| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-11-13 | |||
| 14:07:44 | bauzas | I mean, how is it routed ? | |
| 14:07:57 | ygl | bauzas:no, I am following the post https://github.com/jaypipes/articles/blob/master/openstack/walkthrough-launch-instance-request.md#construct-build-request | |
| 14:08:41 | ygl | bauzas: in that I want to know after the "Validate HTTP payload" section, which code actually calls the build reequest function | |
| 14:09:06 | bauzas | ygl: I replied to you on that part | |
| 14:09:11 | ygl | efried: bauzas if you find anything please mail the details to ygk.kmr@gmail.com | |
| 14:09:14 | bauzas | (15:02:00) bauzas: ie. https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/pike/nova/compute/api.py#L1584 | |
| 14:09:14 | bauzas | (15:03:06) bauzas: ygl, efried: there, it is https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/pike/nova/api/openstack/compute/servers.py#L542 | |
| 14:10:33 | ygl | bauzas: I understand you are pointing to the code responsible for creating a server. I am asking how does the control get to that code in the first place ? | |
| 14:10:47 | ygl | bauzas: hope u understand | |
| 14:11:43 | bauzas | ygl: no sorry I don't get you | |
| 14:13:11 | ygl | efried: hope u understood my question | |
| 14:13:26 | ygl | bauzas: anyway thanks for your help bauzas | |
| 14:13:50 | efried | ygl I'm not sure. I think what you're asking is what handles the actual incoming HTTP request and invokes the code bauzas pointed to above? | |
| 14:14:05 | ygl | efried: exactly | |
| 14:15:07 | efried | ygl Okay, so that's wsgi magic that I don't understand. There's some kind of declarative syntax with decorators registering hooks in the wsgi server or some craziness. sdague is this in your wheelhouse? mtreinish maybe? | |
| 14:16:05 | ygl | efried: if you find anything please let me know on my email at ygk.kmr@gmail.com | |
| 14:16:13 | ygl | efried: thanks so much for your time and help | |
| 14:16:33 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Fix foreign key constraint error https://review.openstack.org/516880 | |
| 14:16:50 | efried | ygl You're welcome. | |
| 14:18:21 | efried | mriedem FYI, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/519034/ has passed that test six times in a row now. Which of course proves nothing. | |
| 14:19:14 | bauzas | ygl: magic is there for routing https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/pike/nova/api/openstack/compute/routes.py | |
| 14:19:58 | bauzas | ygl, efried: in particular for your concern https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/pike/nova/api/openstack/compute/routes.py#L777 | |
| 14:20:22 | bauzas | that's how we map an entrypoint | |
| 14:20:52 | efried | bauzas Beautiful, thanks. | |
| 14:23:41 | ygl | bauzas: thats awesome | |
| 14:24:25 | bauzas | that's just the routing logic | |
| 14:24:35 | bauzas | not the WSGI call itself | |
| 14:26:45 | ygl | bauzas: ok | |
| 14:27:19 | ygl | bauzas: I think to know how the routing works, we have to learn about wsgi framework in python | |
| 14:27:42 | bauzas | ygl: that routing logic is very nova-specific | |
| 14:27:53 | ygl | bauzas: ok | |
| 14:27:58 | bauzas | ygl: you can find many other python frameworks that do that for you | |
| 14:28:08 | ygl | bauzas: hmm | |
| 14:28:40 | bauzas | like, placement is having a separate routing mechanism AFAIK | |
| 14:30:03 | bauzas | yeah, it uses wsgify | |
| 14:31:15 | ygl | bauzas: thanks for your time | |
| 14:31:22 | bauzas | yeah, placement is totally different https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/pike/nova/api/openstack/placement/handler.py | |
| 14:31:44 | bauzas | ygl: so that really depends on your wishes | |
| 14:32:19 | ygl | bauzas: you are the first personto help me with the code flow of nova thanks for that | |
| 14:32:31 | bauzas | np | |
| 14:34:20 | openstackgerrit | David Wahlstrom proposed openstack/nova master: Fix changes-since search filter https://review.openstack.org/519356 | |
| 14:35:41 | openstackgerrit | David Wahlstrom proposed openstack/nova master: Fix changes-since search filter https://review.openstack.org/519356 | |
| 14:36:17 | openstackgerrit | David Wahlstrom proposed openstack/nova master: Fix changes-since search filter https://review.openstack.org/519356 | |
| 14:40:30 | openstackgerrit | Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/os-vif master: Add support for Windows network commands https://review.openstack.org/487405 | |
| 14:43:20 | sdague | efried: you good now, or are there more questions? | |
| 14:43:47 | efried | sdague I believe bauzas answered everything, thanks. | |
| 14:43:56 | sdague | ok, great | |
| 14:49:01 | jianghuaw | bauzas, dansmith, alex_xu: It's appreciated a lot if you can help to review these patches on vGPU: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/add-support-for-vgpu+(status:open) | |
| 14:49:46 | jianghuaw | With these patches, the simple vGPU feature works well for XenAPI. | |
| 14:50:56 | bauzas | jianghuaw: of course, will do | |
| 14:51:10 | jianghuaw | bauzas, thanks:-) | |
| 14:51:38 | bauzas | jianghuaw: just a bit sick today, and still jetlagging from the summit, so don't expect full steam ahead until tomorrow hopefully :) | |
| 14:53:46 | jianghuaw | bauzas, ah. Sorry for that. Take care and hope you will be well soon. | |
| 14:57:49 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Test alloc_cands with non overlapping sharing RPs https://review.openstack.org/519380 | |
| 14:58:34 | gibi | efried, jaypipes: I found another / simpler case to reproduce bug 1731072 | |
| 14:58:34 | openstack | bug 1731072 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "AllocationCandidates.get_by_filters returns garbage with multiple aggregates" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1731072 | |
| 14:59:22 | efried | gibi Looking... | |
| 14:59:46 | efried | (gibi FYI, Jay's out training today) | |
| 15:00:28 | gibi | efried: basically you don't need overlapping RCs to see the bug | |
| 15:01:55 | efried | gibi +1, nice. | |
| 15:02:58 | gibi | efried: I realized that this could be a possible case when I read your regression test. Btw, that looks good so I'm going to +W it now | |
| 15:03:37 | efried | gibi Thanks! | |
| 15:03:58 | gibi | efried: thank your for the bug report and the regression test :) | |
| 15:09:19 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: placement: AllocCands.get_by_{filters => requests} https://review.openstack.org/514092 | |
| 15:09:28 | efried | gibi ^ rebased & fixed up that message, good catch. | |
| 15:10:27 | gibi | efried: looking... | |
| 15:10:52 | efried | gibi Ahdang, missed an unused import. One sec... | |
| 15:11:21 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: placement: AllocCands.get_by_{filters => requests} https://review.openstack.org/514092 | |
| 15:11:24 | efried | gibi Done. | |
| 15:13:57 | gibi | efried: thanks for the update, +2 | |
| 15:14:03 | efried | Thanks! | |
| 15:14:53 | efried | gibi Don't know how much longer you're around, but if I can help tweak any of Jay's patches to get them moving, let me know. | |
| 15:18:56 | gibi | efried: I think I still have an hour so you can hit me with a patch | |
| 15:19:38 | efried | gibi I was saying if you know of any of Jay's patches that need tweaks, I can get that done so we can keep them moving. | |
| 15:19:51 | efried | At this point I guess everything he has is in merge conflict, so maybe I'll go start rebasing. | |
| 15:20:41 | efried | gibi Meanwhile, if you want some easy +Ws.... | |
| 15:21:37 | efried | gibi https://review.openstack.org/#/c/516783/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/517626/ | |
| 15:21:51 | gibi | efried: ahh I underderstand now. I only see merge conflicts and patches waiting for others to look at | |
| 15:21:58 | gibi | efried: looking... | |
| 15:22:52 | efried | gibi There's also one more bug-provin' patch for allocation candidates: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/518633/ | |
| 15:23:16 | efried | gibi ...and the one you looked at earlier which I updated per your comments: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/518982/ | |
| 15:27:00 | gibi | efried: yeah, I opened https://review.openstack.org/#/c/518633/ before but I think I need a fresh mind to walk throught he complexity there, so maybe tomorrow :) | |
| 15:27:15 | efried | okay | |
| 15:27:26 | gibi | I looking that the test helper patch now | |
| 15:32:29 | gibi | that looks good too | |
| 15:34:45 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Test alloc_cands with non overlapping sharing RPs https://review.openstack.org/519380 | |
| 15:35:05 | gibi | I think I managed to make it even stranger ^^ | |
| 15:35:22 | gibi | I managed to get the same allocation candidate from placement twice | |
| 15:44:00 | tasker | when making a snapshot of a volume-backed instance, the nova driver will queisce the instance's volumes prior to the snapshot. it looks like if the instance fails a snapshot, the exception isn't caught and the instance and its volumes are never thawed: master/nova/compute/api.py#L2738 | |
| 15:45:00 | tasker | am I missing something? I'm still trying to trace through the code to see if the volumes are thawed after and exception. I can't find anything in launchpad regarding this either (could be that I'm not using the right search terms). | |
| 15:48:54 | mriedem | tasker: which release? | |
| 15:50:46 | openstackgerrit | Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova master: Moving more utils to ServerResourceAllocationTestBase https://review.openstack.org/499539 | |
| 15:50:46 | openstackgerrit | Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova master: factor out compute service start in ServerMovingTest https://review.openstack.org/503037 | |
| 15:50:47 | openstackgerrit | Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova master: Change live_migrate tests to use fakedriver https://review.openstack.org/505202 | |
| 15:50:48 | openstackgerrit | Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova master: Use FakeLiveMigrateDriver in notification test https://review.openstack.org/519405 | |
| 15:50:55 | tasker | the above is git master as of a few minutes ago. | |
| 15:51:24 | tasker | commit a4fc1bcd | |
| 15:52:07 | tasker | I have Mitaka in production where I noticed this problem and I see that function unchanged between Mitaka (commit 9825c80) and current master. | |
| 16:01:34 | tasker | in my case, the snapshot failed due to OverLimit returned by the cinderclient. The exeception bubbles up, and I'm still not seeing anywhere that unquiesces / thaws the instance after the exception. | |
| 16:05:03 | mriedem | ok i remember someone fixing the handling of the OverLimit from cinder, but would have to see if the unquiesce is ever run on failure | |