| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-06-01 | |||
| 16:13:22 | superdan | mnaser: right, knowing if you're affected by the NRP change, or how, is also something I don't want to mix into the upgrade decision for them either | |
| 16:13:22 | SpamapS | And when people are sad because their one pet VM was down for 10 minutes causing their service to be down, we definitely pat them on the back and say "there there". https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/glee/images/7/7a/Sheldon-leonard-there-there.gif/revision/latest?cb=20140908045609 | |
| 16:13:34 | superdan | hansmoleman: that's what I'm saying we owe to the users | |
| 16:13:43 | superdan | SpamapS: ++ | |
| 16:13:51 | superdan | oh shit | |
| 16:13:54 | hansmoleman | nova-manage placement heal_allocations --fix-nrp | |
| 16:13:55 | superdan | you woke the bear | |
| 16:14:12 | hansmoleman | --easy-button | |
| 16:14:21 | superdan | hansmoleman: unfortunately, we can't really do it completely outside with a tool I think, because we need info from the compute node | |
| 16:14:34 | SpamapS | superdan: the "lets me do it early" is interesting. So you're saying that if you hard reboot your instance, you don't get a downtime during the window? | |
| 16:14:53 | hansmoleman | superdan: maybe on restart of the compute service then? like we did for ironic instance flavors? | |
| 16:15:03 | superdan | SpamapS: I can opt to take the downtime early, which is just them (cold) migrating me to another node that is already fixed, but on my schedule instead of theirs, yeah | |
| 16:15:03 | hansmoleman | and we'll be doing for legacy bdm attachments | |
| 16:15:09 | SpamapS | AH | |
| 16:15:11 | superdan | hansmoleman: right, that's what I think we need to do | |
| 16:15:12 | SpamapS | that's neat | |
| 16:15:19 | SpamapS | I think I'm going to put that on our todo list. | |
| 16:15:33 | superdan | SpamapS: sometimes I opt fo that so I can check the health ofmy pet immediately, and sometimes I don't care, depending on which instance it is | |
| 16:15:41 | jgwentworth | superdan, hansmoleman: ++ cause that also works with FFU | |
| 16:15:57 | hansmoleman | well, | |
| 16:15:58 | superdan | jgwentworth: well, actually it doesn't | |
| 16:16:01 | hansmoleman | right | |
| 16:16:08 | hansmoleman | there was that big stink about pci stuff in one of the upgrades | |
| 16:16:08 | mnaser | ok so really silly could a rocky nova-compute check if it's running for the first time and do the migrations? | |
| 16:16:09 | superdan | jgwentworth: we have to provide them a way to do it outside too | |
| 16:16:12 | superdan | hansmoleman: right | |
| 16:16:19 | superdan | mnaser: yes | |
| 16:16:37 | jgwentworth | oh, right... depending on where the startup code is during the fast-forward. I see | |
| 16:16:55 | hansmoleman | which is why there was a migration CLI for the ironic flavor stuff as well | |
| 16:17:28 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Trim the fat on HostState.instances https://review.openstack.org/569247 | |
| 16:17:40 | jgwentworth | yeah. as long as there's a way we can, just worried about stuff like the PCI thing that required a pause in a fast forward | |
| 16:19:52 | bpoulos | jgwentworth: thank you for the heads up! I'll keep my eye on the cert validation patches | |
| 16:20:01 | hansmoleman | sob, oom with the fake virt driver in devstack after 26 computes out of 100 | |
| 16:20:28 | jgwentworth | bpoulos: awesome, thanks | |
| 16:20:53 | mnaser | well it could be an upgrade note where "if you're doing ffu, run this nova-manage thing, if you're doing a normal upgrade, nova will fix things on start" | |
| 16:21:39 | jgwentworth | yeah, it could be that (and is how we've done previous things). provide a way to do an offline batch migration | |
| 16:22:39 | superdan | mnaser: we _have_ to provide that yeah | |
| 16:23:02 | jgwentworth | being able to do offline batch is useful in other ways too, for example the flavor migration from (was it kilo?) where instead of having flavors migrated on-the-fly while things are running, an operator could choose to do them in a batch via nova-manage during off peak time | |
| 16:23:09 | superdan | mnaser: what I want to avoid is you having to do N manual conversions for N compute nodes, when you're not FFUing and upgrading in place | |
| 16:23:34 | superdan | jgwentworth: yeah that was much easier because it didn't require knowledge of resource topologies | |
| 16:23:52 | mnaser | superdan: well, maybe i'm over simplifying things but if there is some function of fix_nested_resource_providers() and that same one can either be called from nova-manage or on start up | |
| 16:24:23 | superdan | mnaser: yeah, totes, I'm saying we should do it automatically if we can, fall back to manual if you are FFUing or want to do it while stuff is offline | |
| 16:25:53 | mnaser | the reason i like it being done online is that it simplifies life for those doing normal upgrades | |
| 16:26:03 | mnaser | and while i'm not implying lets make life hard for fast forward upgrades | |
| 16:26:18 | mnaser | but i assume they operate with the infrastructure needed to do this per-compute-node task etc | |
| 16:26:29 | openstackgerrit | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Proposes Multiple GPU types https://review.openstack.org/557065 | |
| 16:26:30 | mnaser | while most other deployment tools that don't do ffu don't have to add too much wild logic | |
| 16:26:49 | PapaOurs | leakypipes: hope my new revision addressed most of your concerns https://review.openstack.org/557065 | |
| 16:26:51 | superdan | mnaser: yep | |
| 16:26:55 | PapaOurs | calling it a day now | |
| 16:26:58 | PapaOurs | bye, folks | |
| 16:27:17 | superdan | mnaser: I'm asserting that for larger clouds, the in-place upgrade case is more common, | |
| 16:27:36 | superdan | and I think there is some perception that the common case is always to evacuate a compute node before upgrading nova-compute on it | |
| 16:27:36 | mnaser | superdan: i think i agree with you on that because usually they have more resources to keep them maintained | |
| 16:27:46 | superdan | which works for 100 nodes, but not for 10,000 | |
| 16:28:05 | jgwentworth | mnaser: to be clear, doing online is the standard and the offline batch is an additional tool provided for those who prefer to leverage it or are doing FFU | |
| 16:28:17 | mnaser | jgwentworth: yep, i agree with that | |
| 16:28:23 | mnaser | so if this 'process' doesnt run, what are the consequences? | |
| 16:28:36 | mnaser | like will the scheduler be weird? instances wont spawn? | |
| 16:28:37 | superdan | mnaser: the NRP conversion? it can't not run | |
| 16:29:17 | superdan | it's a pivot of all the resource accounting we do | |
| 16:29:19 | mnaser | i'm just wondering what will happen with the inevitable cloud which will skip running them :p | |
| 16:30:27 | superdan | if they were manual only, | |
| 16:30:35 | superdan | then compute would have to refuse to start if the conversion hadn't been run | |
| 16:33:56 | mxevgenis | hi everyone! i have deployed an openstack cloud via ansible deployment and although i have 6 compute node in the nova availability zone all my instances are launched on the first 2 nodes. As a result the resources of the 4 nodes are not in use. Any idea what is going wrong? | |
| 16:34:41 | hansmoleman | scheduler defaults to pack first | |
| 16:34:44 | hansmoleman | rather than spread across all hosts | |
| 16:35:04 | jgwentworth | yep that | |
| 16:35:33 | hansmoleman | mxevgenis: see https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/configuration/config.html#filter_scheduler.host_subset_size | |
| 16:38:08 | mxevgenis | thanks a lot. However when i launched many instances in order to consume all the available resources and force it to use the rest node, i got the error no valid host. Which means there are no extra resources. Is it normal considering the problem you mentioned? | |
| 16:39:01 | hansmoleman | low-hanging-fruit for someone https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1774676 | |
| 16:39:02 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1774676 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Confusing usage information in max_instances_per_host config option" [Medium,Triaged] | |
| 16:39:23 | hansmoleman | mxevgenis: then there is likely something wrong with those other hosts, not reporting inventory properly or something | |
| 16:39:45 | hansmoleman | you'd probably have to dig into what those are reporting for inventory, via the os-hypervisors API and checking in placement (using the osc-placement plugin) | |
| 16:39:56 | hansmoleman | https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/compute/#hypervisors-os-hypervisors | |
| 16:40:03 | hansmoleman | https://docs.openstack.org/osc-placement/latest/index.html | |
| 16:40:44 | jgwentworth | mxevgenis: what version of nova are you using? do you mean that you launch N instances at the same time and you expect some to go to the rest of the nodes once the first nodes are full? by default, nova will try to reschedule to another host when one is full https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/configuration/config.html#scheduler.max_attempts | |
| 16:43:03 | mxevgenis | i deployed the ocata version of openstack using the openstack-ansible project. I launched many instances not simultaneously until all of my resources (of the first two nodes) where reserved. The n+1 instance which should be launched on one of the rest nodes failed | |
| 16:43:13 | mxevgenis | with no valid host error | |
| 16:43:51 | mxevgenis | The wired thing is that in the compute nodes tab the hosts are displayed as active | |
| 16:45:02 | jgwentworth | and any subsequent separate attempt to boot an instance is resulting in NoValidHost even though the rest of the nods are available? in that case, like hans_lunch mentioned, something else is wrong and you need to take a look at your nova-scheduler and nova-compute logs to see why it's being rejected | |
| 16:45:11 | jgwentworth | *nodes | |
| 16:45:37 | mxevgenis | thanks a lot. i appreciate your help!!! | |
| 16:46:00 | jgwentworth | prior to pike, it was possible for parallel requests to race in a way that even with reschedules, some requests could fail with NoValidHost as nodes filled up. but it sounds like that's not what you're hitting | |
| 16:46:43 | mxevgenis | i should take a look on the logs and see what happens | |
| 16:47:35 | jgwentworth | yeah, agreed. good luck | |
| 16:47:45 | mxevgenis | the wired thing is that the nodes which are working fine are different in terms of hardware to the rest servers | |
| 16:48:44 | mxevgenis | thanks a lot for your help again | |
| 16:49:37 | jgwentworth | yeah, there might be some host aggregate metadata mismatch going on (which if so, you will see in the logs) if you have things set differently depending on the hardware config of the servers. so yeah, have to check the logs to find out what's happening | |
| 17:02:00 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Use oslo.messaging per-call monitoring https://review.openstack.org/566696 | |
| 17:25:13 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: libvirt: place emulator threads on CONF.compute.cpu_shared_set https://review.openstack.org/510897 | |
| 17:33:44 | cfriesen | mnaser: for what it's worth I've played with kingbird a bit and it's somewhat useful but lacking robustness and functionality. (It only supports specific quotas for example.) | |
| 17:43:53 | fried_rice | superdan, mnaser, SpamapS, jgwentworth: I think I'm providing a way to do it live without the operator/admin having to do anything or even know it's happening. | |
| 17:44:43 | superdan | fried_rice: yeah I think I acknowledged that you may be in my reply, but -EFRIDAY on processing it | |
| 17:45:17 | fried_rice | superdan: ack | |
| 17:45:53 | jgwentworth | kewl | |
| 17:49:54 | SpamapS | was hoping to discuss https://review.openstack.org/#/c/568953/ and https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1742102 today | |
| 17:49:55 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1742102 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Simple user can disable compute" [High,In progress] - Assigned to Matt Riedemann (mriedem) | |
| 17:50:11 | SpamapS | but I don't see a mriedem so maybe will have to wait until next week | |
| 17:50:24 | SpamapS | I'm a little concerned that it may be very easy to DoS clouds that are set up to "pack" instead of "spread". | |