Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-06-27
18:53:41 melwitt yeah, I get where you're coming from on that. and I'm trying to remember why then we wanted queued_for_delete in the first place. the ability to list/show "deleted" instance shells? since 'novs list --deleted' is a thing you can do
18:54:01 melwitt *nova list --deleted
18:54:11 mriedem maybe, but the spec calls it out as being needed for quota calculation
18:54:51 melwitt okay, I don't think it was supposed to, that is, we had thought we could piggyback the quota stuff on that column. the column itself had other purpose prior to that
18:55:05 mriedem well i guess it's not explicitly linking that in, but it says it's needed for nova list, nova show and nova boot
18:55:43 mriedem "``nova boot`` should not succeed if that project has any living VMs in the
18:55:43 mriedem down cell until an all-cell-iteration independent solution for quota
18:55:43 mriedem calculation is implemented through `quotas using placement`_."
18:55:53 melwitt yeah. my guess is that it's for the case where an instance was deleted in the past from some cell, then that cell goes down, then someone does 'nova list --deleted', we'd have no way of knowing deleted or not without access to the cell database
18:56:02 mriedem *living* VMs means, i assume, that queued_for_delete would be considered there during the quota calculation
18:57:25 melwitt because if an instance was deleted from a cell in the past, if the cell goes down, without queued_for_delete the instance would reappear in the nova list
18:57:33 melwitt if we're going off instance mappings and nothing else
18:58:52 mriedem so by that logic, we'd always need to set InstanceMapping.queued_for_delete=True when deleting an instance even if the cell is up and we actually do delete the instance from the cell
18:59:43 melwitt yeah, I thought that was how it's supposed to work. mark queued_for_delete=True when a delete request comes in, and that just means "the user intended to delete this" and does not indicate success or not
19:02:23 mriedem ok, and we never set it back to queued_for_delete=False?
19:02:28 mriedem that's what is bothering me
19:02:29 melwitt and that "queued" was a misnomer in that there's no queuing system at the API level for deletes. maybe better named "delete_requested" or something. guess we should double check with tssurya and dansmith.
19:02:35 melwitt I don't think so, no
19:03:13 mriedem we've said in the spec that we're just not going to include instances from down cells if there are filter parameters,
19:03:30 mriedem we could just consider 'nova list --deleted' as a filter parameter that we're not going to include results from down cells
19:03:34 mriedem b/c we don'tknow
19:04:54 melwitt yeah, that's true. but as we talk I'm realizing I think the case we are trying to avoid is, deleted instance reappearing in a plain 'nova list'
19:05:07 melwitt or wait,
19:05:20 melwitt you're saying omit that one because it's in a down cell
19:05:32 melwitt yeah, I dunno.
19:05:57 melwitt the original thinking was show instance "shells" for instances in down cells
19:06:18 mriedem yes which we still plan on doing
19:06:21 melwitt we need to know when not to show a shell if it's deleted or was intended to be deleted
19:06:32 melwitt that's where queued_for_delete comes in, I think
19:08:29 mriedem https://review.openstack.org/#/c/557369/5/specs/rocky/approved/handling-down-cell.rst@103
19:08:49 mriedem "But then it's weird if I issue DELETE /servers/{id}, get a 202, and then my server status is always UNKNOWN and eventually goes to ACTIVE once the cell is back up - we aren't really doing any queuing in that case."
19:09:14 mriedem so maybe we need to:
19:09:32 mriedem actually nvm
19:10:13 mriedem was going to say, always set queued_for_delete on any delete request, but if the cell is down and we don't delete the instance, the api is going to start hiding it
19:10:25 mriedem and then it's going to show up again once the cell is back
19:10:45 mriedem i want to say:
19:10:58 mriedem 1. delete fails if the cell is down as it would today, don't touch queued_for_delete
19:11:07 melwitt yeah, I thought that's what the deal was going to be though. queued_for_delete was supposed to be a minimal effort to show something correct when cells are down, AFAIK
19:11:14 mriedem 2. if we actually get the instance and queue a delete of the instance and the cell is up, flip queued_for_delete=True
19:11:45 melwitt and to not have deleted instances reappear in nova list once a cell goes down
19:12:08 mriedem i think you can only do that if you actually issued an actual working delete request
19:12:15 mriedem either local in the api or cast to the compute
19:12:16 mriedem but the cell is up
19:12:46 mriedem otherwise we're lying if we say it's queued for delete while the cell is down and never actually delete it once the cell comes back up
19:13:07 mriedem i think DELETE /servers/{id} has to 500 if the cell is down
19:13:08 melwitt okay, yeah I agree with that. so you're just saying wait to set queued_for_delete until a delete is actually initiated with an up cell
19:13:17 mriedem yeah i think so
19:13:25 melwitt that's fair enough
19:13:40 mriedem because in that case we should have actually deleted the instance in the cell
19:13:54 melwitt right
19:14:08 mriedem and then queued_for_delete is only read while listing/showing over down cells
19:14:17 mriedem and never goes from True back to False
19:14:31 melwitt ++
19:17:39 melwitt I'm gonna try to do a check with devstack to verify what is returned for a delete when the database is down
19:33:20 mriedem i need a palate cleanser
19:40:24 dansmith mriedem: before I go write examples in the docs that don't satisfy what you're looking for, can you review my response here first? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/578163/2/doc/source/user/cells.rst
19:44:51 mriedem never satisfied
19:44:53 mriedem replied
19:45:02 mriedem i've heard that snickers really satisfies
19:54:53 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Allow templated cell_mapping URLs https://review.openstack.org/578163
20:02:38 SpamapS mriedem: we are very far from needing multi-cell yet. Our only Pike clouds are greenfield new deployments. We'll move our bigger clouds last, and will likely be on Rocky+ by then.
20:05:21 mriedem ok
20:06:23 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Use consumer generation in _heal_allocations_for_instance https://review.openstack.org/577905
20:15:06 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Wait for vif plugging during live migration job https://review.openstack.org/578551
20:36:27 openstackgerrit Rick Bartra proposed openstack/nova master: Add granularity to os-services API https://review.openstack.org/578553
21:21:43 Nova Hi Eric, please ping me when you can
21:22:33 Sundar efried: Please ping me when you have a moment
21:28:16 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Make nova-lvm run in check on libvirt changes and compute API tests https://review.openstack.org/569149
21:30:54 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/osc-placement master: Usages per project and user (v1.8, v1.9) https://review.openstack.org/514646
21:30:55 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/osc-placement master: CLI allocation candidates (v1.10) https://review.openstack.org/514647
21:30:56 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/osc-placement master: New dict format of allocations (v1.11, v1.12) https://review.openstack.org/542819
21:30:57 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/osc-placement master: Transactionally update allocations (v1.13) https://review.openstack.org/546674
21:30:58 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/osc-placement master: Add nested resource providers (v1.14) https://review.openstack.org/546675
21:30:59 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/osc-placement master: Limit allocation candidates (v1.15, v1.16) https://review.openstack.org/548043
21:31:00 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/osc-placement master: Allocation candidates parameter: required (v1.17) https://review.openstack.org/548326
21:31:15 efried Sundar: Hello
21:32:28 Sundar efried: Can you please try out https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ICdNeG3bbX4l-Qkj1Q8IzF8QmLsn4U7K ?
21:32:54 Sundar This patch adds the sequence diag
21:33:52 efried Sundar: Okay. We're still busted on the doc build in general, but I can try to build it locally. At a glance, I believe you might need semicolons at the end of each line.
21:43:27 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: libvirt: remove old rbd snapshot removal error handling https://review.openstack.org/566369
21:57:21 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (1) https://review.openstack.org/572018
21:57:30 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (2) https://review.openstack.org/573481
21:57:37 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (3) https://review.openstack.org/574104
21:57:46 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (4) https://review.openstack.org/574106
21:57:53 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (5) https://review.openstack.org/574110
22:06:24 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Handle network-changed event for a specific port https://review.openstack.org/465787
22:06:32 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Refactor _build_device_metadata https://review.openstack.org/533804
22:06:42 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Consider hostdev devices when building metadata https://review.openstack.org/533805
22:06:50 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Add information of deprecation nova-network in system-admin.rst https://review.openstack.org/576698
22:06:58 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: ironic: bugfix: ensure a host is set for volume connectors https://review.openstack.org/571982
22:26:57 efried Sundar: Okay, I worked with infra a bit and should have the doc build working properly now. I also incorporated your seqdiag (which builds fine, btw) and reproposed your patch.
22:30:13 Sundar efried: Thanks a lot! I didn't mean to impose that on you. Had it worked on your local environment, I would have pushed it myself.
22:30:36 Sundar s/on your/in your/
22:30:58 openstackgerrit Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox in unit/network/test_neutronv2.py (6) https://review.openstack.org/574113
22:31:11 efried Sundar: No, I wanted to get the specs rendering and built properly by zuul. I had a POC patch on there anyway, so this just allowed me to replace it with the real thing.
22:31:59 efried Sundar: Do you have the background on why we're not putting specs into cyborg-specs yet?
22:48:28 Sundar efried: In the Cyborg meetings, it was discussed that this is the direction to go but we can do it in the next release, or after the specs are merged
23:18:03 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/osc-placement master: Usages per project and user (v1.8, v1.9) https://review.openstack.org/514646
23:18:04 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/osc-placement master: CLI allocation candidates (v1.10) https://review.openstack.org/514647
23:18:05 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/osc-placement master: New dict format of allocations (v1.11, v1.12) https://review.openstack.org/542819

Earlier   Later