| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-04-09 | |||
| 14:38:35 | mriedem | thanks | |
| 14:45:20 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: Use nova.db.api directly https://review.openstack.org/543262 | |
| 14:46:52 | mriedem | sahid: bauzas: this spec tracking is really odd https://review.openstack.org/#/c/511188/ - that's for rocky, for a blueprint which is closed | |
| 14:47:29 | mriedem | why isn't there a "overhead-pin-set" spec for rocky? | |
| 14:48:03 | bauzas | mriedem: shit, you're right | |
| 14:48:09 | bauzas | mriedem: the URL is wrong | |
| 14:49:01 | mriedem | and the name of the spec is wrong | |
| 14:49:05 | openstackgerrit | Eric Berglund proposed openstack/nova master: PowerVM Driver: Localdisk https://review.openstack.org/549300 | |
| 14:49:06 | bauzas | I haven't looked at the related BP, my bad | |
| 14:49:13 | mriedem | sahid: can you fix that up please? | |
| 14:49:46 | bauzas | I think sahid didn't changed the spec when we asked him to create that BP | |
| 14:50:12 | mriedem | finucannot: you can remove the -2 on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/510897/ - the spec is approved | |
| 14:50:18 | bauzas | mriedem: thanks for that btw. | |
| 14:50:26 | bauzas | honestly, I should also look at the BP | |
| 14:58:18 | sahid | mriedem: at the beginning it was just an update of the already approved spec, that is why we did not have really noticed the issue | |
| 14:59:25 | bauzas | sahid: ping me when you're done with the new change and I'll +2 | |
| 14:59:33 | bauzas | for renaming I mean | |
| 14:59:58 | sahid | yes i will | |
| 15:11:41 | mriedem | dansmith: replied in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/558059/ | |
| 15:17:37 | jaypipes | cdent: ok, everyone gone | |
| 15:17:55 | cdent | roger | |
| 15:18:24 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Support extending attached ScaleIO volumes https://review.openstack.org/554679 | |
| 15:20:20 | mriedem | jaypipes: efried: -1 on tetsuro's spec https://review.openstack.org/#/c/559466/ - the bp link is wrong for one, but i'm also wondering if this is just to enable out of tree filters/weighters, or if he actually wants to add a vGPU weighter to nova | |
| 15:20:24 | mriedem | i'd be supportive of that if so | |
| 15:20:52 | mriedem | question inline about the slippery slope of including provider trees in the response also | |
| 15:21:32 | mriedem | bauzas: you would probably be interested in that idea ^ | |
| 15:24:22 | mriedem | jgwentworth: dansmith: i guess we were supposed to be actively brainstorming for the forum https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-nova-brainstorming | |
| 15:25:51 | mriedem | efried: jaypipes: cdent: edleafe: i'm sure there are placement things that could be at the forum | |
| 15:26:02 | mriedem | e.g. cinder talking about maybe leveraging it in their scheduler | |
| 15:26:15 | cdent | mriedem: yes, it's on y list | |
| 15:26:30 | cdent | got a couple things, including the cinder thing | |
| 15:26:35 | mriedem | efried: design sessions at the summit | |
| 15:26:51 | bauzas | mriedem: ack, I'll look | |
| 15:27:18 | bauzas | -ETOOMANYPLACEMENTSPECS | |
| 15:27:51 | bauzas | should we stop feeding the placement mogwaï after midnight ? | |
| 15:28:11 | openstackgerrit | Ed Leafe proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add Generation to Consumers https://review.openstack.org/556971 | |
| 15:29:14 | efried | bauzas: It's water that makes 'em multiply. Feeding after midnight turns 'em evil. | |
| 15:29:19 | edleafe | efried: ^^ addressed your concerns | |
| 15:30:50 | bauzas | efried: ha, right. So, people, stop hydrating your specs | |
| 15:31:14 | jaypipes | mriedem: it's not to enable anything in particular. it's just to remove a restriction in the returned results of allocation candidates' provider_summaries section that wasn't necessary to restrict. | |
| 15:31:25 | bauzas | and don't give'em a review after midnight or they'll turn into something bad | |
| 15:31:54 | bauzas | efried: technically, growing mogwais is good | |
| 15:32:11 | bauzas | if you respect the 3 rules | |
| 15:33:15 | bauzas | jaypipes: what's up with the placement channel ? can I rejoin it ? | |
| 15:33:24 | cdent | bauzas: yes, it's ready | |
| 15:33:34 | bauzas | :'( | |
| 15:34:09 | jaypipes | bauzas: I warned you to leave the channel :) | |
| 15:34:49 | bauzas | jaypipes: well, you kick after the first warning, I hope your pugs behave correctly :p | |
| 15:39:12 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Return all resources in provider_summaries spec https://review.openstack.org/559466 | |
| 15:39:20 | efried | mriedem, jaypipes: I went ahead and made those edits ^ | |
| 15:39:26 | efried | tetsuro ^ | |
| 15:42:24 | bauzas | efried: see my comment on the spec | |
| 15:42:33 | bauzas | efried: about interop | |
| 15:43:23 | bauzas | efried: if people wanna add some query related to inventories, they should add it to Placement, not by a filter | |
| 15:43:33 | efried | bauzas: Responding. | |
| 15:43:48 | bauzas | efried: because the Placement logic needs to be interoperable for the same query | |
| 15:44:49 | mriedem | i just don't want to spend time making this change if nothing is going to leverage it in-tree right now | |
| 15:45:08 | bauzas | if we accept to pass back the inventories, then you'll be sure that one day or later, people will just use placement for basic checks, and will do python filtering for their specific calls | |
| 15:45:14 | mriedem | if out of tree filters/weighters want to get full provider tree and inventory information, they can query placement directly | |
| 15:45:17 | bauzas | and then, we're done with claims | |
| 15:45:26 | bauzas | what mriedem said | |
| 15:48:18 | jaypipes | what? | |
| 15:49:31 | efried | jaypipes: Help me out here. What's the reason we want to include non-requested resources and other-RPs-in-same-tree in provider summaries? | |
| 15:49:56 | edleafe | filters/weighers? | |
| 15:50:20 | jaypipes | efried: so that filters like the NUMATopologyFilter and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter can use the inventory usage and trait information. | |
| 15:50:33 | mriedem | if you need to filter on a resource class, that should be part of the requested resource in the query which puts it in the response, right? | |
| 15:51:02 | mriedem | this spec doesn't say anything about returning a full view of the resource provider traits either, only what was requested | |
| 15:51:11 | mriedem | or do you already get the full set of traits back in provider summaries? | |
| 15:51:12 | efried | mriedem: As I tried to explain, we have no syntax to talk about resource classes we're *not* requesting. | |
| 15:51:14 | jaypipes | mriedem: not if you want to know that a sibling NUMA node is "more packed" than another. | |
| 15:51:28 | efried | yeah, and that. | |
| 15:52:44 | mriedem | sure i get the weighing thing here | |
| 15:53:02 | mriedem | i'm basically -1 until something in-tree is going to leverage this | |
| 15:53:26 | mriedem | because provider 'summary' is not going to be a summary anymore, it's going to be a full blown view of the provider, it sounds like anyway | |
| 15:53:53 | efried | mriedem: That's really what was intended from the start, I believe. It was an artifact of the impl that it wound up being a subset. | |
| 15:54:21 | jaypipes | mriedem: we already return all the rp traits, not just the ones requested. https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/placement/objects/resource_provider.py#L3426 | |
| 15:54:25 | efried | mriedem: Surely you're not suggesting that "something in-tree is going to leverage this" is necessary in the Rocky timeframe? | |
| 15:54:42 | mriedem | efried: why would that be shocking? | |
| 15:54:46 | jaypipes | mriedem: summary only referred to the aggregation of usage counts. | |
| 15:55:13 | efried | mriedem: Because especially with placement stuff, we've got a long history of implementing enablement before implementing the thing that exploits it. | |
| 15:55:27 | mriedem | efried: if a thing were queued up to exploit this, then it's a different story | |
| 15:55:58 | efried | mriedem: So you want a bp/spec for how NUMATopologyFilter is going to leverage this before you'll approve it? | |
| 15:56:18 | mriedem | depending on what that thing is, we might want to instead of just *always* returning the full inventory including the tree, maybe it's a parameter on the API to return something in addition to what we get today, based on config in nova which is based on which filters/weighters you're enabling | |
| 15:56:19 | efried | mriedem: Or is it enough to add more words to the use case paragraph? | |
| 15:56:59 | mriedem | efried: i just think this is getting the cart before the hose | |
| 15:57:01 | mriedem | *horse | |
| 15:57:23 | mriedem | and not something we should be spending time on given all of the other stuff that is actually planned to be used in this release | |
| 15:57:25 | jaypipes | mriedem: as I mentioned on the spec, I see this more of correcting an earlier mistake of not returning all resource class inventories/usage summaries in the provider_summaries section when we should have been doing that from the start. | |
| 15:57:50 | efried | ++ | |
| 15:58:06 | efried | Also, the code is already done | |
| 15:58:25 | mriedem | we never told anyone they should fully implement something before the bp is approved | |
| 15:58:35 | mriedem | code being done doesn't mean anything to me | |
| 15:58:51 | efried | from the perspective of spending time on it. | |
| 15:58:52 | mriedem | volume multiattach was 'done' in havana | |
| 15:59:18 | efried | Already has one core reviewer ready to +2, just holding up on spec approval. | |
| 16:00:00 | mriedem | and there is absolutely no unnecessary performance penalty on scheduling by returning full provider trees and inventory for all providers in a given request, even though we have nothing lined up to leverage it? | |
| 16:00:10 | mriedem | even if i get back 1000 of these things now? | |
| 16:01:40 | efried | For the back-end retrieval, no. As far as wire traffic, in the common case we have today, there will be *almost* no difference in the payloads anyway. | |
| 16:02:13 | efried | cfriesen_: You feel like writing something up about how NUMATopologyFilter will exploit provider_summary data? | |
| 16:06:07 | edleafe | Can anyone with more sqla-fu explain why the migration [0] and the model here [1] are not in sync? | |