Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-07-11
20:14:18 mriedem but this is a pretty high flame count bug or whatever
20:14:30 mriedem so backportability seems worth at least thinking through
20:14:42 dansmith our downstream requirement for stuff like this is that you have to be able to yum update components in any order on any machine, and having things starting to claim differently because you updated one conductor and didn't do another until a month later
20:14:59 dansmith even still, the scheduler is the thing that needs to know, not conductor like you said,
20:15:06 dansmith so I'm not sure how we could do it without an object or rpc change
20:15:49 dansmith if this was a regression in the last release then I'd care more I guess, but this has _always_ been this way, which makes it nearly a feature
20:16:06 mriedem well, it was fixed in ocata and then regressed again in pike
20:16:19 dansmith eh? this has never worked that I know of
20:16:20 mriedem i think anyway
20:16:27 dansmith pretty sure not,
20:16:28 mriedem in ocata the computes would create the allocations right?
20:16:37 dansmith ah, but, it has always been broken in RT :)
20:16:48 mriedem the RT / report client code that created the allocations in ocata took bfv into account for DISK_GB
20:16:52 dansmith so before we were doing allocations wrong, we were doing RT claiming wrong and failing super late
20:16:53 mriedem RT == claim?
20:16:56 mriedem well,
20:16:58 dansmith I mean old school claims
20:17:02 mriedem if you dropped the DiskFilter you wouldn't hit the claim
20:17:06 dansmith pfft :)
20:17:09 mriedem so in ocata, if you're using placement and remove DiskFilter,
20:17:10 mriedem fixed
20:17:39 dansmith where did we not allocate for volume-backed disks in RT?
20:18:44 mriedem https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/client/report.py#L169
20:18:53 mriedem this comment in the bug is a pretty good one https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1469179/comments/37
20:18:55 openstack Launchpad bug 1469179 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "instance.root_gb should be 0 for volume-backed instances" [Medium,In progress] - Assigned to Dan Smith (danms)
20:19:02 mriedem "After disabling the RamFilter and DiskFilter, and instead relying on the Placement API for scheduling, most of the "scheduling" aspect of this problem has been addressed. I was able to drop a local patch to handle this root_gb!=0 for EBS volumes, and for most real-life use cases it is working. The placement API is not recording disk allocations for EBS volumes."
20:19:44 mriedem https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/utils.py#L351
20:20:07 dansmith so it kinda worked almost by accident for a release?
20:20:12 mriedem so in ocata we wouldn't report root_gb for bfv instance allocations, you could still fail scheduling due to the old school RT disk claim if DiskFilter was enabled
20:20:40 mriedem i agree with the 'by accident' part
20:21:05 mriedem and i don't think it was until at least pike that we said to disable the DiskFilter if you're using placement and remove it from the default enabled filters
20:21:33 dansmith right, I was thinking ocata still required that
20:21:34 dansmith well,
20:21:41 dansmith didn't recommend placement as a complete replacement
20:22:46 mriedem yeah dropped CPU/Ram/DiskFilters from default enabled filters in pike
20:23:26 mriedem we'd been saying since at least newton that placement was the eventual fix for this problem :) that's why we kept putting off melwitt's workaround / RT patch
20:23:35 mriedem and sure now it is
20:23:46 dansmith aye
20:24:12 dansmith well, to be fair, we could have done this in queens at least too
20:24:32 dansmith meaning, it could have been the fix already
20:24:36 mriedem sure
20:24:51 mriedem and people could hack in a point-of-scheduling time fix in conductor if they need it..
20:27:32 melwitt does all of the "fixed" situations require that a flavor with root_gb=0 has been used? I'm reading through the comments trying to understand
20:27:49 dansmith no, the right fix does not
20:28:20 melwitt because I thought, as of ocata, if flavor has root_gb > 0 placement would filter it out of consideration and removing DiskFilter would not help you
20:28:30 dansmith the middle solution requires sending a hacked flavor with root=0 to the scheduler as the signal to avoid a real signal
20:29:08 dansmith right I think mriedem is saying that if you align all the planets on ocata, including set root=0, you can get it to kinda work if you don't sneeze near it
20:29:16 melwitt got it
20:29:48 mriedem we actually don't want people using root_gb=0 in flavors
20:29:52 dansmith right
20:29:53 mriedem there is a security issue for that
20:30:05 dansmith and it's broken because it requires using specific flavors for bfv
20:30:15 mriedem https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/763fd62464e9a0753e061171cc1fd826055bbc01
20:30:22 melwitt yeah, just wanted to make sure I understood what the definition of "fixed" was in the convo
20:30:30 mriedem i have to run, be back in a few
20:30:44 mriedem dansmith: let's add the release note and change related-bug to partial-bug (for my ocd) and then i'm +2
20:30:53 dansmith ack
20:33:57 dansmith mriedem: I'll remind you I added related-bug for you :)
20:36:27 dansmith damn, you said "link" not specifically related
20:36:30 dansmith I'
20:36:33 dansmith I'll get you next time
20:39:40 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Avoid requesting DISK_GB allocation for root_gb on BFV instances https://review.openstack.org/580720
21:02:25 mriedem muwahahaha
21:08:15 mriedem dansmith: see my hedge in the release note
21:08:38 mriedem i wonder if we should be clear that if you're not using the FilterScheduler (and/or using the DiskFilter) this is still a problem
21:08:42 dansmith sure makes sense
21:08:52 mriedem but, CachingScheduler is deprecated and DiskFilter should be disabled if using FilterScheduler
21:10:43 dansmith how's this:
21:10:45 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Avoid requesting DISK_GB allocation for root_gb on BFV instances https://review.openstack.org/580720
21:11:17 mriedem lgtm
21:11:20 mriedem pew pew
21:12:43 mriedem at some point we should drop the ironic flavor migration stuff, since then we can drop the remaining allocation stuff in the report client for the RT
21:13:05 mriedem the only driver that reports allocations in the compute is the ironic driver
21:14:29 mriedem # TODO(johngarbutt) we should remove this once the resource class
21:14:29 mriedem # migration has been completed.
21:14:29 mriedem requires_allocation_refresh = True
21:14:47 mriedem what's our signal that the resource class migration has been completed?
21:15:05 dansmith time and I think it's passed now
21:15:27 mriedem we do have a nova-status check for the ironic instance embedded flavor migration
21:15:33 mriedem and the online data migration
21:15:35 mriedem online/offline
21:15:55 mriedem # *always* return the custom resource class that represents the
21:15:55 mriedem and
21:15:55 mriedem # TODO(jaypipes): Completely remove the reporting of VCPU, MEMORY_MB,
21:15:55 mriedem # and DISK_GB resource classes in early Queens when Ironic nodes will
21:15:55 mriedem # baremetal node class in an atomic, singular unit.
21:16:32 mriedem so we could dump all of that now, or wait until early stein
21:16:49 mriedem i'd like to start dropping compat code that's hung around since newton/ocata times
21:17:21 mriedem jroll: penick: do you guys have your ironic/nova deployment fully migrated to using resource classes?
21:17:39 jroll mriedem: I did that patch already: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/565841/
21:17:44 jroll just haven't taken the time to rebase
21:17:58 jroll we're still on juno, so... no. but will do in ocata afaik
21:18:16 mriedem the bm cloud is juno and the vm cloud is ocata?
21:18:25 jroll yeah
21:18:36 jroll still working on ocata for bm
21:18:42 mriedem ok,
21:18:55 mriedem would be nice to know people have rolled bm deployments through this transition and there aren't any major issues
21:18:59 mriedem before we drop all of that code
21:19:44 mriedem everyone seems to want an 18-24+ month window of support on transition code...
21:20:06 jroll TheJulia or dtantsur|afk might have people that have been through that

Earlier   Later