Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-12-14
17:06:01 mriedem or "rooted beer" as an EU might call it
17:06:09 kashyap Ah, yes.
17:06:49 kashyap mriedem: So the nice thing is that: now Nova guests can have encryption (*without* the penalty of "libvirtd tunnelling") for all migration streams
17:07:06 kashyap Namely: Instance guest RAM, device state + disks over NDB
17:07:36 kashyap And goes to upload his "evidence files"
17:08:29 kashyap Oh ... the fly in the ointment is I'll be on PTO next week (if I don't take them, they'll disappear). So only be back in 1st week of Jan to come back to write tests
17:09:03 kashyap So ... saying: "No, you wretch, I will not even click on the URL without tests" is perfectly reasonable
17:09:58 mriedem i seem to remember something about nbd + the tunneling thing years ago from danpb
17:10:01 mriedem but it's very hazy now
17:10:07 mriedem or maybe it was markmc
17:10:08 mriedem idk
17:10:43 kashyap mriedem_lunch: When you get back from lunch, as of today:
17:11:03 kashyap - Nova has 'live_migration_tunnelled' -- but if you use that, you can't do "block migration"
17:11:23 kashyap That is one of the major cases we fix. Thus, having encryption for all streams
17:12:09 kashyap (By "streams", migration stream + NBD stream)
17:13:22 kashyap And going forward, we will deprecate the 'live_migration_tunnelled', because it has _awful_ performance impact and latency
17:13:53 kashyap As there'll be no compelling reason to use it.
17:14:13 kashyap melwitt: Hi, forgot to address your comment
17:14:52 kashyap melwitt: I _thought_ I posted a spec, but only settled with "bug", as it's technically a "bug": https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1798796
17:14:52 openstack Launchpad bug 1798796 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "libvirt: Use VIR_MIGRATE_TLS to get QEMU's native TLS support for migration and NBD" [Medium,In progress] - Assigned to Kashyap Chamarthy (kashyapc)
17:15:35 kashyap But, I know what you mean.
17:15:54 melwitt calling that a bug is a stretch IMO, if you need a commit message that long and at least a certain version of QEMU etc
17:16:21 melwitt but maybe that's just me
17:16:31 kashyap No, you're fully right. Given the length of the commit message
17:16:38 kashyap I might as well just put it in a spec
17:17:04 kashyap What do you suggest: a spec-less Blueprint, or a spec?
17:17:37 melwitt I usually say, start with a specless blueprint (you need a blueprint either way) and then usually we discuss in the nova meeting and decide whether a spec is needed
17:17:41 dansmith I agree with melwitt, and I think it's a spec given the commit message is already nearly a spec
17:17:55 dansmith well, I agree with melwitt as of 30s ago :P
17:17:59 openstackgerrit Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Add workaround to cleanup instance dir when using rbd https://review.openstack.org/618478
17:18:20 kashyap dansmith: Okido. As you know, I'm not averse to (efficient and useful!) words
17:18:31 kashyap Sorry for being a lazy pig and not writing it until the last moment
17:18:37 dansmith in said meeting, I would just say "if you need a spec in the commit message it should probably be a spec" :)
17:18:38 kashyap I accept any penalty you may incur on me.
17:18:53 kashyap dansmith: No...that's too quippy
17:19:45 kashyap Okay, before the my brain cache gets flushed, might as well just do it. Here we go.
17:19:56 melwitt heh. well, true if it were specless it would have to be like, literally the commit message was enough to explain it and no one had further questions and no additional details were needed
17:20:09 melwitt which is unlikely
17:20:24 kashyap melwitt: Did you read the commit message? :-)
17:20:24 dansmith the code is really simple,
17:20:54 dansmith so it seems overkill for a spec, but the commit message is long, and there's apparently another tome of reference material from kashyap
17:20:56 dansmith so I dunno
17:20:57 kashyap Yeah, except the part about _which_ of the 4 flags go together, and _which_ I shold not mix
17:21:24 melwitt kashyap: yes :) it is a mini spec
17:21:29 kashyap dansmith: From enabling point of view, it's straight-forward
17:21:31 kashyap melwitt: LOL
17:21:59 kashyap Yeah, I spent a whole 2 hours to write. I'm a slow-as-molasses with writing down thoghts
17:22:06 dansmith so i could be maybe persuaded that it should just be a BP, if the commit message was trimmed down to non-kashyap standards and the patch included docs changes to explain what the commit message is
17:22:12 melwitt another advantage of the spec is it goes into our docs as nice reference place
17:22:40 dansmith yes, the commit message is documenting usage, which isn't right, IMHO
17:22:43 kashyap dansmith: The TODO will be gone from the commit. Isn' it quite trimmed?
17:22:59 kashyap Yeah, I agree with both of you
17:23:06 dansmith kashyap: no
17:23:20 kashyap This is so frelling fiddly because it took me the whole dammed WEEK to set it up!
17:23:24 dansmith kashyap: if you need rst formatting and section headers in your commit message, you're doing it wrong
17:23:38 melwitt haha
17:23:44 kashyap dansmith: I dare you:
17:23:48 dansmith melwitt: amirite? :)
17:23:55 kashyap No
17:24:16 melwitt dansmith: yup
17:24:17 kashyap dansmith: So long as the commit message is _useful_, readable, conveys meaningful information, the format doesn't matter
17:24:30 kashyap You've seen kernel commit messages, they go longer :D
17:24:37 kashyap News at 11: "This is not the kernel"
17:24:43 dansmith kashyap: they use them for a totally different purpose
17:25:20 kashyap dansmith: All the while I was writing that commit, I thought: "A cover letter would be nice" ... which is the "spec" :-)
17:26:52 kashyap dansmith: And yes: as you asked earlier: I of course want to write docs with the patch.
17:27:09 melwitt kashyap: yeah, I think you have great info there, just better in a design doc rather than commit message, IMHO
17:27:23 kashyap Yeah, agreed. I just wrote that to not lose the context in the head.
17:27:29 kashyap Will move it around.
17:27:34 melwitt and commit message refers to that design doc (blueprint) so we can get to it
17:27:46 melwitt yeah, I understand
17:28:27 kashyap At the risk of being banned from the channel, if I might say ... I'm a bit old-fashioned in the sense that: A commit should explain without requiring network access :-)
17:28:45 melwitt heh
17:29:10 kashyap Sorry, it's a habit I learnt from the "mailing list" folks.
17:29:17 melwitt these days it feels like there's nothing you can do without network access
17:29:45 kashyap That's why I try to not "break people's flow of reading" by saying: here you must click on this link, and then, get distrated by the Reddit tab next to it
17:29:59 kashyap And then forget that you were reading the commit message :D
17:32:19 melwitt I'll put this bp (after you create it) on the "first week of jan" list since it sounds like the code change is simple, just a matter of docs and capturing details
17:33:09 kashyap Thanks, one messy thing (even the libvirt storage folks said) is the item I noted in the 1023434th line on the commit:
17:33:17 kashyap "Figure out _which_ combination of migration flags are valid. E.g. VIR_MIGRATE_NON_SHARED_INC + VIR_MIGRATE_TLS: To migrate the NBD stream over TLS. And what about VIR_MIGRATE_NON_SHARED_DISK?"
17:33:49 kashyap I need to carefully re-review what flags Nova uses, and what combinations we allow.
17:34:04 kashyap It's actually not "messy"; just a logic thing I need to work out.
17:35:22 melwitt ok
17:38:33 kashyap melwitt: When you get a minute: one comment on benchmarks
17:39:15 kashyap Benchmarks of non-native TLS vs. "native TLS", i.e. DanPB did some of it when he was doing the QEMU work
17:39:34 kashyap But I don't have the URL ready; I'll check w/ him and add that details in the "Q&A" with the reviewers
17:39:42 kashyap Hope it's not a "hard requirement"
17:45:41 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Record requester in the InstancePCIRequest https://review.openstack.org/625310
17:45:42 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Add pf_interface_name tag to passthrough_whitelist https://review.openstack.org/625311
17:45:42 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Ensure that bandwidth and VF are from the same PF https://review.openstack.org/623543
17:45:56 melwitt kashyap: I don't think so, since it's opt-in via conf option
17:50:58 openstackgerrit Jan Gutter proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Spec to implement os-vif generic datapath offloads https://review.openstack.org/607610
17:52:56 kashyap melwitt: Okido, noted.
17:53:36 melwitt would be certainly nice to include in the docs and/or spec when you find it
17:55:14 jangutter dansmith: so... I'm looking for a place to jot down the stuff I learned about ovo and versioning before I forget it and have to rediscover it.
17:55:52 jangutter dansmith: mostly the things about the great "composition vs inheritance" debate of 2018.
17:56:16 dansmith jangutter: yeah, I'm not sure what to tell you, but it seems like somewhere in ovo is the right place
17:57:07 jangutter dansmith: even if it ends up being an abandoned doc review, want to do something in January or so...
17:57:40 dansmith jangutter: january sounds god :)
17:57:41 dansmith *good

Earlier   Later