| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-02-09 | |||
| 16:49:39 | fried_rice | Okay, so leakypipes, this model is satisfying use cases involving placing resource consumers (usually/often instances) at certain distances from other resource consumers. It's not (real good at) placing resources at certain distances from other resources within one consumer/allocation. | |
| 16:49:56 | edleafe | leakypipes: will distances have to be defined for every possible relation in a system? | |
| 16:50:05 | edleafe | leakypipes: I have a rough diagram here: https://awwapp.com/b/um4k85oc1/ | |
| 16:50:45 | edleafe | leakypipes: will every compute node need a distance defined to all shared storages? | |
| 16:57:41 | leakypipes | edleafe: no, every resource provider would need a distance entry to the aggregate representing the row that the storage pool serviced. | |
| 16:58:04 | edleafe | leakypipes: ok, gotcha | |
| 16:59:06 | edleafe | leakypipes: so if there were 100 rows in a DC, and 10000 compute nodes, that would mean there would have to be 100K distances defined? | |
| 16:59:31 | edleafe | oops, 1M distances | |
| 17:03:12 | mriedem | hrw: thanks, some small tweaks and we're golden | |
| 17:03:29 | hrw | mriedem: cool, thanks | |
| 17:04:14 | edleafe | I can see the usefulness of "near" and "not near", but how is the granularity of distance useful? Would there be a use case like "give me a shared storage that is more than 2 away but less than 7"? | |
| 17:04:58 | leakypipes | edleafe: the affinity/anti-affinity use cases are for deployments that have more than one tier of distance. so, you'd want to have some additional distance breakdown, say, for a rack. you'd create aggregates for each rack and assign the compute nodes in that rack to the associated aggregate. the resource_provider_distances table would necessarily have an order of magnitude more records than the resource_provider_aggregates table. | |
| 17:05:35 | leakypipes | edleafe: so if we have 1M records in resource_provider_aggregates, we'd likely have something like 10M records in the resource_provider_distances table. | |
| 17:06:16 | leakypipes | edleafe: that 10M records would take approximately 200M of memory. | |
| 17:06:22 | edleafe | leakypipes: understood. And these would all be set by the operators? | |
| 17:07:35 | leakypipes | edleafe: yes, but in groups of course... so, a CLI tool that did this: openstack placement aggregate $AGG_UUID set-distance-to $OTHER_AGG_UUID $DISTANCE_AMOUNT would be something we would create for operators. | |
| 17:08:07 | leakypipes | edleafe: that would basically do the INSERT INTO ... SELECT ... FROM statements that appear in the etherpad. | |
| 17:08:47 | edleafe | leakypipes: hmmm... so couldn't we just define agg distances, rather than distances between everything in AggA to everything in AggB? | |
| 17:09:16 | leakypipes | edleafe: yeah, I thought about that. it may be possible to do that. | |
| 17:09:38 | edleafe | leakypipes: ok, just thought I was missing something | |
| 17:10:39 | fried_rice | In that simplified form, we just have one extra table: agg1, agg2, distance ? | |
| 17:11:18 | fried_rice | whose entries may be redundant (agg2, agg1, distance had better have the same distance as ^) | |
| 17:11:28 | fried_rice | (unless distances are "directional" - ye gods) | |
| 17:11:49 | edleafe | fried_rice: yeesh | |
| 17:12:09 | leakypipes | fried_rice: right, that's the issue I ran into when I originally modeled things like that. basically needed a CHECK constraint to ensure aggA != aggB | |
| 17:12:24 | edleafe | fried_rice: it might be simpler to assign a "position" to each agg, rather than a distance between them | |
| 17:12:35 | fried_rice | mm | |
| 17:12:47 | edleafe | the distance is just abs(posA - posB) | |
| 17:14:02 | fried_rice | edleafe: And we could support directionality there too by taking out the abs(). negative distance is "uphill", positive "downhill". | |
| 17:14:09 | fried_rice | edleafe: (Yes, I'm kidding) | |
| 17:15:30 | sean-k-mooney | fried_rice: never try to model distace over netwrk links with mpls multi path routing because in that case your distance ro a request can be different then the distance for a respocne | |
| 17:16:53 | fried_rice | Okay folks, I think I've seen enough to "get it". Just want to confirm a couple of takeaways here: | |
| 17:16:55 | fried_rice | (1) This isn't intended, and not particularly suited, for solving NUMA. | |
| 17:17:25 | fried_rice | (2) This is post-Rocky? | |
| 17:17:53 | fried_rice | leakypipes: ^ -^ | |
| 17:18:15 | openstackgerrit | Marcin Juszkiewicz proposed openstack/nova master: Provide basic data for AArch64 support matrix/functionality https://review.openstack.org/541728 | |
| 17:19:29 | hrw | mriedem: implemented | |
| 17:20:22 | fried_rice | gotta run for a couple hours. Thanks leakypipes edleafe finucannot cfriesen sean-k-mooney, this has been very helpful. | |
| 17:20:49 | finucannot | :D | |
| 17:34:07 | sean-k-mooney | ok my brain has had it for today. im going to take some panadol and go lie down on the couch and not think for a while. enjoy your weekends o/ | |
| 17:34:22 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: ciao :) | |
| 17:42:16 | leakypipes | fried_rolls: did you say you had a spec/proposal up for the distances stuff? I'd certainly be eager to read it. | |
| 17:42:21 | leakypipes | or was it edleafe? | |
| 17:42:39 | leakypipes | edleafe: what happened to figleaf? | |
| 17:43:50 | edleafe | dunno | |
| 17:44:00 | leakypipes | there he is. | |
| 17:44:07 | figleaf | maybe my bouncer hiccupped | |
| 17:46:41 | figleaf | leakypipes: fried_rolls and I had a convo about modeling NUMA using aggs instead of distances | |
| 17:46:55 | figleaf | leakypipes: I don't think there's a spec posted yet | |
| 17:46:59 | leakypipes | gotcha | |
| 17:49:29 | fried_rolls | figleaf, leakypipes: I'm working on it. The summary paragraph is up in a bp template: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/resource-class-affinity | |
| 17:55:04 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: [placement] Move body examples to an isolated directory https://review.openstack.org/529998 | |
| 17:55:12 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/ocata: Add release note for Aggregate[Core|Ram|Disk]Filter change https://review.openstack.org/542323 | |
| 17:55:21 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Make bdms querying in multi-cell use scatter-gather and ignore down cell https://review.openstack.org/541246 | |
| 17:55:30 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Remove unnecessary arguments in notification methods https://review.openstack.org/535599 | |
| 17:55:42 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Remove microversion fallback code from report client https://review.openstack.org/528794 | |
| 17:59:45 | melwitt | dansmith: I had to replace assertEqual with assertItemsEqual for the list comparison so that ordering wouldn't result in sporadic test failures, if you could re-review at your convenience https://review.openstack.org/#/c/540258 | |
| 18:00:49 | openstackgerrit | Surya Seetharaman proposed openstack/nova master: Unmap compute nodes when deleting host mappings during delete cell operation https://review.openstack.org/542964 | |
| 18:05:21 | openstackgerrit | Surya Seetharaman proposed openstack/nova master: Unmap compute nodes when deleting host mappings in delete cell operation https://review.openstack.org/542964 | |
| 18:12:07 | dansmith | melwitt: yeah I saw that this morning, thought I already +2d | |
| 18:12:28 | dansmith | just never clicked the button I guess | |
| 18:12:40 | melwitt | dansmith: super, thanks | |
| 18:13:19 | melwitt | :) | |
| 18:13:27 | itlinux | hello all.. I have a strange behaviors my coworker sent me. this: I'm seeing this weird behavior on the poc. I'm deploying the avi controllers with heat, this creates a nova instance with a cinder volume. the volumes get created, but seems like the last one loses(a timeout?) and another volume gets created and that one is attached to the last instance. | |
| 18:55:26 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Provide basic data for AArch64 support matrix/functionality https://review.openstack.org/541728 | |
| 18:58:55 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Check for leaked server resource allocations in post_test_hook https://review.openstack.org/538510 | |
| 19:07:26 | amoralej | i'm finding some failures in jobs for queens when security groups are failing to create with unauthorized error | |
| 19:07:39 | amoralej | https://[::1]:8774/v2.1/os-security-groups returned with HTTP 401 | |
| 19:07:48 | amoralej | https://centos.logs.rdoproject.org/weirdo-generic-puppet-openstack-scenario001/4365/weirdo-project/logs/apache/nova_api_wsgi_error_ssl.txt.gz | |
| 19:07:52 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-novaclient master: Remove 2 redundant methods https://review.openstack.org/528325 | |
| 19:07:57 | amoralej | i see the corresponding error in neutron | |
| 19:08:03 | amoralej | https://centos.logs.rdoproject.org/weirdo-generic-puppet-openstack-scenario001/4365/weirdo-project/logs/neutron/server.txt.gz#_2018-02-09_17_53_21_219 | |
| 19:08:11 | amoralej | any idea what could be the cause? | |
| 19:08:24 | amoralej | it's just happens from time to time | |
| 19:24:02 | melwitt | amoralej: is that a tempest test? the first thing I notice is that the nova api isn't being called with the latest microversion, as we deprecated the os-security-groups proxy api back in newton https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/reference/api-microversion-history.html#id33 | |
| 19:24:19 | amoralej | melwitt, yes, it's tempest test | |
| 19:24:33 | amoralej | tempest.scenario.test_server_basic_ops.TestServerBasicOps.test_server_basic_ops | |
| 19:24:50 | melwitt | that's not causing the 401, but just to note | |
| 19:25:21 | melwitt | other than that, neutron is rejecting the request because of failed token validation. the only thing I can think there is if the token expired over a long running time? | |
| 19:25:50 | melwitt | I don't know off the top of my head how tempest gets/refreshes auth tokens throughout a job run | |
| 19:25:55 | amoralej | but expiration time for tokens were hours, right? | |
| 19:26:20 | melwitt | yeah, I would think so. have to check | |
| 19:26:45 | amoralej | the full job, deployment + tempest run took 51 minutes | |
| 19:27:40 | amoralej | but yeah, i thought something like that too | |
| 19:30:02 | melwitt | looks like the default is only an hour https://github.com/openstack/keystone/blob/master/keystone/conf/token.py#L49 | |
| 19:30:29 | melwitt | but I see in your keystone.conf it's set to 2400 seconds, even shorter https://centos.logs.rdoproject.org/weirdo-generic-puppet-openstack-scenario001/4365/weirdo-project/logs/etc/keystone/keystone.conf.txt.gz | |
| 19:30:55 | melwitt | 40 minutes | |
| 19:31:17 | melwitt | but, that only matters if tempest gets a token once and keeps reusing it throughout the run, which I don't know if it does | |
| 19:32:13 | amoralej | yeah, i don't know that, but i think the tempest run itself took much less that 40 mins | |
| 19:34:17 | melwitt | oh, okay, you said deployment + tempest | |
| 19:34:52 | amoralej | yes | |
| 19:35:06 | amoralej | let's see how next runs go | |
| 19:35:28 | amoralej | but hitting the same issue twice in a day is normally a bad sign | |
| 19:36:01 | melwitt | I get that it's bad, it's just there's almost no info there. neutron is rejecting with a 401, token auth failure | |
| 19:36:41 | amoralej | yes, no idea about how to debug deeper | |
| 19:36:53 | amoralej | that's why i came to see the experts :) | |
| 19:42:30 | melwitt | looks like upstream tempest jobs leave keystone.conf [token]expiration at the default 3600 seconds, so maybe you could try that. I would think it's an expired token, else there's something seriously wrong in the keystone auth middleware | |
| 20:42:30 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Ensure resource classes correctly https://review.openstack.org/539738 | |
| 20:42:31 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: New-style _set_inventory_for_provider https://review.openstack.org/537648 | |
| 20:42:31 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: SchedulerReportClient.update_from_provider_tree https://review.openstack.org/533821 | |