| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-04-03 | |||
| 14:00:21 | cdent | how is post to /allocations different from put to /allocations/consumer_uuid (with a generation)? | |
| 14:00:52 | efried | jaypipes: POST still needs to be *able* to be used to *create*. Because migration scenario. So we still have to address the question of "what generation do we send down for a consumer that doesn't yet exist?" | |
| 14:00:56 | edleafe | jaypipes: changing the POST code to make it additive would break migrations | |
| 14:01:11 | cdent | efried: yeah, as I said on the spec the none thing is meh-ish, but seems kinda gotta with the model being considered | |
| 14:01:29 | efried | IMO there's no meh about it. It's ick-but-necessary. | |
| 14:01:41 | cdent | isn't that what meh means? | |
| 14:01:50 | cdent | resignation in the face of crushing reality | |
| 14:01:56 | efried | To me "meh" means "could do with or without it" | |
| 14:01:57 | jaypipes | edleafe: sorry, I'm not suggesting modifying POST /allocations to be additive. I am suggesting to keep it as "overwrite the allcations for all consumers listed in the resquest payload" | |
| 14:02:40 | efried | jaypipes: Cool, so how do you handle the generation for a newly-created consumer in POST? | |
| 14:02:57 | edleafe | jaypipes: so in the example case of two actors creating their subset of allocations to placement, how will the second one ever be able to get theirs in? | |
| 14:03:18 | jaypipes | efried: overwrite. | |
| 14:03:31 | efried | jaypipes: There's nothing to overwrite. The consumer doesn't exist. | |
| 14:03:40 | jaypipes | efried: so it is created? | |
| 14:03:50 | jaypipes | efried: I'm not proposing anything different for that. | |
| 14:03:54 | efried | yes, it is created by the POST (in e.g. the migration scenario). | |
| 14:04:24 | efried | jaypipes: Right, I'm asking, now that we have to specify the generation per consumer chunk in the POST payload: what generatio do we send down for the new consumer? | |
| 14:04:39 | jaypipes | edleafe: the second one gets a 409 Conflict when trying to do the PUT /allocations/{consumer}. It then does a GET /allocations/{consumer} and merges its needed resources into a call to POST /allocations | |
| 14:04:41 | edleafe | for allocations, POST == a set of PUTs | |
| 14:04:51 | jaypipes | efried: we don't. | |
| 14:04:59 | edleafe | jaypipes: so you | |
| 14:05:01 | edleafe | ugh | |
| 14:05:21 | edleafe | jaypipes: so you're saying that POST needs a consumer gen, just to avoid adding one to PUT?? | |
| 14:05:49 | efried | edleafe: He also just said leave the consumer generation off of the respective subsection of POST if it's a new consumer. | |
| 14:06:00 | jaypipes | right. | |
| 14:06:09 | jaypipes | edleafe: what I'm proposing is the least amount of change to the API. | |
| 14:06:11 | edleafe | efried: if it's a new consumer, there could not be a 409 response | |
| 14:06:40 | edleafe | If you've gotten a 409, the consumer exists. You can still be in danger of overwriting | |
| 14:06:45 | jaypipes | edleafe: no consumer_generation in POST /allocations means "I think this is a new consumer" | |
| 14:06:54 | edleafe | jaypipes: that makes no sense | |
| 14:07:08 | efried | Shrug, it's a coin-toss between that and sending null. | |
| 14:07:19 | jaypipes | edleafe: sure it does. think about the existing use case of POST /allocations (the resize/migrate case) | |
| 14:07:21 | edleafe | You just said that POST would be used *after* a conflict was detected. Ergo, there *is* a consumer | |
| 14:07:26 | efried | ...it's just not what we landed on yesterday. | |
| 14:07:48 | efried | With jaypipes' suggestion, PUT is only for create, but POST is for create *or* modify. | |
| 14:07:56 | edleafe | [t 4bj1] | |
| 14:07:56 | purplerbot | <jaypipes> edleafe: the second one gets a 409 Conflict when trying to do the PUT /allocations/{consumer}. It then does a GET /allocations/{consumer} and merges its needed resources into a call to POST /allocations [2018-04-03 14:04:39.482469] [n 4bj1] | |
| 14:08:18 | efried | With things as we left them yesterday, either one can be used for either create or modify. | |
| 14:08:31 | jaypipes | edleafe: when POST /allocations is used to reconcile after a 409 Conflict is received from the PUT /allocations/{consumer_uuid}, yes, the consumer_generation would be expected in the request. But POST /allocations is used for migrate/resize, and in the case of that, the migration UUID would be expected as a new consumer. | |
| 14:08:44 | edleafe | efried: how would modify be guaranteed not to race w/o the consumer gen? | |
| 14:08:55 | cdent | I need to do something else for awhile, can someone be sure this gets summarized to the spec, I've got more to say, but it sounds like this needs to play out a bit | |
| 14:09:16 | jaypipes | edleafe, efried: a hangout perchance? | |
| 14:09:35 | efried | edleafe: consumer_generation omitted would behave exactly the same as consumer_generation=null. Either one works to signify "I think the consumer doesn't exist yet". | |
| 14:09:36 | edleafe | jaypipes: well, that just feels really wrong. POST shouldn't behave one way sometimes, and another way others | |
| 14:09:41 | efried | hangout fine by me. | |
| 14:10:13 | edleafe | efried: so then placement would reject it, for the exact same reason it rejected the consumer gen-less PUT | |
| 14:10:24 | efried | edleafe: Yes. | |
| 14:10:24 | jaypipes | https://hangouts.google.com/call/7cb33WR2UowcbcI_8EdLAAEE | |
| 14:10:42 | edleafe | efried: why limit it to 2 actors? What about 3? Nova, cinder and neutron all allocating resources | |
| 14:11:13 | efried | it's not limited edleafe. Are you joining? | |
| 14:11:53 | sean-k-mooney[m] | jaypipes: why would you do post to /allocations on migrate instead of PUT | |
| 14:12:29 | sean-k-mooney[m] | jaypipes: sorry for resize we use post be cause we are using a migration uuid instead of the instance uuid never mind | |
| 14:15:06 | sean-k-mooney | jaypipes: efried edleafe so i was wondering why i did not get any responces to my messages for the last 5 mins. aprently my riot.im client never sent them to irc... | |
| 14:15:46 | sean-k-mooney | if ye get a bunch of out of context messages form sean-k-mooney[m] in then next few minuts thats why | |
| 14:39:54 | edleafe | sean-k-mooney: to answer your question, the POST to allocations was added for the migration case, where we needed a set of allocations for multiple consumers to be changed atomically | |
| 14:48:58 | openstackgerrit | Simon Dodsley proposed openstack/nova master: Add enhanced KVM storage QoS quotas https://review.openstack.org/558530 | |
| 15:04:37 | bauzas | artom: *cough cough* +Wd https://review.openstack.org/#/c/552722/12 ;à | |
| 15:04:38 | bauzas | ;) | |
| 15:13:46 | jaypipes | cdent, edleafe, efried: k, summary sent to ML. | |
| 15:13:59 | efried | jaypipes: Thanks for doing that. | |
| 15:14:01 | cdent | thanks jaypipes | |
| 15:14:03 | jaypipes | np | |
| 15:16:19 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Scheduling Optimization: Remove cell0 from the list of candidates https://review.openstack.org/556821 | |
| 15:18:42 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova-specs master: NUMA-aware live migration https://review.openstack.org/552722 | |
| 15:28:56 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Filter resource providers by forbidden traits in db https://review.openstack.org/556472 | |
| 15:28:56 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Filter allocation candidates by forbidden traits in db https://review.openstack.org/556660 | |
| 15:28:57 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Parse forbidden traits in query strings https://review.openstack.org/556819 | |
| 15:28:57 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Support forbidden traits in API https://review.openstack.org/556820 | |
| 15:33:45 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Allow scheduling only to enabled cells (Filter Scheduler) https://review.openstack.org/550527 | |
| 15:38:28 | cfriesen | anyone ever run into problems with privsep failing with a broken pipe? I'm trying to figure out what went wrong. http://paste.openstack.org/show/718307/ | |
| 15:42:52 | jaypipes | cfriesen: sorry, never seen that :( | |
| 15:44:09 | stephenfin | cfriesen: I usually only see that what a process dies. Other than that, I've no idea | |
| 15:46:45 | efried | cfriesen: EPIPE happens when two threads are talking over RPC and the sender shuts down while the receiver is still waiting for stuff. But you probably knew that. | |
| 15:47:47 | efried | or... it might be vice versa. Point is, where they don't disconnect friendly-like. | |
| 15:48:07 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Add trusted_certs to instance_extra https://review.openstack.org/537897 | |
| 15:51:47 | cdent | cfriesen: I reckon your problem them is probably eventlet simply because if you've got a chance to blame eventlet for something, maybe you should. | |
| 15:52:02 | cfriesen | lol | |
| 15:52:13 | zzzeek | jaypipes: you should idle on #openstack-oslo :) | |
| 15:52:35 | arvindn05 | jaypipes: can we quickly discuss a review comment? | |
| 15:53:28 | arvindn05 | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/557795/ i replied to the comment on having specific field(required_traits) for traits vs using a dictofstring approach | |
| 15:54:52 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Add trusted_certs object https://review.openstack.org/489408 | |
| 15:55:04 | arvindn05 | i made the changes and i think its ready to merge but wanted to get your thoughts | |
| 15:58:15 | bauzas | FWIW, I'm now done with nova-specs and runways reviews, will work on my own spec | |
| 15:58:25 | bauzas | unless something urgent of course | |
| 16:07:01 | arvindn05 | dansmith: addressed the comment. Please provide your thoughts on one open question i had as well | |
| 16:15:28 | openstackgerrit | Mathieu Gagné proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Multiple Fixed-IPs support in network information https://review.openstack.org/312626 | |
| 16:16:46 | efried | jaypipes, cdent, edleafe: We should have a (hopefully quick) chat about the question of including all provider information in provider summaries. | |
| 16:17:22 | cdent | efried: by "all" you mean "everything in this things tree and shared friends"? | |
| 16:18:00 | efried | cdent: At least "everything in this tree". I had thought the sharing would be "only sharing providers providing resource to the requests". | |
| 16:18:18 | efried | But even the former is in question. | |
| 16:18:30 | efried | We at some point decided that we wanted to return all the providers in the tree | |
| 16:18:37 | efried | even the ones not providing resource to the request. | |
| 16:18:40 | efried | Anyone remember why? | |
| 16:18:41 | cdent | I thought we had to do it order for weighers to work? | |
| 16:19:03 | efried | Yeah, weighers would be a good reason I suppose. But... more specifically? | |
| 16:19:23 | efried | like, in what circumstance would a weigher want to look at a provider that's not providing resource to the request? | |
| 16:19:29 | openstackgerrit | Nguyen Hai proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Enhance nova-specs webpage and clean up repo https://review.openstack.org/551802 | |
| 16:19:47 | efried | (Hint: future me will repeat question with "...look at a resource class that's not part of the request") | |
| 16:20:38 | cdent | I'm afraid I will have to defer to others as I have chosen to achieve ignorance on the details of this particular aspect of things to make room for other thoughts | |
| 16:22:03 | jaypipes | efried: here's an example... | |