Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-11-14
17:22:13 sean-k-mooney one one trait againts too different things e.g. traits against the host and traits againts the virtulisation context.
17:22:34 sean-k-mooney efried: yes that would be bad
17:23:06 sean-k-mooney * that was ment to be or one trait.
17:23:09 mriedem bauzas: dansmith: sdague: i'm thinking we want these in for ocata and newton before eol too, since i'll be cutting a release today or tomorrow for that cve https://review.openstack.org/#/q/Icb418f2be575bb2ba82756fdeb67b24a28950746
17:23:31 mriedem fixes bug 1675676
17:23:31 openstack bug 1719730 in OpenStack Compute (nova) ocata "duplicate for #1675676 Reschedule after the late affinity check fails with "'NoneType' object is not iterable"" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1719730 - Assigned to Matt Riedemann (mriedem)
17:23:53 efried sean-k-mooney Ah, so now we're talking about overloading the trait semantic to say, "not only do I want to make sure I wind up on a SECURE_BOOT_CAPABLE host, I also want this vm to be secure boot."
17:24:02 efried sean-k-mooney And *that* is the cardinal sin according to the PTB.
17:24:20 efried sean-k-mooney They would have you specify that second thing via some completely separate mechanism.
17:24:40 efried sean-k-mooney Perhaps image metadata; perhaps a different extra_spec; perhaps some other confy thing...
17:24:55 sean-k-mooney efried: the traith that you use for secure boot should not change based on the compute context you choose
17:25:08 sean-k-mooney e.g. it should be the same for vm,baremetal and contianer
17:25:27 sean-k-mooney in the ironic case the compute context is the same as the host
17:25:32 efried sean-k-mooney I'm on board with that.
17:25:39 sean-k-mooney in the containter and vm case the are not
17:26:02 sdague mriedem: make it so
17:26:05 sdague i.e. +A
17:26:46 mriedem thanks
17:26:59 sean-k-mooney efried: personally i would see these are two differnt traits request. one is find me a host with X and the second is find me a hypervisor capable of emulating Y and then we take the intersection of both
17:30:17 openstackgerrit Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova master: Use FakeLiveMigrateDriver in notification test https://review.openstack.org/519405
17:30:34 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Test helper: validate provider summaries https://review.openstack.org/518982
17:30:56 efried gibi I rebased this on top of the series, and added affordance for traits too ^
17:50:51 bauzas yay, I got a new bouncer \o/
17:58:27 hongbin mriedem: ack
18:04:39 mriedem alaski: didn't you at one point have a doc on your thoughts for the tasks api, or was that just a patch that never merged?
18:05:59 mriedem i found a really old juno spec https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86938/
18:06:40 mriedem oh maybe https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/backlog/approved/instance-tasks.html
18:12:12 mordred mriedem: questoin about scheduler hints ... the API ref https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/compute/#create-server seems to indicate that os:scheduler_hints can be put as a key on the server dict in the request, or that OS-SCH-HNT:scheduler_hints can be used outside of the server dict.
18:12:54 mordred mriedem: but there's an old guide https://docs.openstack.org/kilo/config-reference/content/section_compute-scheduler.html that shows using os:scheduler_hints at the top level ... and i just got a patch: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/519705/2/shade/openstackcloud.py to move using os:scheduler_hints to outside of the server dict
18:13:29 mordred mriedem: is the story that it always goes into the top level of the payload and that either key works?
18:16:04 mriedem i think the latter, i think it's a top-level key https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/compute/schemas/scheduler_hints.py#L75
18:16:10 mriedem and either works
18:16:25 mriedem https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/compute/scheduler_hints.py#L18
18:17:24 sean-k-mooney for consitnecy sake shade and osc should proably pass scheduler hints the same way
18:17:46 mriedem i don't think you can send it in the server body
18:17:50 mriedem it's a top-level key
18:17:57 mriedem the server create api-ref in nova is just confusing
18:18:04 mriedem "The dictionary of data to send to the scheduler. Alternatively, you can specify OS-SCH-HNT:scheduler_hints as the key in the request body."
18:18:13 mriedem that's just saying, you can use either key
18:18:30 mriedem i don't know why we have 2 keys, i'm assuming v2 api extension fun
18:18:40 mriedem gmann, sdague or oomichi might remember
18:20:00 mriedem mordred: yeah e.g. https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/admin/configuration/schedulers.html#differenthostfilter
18:20:05 mriedem "With the API, use the os:scheduler_hints key. For example:"
18:20:40 mordred ok. cool. so it just shows up weird in the api ref docs ...
18:20:49 mordred since it's in the same block as key_name and whatnot
18:20:50 mriedem yeah, we should be clear that it's a top-level key
18:20:53 mriedem yup
18:21:04 mriedem i, or someone else, can amend the doc
18:22:21 mordred cool. thanks!
18:23:10 openstackgerrit Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova master: Transform instance-live_migration_pre notification https://review.openstack.org/482070
18:24:10 mriedem the example request shows it's top-level too
18:24:10 mriedem https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/compute/#create-server
18:24:27 mriedem so that helps somewhat
18:27:52 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: api-ref: make a note about os:scheduler_hints being a top-level key https://review.openstack.org/519717
18:27:56 mriedem mordred: see if this floats your boat ^
18:28:46 jaypipes crlb: I'll pull your patch and run locally and see what's up.
18:29:05 mordred mriedem: yes! that's super helpful
18:30:10 mriedem cburgess: semi interesting live migration abort scenario for you
18:30:29 cburgess OK shoot
18:30:32 mriedem cburgess: today you can list in-progress live migrations for a given server
18:30:33 mriedem https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/16.0.0/nova/db/sqlalchemy/api.py#L4789
18:30:38 mriedem if it's in one of those 4 states ^
18:30:50 mriedem however, you can only abort a running migration https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/16.0.0/nova/compute/api.py#L3952
18:31:05 mriedem presumably because the migration transitions fast enough that it gets to the hypervisor and starts running
18:31:08 mriedem however,
18:31:21 mriedem we have this max_concurrent_live_migrations config option in compute which defaults to 1,
18:31:36 mriedem so you could be trying to move 10 instances off a host via live migration, and by default those are all going to queue up,
18:31:48 mriedem let's say you wanted to abort half of those (1 in 10 are running)
18:31:53 mriedem the abort would fail
18:32:47 cburgess mriedem Give me a few... sorry had someone talking to me
18:32:51 mriedem one solution is just bump up your max_concurrent_live_migrations value to 10, but then you hit issues with running a bunch of migrations at once
18:32:58 mriedem np, just looking for some ops feedback
18:33:55 alaski mriedem: there was http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova-specs/tree/specs/backlog/approved/instance-tasks.rst
18:34:35 mriedem alaski: yup i found it later via google, i was mistakenly searching the nova docs
18:34:43 alaski cool
18:38:42 openstackgerrit Hongbin Lu proposed openstack/nova stable/pike: Handle exception on adding secgroup https://review.openstack.org/515418
18:40:33 openstackgerrit Hongbin Lu proposed openstack/nova stable/ocata: Handle exception on adding secgroup https://review.openstack.org/515421
18:42:44 jaypipes crlb: https://pastebin.com/maKwN7pM -- failures are reproduceable for me. Only suggestion I have is do an rm -rf .tox/ and then retry the tox -epy27,pep8. Other than that... perhaps you forgot to git review and push your latest changes to gerrit?
18:43:13 efried crlb If you run tox with -r it'll rebuild the venv.
18:43:23 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova stable/newton: Functional regression test for evacuate with a target https://review.openstack.org/516118
18:43:25 efried easier than rm -rf .tox
18:45:26 openstackgerrit Hongbin Lu proposed openstack/nova stable/pike: Handle exception on adding secgroup https://review.openstack.org/515418
18:46:13 openstackgerrit Hongbin Lu proposed openstack/nova stable/pike: Handle exception on adding secgroup https://review.openstack.org/515418
18:48:33 openstackgerrit Hongbin Lu proposed openstack/nova stable/ocata: Handle exception on adding secgroup https://review.openstack.org/515421
19:12:22 openstackgerrit Hongbin Lu proposed openstack/nova master: Handle not found error on taking snapshot https://review.openstack.org/511074
19:17:40 openstackgerrit Ken'ichi Ohmichi proposed openstack/nova master: Add error message on metadata API https://review.openstack.org/517152
19:20:59 crlb jaypipes: checked pastebin. The test_versions.py that you are running is not the latest, but patch set 2 updated it and dealt with the pep8 errors. If i try it review, I get: git review
19:20:59 crlb Creating a git remote called "gerrit" that maps to:
19:20:59 crlb ssh://crlb@review.openstack.org:29418/openstack/nova.git
19:20:59 crlb No changes between HEAD and gerrit/master. Submitting for review would
19:20:59 crlb be pointless.
19:22:23 mnaser crlb: did you commit anything on your local branch?
19:22:58 mnaser also, puppet fun, we suspect that we're seeing some weird timeout in puppet openstack intergration due to this change - https://github.com/openstack/puppet-nova/commit/df638e2526d2d957318519dfcfb9098cb7726095
19:23:23 mnaser we go from multiple threads in a single process, to single thread in multiple processes
19:23:55 mnaser but it seems to have spawned some strange timeouts with floating ip assignment. what's the nova team stance on this in terms of "best practice" ?
19:25:24 efried jaypipes Can I do stuff to this series? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/516778/
19:27:25 mnaser looks like devstack uses API_WORKERS for # of processes in uwsgi, and has an 'enable-threads' feature
19:36:13 crlb jaypipes. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that subsequent git reviews would give you different change numbers. The 2nd and 3rd patch sets are on change #518119.
19:45:13 mriedem dansmith: i reckon i should put out a release note for that cve on the stable branches, so i guess i'll do that right quick
19:45:17 mriedem and we can ram it through

Earlier   Later