| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-05-28 | |||
| 09:40:57 | lyarwood | kashyap: I can't think why we wouldn't if you already have some text etc | |
| 09:41:14 | lyarwood | gibi: replied, I'd be happy with that approach. | |
| 09:41:25 | kashyap | lyarwood: Heh, yeah. (The text has been sitting there for a while) | |
| 09:43:09 | gibi | lyarwood: thanks. I will re-shuffle the changes accordingly | |
| 12:33:25 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/stein: [stable-only] Improve the reno for consoleauth upgrade check https://review.opendev.org/661123 | |
| 12:35:48 | artom | cdent, you know, you'd think with an extensive portfolio of NFV customer who use NUMA but seldom participate upstream, you'd think RH would have a way of asking them en masse about their preferred use cases | |
| 12:36:23 | cdent | one would hope so, but it seems hard for everyone, not just RH | |
| 12:37:46 | artom | cdent, well, with the "upstream" operators, we can just send off a thing to the mailing list. It's not perfect, but it's a start | |
| 12:37:55 | artom | To my knowledge, no such mechanism exists for our customers | |
| 12:37:55 | sean-k-mooney | we try to infer that based on the bugs that get reported but ya we dotn really have a good way of doing it | |
| 12:38:27 | cdent | one gets the impression that the number of operators actively engaged with email is ... limited | |
| 12:39:04 | sean-k-mooney | there is proably some marketing list that you can opt in to get survays and such but i doubt that apporch would get much feedback | |
| 12:39:34 | artom | I suspect the majority of operators are paying customers | |
| 12:39:43 | artom | So they expect their provider to do that work for them | |
| 12:40:23 | cdent | I'm worried in this instance that we are solving a real/legit problem in the wrong place, but I have nothing other than "feelings" to support that | |
| 12:41:02 | artom | As we all | |
| 12:41:11 | cdent | and I certainly don't have any internal customer stuff to support any of that: we continue to not expose any numa details | |
| 12:41:20 | sean-k-mooney | was tehre a partical thing that propted this topic? | |
| 12:41:22 | artom | And I suspect this isn't the first or last occurence of such problem solving | |
| 12:41:27 | artom | sean-k-mooney, https://review.opendev.org/#/c/658510/ | |
| 12:41:29 | cdent | sean-k-mooney: we're taling about can_split | |
| 12:41:59 | sean-k-mooney | of declaring that a resouce class can come form multiple rps for numa an dsuch | |
| 12:42:16 | cdent | sean-k-mooney: I'm trying to make sure that we are solving for the real problem, rather than what is possible. | |
| 12:42:35 | cdent | there's lots of useful interaction on the spec, please join in if you've got thoughts | |
| 12:43:07 | artom | We do have a thing that analyses sosreports (our "all the things" automated log reporting tool for bugs) | |
| 12:43:09 | sean-k-mooney | ill try too but it will be a while | |
| 12:43:16 | sean-k-mooney | e.g later today/tomorrow | |
| 12:43:19 | artom | We could try to pull hardware/workload info out of that | |
| 12:43:28 | sean-k-mooney | im currentlytrying to find a downstream bug fix | |
| 12:43:31 | cdent | i'm feeling a bit "sure we _can_ split, but do we want to?" | |
| 12:43:44 | artom | There's selection bias for those who actually report logs, but it's a start | |
| 12:44:06 | artom | Don't think we could get instance to host mapping info out of it, though | |
| 12:44:12 | artom | *report bugs | |
| 12:44:37 | sean-k-mooney | cdent: the only use case i have for can split i think is when i ask for more cpu then might resonable fit on one numa node so i say you can split that if that is required | |
| 12:44:53 | sean-k-mooney | but that only really makes sese for non numa guests | |
| 12:45:02 | sean-k-mooney | *sense | |
| 12:45:20 | artom | Well that was the main driver IIUC - fitting non-NUMA guests on NUMA host when every host is presenting itself as a tree | |
| 12:46:38 | artom | Anyways, need to drive kids to daycare | |
| 12:47:08 | sean-k-mooney | artom: right you only want to use can split for cpus ro memroy if you dont care about numa toplogy | |
| 12:47:57 | sean-k-mooney | all hosta are numa hosts even most high end mainstream desktop systems these days | |
| 13:02:03 | cdent | sean-k-mooney: they are, but they don't have to declare that they are | |
| 13:06:19 | sean-k-mooney | that is true. i think its clean to always declare them as such but im not oposed to not doing that | |
| 13:07:32 | sean-k-mooney | i kind of always felt that the root resouce provdier shoudl not be owned by any one service and we should therefor not have inventories in it | |
| 13:08:10 | sean-k-mooney | mainly to make it simpler for neutron cyborg and other serivce to creat resouces on the same host that are not managed by nova in plcement | |
| 13:08:29 | sean-k-mooney | but that is tangentel to split vs non split | |
| 13:20:08 | yonglihe_ | sean-k-mooney: would you like to put this on your review queue, thanks. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/658716/ | |
| 13:20:44 | sean-k-mooney | ah reporting the numa toplogy via the api sure ill take a look | |
| 13:21:09 | yonglihe_ | sean-k-mooney: thanks, looking forward to your comments! | |
| 13:42:05 | zigo | When I attempt to migrate an instance, I get this in nova-api.log: http://paste.openstack.org/show/752159/ | |
| 13:42:10 | zigo | What's going on, and how to fix? | |
| 14:02:47 | zigo | cdent: Any idea what can cause this? http://paste.openstack.org/show/752159/ | |
| 14:02:57 | cdent | zigo: looking | |
| 14:03:30 | zigo | Is Nova looking for a server group that doesn't exist? | |
| 14:06:23 | mriedem | zigo: what release? | |
| 14:06:35 | zigo | mriedem: Rocky. | |
| 14:06:44 | zigo | :P | |
| 14:06:56 | mriedem | was the server group deleted? | |
| 14:07:30 | cdent | zigo: i would have flailed | |
| 14:07:37 | zigo | mriedem: I don't think so, it just went into our availability zone called "AZ3" ... | |
| 14:08:02 | zigo | So I get "properties group='AZ3'" when doing server show. | |
| 14:10:36 | mriedem | so it's blowing up here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/rocky/nova/objects/request_spec.py#L523 which makes me think the request spec was stored with an instance group without a uuid | |
| 14:10:40 | mriedem | is this an old instance? | |
| 14:11:05 | zigo | mriedem: No. | |
| 14:11:13 | zigo | It's a fairly recent deployment. | |
| 14:11:16 | aarents | Hello! Do you still have any concern regarding this: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/659054 can we workflow+1 ? mriedem | |
| 14:12:32 | mriedem | zigo: so you just created a server in a group and then tried to cold migrate or resize it and it blows up like this? | |
| 14:13:56 | zigo | mriedem: Someone created a server, the compute had a hardware issue, it rebooted, then I get no connectivity with that instance anymore (ovs-vsctl shows some qvo devices missing) so I'm trying to migrate it to fix the networking problem. | |
| 14:14:00 | zigo | Then I get a 500 error ... | |
| 14:14:26 | zigo | I'm trying to cold migrate indeed. | |
| 14:14:48 | zigo | And the trace is what is shown in nova-api.log when doing "nova server migrate" of that instance. | |
| 14:15:09 | mriedem | ok are you able to dump the request_specs entry for that instance? it should be a json blob. | |
| 14:15:25 | zigo | mriedem: How do I do that? | |
| 14:15:31 | zigo | You mean debugging ? | |
| 14:15:45 | zigo | Or just looking in the db? | |
| 14:15:50 | mriedem | select spec from nova_api.request_specs where instance_uuid=<instance id>; | |
| 14:18:40 | zigo | mriedem: http://paste.openstack.org/show/752161/ | |
| 14:19:35 | mriedem | i could see where we could hit an issue by setting an instance_group on the request spec without a uuid here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/rocky/nova/objects/request_spec.py#L228 but that is meant to be some legacy code | |
| 14:19:45 | mriedem | which is why i asked if it were an old instance | |
| 14:20:07 | zigo | mriedem: Migrating worked perfectly for other instances ... | |
| 14:20:28 | zigo | mriedem: How do I migrate to another availability zone? | |
| 14:21:15 | mriedem | the server group and the az are different things | |
| 14:21:28 | mriedem | server group is a grouping of ... servers. az is a grouping of compute hosts | |
| 14:21:37 | zigo | Right. | |
| 14:21:38 | zigo | :) | |
| 14:21:49 | mriedem | since this server was created in a specific az, you can't migrate it out of that az unless you bypass the az filter in the scheduler | |
| 14:22:08 | mriedem | like by forcefully bypassing the scheduler, which you can't do with cold migrate | |
| 14:22:45 | zigo | mriedem: I find it annoying that it seems like Nova picks-up an availability zone and stick every instance to it, even if in some cases, I don't want it to do that. | |
| 14:22:48 | mriedem | there is definitely a busted request spec for this instance though http://paste.openstack.org/show/752162/ | |
| 14:23:10 | mriedem | zigo: nova doesn't make servers go into an az by default | |
| 14:23:17 | zigo | Ah... | |
| 14:23:19 | zigo | :) | |
| 14:23:24 | mriedem | the user either requests an az during server create or the operator configures the cloud to default to a specific az | |
| 14:24:03 | mriedem | in fact i have a docs patch for that :) https://review.opendev.org/#/c/650444/2 | |
| 14:25:22 | sean-k-mooney | yonglihe_: comments are on the spec. mainly some typos other then that the content seams fine | |
| 14:25:54 | zigo | Weird, the instance spec shows: | |
| 14:25:54 | zigo | "group": [ "295c99ea-2db6-469a-877f-454a3903a8d8" ] (which has the name "dockerdev") | |
| 14:25:54 | zigo | However, nova server show tells me: group='AZ3' | |
| 14:25:57 | mriedem | zigo: i think somehow we're hitting this https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/rocky/nova/objects/request_spec.py#L228 and that's causing the problem, but i'm not sure how yet | |
| 14:27:12 | mriedem | i can see AZ3 is the az from the request spec | |
| 14:27:13 | mriedem | "availability_zone": "AZ3", | |