Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-12-04
14:46:46 sean-k-mooney we do it in the conductor one sec
14:47:45 sean-k-mooney https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/rocky/nova/conductor/tasks/live_migrate.py#L245-L252
14:48:51 sean-k-mooney this is the support_extended_port_binding fucntion https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/rocky/nova/conductor/tasks/live_migrate.py#L39
14:49:14 sean-k-mooney it just checks for service version >35 on the two nova compute services
14:50:39 sean-k-mooney so unless you have backport something in to you queens version that bumps the service version it should be pretty bulletproof
14:51:34 sean-k-mooney all of the new code uses the presence of the vifs object in the migration_data as a sentinel to enable the new workflow
14:53:08 mriedem alex_xu: ok, i see you based that on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/582417/ ? i've had a hard time sorting out why that fails
14:53:23 mriedem oh nvm the one below that - smart :)
14:59:18 mnaser sean-k-mooney: is it a valid possible theory that somehow rocky n-cpu doesn't try to plug the port because it assumes the conductor might have already done it
15:00:31 mnaser aka maybe we need to look at the logic in the compute side, ill try to dig in a bit more
15:00:58 MrRon gmann: efried: thanks a lot. That helped me a lot. Have a nice day :)
15:02:39 sean-k-mooney mnaser: no the the plug is initated in both queens and rocky by a direct rpc call form the conductor
15:03:35 mnaser sean-k-mooney: ok, i might be misunderstanding, so i might have some code to read
15:03:39 sean-k-mooney the difference is when is when the port binding are updated in neutron and do we have 1 or 2 bindings
15:03:48 mnaser oh so we always have a binding
15:03:55 mnaser its just either 2 or 1
15:03:55 sean-k-mooney yes
15:03:58 mnaser okay i see
15:04:15 mnaser okay okay, so that's why it would make sense that this wouldn't cause an issue
15:04:21 sean-k-mooney in queens we and one per port and then updated the host id as part of migration
15:04:45 mnaser hmm
15:04:57 sean-k-mooney in rocky we have a source and dest binding per port and atomicly set the dest as active and source as not
15:05:11 sean-k-mooney then if the migration successd we delete the source binding
15:05:51 mnaser because in this cloud i can do rocky=>rocky migrations with no problem
15:06:02 mnaser but queens=>rocky, they stop pinging until i restart n-ovs-agent
15:09:08 mnaser https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/rocky/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py#L7073-L7094
15:09:35 mnaser that still is supposed to execute even in pre-new-port-binding in neutron right?
15:09:47 mnaser sorry for all the questions, im just trying to gather some sense to figure out where the issue is
15:09:52 sean-k-mooney no
15:10:11 sean-k-mooney vifs will not be in migrate_data in queens
15:10:21 mnaser hmmmmm
15:10:37 sean-k-mooney that is how we disable it on queens to rocky
15:10:37 mnaser ok that's confusing because if you remember we had that bug with host_mtu
15:10:55 mnaser oh sorry that was in rocky only
15:13:18 mnaser so im assuming that because 'vifs' was added in rocky, that field will be dropped by anything running queens
15:13:27 mnaser so that portion should be skipped
15:13:28 mnaser sigh
15:17:37 sean-k-mooney mnaser: yes but also the vifs field is only added in one place in the conductor and the conductor checks the versions before adding it
15:18:18 mdbooth o/
15:18:20 openstackgerrit garyk proposed openstack/nova master: Ensure that block device rollback is done when attachment fails https://review.openstack.org/622207
15:18:21 mnaser sean-k-mooney: yeah and im seeing similar workflows here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/rocky/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py#L7587-L7615 vs https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/queens/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py#L7564-L7582
15:18:31 mnaser so re-running with debug enabled and seeing which path it picks
15:18:33 lyarwood mdbooth: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/618478/ - can you take a swing at that when you have time
15:23:38 sean-k-mooney mnaser: if it take the one it should not let me know and we can open a bug as we intended and tried really hard not to enable unless both supproted it
15:39:55 cfriesen curious what people think about Sylvain's suggestion to add the ability to query server groups by server UUID instead of including the server group in the server details.
15:40:10 cfriesen (in the context of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/612255)
15:50:29 bauzas cfriesen: mmm ?
15:50:56 bauzas hah
15:52:14 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Reduce calls to placement from _ensure https://review.openstack.org/615677
15:52:15 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Consolidate inventory refresh https://review.openstack.org/615695
15:52:15 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Commonize _update code path https://review.openstack.org/615705
15:52:16 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Rip the report client out of SchedulerClient https://review.openstack.org/617042
15:52:16 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Rip out the SchedulerClient https://review.openstack.org/617049
15:52:16 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Use a static resource tracker in compute manager https://review.openstack.org/620711
15:53:50 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Turn off rp association refresh in nova-next https://review.openstack.org/616033
15:54:51 cfriesen bauzas: I think the suggestion could work, but it would probably mean that the CLI client would issue another HTTP request to get that info for each instance (unless we added a specific flag to tell it to show the groups, which seems not-friendly)
15:55:20 bauzas cfriesen: my biggest concern is about the inflation for the instance API
15:55:48 cfriesen bauzas: isn't that what pagination is for?
15:56:40 bauzas of course, but how many users use server groups ?
15:57:05 cfriesen among our users, anti-affinity is pretty common
16:00:27 cfriesen is there a way to do anti-affinity in placement? I know it was discussed at one point, not sure if anything came of it
16:00:50 cdent cfriesen: not got off the ground yet
16:01:02 cdent nested took all brains
16:05:57 openstackgerrit Jack Ding proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] Preserve UEFI NVRAM variable store https://review.openstack.org/621646
16:36:42 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/python-novaclient master: Change openstack-dev to openstack-discuss https://review.openstack.org/621869
16:49:14 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Remove port allocation during detach https://review.openstack.org/622421
16:56:07 mriedem cfriesen: i think i also suggested that in denver
16:56:26 mriedem ala https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/compute/?expanded=#list-port-interfaces
16:56:33 mriedem https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/compute/?expanded=#list-volume-attachments-for-an-instance
16:58:15 mriedem although i guess that wasn't noted in the etherpad, so maybe i thought it elsewhere
16:58:18 cfriesen mriedem: you mean querying server groups by instance?
16:58:34 mriedem yes, rather than return server group information in the servers resource api,
16:58:40 mriedem you filter server groups by member
16:59:03 sean-k-mooney jaypipes: just spent the last few minute talking to the kuryr folks they are now aware of the ML post and will follow up there.
16:59:37 bauzas cfriesen: I agree with mriedem
16:59:53 bauzas cfriesen: ie. not directly providing a new field for the servers API
16:59:53 sean-k-mooney jaypipes: turns out they are storing the os-vif object in the k8s api as annotation on the pod/deployment and k8s stores them in ectd
16:59:58 cfriesen yeah, we've already got the backend DB API to do it. If you and Sylvain are both in favour, I can recommend we switch the spec around to propose that.
17:00:11 bauzas cfriesen: but I'm fine with any other API endpoint
17:00:21 bauzas like mriedem said
17:00:43 mriedem let me read the spec first
17:00:57 mriedem i might have notes on this in my diff analysis thing too, checking
17:01:07 cfriesen bauzas' suggestion is listed in the "alternatives" secution
17:01:32 mriedem at the ptg we said we couldn't show server groups when listing servers with details b/c it would be too inefficient, so we'd restrict to just GET /servers/{server_id} (show)
17:01:52 mriedem but filtering server groups by member would also be useful i think and solve the same problem
17:02:18 openstackgerrit melissaml proposed openstack/os-traits master: Change openstack-dev to openstack-discuss https://review.openstack.org/622429
17:02:41 mriedem cfriesen: yeah column 35 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ugp1FVWMsu4x3KgrmPf7HGX8Mh1n80v-KVzweSDZunU/edit?usp=sharing
17:02:47 mriedem maybe i just had this conversation in my head
17:02:53 cfriesen :)
17:02:59 mriedem er row 35
17:03:03 mriedem "Propose a spec if we want this. We could store the server group information with the instance in the instance_extra table, or add a "member" query filter to the GET /os-server-groups API to filter groups returned by server members."
17:04:09 openstackgerrit Filippo Inzaghi proposed openstack/osc-placement master: Change openstack-dev to openstack-discuss https://review.openstack.org/622432
17:06:11 cfriesen mriedem: okay...and I suppose it'd make more sense to make the filter query keyword "member" since that lines up with the "members" field in the server group response
17:09:22 mriedem i commented
17:09:45 mriedem i would make the filter parameter "members" to match the response parameter
17:10:12 mriedem the only question is if we'd use the same "in:" semantics that the placement API uses for things like member_of=in:42896e0d-205d-4fe3-bd1e-100924931787,5e08ea53-c4c6-448e-9334-ac4953de3cfa
17:10:31 mriedem cdent: remind me, why did we use "in" rather than just allow member_of to be a list?
17:10:37 mriedem expliciteness?
17:11:04 mriedem "members" for the server groups API filtering seems obvious that it would be a list
17:11:08 cdent mriedem: I think it was following pre-existing patterns and also to make it clear that it means "one of", not "all of"

Earlier   Later