| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-09-18 | |||
| 12:48:52 | stephenfin | *its | |
| 12:48:57 | gibi | stephenfin: it was so unconfidental that you saw the demo earlier than anybody in the company ;) | |
| 12:49:11 | stephenfin | :D Touché | |
| 12:52:31 | gibi | stephenfin: ohh I +2d the successor earlier :) | |
| 12:53:48 | gibi | stephenfin: done | |
| 13:02:39 | openstackgerrit | Christian Berendt proposed openstack/nova master: Add missing backticks in nova-manage docs https://review.openstack.org/603370 | |
| 13:03:53 | bauzas | stephenfin: looks like someone saw your presentation ^ | |
| 13:05:22 | openstackgerrit | Michele Baldessari proposed openstack/nova master: Ignore ArgsAlreadyParsedError exceptions when registering logging options https://review.openstack.org/603372 | |
| 13:05:32 | efried | ō/ | |
| 13:07:21 | mriedem | brinzhang: hi | |
| 13:07:37 | brinzhang | mriedem: Hi | |
| 13:07:56 | mriedem | you had some questions? | |
| 13:08:25 | bauzas | mriedem: FWIW, working on your change locally | |
| 13:08:30 | brinzhang | yes. | |
| 13:08:37 | brinzhang | 1. about this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/599276/23/api-guide/source/polling_changes-since_parameter.rst | |
| 13:09:19 | mriedem | yeah jay is right, git mv would be better to preserve the history | |
| 13:10:55 | brinzhang | But I think "polling_changes-since_and_changes-before_parameters.rst" already contains the contents of "polling_changes-since_parameter.rst", so I think this should be replaced by current doc. As mriedem said, I need to do a redirectmatch for old links. | |
| 13:11:21 | brinzhang | ignore the last sentence. ^^ | |
| 13:12:39 | brinzhang | I think this do a rediecetmatch for old links is better | |
| 13:13:16 | mriedem | why not just rename the file as jaypipes suggested to preserve the history? | |
| 13:13:20 | mriedem | git history i mean | |
| 13:13:32 | mriedem | you have to add a redirect link either way | |
| 13:14:03 | mriedem | then it's also easier, as a reviewer, to see what you changed about the document when adding the changes-before conent | |
| 13:14:05 | mriedem | *content | |
| 13:15:07 | brinzhang | I don't think I understand the meaning of jaypipes :-( | |
| 13:16:10 | mriedem | just git mv the file to rename it | |
| 13:16:15 | mriedem | and then add the changes-before content | |
| 13:16:47 | mriedem | $ git mv api-guide/source/polling_changes-since_parameter.rst api-guide/source/polling_changes.rst | |
| 13:18:54 | brinzhang | Ok, after do this, can I replace the contents of the polling_changes-since_and_changes-before_parameters.rst file directly with polling_changes.rst? | |
| 13:19:16 | brinzhang | Not using git mv yet :-( | |
| 13:19:23 | mriedem | polling_changes-since_and_changes-before_parameters.rst becomes polling_changes.rst - it's just a file rename | |
| 13:19:31 | mriedem | and then you can edit polling_changes.rst to add changes-before content | |
| 13:20:26 | brinzhang | OK. I know. | |
| 13:25:30 | stephenfin | bauzas: :D | |
| 13:31:49 | openstackgerrit | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Resource retrieving: add changes-before filter https://review.openstack.org/599276 | |
| 13:39:05 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: test resize reschedule up-calls https://review.openstack.org/603389 | |
| 13:43:53 | sean-k-mooney | looks like tetsuro has already written up the negitive memberof spec before i started https://review.openstack.org/#/c/603352/ :) | |
| 13:48:03 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: as far as I remember tetsuro grabbed that on the yesterday's scheduler meeting | |
| 13:52:18 | openstackgerrit | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Resource retrieving: add changes-before filter https://review.openstack.org/599276 | |
| 13:53:13 | s10 | Hello. I have a question about backport https://review.openstack.org/#/c/603358 . Clean cherry-pick to stable/queens is impossible because of the https://review.openstack.org/#/q/Ic853743573aa0b74d5d2c5b8b47252b875d5f7ef . Could I just cherry-pick this mox to mock change to stable/queens and build this backport on top of it or backported fix should use mox in tests? | |
| 13:55:54 | mriedem | brinzhang: that's still not a rename, | |
| 13:56:05 | mriedem | brinzhang: it's getting late for you - i can pull your change down and fix the rename | |
| 13:56:31 | brinzhang | mriedem: thank you. | |
| 13:59:02 | mriedem | s10: so that queens backport is going to fail tests or you've already modified the cherry pick? | |
| 13:59:10 | dpawlik | hi, I :a | |
| 13:59:29 | mriedem | s10: because it looks like a clean backport | |
| 13:59:59 | s10 | mriedem: I built cherry-pick fix on top of the mock to mox cherry-pick | |
| 14:00:29 | mriedem | oh so you're asking if backporting https://review.openstack.org/#/c/603353/ is ok | |
| 14:00:41 | mriedem | yet another reason why mox removal is a pain in the ass.... | |
| 14:01:20 | mriedem | s10: personally i'd prefer that we don't backport these mox->mock changes since they are usually large and hairy, | |
| 14:01:35 | mriedem | and instead just modify the conflicting backports that you need and mention the conflict in the commit message | |
| 14:01:53 | mriedem | e.g. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/603358 commit message would mention the conflict because of https://review.openstack.org/#/q/Ic853743573aa0b74d5d2c5b8b47252b875d5f7ef | |
| 14:02:59 | mriedem | s10: left some comments on both of those backports | |
| 14:03:05 | mriedem | let me know if you need help | |
| 14:04:31 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: isnt this yet another reasong to finish the mox->mock stuff this cycle | |
| 14:04:32 | dpawlik | Hi, I can't find where is a problem when I deploy fresh installation of Nova. I create DB's: nova, nova_api, nova_cell0, nova_cell1 and nova_placement. On controller I execute: db sync, api_db sync, then cell_v2 map_cell0 where I set --database_connection to "nova_cell0" database. Then db online_data_migrations and I create new cell1: nova-manage cell_v2 create_cell --name cell1 where I set --database_connection to nova_c | |
| 14:04:32 | dpawlik | ell1 DB and also I change transport_url to new vhost: cell1. After creation, I rerun DB, API_DB sync, then cell_v2 discover_hosts, but still I have one issue: nova service-list shows me duplicated services. Is it something related to Queens release or I make something bad? | |
| 14:05:17 | dansmith | dpawlik: duplicate listing is almost always because you have two cell mappings pointing at the same database | |
| 14:05:45 | dpawlik | hmm | |
| 14:06:23 | openstackgerrit | Vlad Gusev proposed openstack/nova stable/queens: libvirt: Reduce calls to qemu-img during update_available_resource https://review.openstack.org/603358 | |
| 14:06:42 | dpawlik | dansmith: But in nova.conf in section [database] I have connection to "nova_cell1" DB, for nova_api connection is to nova_api DB, | |
| 14:07:21 | dansmith | dpawlik: the [database]/connection doesn't get used for this, what matters is what is in the db for cell mappings | |
| 14:07:26 | dpawlik | I got a feeling that something is missing in cells doc | |
| 14:08:13 | bauzas | gibi: those rechecks aren't super happy when you're willing to review :) | |
| 14:09:03 | dansmith | dpawlik: or that you're just reading the docs and pasting commands that don't need to be run every time and thus you now have two mappings for the same DB :) | |
| 14:09:47 | dansmith | mriedem: are you able to still push a queens release? sounds like it's been a long time since we've had one | |
| 14:10:02 | dansmith | noticed because we're missing some juicy fixes from upstream in our branch that tracks upstream releases | |
| 14:10:10 | dpawlik | how can I check what mappings are done? | |
| 14:10:10 | s10 | mriedem: the problem with not backporting mox->mock change is that every other related fix will require resolving a conflict. For example, if I want consequent change https://review.openstack.org/#/c/589567/ be backported to Queens, this conflict resolve will be needed again... | |
| 14:10:20 | gibi | bauzas: you mean I should go and fix the unrelated gate issues instead? ;) | |
| 14:10:37 | dansmith | s10: this is why mox removal is a fool's errand, IMHO :) | |
| 14:10:37 | mriedem | dansmith: i am, or anyone is really able to propose them, | |
| 14:10:37 | bauzas | gibi: nah, just that it's sad | |
| 14:10:43 | dpawlik | dansmith: how can I check what mappings are done? | |
| 14:10:44 | mriedem | i'm taking over stable release review duties while tony is out | |
| 14:10:56 | dansmith | dpawlik: nova-manage cell_v2 list_cells (or whatever) | |
| 14:11:02 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: you're missing my point | |
| 14:11:16 | bauzas | dansmith: FWIW, I turned the problem multiple ways | |
| 14:11:19 | mriedem | it was the mox->mock removal in rocky that is causing backport problems in queens now | |
| 14:11:22 | bauzas | dansmith: about NUMA affinity | |
| 14:11:30 | bauzas | dansmith: and the fact we don't model yet pGPUs | |
| 14:11:56 | bauzas | dansmith: the fact is, we said at the PTG that NUMA topology could be a thing for Stein but affinity isn't | |
| 14:12:04 | bauzas | so I need to cut my spec in tow | |
| 14:12:05 | bauzas | two | |
| 14:12:23 | dansmith | bauzas: so we're going to reshape now and then reshape again? | |
| 14:12:32 | bauzas | dansmith: my point is, we could model pGPUs as resource providers, but it will need a reshape anyway once we have NUMA nodes | |
| 14:12:43 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: yes i know its just the loger we have partial mox removal and the more releases we have this in the longer we will have mox backport issues | |
| 14:13:00 | dpawlik | dansmith: http://paste.openstack.org/show/730274/ | |
| 14:13:15 | bauzas | dansmith: yup, because if I begin to model NUMA nodes as children and pGPUs as grand children, placement wouldn't find all the resources or would constraint the query | |
| 14:13:50 | dansmith | bauzas: you don't have to do that, you can just make them children of the compute.. reparenting is easier than a full reshape | |
| 14:13:52 | bauzas | that's the whole purpose of the later spec I have to write for describing queries when it's all about chidren and grand-children relationship | |
| 14:13:52 | dansmith | but whatever | |
| 14:14:01 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: we could have just, oh idk, never done it... | |
| 14:14:05 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: we are going to have them either way so there is not much we can do unless nova is going to make mox a deliverable of the project and maintain it going forward | |
| 14:14:23 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: which i believe dansmith said he'd do if it became a problem, | |
| 14:14:24 | mriedem | which it never has | |
| 14:14:28 | dansmith | dpawlik: looks like only one mapping in there, so I guess you're good | |
| 14:14:37 | bauzas | dansmith: yup, that's my thoughts, I'm just about to model pGPUs as children, then they would just be parented to a NUMA node in a reshape | |
| 14:14:48 | dansmith | mox3 has never broken, so yeah I signed up to fix breakages :) | |
| 14:14:58 | dansmith | bauzas: okay | |