| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-04-04 | |||
| 06:16:11 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/virt/xenapi/test_vm_utils.py (1) https://review.openstack.org/558704 | |
| 06:49:19 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova-specs master: update: isolate guests emulthreads on CONF.cpu_shared_set https://review.openstack.org/511188 | |
| 06:49:21 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: PowerVM Driver: Network interface attach/detach https://review.openstack.org/546813 | |
| 06:57:49 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova-specs master: update: isolate guests emulthreads on CONF.cpu_shared_set https://review.openstack.org/511188 | |
| 07:06:22 | openstackgerrit | OpenStack Proposal Bot proposed openstack/nova master: Imported Translations from Zanata https://review.openstack.org/548772 | |
| 07:45:54 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: z/VM Driver: Initial change set of z/VM driver https://review.openstack.org/523387 | |
| 07:45:55 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: z/VM Driver: Spawn and destroy function of z/VM driver https://review.openstack.org/527658 | |
| 07:45:55 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: z/VM Driver: add snapshot function https://review.openstack.org/534240 | |
| 07:45:56 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: z/VM Driver: add power actions https://review.openstack.org/543340 | |
| 07:45:56 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: z/VM Driver: add get console output https://review.openstack.org/543344 | |
| 07:53:26 | openstackgerrit | jichenjc proposed openstack/nova master: Avoid showing password in log https://review.openstack.org/558694 | |
| 07:53:29 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: Morning; this is ready, if it's merged, can get going with the backports: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/534384/ | |
| 08:01:03 | gmann | johnthetubaguy: alex_xu_ gibi_away looking for feedback on this - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/547850/ | |
| 09:46:41 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova-specs master: update: isolate guests emulthreads on CONF.cpu_shared_set https://review.openstack.org/511188 | |
| 09:50:18 | naichuans | Hi, dansmith, do you have the time to review below patches: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/554154/, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/489451/. It all about use xapi-pool instead of aggregate pool. We have finished internal review and the test. Thank you very much. | |
| 09:59:57 | openstackgerrit | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova master: Fix host validity check for live-migration https://review.openstack.org/401009 | |
| 10:00:13 | johnthetubaguy | gmann: policy wise, I would prefer we concentrated on adopting the new set of roles, which I think we can do at the same time? | |
| 10:00:27 | johnthetubaguy | gmann: that might be stupid, what do you think? | |
| 10:02:56 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: Sorry to nag, but I don't suppose you'd have time to have a gander again on the above? | |
| 10:03:07 | kashyap | Just trying to curb the "dragging on" of this | |
| 10:03:13 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: its in my next tab :) | |
| 10:13:53 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: you get my first +2 of the day, its a relief to actually +2 something! | |
| 10:14:04 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: Haha | |
| 10:14:21 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: Thank you! If your fingers are itching, here's another one: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/558171/ | |
| 10:14:27 | kashyap | But it requires more discussion on the list | |
| 10:14:41 | kashyap | Topic of it: [RFC] Pick next minimum libvirt / QEMU versions for "Stein" | |
| 10:15:10 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: ah right, I usually let distro people argue that one out, good to have the discussion though! | |
| 10:15:22 | kashyap | Yeah, I did an hour's sleuthing and wrote a new email | |
| 10:15:39 | kashyap | But `postfix` isn't letting me send it to openstack-{dev,operator} lists | |
| 10:20:57 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: your libvirt version looks too new for Debian, did I miss something there? | |
| 10:21:18 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: I know, this morning I even spent time on #debian-backports | |
| 10:21:44 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: The discussion was: | |
| 10:21:45 | kashyap | I also talked on #debian-backports IRC channel on OFTC network, where I | |
| 10:21:45 | kashyap | asked: | |
| 10:21:46 | kashyap | "What I'm essentially looking for is: "How can 'stretch' users get | |
| 10:21:46 | kashyap | libvirt 3.2.0 and QEMU 2.9.0, even if via a different repository. | |
| 10:21:48 | kashyap | As they are proposed to be least common denominator versions across | |
| 10:21:50 | kashyap | distributions." | |
| 10:21:53 | kashyap | And two people said: Then the versions from 'Buster' could be backported | |
| 10:21:55 | kashyap | to 'stretch-backports'. The process for that is to: "ask the maintainer | |
| 10:21:58 | kashyap | of those package and Cc to the backports mailing list." | |
| 10:22:15 | johnthetubaguy | why 3.2 not 3.0.0? | |
| 10:22:28 | johnthetubaguy | well, and 2.9 rather than 2.8? | |
| 10:23:28 | johnthetubaguy | totally not against better stretch-backports, sounds like a good plan either way | |
| 10:24:01 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: That is possible, actually -- to accomodate 'Stretch' | |
| 10:24:13 | kashyap | To use 3.0.0 and 2.8 | |
| 10:24:30 | johnthetubaguy | its not a ... stretch (giggles like a school boy) | |
| 10:24:57 | kashyap | But we should remember that 3.2.0 and 2.9 are already much older | |
| 10:25:02 | kashyap | Hehe | |
| 10:25:08 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: Did you also catch the email -- http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2018-March/015067.html | |
| 10:25:20 | kashyap | Where I actually called out the Debian thing, and asked people to chime in | |
| 10:26:26 | johnthetubaguy | cool, seems like a step too far to exclude Debian, but its good to ask | |
| 10:26:44 | kashyap | Yeah, exactly. I *don't* want to exclude it | |
| 10:26:58 | kashyap | That's why I even spent an hour or two talking to the upstream Debian folks on OFTC | |
| 10:27:12 | kashyap | Just to see what could be done; since we can get rid of backward-compatibility code | |
| 10:31:17 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: so can't we do the bump to 1.3.1 and 2.5.0 now ish? | |
| 10:31:48 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: Yes, we can; that's what I'm working on. | |
| 10:32:05 | kashyap | > As it stands, during the "Pike" release the advertized NEXT_MIN versions | |
| 10:32:08 | kashyap | > were set to: libvirt 1.3.1 and QEMU 2.5.0 -- but they weren't actually | |
| 10:32:11 | kashyap | > bumped for the "Queens" release. So they will now be applied for the | |
| 10:32:14 | kashyap | > "Rocky" release. | |
| 10:32:19 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: I think that's what you were referring to | |
| 10:32:29 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: yeah, totally, just I would +2 that one | |
| 10:33:01 | kashyap | Yeah, it requires going through the whole codebase removing conditional cruft, etc. And fix relevant unit tests | |
| 10:33:11 | kashyap | Will post here once I'm ready in a bit | |
| 10:33:25 | johnthetubaguy | true... well there are two changes, the bump then the removal, depending on how you look at it :) | |
| 10:33:55 | johnthetubaguy | anyways, glad you are pushing on that, sounds worthwhile to me | |
| 10:39:35 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: Yeah; there are multiple changes | |
| 10:39:45 | kashyap | Just bumping it won't magically pass everything, would it? :-) | |
| 10:40:06 | kashyap | Only one way to try | |
| 10:40:11 | kashyap | s/try/figure/ | |
| 10:46:53 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: ha, good question, it might do | |
| 10:47:15 | johnthetubaguy | not for good reasons, our testing of the min version is laughable, AFAIK | |
| 10:47:25 | kashyap | :D | |
| 10:51:34 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Fix endpoint URI /allocation_requests https://review.openstack.org/557580 | |
| 10:55:48 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Provide error codes for placement API https://review.openstack.org/418393 | |
| 11:02:58 | sean-k-mooney | johnthetubaguy: kashyap for the rocky realse are we then not going to bump byond those verions and just use what we had planned for queens | |
| 11:03:14 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: That's a good question | |
| 11:03:35 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: I don't know, since we didn't give a heads-up, then we should simply stick with the versions what we planned for 'Queens'? | |
| 11:03:41 | kashyap | I know it sucks | |
| 11:04:04 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: But we _can_ bump it; if we all agree | |
| 11:04:20 | sean-k-mooney | its less then ideal but if we dont depend on somthing form a newer release then i guess we dont have to bump | |
| 11:04:21 | kashyap | That's why I added the note to my post to the list: | |
| 11:04:21 | kashyap | > (Hmm, but note that libvirt 1.3.1 was released more | |
| 11:04:24 | kashyap | > than 2 years ago[1].) | |
| 11:04:30 | sean-k-mooney | ya i know | |
| 11:04:35 | sean-k-mooney | thats why i asked :) | |
| 11:05:17 | sean-k-mooney | it finally means we dont have to check libvirt verions for vhost multi queue once we require 1.3.1+ | |
| 11:14:07 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Use update_provider_tree from resource tracker https://review.openstack.org/520246 | |
| 11:41:08 | openstackgerrit | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Bump MIN_{LIBVIRT,QEMU} versions for "Rocky" https://review.openstack.org/558783 | |
| 11:50:21 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: ^ | |
| 11:50:48 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: cool, ping me when zuul says yes | |
| 11:50:56 | kashyap | Yeap | |
| 12:07:10 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: We did in the past: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/432700/2/releasenotes/notes/pike-libvirt-min-version-bb7f43020995ac10.yaml | |
| 12:07:55 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: ah, cool, upgrade sounds correct | |
| 12:08:12 | kashyap | Err, you're right | |
| 12:08:23 | kashyap | I'll do the s/feature/upgrade/ | |
| 12:15:14 | gmann | johnthetubaguy: i might not be getting you completely but yes we can adopt the new set of rules at same time based on old rule is overridden or not. If not then check new rule otherwise go for old rules till we remove them after deprecation phase | |
| 12:19:20 | johnthetubaguy | gmann: not sure, do we have a spec for the Admin vs Read vs Write policy roles? | |
| 12:19:35 | gmann | johnthetubaguy: i think not yet. | |