Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-10-10
17:09:40 mriedem 2018-10-10 15:27:01.313+0000: 18210: error : qemuMigrationFinish:5533 : migration successfully aborted
17:14:43 openstackgerrit Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/os-vif master: API _get_impl() for Linux should return PyRoute2() object https://review.openstack.org/609354
17:26:06 orange_julius I've been looking into ways to use ARM images inside of an Openstack installation and was wondering if anybody had any experience with this. From what I've seen we basically have two options: Purchase an ARM server and set up as a compute node. Configure a server to use qemu instead of KVM and virtualize. Is it possible to tell a compute node to us
17:26:07 orange_julius e both kvm and qemu depending on the image? Is there a better way to accomplish this?
17:26:36 openstackgerrit sean mooney proposed openstack/os-vif master: clean up ip_command interface https://review.openstack.org/609414
17:26:37 openstackgerrit sean mooney proposed openstack/os-vif master: add support for generic tap device plug https://review.openstack.org/602384
17:27:12 sean-k-mooney jaypipes: done ^ let me know if there is anything else you would like me to change
17:32:46 jaypipes sean-k-mooney: +Wd
17:34:15 sean-k-mooney jaypipes: thanks i should have created the bug when it was reported to me on irc instead of starting on the patch but i need to base my other patch on top of it anyway
17:34:26 jaypipes sean-k-mooney: no worries man
17:36:01 sean-k-mooney ok so time for dinner ill be back online later
17:42:39 cfriesen orange_julius: currently I think you'd need to make it a nova-compute config option. theoretically you could make it depend on the image properties, but I think that'd be a feature to be added.
17:43:53 orange_julius cfriesen: Just so I understand, you are saying that we'd have to change the nova config on a hypervisor to use qemu instead of KVM. Basically dedicating that entire machine to QEMU workloads instead of KVM
17:44:55 mriedem orange_julius: mnaser can probably help here
17:45:01 mriedem i think he's running arm nodes somewhere
17:52:53 cfriesen orange_julius: the libvirt driver in nova looks at caps.host.cpu.arch which comes from libvirt. so you'd need to make that return an arm architecture I think.
18:30:41 larsks Hey folks. There are comments in the nova history that suggest the quota_usage_refresh manage command was replaced by API functionality. What is that API?
18:36:05 larsks stephenfin: ...if you're around, they were your comments :) ^^^^
18:39:40 melwitt larsks: as of Pike, we don't track quota usages separately from resource counts, so there's no notion of refreshing quota. we only use resource counting
18:40:09 melwitt so quota can't get out-of-sync
18:40:39 melwitt are you asking about a version earlier than Pike?
18:46:24 larsks melwitt: pike, actually, so that's good to know. I'm an indirect conduit for the issue right now, so I will need to wait until I get my hands on the environment in question I guess before I can better assess what's going on. Thanks!
18:47:14 melwitt larsks: ok, feel free to ping me if you have more questions
18:51:31 mriedem dansmith: https://github.com/kk7ds/openstack-gerrit-dashboard/pull/29
18:51:39 dansmith mriedem: yep will look in a sec
18:51:46 dansmith mriedem: was going to ask you this morning if you had fixed that yet :D
18:54:04 dansmith omg it works!
19:03:42 openstackgerrit Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Handle volume API failure in post_live_migration https://review.openstack.org/609517
19:08:10 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Fix NoneType error in _notify_volume_usage_detach https://review.openstack.org/609518
19:13:36 mriedem dansmith: i needed something to do besides review code and/or specs
19:25:33 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Update blueprint name so spec matches launchpad https://review.openstack.org/607347
19:27:59 imacdonn dansmith: I implemented what I understood from our discussion yesterday at https://review.openstack.org/608091 . It needs a little polish, but sean-k-mooney wants to use new the exit status if there are any exceptions, whether or not any migrations may still be pending. I don't think we can do that, because it can't be automated
19:41:09 mriedem hey gang, two easy +Ws https://review.openstack.org/#/c/608802/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/609467/
19:48:19 melwitt dansmith, mriedem: I linked my nova-consoleauth patch on L52 here that is ready for subteam review https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/stein-nova-subteam-tracking
19:50:07 artom I thought we had functional live migration tests?
19:50:49 artom Ah, nova/tests/functional/test_servers.py
19:50:53 artom Ignore me
19:51:26 dansmith imacdonn: I don't understand sean's concern or desire
19:53:57 imacdonn dansmith: thanks for commenting. One thing is still a bit fuzzy .. what does "work was done" mean? The way "ran" is currently implemented, it only counts how many rows were migrated *in the last batch*, so of you use the default of 50 at a time, ran will always end up as 0
19:55:19 imacdonn ... because that's the only way it can break out of the loop
19:55:26 dansmith imacdonn: ran is the sum of all the "done" values from any migration it4eration right?
19:55:43 dansmith ran becoming nonzero is how you break out
19:55:45 imacdonn dansmith: no, only the last iteration
19:56:23 imacdonn dansmith: it gets reset to 0 at https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/cmd/manage.py#L718
19:56:38 dansmith imacdonn: oh I see, but that's a bug I guess
19:56:47 dansmith from when this went from a fixed number to having an --until-done
19:56:49 dansmith or whatever
19:57:02 dansmith or the opposite, but you know what I mean
19:57:10 sean-k-mooney dansmith: we break out 1 of 2 way. ran becomes 0 or we pass --max-count in which case we do not loop as unlimited is false
19:57:11 dansmith so yeah you have to fix that for this to work
19:57:31 imacdonn dansmith: that's what I need to get nailed down ... I tried to fix that, in PS2, but made grenade blow up, becaused grenade needs the command to exit with status 0
19:58:01 dansmith imacdonn: well, if this is wrong it's possible grenade is wrong
19:58:19 jaypipes mriedem: yesterday, which scheduler filter did you say already looked at instance metadata by querying the BuildRequest?
19:58:41 mriedem jaypipes: the one you're writing
19:58:42 dansmith oh wait,
19:58:45 dansmith maybe I'm remembering this now
19:58:54 imacdonn dansmith: it's possible, yes ... although it seems like if you run the command without --max-count, an outcome of exit status 0 (generally interpreted as success), is what would be expected
19:59:05 dansmith in the unlimited case, you really need the exit code to be zero
19:59:05 dansmith right
19:59:30 dansmith oof, this should be commented in here for sure
19:59:58 dansmith imacdonn: so maybe just keep the full count separate from ran and use that for the gate on exit 2
19:59:58 imacdonn so that's how I came up with the term "migrations may still be pending" .... when ran is not zero, which can only happen if you use --max-count
20:00:08 sean-k-mooney dansmith: yes if you dont pass --max-count the exit 0 should mean all migration ran sucessfuly
20:00:14 dansmith imacdonn: like I say, you don't know what is pending or not really
20:00:26 imacdonn dansmith: that's why I used "may" :)
20:00:32 dansmith imacdonn: don't.
20:00:36 sean-k-mooney actully if you do pass --max-could exit 0 should still mean the same thing
20:00:44 dansmith imacdonn: so if you keep total_ran and use that then you're good right?
20:01:01 dansmith sean-k-mooney: no it shouldn't
20:01:16 dansmith sean-k-mooney: because you ran --max-count=50 and you get zero, you expect you're done
20:01:31 dansmith sean-k-mooney: if you don't pass --max-count, zero means all of them were completed, no errors so you're done
20:01:32 sean-k-mooney if there are 50 migrations and i pass --max-count=100 it should return 0 if all 50 ran successfully
20:01:39 dansmith sean-k-mooney: no it shouldn't
20:01:49 dansmith sean-k-mooney: read the man page
20:01:50 imacdonn dansmith: are you saying exit 2 if exceptions and total_ran>0, and exit 1 if ran (not total_ran) > 0 ?
20:02:20 sean-k-mooney so if max is greater then total you dont want the same behavior as if there was no max
20:02:27 dansmith imacdonn: I'm saying leave the 0 and 1 the way they are, and exit 2 if total_ran=0 and exceptions
20:02:36 dansmith sean-k-mooney: it's about definition of done-ness
20:02:58 imacdonn dansmith: that's what I had in PS2, and it broke grenade, because it exits with 1 if any migrations were done
20:03:21 imacdonn dansmith: or maybe I didn't interpret your last statement right
20:03:22 sean-k-mooney yes which is why im saying if i set a max larger then the amount to do and they all ran sucsessfully im done hence 0
20:03:22 dansmith imacdonn: I'm not talking about changing the definition of 1
20:03:24 dansmith imacdonn: right
20:03:40 dansmith imacdonn: if you don't change the logic for 1 then grenade can't break, unless we're actually hiding exceptions
20:05:02 imacdonn dansmith: OK, I think that might work ... I'll have to try it ... sean-k-mooney, do you still have concerns ?
20:05:06 sean-k-mooney dansmith: we used to hide exceptions but my understand of 1 is there are still more migration to run i would prefer it to be "there are more migration to run and all the ones i just ran did not have error"
20:05:19 dansmith sean-k-mooney: that's not what 1 means
20:05:27 dansmith we can't really know if there are more unless we try and hit zero
20:05:36 dansmith without doing more database stuff to count separately from doing
20:05:41 dansmith which is not worth it, IMHO
20:06:04 dansmith so, while (rc==1) { doit }
20:06:22 imacdonn personally, I kinda wish there was a way to find out how many migrations are needed, before attempting any
20:06:33 imacdonn I might want to do this when planning an upgrade
20:06:58 sean-k-mooney ok so 1 just used to mean there was a partial update so we need to loop that i think makes sense
20:07:05 sean-k-mooney and 0 means we are done
20:07:13 dansmith sean-k-mooney: no, 1 means we did things, that's ALL it means :)
20:07:15 sean-k-mooney dansmith: what is the smantics of 2 in your case
20:07:16 dansmith might be partial, might be full
20:07:18 mriedem sorrison: if you wanted to policy something, i'd think having policy on the ability to create multiple servers in a single request would be a good one so you can avoid tenants killing your scheduler with large burst multi-create requests
20:07:25 mriedem especially if those users have higher than normal quota

Earlier   Later