| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-10-23 | |||
| 15:05:54 | jaypipes | god damnb this mac keyboard... :( | |
| 15:06:06 | efried | jaypipes Which part is an oversight? | |
| 15:06:16 | efried | jaypipes Including the extra RCs or excluding them? | |
| 15:06:29 | jaypipes | efried: that the provider summary for a provider only includes resources that were requested and not all resources the provider had | |
| 15:06:36 | efried | jaypipes Which way are we saying it's *supposed* to be? | |
| 15:07:00 | efried | That it should include *all* of them, I guess. I agree with that. | |
| 15:07:59 | cdent | efried: yes, all | |
| 15:08:04 | efried | ++ | |
| 15:08:25 | edleafe | efried: cdent: of what use do you see non-requested resources in the provider_summary? | |
| 15:08:30 | alex_xu | jinx means a person bring bad luck? | |
| 15:09:00 | jaypipes | efried: yeah, sohuld include all the inventories, not just the ones for requested resources | |
| 15:09:06 | cdent | alex_xu: that’s one meaning, but the meaning we are using is “you said something at the same time as me” | |
| 15:09:08 | efried | alex_xu Heh, not in this context. It's a silly game kids play: when two people say the same thing at the same time, the first one to say "jinx" "wins" | |
| 15:09:35 | efried | alex_xu There's various penalties for "losing". The one I grew up with was that the "loser" has to remain silent until you say their name. | |
| 15:09:36 | cdent | in the real version of the game the loser can’t speak for some amount of time | |
| 15:09:40 | cdent | jinx! | |
| 15:09:54 | cdent | let’s efried off the hook | |
| 15:10:07 | efried | alex_xu Another one I've heard of is that the "winner" gets to punch the "loser" until the loser recites some incantation. | |
| 15:10:29 | efried | "Jinx poke, you owe me a coke, times onetwothreefourfive...." | |
| 15:10:46 | cdent | edleafe: the provider summary, as I understand it, is supposed to list the resource providers in a complete. From what’s there we should be able to conceptualize what the resource provider providers, not just what we are using from it | |
| 15:10:57 | cdent | whether that is of use or not is unclear | |
| 15:11:19 | dansmith | alex_xu: in case you're wondering, seeing it spelled out in writing like we just have makes it sound even dumber than it normally does | |
| 15:11:21 | cdent | s/, not/are, not/ | |
| 15:11:32 | dansmith | alex_xu: so if you're thinking "wtf is wrong with these guys" ... you're not alone | |
| 15:11:42 | cdent | no need to be a dick about dansmith | |
| 15:12:02 | dansmith | cdent: s/about/about it/ right? | |
| 15:12:04 | alex_xu | haha :) | |
| 15:12:19 | cdent | dansmith: if you like but the typo is in your favor, so maybe we keep it? | |
| 15:12:25 | dansmith | heh | |
| 15:13:01 | dansmith | cdent: I'm only saying that I've never seen the rules of jinx written out before and I'm feeling kindof embarrassed for my entire generation now that I have :) | |
| 15:13:14 | efried | Agreed | |
| 15:13:44 | cdent | It predates our generation yeah? I thought of it as kind of antique even when I was a child and I’m nearly the oldest here. | |
| 15:13:57 | efried | My dad is the one who told me about the punching thing. | |
| 15:14:08 | edleafe | yeah, it was old when *I* first heard about it | |
| 15:14:18 | edleafe | written on stone tablets it seems even lamer | |
| 15:16:08 | dansmith | I have no idea, I assumed it was too dumb for generations prior, but I'm sure you're right | |
| 15:17:00 | efried | The internet (which is never wrong) hints that it may go back as far as 16th century Scottish tavern games. | |
| 15:17:16 | cdent | Isn’t each subsequent generation immensely cooler than the last? My (adult) children assure me this is the case. | |
| 15:18:18 | dansmith | heh | |
| 15:18:18 | edleafe | cdent: Your children are correct, but just in your family | |
| 15:18:28 | cdent | thank you old man | |
| 15:19:17 | cdent | Scotland has a lot to answer for. | |
| 15:20:29 | mriedem | dansmith: are you ok with this before i propose a backport https://review.openstack.org/#/c/513001/ | |
| 15:20:54 | dansmith | omg no | |
| 15:20:55 | dansmith | wtf | |
| 15:21:10 | dansmith | ugh | |
| 15:21:21 | efried | So... not okay with it | |
| 15:21:36 | efried | Just reading between the lines here. | |
| 15:21:38 | mriedem | i brought this up when it was initially being reviewed, pretty sure anyway - but there is no api schema restriction in the baremetal api about the resource class name | |
| 15:22:07 | dansmith | I very specifically think this is completely broken | |
| 15:22:11 | dansmith | I know and I fought hard to NOT do this ambiguous thing | |
| 15:22:51 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Only add CUSTOM_ prefix if required https://review.openstack.org/513001 | |
| 15:22:56 | mriedem | pulled it out of the gate | |
| 15:22:59 | mriedem | johnthetubaguy: ^ | |
| 15:24:17 | johnthetubaguy | so VCPU becomes CUSTOM_VCPU, just CUSTOM_FOO stays CUSTOM_FOO | |
| 15:24:33 | johnthetubaguy | its a pain to setup the system with CUSTOM_ in only half the places | |
| 15:24:58 | mriedem | VCPU is a standared resource class | |
| 15:25:41 | johnthetubaguy | yep, that's where it gets funky, that code keeps it as always CUSTOM_ at the start, it just avoids the double encoding | |
| 15:25:43 | mriedem | if you set the ironic node.resource_class as vcpu, then we'd translate that to CUSTOM_VCPU yeah | |
| 15:25:56 | dansmith | mriedem: thanks | |
| 15:25:57 | johnthetubaguy | that's what I mean, I should have added a test for that really | |
| 15:26:23 | dansmith | I just commented on that patch, | |
| 15:26:24 | mriedem | the ironic docs are at least pretty clear about this https://docs.openstack.org/ironic/pike/install/configure-nova-flavors.html#scheduling-based-on-resource-classes | |
| 15:26:31 | dansmith | but I'm super against us adding this ambiguity | |
| 15:27:28 | dansmith | anything else that wants to look at placement-related data for ironic nodes would have to implement the same "is it already right, or not" behavior when taking the ironic class and turning it into a placement class | |
| 15:27:44 | dansmith | instead of just "apply the following set of rules to get from ironic to placement" | |
| 15:27:46 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: console: introduce framework for RFB authentication https://review.openstack.org/345397 | |
| 15:27:46 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: console: introduce the VeNCrypt RFB authentication scheme https://review.openstack.org/345398 | |
| 15:27:47 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: console: provide an RFB security proxy implementation https://review.openstack.org/345399 | |
| 15:27:47 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: doc: Document TLS security setup for noVNC proxy https://review.openstack.org/500544 | |
| 15:27:49 | dansmith | as documented in the ironic docs there | |
| 15:28:19 | johnthetubaguy | I get that, just as an operator, I need to remember if its Nova or Ironic I am talking to when setting different names for things | |
| 15:28:54 | dansmith | but they're two totally different things | |
| 15:29:01 | dansmith | ironic's resource class predates our use of it, | |
| 15:29:13 | dansmith | and can be set to completely incompatible things | |
| 15:29:37 | mriedem | yeah, note the baremetal.with-GPU example in the ironic docs, | |
| 15:29:46 | mriedem | nova replaces special characters like the '.' with underscores | |
| 15:30:05 | mriedem | so the CUSTOM_ prefix isn't the only thing that will be different | |
| 15:30:48 | johnthetubaguy | dansmith: the spec says it was added for placement: https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/not-implemented/node-resource-class.html | |
| 15:31:13 | johnthetubaguy | my thinking was more simplistic really... can't I just set all the strings to the same thing? | |
| 15:31:16 | dansmith | johnthetubaguy: but like two releases before we actually had that stuff, and with zero restriction :) | |
| 15:31:28 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Move the idmapshift binary into privsep. https://review.openstack.org/495541 | |
| 15:31:28 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Move loopback setup and removal to privsep. https://review.openstack.org/495664 | |
| 15:31:29 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Move nbd commands to privsep. https://review.openstack.org/500351 | |
| 15:31:29 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Move kpartx calls to privsep. https://review.openstack.org/500354 | |
| 15:31:30 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Move blkid calls to privsep. https://review.openstack.org/500398 | |
| 15:31:31 | johnthetubaguy | dansmith: yep, agreed. | |
| 15:31:36 | dansmith | johnthetubaguy: yeah I know, but it's not equivalent | |
| 15:32:01 | dansmith | johnthetubaguy: it'd be like us using the uuid, as CUSTOM_$UUID and then people wanting to set their uuid to CUSTOM_$UUID... they're not the same field | |
| 15:33:55 | johnthetubaguy | it just seems to me like 80% of folks are setting the resource classes to something they can request in a flavor, they care little about the translation, even if they probably should | |
| 15:34:36 | johnthetubaguy | but I guess its dangerous to assume they are the same thing, when you use them, because they may not be | |
| 15:34:41 | dansmith | and integers are like floats, but usually without the decimal point? | |
| 15:36:21 | johnthetubaguy | I was thinking about following up with a new microversion that forces all new resource classes to follow the placement patterns, etc. | |
| 15:36:54 | johnthetubaguy | but that is kinda aweful in its own way | |
| 15:36:59 | dansmith | you have to migrate all their node names currently | |
| 15:37:57 | dansmith | and will you enforce CUSTOM_ as a prefix? you kinda have to, but then you have chicken and egg... | |
| 15:38:26 | dansmith | the ironic docs are exceedingly clear on this point | |
| 15:39:07 | edleafe | With hindsight, maybe prefixing standard classes with STD_ would have been simpler | |
| 15:39:41 | dansmith | I don't think that changes this particular thing, but I agree it'd be nice to have consistent namespacing instead of one magic one | |
| 15:39:43 | openstackgerrit | priyaduggirala proposed openstack/nova master: Rename parameters in call() of nova/image/glance.py https://review.openstack.org/508533 | |