| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-10-18 | |||
| 19:56:49 | cdent | goodnight all | |
| 19:57:03 | mriedem | gdi i hate reviewing specs in new gerrit | |
| 19:57:14 | mriedem | jumps all over the place when trying to expand comments | |
| 19:57:31 | jaypipes | mriedem: yuuuuup. drives me friggin nuts. | |
| 19:57:49 | mriedem | firefox? | |
| 19:57:58 | jaypipes | yup. | |
| 19:58:08 | edleafe | dansmith: re-running tests with that change reverted - will let you know | |
| 19:58:30 | dansmith | edleafe: thanks | |
| 19:58:38 | dansmith | mriedem: jaypipes not just in firefox | |
| 19:59:11 | dansmith | mriedem: left one nit and one real comment in johnthetubaguy's ironic patch | |
| 19:59:23 | dansmith | I can fix the nit (and the functional bit too I guess) if you agree | |
| 20:01:56 | mriedem | replied | |
| 20:05:42 | dansmith | mriedem: I do it in with statements because python requires it :P | |
| 20:06:33 | dansmith | mriedem: so you think we have no other situations other than moves that ironic doesn't support where we don't want said stomping? | |
| 20:08:07 | mriedem | my brain is kind of fried, | |
| 20:08:16 | mriedem | at this point, you're likely to blow your foot off either way | |
| 20:08:27 | mriedem | because of the minefield i mean | |
| 20:09:06 | mriedem | the stomp was really because of moves from ocata to pike nodes i thought, scheduler would claim on both (double stuff) and ocata periodic would overwrite the allocations created by the scheduler, | |
| 20:09:17 | mriedem | and then the dest node would overwrite the allocations again once the move was done | |
| 20:09:43 | mriedem | you can't resize, live migrate or unshelve an ironic instance | |
| 20:09:54 | mriedem | and with evacuate, the source host isn't running the stomper | |
| 20:11:50 | dansmith | alright | |
| 20:12:05 | mriedem | i could be missing something | |
| 20:12:09 | mriedem | like i said, minefield | |
| 20:12:15 | mriedem | seinfeld minefield | |
| 20:12:43 | mriedem | "what's the deal with all these allocations?!" | |
| 20:14:47 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Keep updating allocations for Ironic https://review.openstack.org/513085 | |
| 20:15:55 | mriedem | omfg, | |
| 20:16:03 | mriedem | dansmith: jaypipes: change the rendering setting to 'slow' | |
| 20:16:05 | mriedem | seems to help | |
| 20:16:09 | mriedem | smcginnis: ++ | |
| 20:17:19 | smcginnis | mriedem: It helped even more in the last gerrit. This one has some more quirks, but I think it's better. | |
| 20:17:20 | dansmith | I don't even know what that would mean, but... cool | |
| 20:18:00 | mriedem | gerrit settings | |
| 20:18:12 | dansmith | I mean I dunno what fast rendering would be | |
| 20:18:21 | dansmith | it all seems pretty slow to me :) | |
| 20:19:19 | mriedem | they should rename the setting to "stop fucking up my gd cursor placement fucker" | |
| 20:19:20 | mriedem | i agree | |
| 20:20:24 | mriedem | efried: thanks for helping to review this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/502306/ | |
| 20:20:27 | mriedem | it's definitely hairy | |
| 20:20:45 | efried | mriedem phew, thought I was just being dense. | |
| 20:21:19 | smcginnis | mriedem: +1 to that name, it would be much more accurate. | |
| 20:21:23 | mriedem | no man, it's building on like all of the worst things | |
| 20:21:43 | mriedem | port orchestration, nested resource providers, scheduling, neutron agent stuff, etc etc | |
| 20:29:02 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/502306/ - so when nova binds a port to a selected host, neutron will put some kind of allocation information in the port binding profile, and nova will proxy that allocation information to placement? | |
| 20:29:14 | mriedem | and the suggested flow is: | |
| 20:29:22 | mriedem | 1. conductor asks scheduler for a host | |
| 20:29:51 | mriedem | 2. scheduler filter looks for ports with a qos policy and if found, gets allocatoin candidates for hosts that have a nested bw provider | |
| 20:29:59 | mriedem | 3. scheduler returns host to conductor | |
| 20:30:05 | mriedem | 4. conductor binds the port to the host | |
| 20:30:24 | mriedem | 5. the bound port profile has some allocation juju that nova proxies to placement as an allocation request for the port on the bw provider | |
| 20:30:34 | mriedem | 6. conductor sends to compute to build the instance | |
| 20:30:42 | mriedem | 7. compute activates the bound port | |
| 20:30:48 | mriedem | 8. compute plugs vifs | |
| 20:30:53 | mriedem | 9. profit?! | |
| 20:31:43 | mriedem | why can't the allocation juju happen on the neutron side when the port is bound | |
| 20:31:44 | mriedem | ? | |
| 20:33:33 | mriedem | i seem to remember some discussion at the ptg about it being cool that nova will proxy the allocation creation for neutron, but i'm not sure why | |
| 20:33:39 | mriedem | mlavalle: ^ do you remember? | |
| 20:34:16 | mriedem | ultimately we don't want nova managing resource allocations for network things | |
| 20:34:31 | mriedem | especially out of band things like qos policies in neutron | |
| 20:36:19 | efried | mriedem This may be slightly off topic, but who will be the consumer of the allocations related to the port? The port itself, or the instance? | |
| 20:38:56 | mriedem | i think the port | |
| 20:40:22 | mriedem | it's a bit confusing in the spec | |
| 20:40:23 | mriedem | "A virtual machine port can consume bandwidth from one of these Resources | |
| 20:40:24 | mriedem | Providers." | |
| 20:40:35 | mriedem | and | |
| 20:40:38 | mriedem | "By the time the port is bound, the bandwidth allocated to the instance is already recorded." | |
| 20:40:41 | sdague | mriedem: I looked at the stable stuff, should be good. You still need somone else on the top patch | |
| 20:40:59 | mriedem | sdague: yeah, thanks - i can find someone | |
| 20:41:03 | mriedem | someone named dan | |
| 20:41:43 | dansmith | link m | |
| 20:41:44 | dansmith | e | |
| 20:42:27 | mriedem | can't find it | |
| 20:42:37 | dansmith | offer expires in 3....2... | |
| 20:43:05 | mriedem | dansmith: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/512716/ | |
| 20:48:42 | efried | mriedem The port is actually the only thing that makes sense. | |
| 20:49:45 | efried | Otherwise we would either have to a) allocate the network resources and the other instance resources at the same time, i.e. from the scheduler; or b) overwrite the allocation from the scheduler so it goes from [just the port] to [port plus other instance resources] | |
| 20:50:03 | efried | Either one of those things would be pretty weird. | |
| 20:50:44 | efried | mm, maybe a) wouldn't be so weird. | |
| 20:52:53 | mriedem | the spec is proposing that we do (a) | |
| 20:53:05 | mriedem | it's saying the neutron agent populates the bw provider inventory, | |
| 20:53:19 | mriedem | and when nova binds a port to a host, neutron will return information about the allocation in the binding profile, | |
| 20:53:29 | mriedem | and nova will create the allocation in placement for the port on the bw resource class on behalf of neutron | |
| 20:53:33 | mriedem | that's what i don't agree with | |
| 20:53:46 | mriedem | we don't want nova-compute managing port bw allocations | |
| 20:54:15 | mriedem | which also means nova would then be responsible for removing allocatoins when migrating the instance to another host | |
| 20:54:30 | mriedem | i'm suggesting that neutron manage the allocatoins when the port is bound or unbound, which is triggered by nova | |
| 20:54:54 | mriedem | if the allocation on the neutron side fails, the port binding fails and we have to reschedule with another host providing bw resources | |
| 20:55:13 | mriedem | if we do the port binding in the conductor, then that reschedule isn't as expensive as doing it in the compute | |
| 20:55:38 | mriedem | but that also means this depends on picking up johnthetubaguy's network-aware scheduling stuff to move port creation etc to conductor | |
| 20:56:23 | mriedem | so let's recap - deps are nested RPs, port binding API integration in nova, prep for nw aware scheduling, plus some API changes in neutron | |
| 20:56:33 | mriedem | == me telling mlavalle it's probably DOA for queens | |
| 21:01:53 | melwitt | are we having a cells meeting today or no? | |
| 21:02:20 | mriedem | umm | |
| 21:02:24 | mriedem | i forgot | |
| 21:02:34 | mriedem | don't think we have much to talk about do we? | |
| 21:02:38 | mriedem | need reviews on alternate hosts | |
| 21:02:51 | melwitt | I don't, but just wanted to ask in case I missed something | |
| 21:02:51 | mriedem | and dan has one more thing for the efficient instance listing weirdness with cell0 | |