| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-04-12 | |||
| 14:38:21 | mriedem | starts at "I’m 28 and been married two weeks. " | |
| 14:39:14 | bauzas | what's also sad to me is that my brother-in-law has a daughter of 23 who also studies IT, and she's in couple with a IT PhD student | |
| 14:39:23 | efried | bauzas: We should clarify our terminology. I've been using "candidate" to mean "one result in the list returned by GET /allocation_candidates". Technically we should be calling that an "allocation request". That's the blob that you would turn around and PUT to /allocations/{consumer_uuid} to create the actual allocation for the instance (consumer). | |
| 14:39:26 | bauzas | so he has 2 good reasons to not call me | |
| 14:39:41 | bauzas | in particular when it's the middle of the afternoon and I'm not on PTO | |
| 14:40:10 | mriedem | dansmith: when you get a chance, channel topic needs updating https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-runways-rocky | |
| 14:40:34 | dansmith | mriedem: I don't think it does yet | |
| 14:40:38 | dansmith | I checked this morning | |
| 14:40:51 | mriedem | runways have changed... | |
| 14:40:52 | dansmith | oh, nm | |
| 14:40:57 | efried | bauzas: Again putting sharing aside, one allocation request is going to be a list of resources from (nested) providers on a single host. So there may be e.g. 10 allocation requests returned, but only three hosts represented (so more than one allocation request per host). | |
| 14:40:58 | dansmith | I had to refresh, it didn't notice | |
| 14:41:45 | dansmith | hmm, why did the certificate stuff get kicked out? | |
| 14:41:50 | dansmith | that had a few more days | |
| 14:41:57 | dansmith | and the top one is overdue | |
| 14:42:00 | efried | bauzas: In the use case we're talking about, the filter is going to have to look at each of those allocation requests to figure out how many NUMA node providers are in it. | |
| 14:42:37 | dansmith | mriedem: ^ | |
| 14:42:39 | efried | bauzas: ...and compare that number against N in hw:numa_nodes=N. If they don't match, the filter removes that allocation request from the list. | |
| 14:43:08 | dansmith | certs were supposed to go until monday | |
| 14:43:13 | mriedem | i didn't move these | |
| 14:43:36 | mriedem | Certificate Validation - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-validate-certificates [END DATE: 2018-04-16] | |
| 14:43:39 | mriedem | yeah i don't know why that moved | |
| 14:43:40 | dansmith | right | |
| 14:43:43 | dansmith | and the top one | |
| 14:43:49 | dansmith | is supposed to be kicked out | |
| 14:43:57 | dansmith | maybe we remove the top one and put certs back in its place? | |
| 14:44:02 | mriedem | sounds like we need a CA on this one 10-4 | |
| 14:44:06 | efried | bauzas: Having done that, let's say we've filtered our 10 allocation requests down to 4. Of those, one is on host1, three are on host2, and host3 is no longer in the picture (we filtered out all of his allocation requests). | |
| 14:44:07 | mriedem | yeah probably | |
| 14:44:19 | dansmith | mriedem: you gonna do that? | |
| 14:44:24 | mriedem | dansmith: you do it | |
| 14:44:29 | bauzas | efried: wait | |
| 14:44:41 | efried | bauzas: So now we can land on host1 or host2 (but not host3). If we land on host1, we have to use that one allocation request for that guy. If we land on host2, we have a choice of three allocation requests. | |
| 14:44:44 | efried | bauzas: waiting... | |
| 14:45:18 | bauzas | efried: the fact that we have multiple allocation requests related to one host shouldn't impact filters | |
| 14:45:41 | dansmith | mriedem: actually melwitt should be around in 15 mins, so let's just wait | |
| 14:45:46 | bauzas | efried: because filters interface is against *host*, not allocation request | |
| 14:45:50 | dansmith | she clearly logged that she removed it yesterday | |
| 14:45:57 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: resource requests for nested providers https://review.openstack.org/554529 | |
| 14:46:48 | efried | bauzas: That's going to need to be rethought, then. | |
| 14:47:08 | bauzas | efried: what needs to rethought ? | |
| 14:47:10 | efried | bauzas: If we can't have NUMATopologyFilter winnow down the list of *allocation requests* then we're back to the drawing board. | |
| 14:47:32 | jaypipes | mriedem, dansmith: your review needed on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/556873/ pls (nested allocation candidates spec) | |
| 14:47:53 | bauzas | efried: I considered Placement as the way to winnow down the list of hosts we were checking | |
| 14:48:04 | bauzas | efried: so that's still a net win | |
| 14:48:07 | gameon | Hello all - I am trying to configure live migration between hosts, I have a Broadwell 56 core host and a 32 core Haswell server. Both single sockets. I have set cpu_mode=custom and cpu_model to various things, kvm64, haswell, SandyBridge - but still I get an error about CPU incompatibility when attempting to live migration from 32 to 56 core hosts. Is there any way of fixing this? I thought the configuration of custom mode woul | |
| 14:48:29 | mriedem | gameon: please see channel topic | |
| 14:48:32 | efried | bauzas: Because in our scenario above, we've filtered down to host1 and host2, great, let's say we pick host1 -we can't just pick *any* allocation request that relates to host1. Because some of those still have allocation requests where <#numa node RPs> != hw:numa_nodes from extra specs. | |
| 14:48:46 | gameon | mriedem: Sorry I missed that. | |
| 14:48:58 | bauzas | efried: where is the spec describing the query side of nested RPs ? | |
| 14:49:47 | bauzas | efried: probably worth hangouting you know | |
| 14:49:48 | efried | bauzas: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/556873/ | |
| 14:50:00 | efried | bauzas: But I'm not sure that's going to help you much. | |
| 14:50:20 | bauzas | efried: well, I'm not in need of anything | |
| 14:50:44 | bauzas | efried: here, I'm just saying "let's use Placement to winnow the list of hosts" | |
| 14:50:50 | bauzas | ah snap | |
| 14:50:56 | bauzas | it will work for NUMA | |
| 14:51:01 | bauzas | but not for VGPU | |
| 14:51:09 | bauzas | oh wait | |
| 14:51:11 | efried | separate use case, let's focus on one at a time. | |
| 14:51:11 | bauzas | it will | |
| 14:51:16 | bauzas | no no | |
| 14:51:17 | bauzas | sec | |
| 14:51:20 | efried | no, it won't. But separate use case. | |
| 14:51:25 | bauzas | trying to wrap around my heard | |
| 14:51:27 | bauzas | head | |
| 14:51:34 | bauzas | so | |
| 14:51:46 | bauzas | we said we're going to get a list of allocation requests | |
| 14:52:14 | bauzas | then, each filter will go thru the list of corresponding hosts and do the checks they want - which are unrelated to what Placement checked | |
| 14:52:40 | bauzas | at the end, we'll figure out that, say host345, host346 are valid | |
| 14:52:51 | bauzas | then, we'll look back at the allocation candidates | |
| 14:53:14 | bauzas | and claim against one of the allocation requests corresponding to those hosts | |
| 14:53:54 | bauzas | what filtering will do is just reducing that list of allocation requests to the ones that are related to hosts that match filtering | |
| 14:54:03 | efried | Right, but since the filter only filtered *hosts*, there can still be allocation requests we can't use. | |
| 14:54:13 | efried | Placement will winnow the list of hosts so far. The filter can winnow the list of hosts further. But - assuming the filter *only* returns a list of hosts - what's going to be left after that is still going to include allocation requests we can't use. And now there's nobody left to filter those out. | |
| 14:54:38 | efried | bauzas: So what I was saying we could reimagine was the role of filters in this flow. | |
| 14:54:41 | bauzas | efried: why should we filter more ? | |
| 14:54:49 | sahid | gameon: you should try with cpu_mode=none | |
| 14:55:03 | efried | bauzas: Instead of being just focused on hosts, a filter is allowed to filter allocation requests too. | |
| 14:55:08 | bauzas | efried: filters give you a subset of allocation requests that are supported | |
| 14:55:15 | bauzas | efried: please no. | |
| 14:55:23 | efried | bauzas: That's not what I understood from what you said above. | |
| 14:55:32 | sahid | so no check are done by in libvirt layer but it's possible that qemu failed to start the -incoming process on destination | |
| 14:55:37 | efried | bauzas: What I understood you to say was that filters give you a subset of *hosts*. | |
| 14:56:04 | sahid | at least you should see the log o QEMU which will indicated which cpu feature is not supported by destination | |
| 14:56:04 | bauzas | they give you a subset of hosts, which turns nova into knowing which allocation requests are valid accordingly | |
| 14:56:11 | efried | bauzas: Exactly | |
| 14:56:18 | bauzas | so, we're cool | |
| 14:56:29 | bauzas | in the example of NUMA | |
| 14:56:31 | efried | bauzas: No. The problem is that there are still invalid allocation requests for the remaining hosts | |
| 14:56:54 | bauzas | oh right, because the NUMA filter did crazy things | |
| 14:57:14 | bauzas | so it said "that NUMA node, I'll take it" | |
| 14:57:26 | bauzas | but it doesn't really do that you know | |
| 14:57:34 | bauzas | it just consider the host valid | |
| 14:57:50 | gameon | sahid: setting it to none makes no difference, I get the same error. I can't see which feature set isn't supported. I am beginning to think it's to do with the number of cores on the hosts. Even kvm64 doesn't work for live migration from 56 to 32 cores (it's a 1 core VM..) | |
| 14:57:52 | bauzas | efried: the NUMA attachment is a late bind on compute | |
| 14:58:07 | bauzas | efried: IIUC the construct | |
| 14:58:36 | sahid | gameon: what qemu is saying? /var/log/libvirt/qemu/instance-xxx.log | |
| 14:58:52 | efried | bauzas: Example: flavor says hw:numa_nodes=2. So we ask for resources1=VCPU:1&resources2=VCPU:1. We get back the following from GET /allocation_candidates: | |
| 14:58:53 | efried | [ [ host1_NUMA0: { VCPU: 1 }, host1_NUMA1: { VCPU: 1 } ], | |