_providers?name=$hypervisor_hostname | |
| 15:52:43 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: sorry, yeah, fried_rice beat me to it. | |
| 15:52:59 | fried_rice | Yeah, to be technically correct, in case $hypervisor_hostname isn't the same as `hostname` | |
| 15:52:59 | leakypipes | he's a wily coyote, that fried_rice | |
| 15:53:16 | leakypipes | fried_rice: which is the case for Ironic nodes :) | |
| 15:53:27 | fried_rice | right | |
| 15:53:39 | sean-k-mooney | the reason i was asking is for the neutron placement work. when nested provider are added we will need to find the computenode provider for the current host hence question | |
| 15:54:17 | fried_rice | So as long as you know how virt is reporting the hypervisor hostname, you're golden. | |
| 15:54:54 | sean-k-mooney | in neutron i belive we have the host id in a config that must be set to match the one used by nova | |
| 15:55:23 | leakypipes | right | |
| 15:55:32 | fried_rice | # Hostname to be used by the Neutron server, agents and services running on | |
| 15:55:32 | fried_rice | # this machine. All the agents and services running on this machine must use | |
| 15:55:32 | fried_rice | # the same host value. (unknown value) | |
| 15:55:32 | fried_rice | #host = example.domain | |
| 15:55:35 | fried_rice | in neutron.conf ? | |
| 15:55:39 | leakypipes | device_id == hostname, right? | |
| 15:55:42 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: ^\ | |
| 15:55:59 | sean-k-mooney | device_id? | |
| 15:56:41 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: in neutron port response... | |
| 15:57:35 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: never mind. | |
| 15:57:36 | sean-k-mooney | oh binding:host_id is | |
| 15:57:40 | mriedem | superdan: http://forumtopics.openstack.org/cfp/details/60 | |
| 15:57:45 | mriedem | melwitt: tssurya: ^ | |
| 15:59:06 | superdan | mriedem: hmm, did the gate just get dumped? | |
| 15:59:16 | mriedem | idk | |
| 15:59:18 | sean-k-mooney | binding:host_id is set by nova when the port is bound by the compute node | |
| 15:59:54 | sean-k-mooney | leakypipes: but thanks that answers my question ill let rodolfo know | |
| 16:00:06 | sean-k-mooney | and thank fried_rice too | |
| 16:00:07 | melwitt | I thought I saw something in #openstack-infra that said they were gonna stop zuul v3 | |
| 16:00:08 | superdan | s'empty | |
| 16:00:27 | melwitt | but I wasn't sure if I read it right | |
| 16:00:35 | fried_rice | I just got a weird merge conflict | |
| 16:00:45 | superdan | well, I had to fix the unit test patch anyway, so I'll push up some fresh in a minute | |
| 16:02:54 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Move cell0 marker test to Cellsv1DeprecatedTestMixIn https://review.openstack.org/508314 | |
| 16:02:55 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Use improved instance_list module in compute API https://review.openstack.org/505418 | |
| 16:02:55 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Fix CellDatabases fixture swallowing exceptions https://review.openstack.org/506312 | |
| 16:02:56 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Fix minor input items from previous patches https://review.openstack.org/506416 | |
| 16:03:38 | superdan | mriedem: did you want me to do something with those session proposals or just headupping me? | |
| 16:03:45 | mriedem | just fyi | |
| 16:03:50 | superdan | ack | |
| 16:05:57 | melwitt | mriedem: are you going to propose an install/upgrade one or shall I? you didn't mention one in your ML post but I wanted to double check | |
| 16:09:41 | mriedem | melwitt: i wasn't planning on proposing a specific nova upgrades one no, i figured some of that will be covered in cells/placement sessions on what happened in pike and the focus for queens | |
| 16:09:46 | mriedem | feel free though | |
| 16:10:07 | openstackgerrit | John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova master: Re-use existing ComputeNode on ironic rebalance https://review.openstack.org/508555 | |
| 16:10:10 | superdan | so, | |
| 16:10:33 | superdan | since we don't get to prioritize these (right?) I'd hate to lose one of these important sessions for an upgrade one that we've hit many times before | |
| 16:10:40 | superdan | if we have space, it's always good to have one of those, | |
| 16:10:51 | superdan | but if the TC is picking, I don't want them to choose that over, say, the cells or placement one | |
| 16:11:03 | superdan | could we maybe indicate a preferred ordering somehow? comments? | |
| 16:11:13 | mriedem | comments are about all you get | |
| 16:11:26 | mriedem | NOVA PRIORITY: 5 | |
| 16:11:32 | johnthetubaguy | did you make the placement one sound cross project-ey? | |
| 16:11:50 | johnthetubaguy | that might be a good way to keep a good session | |
| 16:11:54 | mriedem | i didn't propose a placement one because of http://forumtopics.openstack.org/cfp/details/50 | |
| 16:12:23 | mriedem | ^ is both generic and too specific | |
| 16:12:47 | mriedem | what i think that is, is talking about how nested resource providers and custom resource classes will let you do all kinds of external scheduling things | |
| 16:12:49 | johnthetubaguy | yeah, it is. | |
| 16:12:55 | mriedem | which is not what i was going to propose | |
| 16:13:09 | mriedem | i guess i'll just propose my own | |
| 16:13:12 | johnthetubaguy | I would tempted to add a good one, and note its a duplicate? | |
| 16:13:16 | melwitt | okay. my thinking was if ppl are recently having trouble installing or upgrading nova, that was important and I wanted to gather action items on whether we need to improve docs, relnotes, nova-manage commands, etc | |
| 16:14:37 | mriedem | melwitt: bauwser has one for docs and relnotes specifically | |
| 16:14:52 | mriedem | i see your point | |
| 16:15:15 | mriedem | are people recently having trouble beyond ocata? | |
| 16:15:21 | mriedem | i know ocata was tough for some people | |
| 16:15:54 | melwitt | yeah, I saw that. docs and relnotes generic session without a target like install/upgrade I'm not sure what will come out of that | |
| 16:16:37 | mriedem | "the release notes don't have enough information!" | |
| 16:16:44 | mriedem | "the release notes have too much information" | |
| 16:16:48 | mriedem | that's what will come out of that | |
| 16:16:56 | superdan | yep | |
| 16:17:25 | superdan | and what will come of the upgrade one is much of the same we've heard before I think, which is why I care less about it than the other things | |
| 16:17:35 | melwitt | but I understand everyone's point. I really wish I knew if operators were suffering on newton/ocata/pike and what we could do to ease that. I don't remember discussing that span of releases in a session but I do remember a lot of ppl coming into our channel with issues | |
| 16:17:35 | superdan | if we have space for it, then I'm certainly happy to have it | |
| 16:18:39 | melwitt | we responded to the issues and improved our docs and nova-manage commands. and now it's our best assumption that everything is okay but I wasn't sure if it is since we haven't had anyone tell us. it's more like lack of complaint | |
| 16:19:14 | melwitt | just thinking aloud mostly | |
| 16:20:18 | melwitt | how can we tell if we have space for more proposals? we can't right? | |
| 16:20:33 | mriedem | melwitt: we can't | |
| 16:21:04 | mriedem | there is a fast forward upgrades session | |
| 16:21:14 | mriedem | so my guess would be a nova-specific upgrade session would be asking for FF upgrades | |
| 16:21:36 | mriedem | ttx: how many slots are there for forum topics? | |
| 16:21:51 | mriedem | s/topics/sessions/ | |
| 16:22:54 | mriedem | i would also love feedback on where we've sucked it up perf-wise, | |
| 16:22:58 | mriedem | but, | |
| 16:23:00 | mriedem | ... | |
| 16:23:48 | melwitt | yeah. this is weird that we can't control what we have sessions about and have to worry that some sessions would bump others out | |
| 16:24:27 | mriedem | and as a result we don't propose as many | |
| 16:24:37 | mriedem | meanwhile there are like 4+ overlapping sessions about HPC and NFV | |
| 16:25:37 | itlinux | hello all.. I have a docker image that I installed the clients on and I have the endpoints running on HTTPS.. when I do nova list on that box I get an error.. if I use my virtualbox with openstack installed I can query my remote openstack with the nova list just fine.. any tips? | |
| 16:25:42 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Fix minor input items from previous patches https://review.openstack.org/506416 | |