Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-12-14
11:28:26 mdbooth s/command line/api/
11:32:48 lyarwood mdbooth: yeah, adding a note about it now.
11:33:04 mdbooth lyarwood: How about... changing revert_resize?
11:34:04 lyarwood mdbooth: to pass migrate_data?
11:34:06 mdbooth lyarwood: Put the migration check back in, then turn the cleanup in revert_resize into a migration cleanup by moving it after revert_migration_context()
11:34:50 lyarwood mdbooth: iirc the migration data in resize doesn't have is_shared_block_storage set
11:34:55 mdbooth Then it doesn't execute during _hard_reboot() so we don't need to think ourselves in knots about the potential implications of that.
11:34:56 lyarwood mdbooth: that's only used in the live migration flows
11:35:42 mdbooth lyarwood: If you move the destroy() call after revert_migration_context(), your workaround would execute for revert_resize()
11:35:46 mdbooth Which is what you want.
11:37:19 lyarwood mdbooth: you'd also need to move terminate_connection then as well
11:37:41 lyarwood that opens up another can of worms tbh
11:38:53 mdbooth I drew a diagram of Nova's cleanup workflows: http://www.cartoonaday.com/images/cartoons/2017/05/rube-goldberg-machine-cartoon-A.jpg
11:39:11 lyarwood lol
11:39:17 openstackgerrit Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Add workaround to cleanup instance dir when using rbd https://review.openstack.org/618478
11:40:09 lyarwood -2 - I can't see any gaffer tape in that diagram.
11:40:27 mdbooth Hehe. That's v2
11:41:36 lyarwood but seriously for this workaround I'm not going to move things around in the compute layer, the whole point is that this is an opt-in self contained backportable hack for operators.
11:46:10 lyarwood kashyap: ack btw, looks pretty straight forward, happy to help write the missing tests and land this while you're out if it would help.
11:48:15 openstackgerrit Theodoros Tsioutsias proposed openstack/nova master: Introduce the PENDING instance state https://review.openstack.org/566473
11:48:54 openstackgerrit Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Add workaround to cleanup instance dir when using rbd https://review.openstack.org/618478
11:54:21 lyarwood kashyap: and by straight forward I was just talking about the openstack/nova change, not the actions required to actually use this (ie changes in TripleO). Nice work with the commit and documentation in general for this.
12:09:58 kashyap lyarwood: Unless there's a big rush to land this, I'd just like to get back and write the tests, as a practise.
12:10:08 kashyap And, thanks!
13:04:58 gibi tssurya: the DownCellFixtur patch looks good to me
13:05:05 tssurya gibi: thanks :)
14:33:23 mdbooth Do we have a shelve/unshelve test on rbd currently?
14:37:01 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Transfer port.resource_request to the scheduler https://review.openstack.org/567268
14:37:01 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Extend RequestGroup object for mapping https://review.openstack.org/619527
14:37:02 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Calculate RequestGroup resource provider mapping https://review.openstack.org/616239
14:37:02 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Fill the RequestGroup mapping during schedule https://review.openstack.org/619528
14:37:03 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Pass resource provider mapping to neutronv2 api https://review.openstack.org/616240
14:37:03 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Recalculate request group - RP mapping during re-schedule https://review.openstack.org/619529
14:37:04 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Send RP uuid in the port binding https://review.openstack.org/569459
14:37:04 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Test boot with more ports with bandwidth request https://review.openstack.org/573317
14:37:05 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Reject interface attach with QoS aware port https://review.openstack.org/570078
14:37:05 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Reject networks with QoS policy https://review.openstack.org/570079
14:37:06 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Remove port allocation during detach https://review.openstack.org/622421
14:37:06 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Refactor PortResourceRequestBasedSchedulingTestBase https://review.openstack.org/624080
14:37:07 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Ensure that allocated PF matches the used PF https://review.openstack.org/623543
14:51:09 mriedem mdbooth: we have a ceph job which runs tempest tests,
14:51:13 mriedem and tempest has shelve/unshelve tests,
14:51:16 mriedem so yes we should
14:52:01 mriedem the ceph job has been broken since the summit though
14:52:29 mriedem oh maybe that was fixed and just encrypted volumes are broken
14:53:12 mriedem ah, so, the encrypted volume tests were just recently enabled in the ceph job
14:53:12 mriedem https://github.com/openstack/devstack-plugin-ceph/commit/7728027cdd575f7d43c97b4b7a9345c69898c26f
15:00:03 mdbooth mriedem: Just about to join a meeting, but I have a suspicion it might be broken if we're using ceph clone for glance images
15:00:28 mdbooth Because when you go to delete the image on unshelve it fails because the backing image is still in use.
15:02:48 jangutter mriedem: thanks very much for your review on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/607610/ ... at the risk of really messing up your Friday, would you have a few minutes to chat about things no-one wants to chat about?
15:11:58 mriedem mdbooth: like this? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/473897/
15:12:44 mriedem https://bugs.launchpad.net/devstack-plugin-ceph/+bug/1697935
15:12:44 openstack Launchpad bug 1697935 in devstack-plugin-ceph "re-enable compute shelve tests" [Undecided,In progress] - Assigned to Eric Harney (eharney)
15:12:50 mriedem mdbooth: probably want to talk to eharney
15:12:58 mriedem jangutter: sure
15:13:56 jangutter mriedem: thanks! I am trying to make the "upgrade" sequence less vague.
15:14:23 jangutter mriedem: os-vif's two bits, the plug-in and the object model, has Nova between them.
15:15:08 jangutter mriedem: so the only sane way I see to adopt the interfaced added in the object model, would be to do three updates, or two with compat code in the middle that's hard to test.
15:15:32 jangutter mriedem: os-vif object model -> nova -> os-vif plugin
15:15:52 mdbooth mriedem: Thanks
15:19:57 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Add DownCellFixture https://review.openstack.org/614810
15:23:15 mriedem jangutter: i'm not sure that clears up anything for me
15:23:21 mriedem my understanding is,
15:23:33 mriedem we're going to ignore backward compat for os-vif object versions,
15:23:47 mriedem make some changes to add the base reference/profile stuff in os-vif,
15:23:55 mriedem release with a major version,
15:24:05 mriedem make nova depend on that major version and start using new code from the library,
15:24:10 mriedem and then....?
15:24:13 mriedem something in train?
15:24:28 mriedem meanwhile kuryr-kubernetes just eats it?
15:25:37 jangutter mriedem: for now, the new interfaces will not break backwards compatibility just yet, they're additive...
15:26:04 jangutter mriedem: you're 100% right that the problem comes when _existing_ plugins transition to use them.
15:27:04 jangutter mriedem: the spec does not cover the actual process of doing the backwards-incompatible changes.
15:27:06 mriedem and kuryr-k8s has a problem b/c they have plugins https://github.com/openstack/kuryr-kubernetes/blob/master/setup.cfg#L26
15:27:11 mriedem as does the agilio one
15:28:25 mriedem ooo does kuryr-k8s actually do vif translation too? https://github.com/openstack/kuryr-kubernetes/blob/master/setup.cfg#L36
15:28:45 mriedem https://github.com/openstack/kuryr-kubernetes/blob/master/kuryr_kubernetes/os_vif_util.py#L303
15:29:27 mriedem well, maybe that's closer to our os_vif_util
15:29:45 mriedem https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/network/os_vif_util.py
15:30:58 jangutter mriedem: The plan, during Stein is to use the new interfaces only for new plugins. (If I understand correctly).
15:32:04 mriedem will there be a new plugin as of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/567148/ ?
15:32:32 jangutter mriedem: in fact, enforcing the new interfaces on existing plugins (with the hairy backlevel code) is something I tried and Jay said "let's don't do that".
15:32:55 jangutter mriedem: yes and no - that plugin will be the os-vif yank out of the vrouter vif type.
15:33:43 jangutter mriedem: and no, the dominoes have not fallen, and the tag has not gotten applied to https://github.com/Juniper/contrail-nova-vif-driver/ yet.
15:34:01 mriedem by vrouter you mean this? https://github.com/Juniper/contrail-nova-vif-driver/blob/208f0d51b6e0c1c44771e96c062588a40491b09d/setup.py#L30
15:34:13 jangutter mriedem: yep - the very same.
15:34:38 mriedem so that's going to move into it's own plugin repo or something?
15:34:46 mriedem i don't know what "yank out" means here
15:34:49 jangutter mriedem: nope, it's going to be in-tree there.
15:34:58 mriedem and why was jay opposed to backward compat
15:34:58 mriedem ?
15:35:02 jangutter mriedem: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/vrouter-os-vif-conversion
15:35:12 mriedem b/c it's trouble for the sake of a versioned interface that isn't going over the wire?
15:36:01 jangutter mriedem: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/572081/8/os_vif/objects/vif.py@272
15:36:02 mriedem oh i see so vrouter is still legacy
15:36:04 mriedem https://review.openstack.org/#/c/571325/6/nova/virt/libvirt/vif.py
15:36:19 mriedem unless contrail? confused...
15:36:32 jangutter mriedem: YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY CONFUSED PERSON!
15:37:03 jangutter mriedem: from what I could piece together, vrouter used to be there, then they gained vhost-user support and added ANOTHER vif.
15:37:19 jangutter mriedem: that VIF got added as an os-vif plugin.

Earlier   Later