Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-02-12
14:54:49 bauzas jroll: well, you wanna standardize your own monitoring model :)
14:55:04 jroll bauzas: s/your own/oslo's/
14:55:10 gibi bauzas: on the image_id, theoretically we can forbid booting from volume in nova where the volume doesn't have the image_id in the metadata, but I think that would be restrict some use cases that is possible today
14:55:12 cdent jroll: I'd say go ahead with the old thing. the new thing needs to be discussed but is a whole different kettle
14:55:14 jroll I'm not forcing it on anyone ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
14:55:20 bauzas I'm not sure operators are sold on using middleware healthchecks for knowing whether my app is up
14:55:48 cdent jroll: I reckon the way it is done in ironic is just fine for placement
14:56:06 bauzas gibi: If I'm sure about one thing, it's how operators can find solutions with things we don't officially support
14:56:07 mriedem gibi: i wasn't suggesting making that break now,
14:56:13 cdent it doesn't preclude some different future
14:56:19 mriedem gibi: was just wondering if we have the information from the volume meta, if we should store it in the request spec
14:56:43 bauzas mriedem: at the request_spec creation time, then ?
14:56:46 mriedem yes
14:56:50 bauzas well
14:56:56 mriedem the confusion will be,
14:57:01 bauzas if you rebuild ?
14:57:04 mriedem instance.image_ref == None == volume-backed,
14:57:09 gibi copying image_id over from the volume meta to the request_spec is fine by me
14:57:09 bauzas also
14:57:11 mriedem but requestspec.image.id == None....?
14:57:55 mriedem bauzas: if you rebuild a volume-backed instance with a new image, we fail today
14:58:09 jroll cdent: thanks
14:58:23 mriedem bauzas: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/api.py#L2979
14:59:24 bauzas mriedem: okay, gtk
15:01:18 takashin mriedem: Would you check my reply to you comment in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/513721/ ?
15:04:11 mriedem takashin: done
15:05:18 takashin mriedem: Thanks.
15:08:59 mriedem bauzas: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1748858
15:09:00 openstack Launchpad bug 1748858 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "allocation_ratio set by aggregate metadata don't work in NUMATopologyFilter" [Undecided,New] - Assigned to yangjie (yang.jie)
15:09:07 mriedem sounds familiar
15:09:30 bauzas mriedem: sec, thinking hard of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/543263/2/nova/scheduler/filters/isolated_hosts_filter.py
15:09:44 bauzas the change isn't trivial
15:10:04 mriedem bauzas: really?
15:10:40 mriedem bauzas: that's basically what it did before it was regressed here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202678/35/nova/scheduler/filters/isolated_hosts_filter.py
15:10:41 bauzas mriedem: yeah, my guts feel some problem that I still don't see
15:10:52 mriedem maybe you need to go to the bathroom
15:11:07 bauzas probably
15:11:13 bauzas but I'm looking at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/543263/2/nova/scheduler/filters/isolated_hosts_filter.py@43
15:11:16 gibi bauzas: shall we pull the patch from the gate as I +Wd it recently
15:11:42 mriedem if you look at how it worked before https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202678/35/nova/scheduler/filters/isolated_hosts_filter.py
15:11:43 bauzas gibi: I'm not saying we *have* a problem
15:11:50 mriedem the image id was always something it handled as optional
15:11:53 mriedem using dict.get()
15:11:59 bauzas the thing is
15:12:01 mriedem changing to request spec in that patch made it required
15:12:06 bauzas if we say we don't have an image
15:12:17 bauzas then the image isn't isolated, right
15:12:28 mriedem bauzas: that's the point of my email,
15:12:39 bauzas in that case, we should accept host1
15:12:40 mriedem which is, this never did anything for volume-backed instances,
15:12:44 mriedem but that's not the point of my fix right now
15:12:56 mriedem i'm restoring this filter to how it previously worked, before mitaka
15:13:01 bauzas then the doc is invalid
15:13:09 bauzas at least the docstring I mean
15:13:16 bauzas and I'd like to fix that
15:13:19 mriedem so clean that up in a follow up?
15:13:45 bauzas well now that gibi pulled the trigger, /me shrufs
15:13:46 cdent Is there a general opinion about the merit of conditional imports in nova code? I'd like to only import rpc and sqlalchemy_api here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/config.py#L54-L58 if those conditionals are true. The other option (which might make better long term sense) is to make a different parse_args
15:13:54 bauzas shrugs*
15:14:13 bauzas mriedem: the thing is, I thought you wanna backport ?
15:14:17 bauzas moar fun then
15:14:20 mriedem bauzas: i do
15:14:35 bauzas so, we should backport both your change *and* the doc change
15:14:37 mriedem i don't think the docstring is something that bars us from backporting this fix
15:14:38 bauzas looks sad
15:14:43 bauzas I know
15:15:04 mriedem bauzas: if you want to call out the volume-backed scenario, then push a patch on top of this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/543264/
15:15:06 bauzas I just would have appreciated if we could have amended the upstream filters documentation *and* the docstring in the sme change
15:15:35 mriedem i didn't say anything about volume-backed behavior in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/543264/ because, as i said in the ML, i'm not sure if that behavior is intentional or not
15:15:44 mriedem since the filter predates my involvement in nova
15:15:55 bauzas mriedem: I don't really care of the BFV case
15:16:34 bauzas the thing is, should we assume that an instance having no image is behaving identical as if we were having an instance with a non-isolated image ?
15:16:38 bauzas my guts feel yues
15:16:46 bauzas hence my trouble
15:16:47 mriedem fwiw essex https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/972fc7d80fae386cf4c72b7891f6601d6f7fb00b#diff-b4fa3e44aeb7757f04d296529b8492e5
15:16:58 mriedem bauzas: well, that's the point of my ML thread
15:17:03 bauzas again, I know
15:17:07 mriedem and why i also sent it to the ops ML
15:17:17 bauzas but people pulled the trigger before I had time to both review and reply
15:17:26 bauzas that's fine, it's my bad
15:17:29 mriedem i wanted to find out (1) does anyone use this filter (2) if so, do they know about this bfv thing, and (3) if so, do they care?
15:17:32 bauzas I need to be quicker
15:19:15 gibi I feel there is two different change on that is now on the gate to restore the regressed behavior and one that is on the ML to find out the what is the intended behavior for BFV
15:19:16 bauzas mriedem: like I said in the meeting, if people use that filter, I'd be surprised
15:19:36 bauzas gibi: after thinking hard, I think we can leave the patch merge
15:19:49 bauzas mriedem: I'd be surprised because it's conf-driven
15:19:54 bauzas which operators hate
15:20:06 edleafe cdent: you'd need to import rpc for line 44 :)
15:20:19 bauzas while ImageAggragateExtraSpecsMyStuffFilter does that programatically with aggregates :)
15:20:22 cdent edleafe: would isolate that too
15:20:42 cdent edleafe: but just going to write another one, as there's redundancy happening in that stuff that placement doesn't care about
15:21:06 cdent edleafe: still curious about the general question (even though I'm not going to do it)
15:21:16 cdent some people hate them
15:21:21 edleafe cdent: yeah, just funnin' ya
15:22:00 edleafe FWIW, I tend to not use them, except when performance is affected.
15:23:12 mriedem melwitt: looks like functional test failures in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/340614/ are real
15:26:06 cdent stephenfin: wait, DPDK isn't solving _all_ your problems. unpossible.
15:26:23 mriedem alex_xu: have fun, eat lots of dumplings
15:26:28 bauzas stephenfin: DPDK like Don't Play Donkey Kong ?
15:27:12 alex_xu mriedem: thanks :)

Earlier   Later