Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-07-27
14:30:22 mriedem let me check to make sure the mac address on the vif is the same between source and dest
14:30:35 mriedem since that's used in the firewall driver to unfilter
14:31:16 giblet mriedem: in the current code the legacy notification uses the local network_info and I guess that is the same as what the versioned gets from instance.info_cache
14:31:17 mriedem source vif "address": "fa:16:3e:cc:ff:66"
14:31:32 mriedem from the cache: "address": "fa:16:3e:cc:ff:66"
14:31:37 mriedem so yeah the mac doesn't change
14:31:44 mriedem giblet: yes
14:32:24 giblet mriedem: then I still think that the current code in your patch is good
14:34:46 s10 What could be done with unrescue/soft reboot QoS issue? Should we use _create_domain_and_network() in that functions instead of simple _create_domain()? Or call plug_vifs()?
14:42:35 mriedem woot ceph shared storage change got through stack.sh and is now running tempest
14:42:49 cdent huzzah
14:42:58 dansmith cdent: did you see my question to efried earlier?
14:43:07 cdent dansmith: no sir, what's up?
14:43:26 openstackgerrit Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Retry allocation writes server side https://review.openstack.org/586048
14:43:33 dansmith [06:36:22] <dansmith>efried: what should happen if I have compute nodes with MISC_SHARES (and thus no DISK_GB inventory)? Should the scheduler receive split allocations from placement with disk on the sharing provider?
14:43:39 dansmith [06:36:46] <dansmith>because I have yet to convince it to do that in a functional test
14:43:46 dansmith cdent: ^
14:44:09 cdent one sec, let me find something
14:45:04 cdent dansmith: this is current passing: https://github.com/cdent/placecat/blob/master/gabbits/fridge.yaml#L204-L213
14:45:34 cdent which is an example of some allocations with sharing providers
14:45:56 cdent so in theory it should work, but I'm not clear on what needs to happen on compute-node side to set things up
14:46:19 dansmith cdent: that is asserting what? that one of the providers only has a part of the whole?
14:46:34 dansmith or, two providers in the request
14:46:37 mriedem # but there are two resource providers in that one allocations block
14:46:44 cdent ^
14:46:51 dansmith yeah
14:47:05 dansmith so, that tells me that a single non-fancy request to placement should return a split allocation
14:47:07 mriedem dansmith: we should know shortly from this ceph patch i have
14:47:32 cdent If we need a specific functional test for something, I'm semi idle right now, so could make something if someone tells me what it needs to be
14:47:33 dansmith and the scheduler is doing a non-fancy request, so it should be getting back a split allocation I guess
14:47:40 melwitt mriedem: in https://review.openstack.org/586568 is that taking care of the live migration rollback scenario? or is that still an open question
14:47:53 mriedem melwitt: i looked at rollback and didn't see anything that needed this type of thing
14:47:53 dansmith cdent: well, I've tried writing a very hacky one and placement is returning no allocation requests
14:47:59 melwitt mriedem: ack
14:48:13 cdent dansmith: do you want to push it up and I'll tune it and you can go review something?
14:48:29 mriedem melwitt: i'd say if we ever go the generic route in _post_live_migration, we'd want to do the same in _rollback_live_migration
14:48:48 mriedem rollback is likely less of an issue b/c if we failed live migration, we won't activate the dest host port bindings and get into this mess
14:49:21 [fcandido] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings
14:49:36 melwitt ack
14:49:45 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: funtional test with sharing providers https://review.openstack.org/586589
14:49:51 dansmith cdent: ^
14:49:52 cdent on it
14:50:00 dansmith cdent: warning, it's very, uh, forced
14:50:10 cdent ha, noted
14:50:42 fried_rice dansmith/superdan: I haven't caught up on the whole conversation, but you're asking about a compute node that's marked as a sharing provider?
14:50:45 dansmith cdent: attempts to create a provider with disk, associate with the compute host providers, nuke the disk inventory from one and then try to boot and see if we got the shared bit
14:51:04 cdent ✔
14:51:07 dansmith fried_rice: no, not a compute node marked as sharing, just a compute with no disk because it's associated to a shared disk provider
14:52:16 mriedem dansmith: why not write a simple fake virt driver that doesn't report DISK_GB inventory?
14:52:27 dansmith mriedem: because this was quick
14:52:40 dansmith mriedem: obviously not mergeable
14:54:16 mriedem your max_unit is wrong
14:54:21 melwitt argh, gate bug fix just failed merge for POST_FAILURE
14:54:22 mriedem your sharing provider has 1gb
14:55:33 mriedem unless flavor1 doesn't have any root_gb
14:56:20 dansmith it has 1024 GB
14:56:46 mriedem but max you can request in a chunk is 1 right?
14:56:46 dansmith oh max_unit
14:57:02 cdent i'll mess with it
14:57:07 mriedem max_unit should equal total
14:57:23 dansmith still no dice
14:57:51 dansmith er, hmm it didn't update
14:58:31 dansmith ah, I'm setting inventory twice for some reason
14:58:42 sean-k-mooney melwitt: the live migrate one?
14:58:42 mriedem yeah
14:58:56 mriedem you might be using a 1 root_gb flavor anyway
14:59:02 mriedem so the max_unit being 1 might not make a difference
14:59:03 dansmith I was, and still no difference
14:59:05 dansmith yeah
14:59:12 melwitt sean-k-mooney: yeah
14:59:14 fried_rice dansmith/superdan: Okay, you're trying to make a setup that has its disk allocated from a sharing provider, not the compute node. And then what, migrate it?
14:59:28 mriedem boot and then migrate
14:59:37 mriedem but boot fails?
14:59:40 dansmith fried_rice: well, boot first would be nice
15:00:03 fried_rice bhagyashri got that working live and in a func test with the libvirt driver.
15:00:12 dansmith fried_rice: I believe migrate will mangle the allocations, but trying to prove it
15:00:12 fried_rice Have you located that func test yet?
15:00:21 dansmith nope
15:00:22 fried_rice dansmith: I suspect you may be right.
15:00:25 fried_rice okay, stand by...
15:00:59 mriedem fried_rice: that libvirt func test doesn't go through the scheduler though right?
15:01:03 dansmith fried_rice: yeah, so in that case, I want to remove the bit of the libvirt inventory thing that will not expose disk_gb, because people may turn that on, and then be mangling their allocations with migrations for a couple days before realizing it
15:01:09 fried_rice mriedem: I sure thought it did.
15:01:16 fried_rice https://review.openstack.org/#/c/560459/
15:01:56 mriedem hmm yeah https://review.openstack.org/#/c/560459/17/nova/tests/functional/libvirt/test_shared_resource_provider.py
15:02:01 fried_rice yup
15:02:57 dansmith yeah, so I dunno why it's not working for me
15:03:00 dansmith but that's fine
15:03:27 sean-k-mooney dansmith: only the allocation for the compute resouces need to be migrated correct. the shard storage allocation should remain the same.
15:03:38 mriedem sean-k-mooney: well, that's the point of the test,
15:03:39 dansmith sean-k-mooney: right, but we don't do that properly
15:03:43 fried_rice dansmith: Building on that one and trying a migration would be informative. I would be surprised if it works properly, because we have no logic to do ^
15:03:45 mriedem because we have FIXME notes all over the migration code
15:03:52 sean-k-mooney i guess unless we are migrating with a block migraion to a different storage provider
15:03:58 dansmith fried_rice: I have fixmes about it being broken and known
15:04:02 fried_rice yup
15:04:22 dansmith fried_rice: so, yeah, I'm not sure why we landed the patch to do that for inventory in that case, but.. alas
15:04:58 fried_rice dansmith: So that we wouldn't be double-reporting inventory allocations.
15:05:20 fried_rice dansmith: Can't you only migrate an instance that's on volume storage anyway?
15:05:22 dansmith fried_rice: right, but that has been broken since forever, and this change means we *lose* data

Earlier   Later