| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-10-11 | |||
| 16:22:36 | mriedem | oh | |
| 16:23:39 | mriedem | i seem to remember some tempest bugs we were trying to fix around the time of this change https://review.openstack.org/#/c/427782/ | |
| 16:25:43 | mdbooth | mriedem: Any chance you could look at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/510106/ ? It's a reapproval. You asked for some changes during Newton, which I've added to this version of the spec. | |
| 16:26:08 | mriedem | not right now | |
| 16:26:12 | mdbooth | lyarwood's stable virt | |
| 16:26:28 | mdbooth | mriedem: Ok. Is it likely to make next week? | |
| 16:26:38 | mriedem | idk | |
| 16:26:44 | mriedem | lots of people can review specs | |
| 16:26:53 | mriedem | i've got my own to write and update as well | |
| 16:27:11 | mriedem | kind of concerned with a bunch of people saying they are busted on ocata atm | |
| 16:27:12 | mdbooth | mriedem: np, just pinging you specifically as you've been involved with it previously. | |
| 16:32:07 | mriedem | dansmith: wonder if these people are running with uwsgi? :) | |
| 16:32:13 | mriedem | remember that defeated the service version check | |
| 16:32:15 | mriedem | for tripleo | |
| 16:32:17 | dansmith | mriedem: ocata so no right? | |
| 16:32:25 | dansmith | oh | |
| 16:32:26 | mriedem | but they were hitting something similar, | |
| 16:32:29 | mriedem | unti lwe told them not to do that | |
| 16:32:48 | dansmith | hmm | |
| 16:33:11 | openstackgerrit | Ildiko Vancsa proposed openstack/nova master: Fix connection info refresh for reboot https://review.openstack.org/511209 | |
| 16:33:51 | dansmith | mriedem: see comment 9 | |
| 16:33:57 | dansmith | mriedem: makes reference to having everything upgraded | |
| 16:35:45 | mriedem | yeah i think there are two different groups of people with different issues | |
| 16:35:55 | mriedem | once is talking about having old computes, which shouldn't have anything to do with looking up the instnace | |
| 16:36:09 | mriedem | i think the others are talking about a race to lookup the instance while it's building | |
| 16:36:21 | mriedem | which is why they added a sleep in there i guess and said it's working | |
| 16:36:37 | dansmith | well, one unupdated api will wreck it right? | |
| 16:36:50 | mriedem | b/c of the api version check? | |
| 16:36:53 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 16:37:02 | dansmith | it'll go straight to the cell db and not look at the BR | |
| 16:37:35 | mriedem | yeah | |
| 16:37:43 | mriedem | but, someone said they have a full new install | |
| 16:37:52 | mriedem | and that was the person that put the time.sleep(1) workaround in | |
| 16:38:29 | dansmith | all they need is one api service record that reported zero for the version | |
| 16:38:49 | openstackgerrit | Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Network bandwidth resource provider https://review.openstack.org/502306 | |
| 16:39:37 | dansmith | and they did it before that check | |
| 16:39:43 | dansmith | the sleep I mean | |
| 16:41:30 | openstackgerrit | Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Network bandwidth resource provider https://review.openstack.org/502306 | |
| 16:48:05 | mriedem | assuming their api services are all updated, i don't see how they could hit this really | |
| 16:48:34 | mriedem | we delete the build request after the instance mapping is updated, | |
| 16:48:40 | mriedem | we update the instance mapping after the instance is created in a cell | |
| 16:49:02 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova stable/pike: Target context for build notification in conductor https://review.openstack.org/511292 | |
| 16:49:04 | mriedem | if the instance mapping doesn't have the cell mapping in it, we get the instance from the build request - and if that's gone by the time we look, we check the instance mapping again | |
| 16:49:27 | dansmith | mriedem: aye | |
| 16:49:43 | mriedem | gdi this is like 2 days i've spent all day chasing weird bugs | |
| 17:21:15 | mriedem | melwitt: does https://review.openstack.org/#/c/511292/ also need to go to ocata? | |
| 17:22:43 | melwitt | hm, lemme check. I had thought not but maybe this code was from ocata | |
| 17:22:44 | mriedem | looks like yes https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/ocata/nova/conductor/manager.py#L921 | |
| 17:23:11 | mriedem | it also looks like ocata is not targeting the instance action in the cell, so that's getting created in cell0 | |
| 17:23:22 | melwitt | yeah, was about to say that too | |
| 17:23:54 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Revert allocations by migration uuid https://review.openstack.org/498949 | |
| 17:23:55 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Refactor resource tracker to account for migration allocations https://review.openstack.org/506419 | |
| 17:23:55 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Make migration uuid hold allocations for migrating instances https://review.openstack.org/506420 | |
| 17:23:56 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Make live migration hold resources with a migration allocation https://review.openstack.org/507638 | |
| 17:23:56 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Split get_allocations_for_instance() into useful bits https://review.openstack.org/511306 | |
| 17:24:10 | mriedem | https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/ca51db7e2db72cb774c94fb039509f2b4e6c94ca | |
| 17:24:19 | dansmith | mriedem: ^ updated to determine the source compute from allocations instead of trying to look it up | |
| 17:24:37 | mriedem | melwitt: https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/ca51db7e2db72cb774c94fb039509f2b4e6c94ca fixed the instance action thing in pike, we'll want to backport that as well... | |
| 17:24:41 | mriedem | didn't have a bug o nit | |
| 17:24:51 | melwitt | ah, crap | |
| 17:25:17 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/ocata: Make conductor create InstanceAction in the proper cell https://review.openstack.org/511307 | |
| 17:25:20 | mriedem | thar she blar | |
| 17:25:27 | melwitt | k, cool | |
| 17:25:50 | melwitt | I should stack the other backport on that I think | |
| 17:26:01 | mriedem | yup | |
| 17:26:15 | mriedem | dansmith: ok | |
| 17:26:18 | melwitt | to increase the chance of clean backport. k | |
| 17:26:22 | mriedem | dansmith: +2 on mel's pike backport https://review.openstack.org/#/c/511292/ | |
| 17:26:52 | mriedem | i need food in my belly | |
| 17:32:12 | jaypipes | dansmith: I think zuul might be lying about the merge failure messages. | |
| 17:32:29 | dansmith | jaypipes: I don't think they've actually started the cutover yet | |
| 17:32:31 | dansmith | which means, yes | |
| 17:34:12 | melwitt | it's expected to emit false merge conflicts prior to cutover? I guess I am missing something obvious | |
| 17:34:29 | dansmith | it's been doing that all week | |
| 17:34:38 | melwitt | I know | |
| 17:35:48 | dansmith | I'm just saying, it's been doing it all week, and the changes they have planned today haven't started yet AFAIK, so I think we'd expect the same behavior | |
| 17:36:20 | dansmith | I would assume that whatever has been giving zuul merge conflict heartburn over the last week is factored into the switchover | |
| 17:36:35 | melwitt | I had been thinking they were fixing zuul v3 before the cutover so maybe those would get fixed prior to the cutover | |
| 17:37:10 | melwitt | yeah. I guess I should ask | |
| 17:37:40 | dansmith | unless the failure is because they're not having it do the post-merge conflict checks because of resources or something | |
| 17:37:49 | dansmith | since it's highly constrained at the moment, and not doing the actual merges | |
| 17:37:55 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: add nested resource providers https://review.openstack.org/377138 | |
| 17:37:56 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: allow filter providers in tree https://review.openstack.org/377215 | |
| 17:37:56 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: adds REST API for nested providers https://review.openstack.org/384807 | |
| 17:37:57 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: update client to set parent provider https://review.openstack.org/385693 | |
| 17:38:11 | dansmith | I'm not sure what jaypipes' point was I guess | |
| 17:38:15 | jaypipes | efried: k, updated the n-r-p spec to address your comments ^^ | |
| 17:38:28 | efried | Thanks jaypipes | |
| 17:38:41 | jaypipes | dansmith: generally, you can assume I am pointless. | |
| 17:38:51 | efried | dansmith jaypipes They figured out why the bogus merge conflicts were happening. | |
| 17:38:55 | efried | But no, they haven't cut over yet. | |
| 17:39:17 | efried | http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-infra-incident/%23openstack-infra-incident.2017-10-11.log in case you're interested. | |
| 17:39:54 | melwitt | indeed they know about it in #infra and they're working on it | |
| 17:40:12 | dansmith | so yeah, like I said, it's getting old data because it's not doing the actual merges | |
| 17:40:46 | melwitt | okay. I didn't know how it worked | |
| 17:41:27 | jaypipes | efried, dansmith: k, thx for the info. | |
| 17:41:58 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Revert allocations by migration uuid https://review.openstack.org/498949 | |
| 17:41:59 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Refactor resource tracker to account for migration allocations https://review.openstack.org/506419 | |
| 17:41:59 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Make migration uuid hold allocations for migrating instances https://review.openstack.org/506420 | |
| 17:42:00 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Make live migration hold resources with a migration allocation https://review.openstack.org/507638 | |