| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-08-08 | |||
| 20:02:14 | sean-k-mooney | well run validation is different | |
| 20:02:23 | mriedem | run_validation == enable ssh | |
| 20:02:23 | sean-k-mooney | in that its optional | |
| 20:02:39 | mriedem | sure, but it's basically on by default in tempest runs in the gate | |
| 20:02:41 | sean-k-mooney | e.g the test shoudl still be runale without it | |
| 20:02:47 | sean-k-mooney | ya | |
| 20:04:28 | mriedem | we should probably disable ssh validation in the nova-next job | |
| 20:04:50 | mriedem | we already get that in tempest-full and tempest-slow | |
| 20:05:16 | sean-k-mooney | well its realy jsut intened to prevent race conditions | |
| 20:05:46 | sean-k-mooney | e.g. in senario tests it can help with cases were you need to wait for the guest os to start before you proceed with the test | |
| 20:05:55 | mriedem | i don't think we're talking about the same thing | |
| 20:06:17 | sean-k-mooney | that is what the validation was ortinglly for as far as i knew | |
| 20:06:18 | mriedem | are you thinking of the nova vif_plugging_* options? | |
| 20:06:26 | sean-k-mooney | no | |
| 20:06:54 | mriedem | tempest uses it for all kinds of shit https://github.com/openstack/tempest/search?q=CONF.run_validation&unscoped_q=CONF.run_validation | |
| 20:08:25 | sean-k-mooney | yes but if i rememebr correctly it was originally added to make test pause on server create until you could ssh in | |
| 20:09:15 | sean-k-mooney | this was need for running tempst against ironic clouds | |
| 20:09:20 | donnyd | is the lxc driver for nova still functional? | |
| 20:09:31 | sean-k-mooney | am kind of | |
| 20:09:40 | sean-k-mooney | it was broke for 2 years | |
| 20:09:46 | sean-k-mooney | and got fixed recnetly | |
| 20:10:00 | sean-k-mooney | as in like a month ago | |
| 20:10:14 | sean-k-mooney | but we have not ci so maybe? | |
| 20:10:44 | donnyd | I see someone asking about lxd on the ml and was going to ask if we could point them at lxc instead... but figured i should ask the state of it first | |
| 20:11:40 | sean-k-mooney | cannoical are stoping developing nova-lxd and i dont think tere was much of a comunity outside of them maintaining it | |
| 20:12:06 | sean-k-mooney | the nova libvirt/lxc backend has little use or testing as far as i know | |
| 20:13:02 | mriedem | i'd be surprised if the lxc driver didn't shit the bed under normal usage | |
| 20:13:12 | donnyd | LOL mriedem | |
| 20:13:34 | sean-k-mooney | donnyd: the reason it was broken for ~2years was we change the args to mount | |
| 20:13:36 | mriedem | honestly, i tried getting a ci job going for that thing years ago and something would fail during server delete and it would just snowball and fail everything | |
| 20:13:39 | donnyd | seriously, that made me laugh harder than I should have | |
| 20:13:43 | mriedem | nbd mount issues from what i remember | |
| 20:14:30 | mriedem | donnyd: we could easily get a simple ci job setup for it which just runs a simple create/delete server scenario | |
| 20:14:35 | mriedem | and see what explodes | |
| 20:14:45 | donnyd | I have seen a couple lxd requests come across the ml recently and was curious to the state of it. | |
| 20:15:02 | mriedem | since nova-lxd isn't in tree it's not really our concern | |
| 20:15:05 | mriedem | our == nova | |
| 20:15:14 | donnyd | yea, makes sense | |
| 20:15:31 | mriedem | but yeah, as soon as someone kills support for something everyone comes out of the weeds | |
| 20:15:33 | donnyd | rather point them to something in tree anyways | |
| 20:15:40 | mriedem | "i was just about to go production!" | |
| 20:15:49 | sean-k-mooney | for what its worth i do like lxc. and it would actully be nice for developement and testing | |
| 20:16:14 | donnyd | I use them all the time for statefully things | |
| 20:16:36 | mriedem | osc is still all lxc right? | |
| 20:16:42 | mriedem | it's kolla that uses docker? | |
| 20:16:45 | donnyd | I think OSA is | |
| 20:16:49 | sean-k-mooney | im a bad conter person and jsut use docker for statefull things because i now how it works and can bend it to my will | |
| 20:16:50 | mriedem | yeah sorry, osa | |
| 20:16:58 | donnyd | yea, kolla, 3O | |
| 20:17:00 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: kolla use docker yes | |
| 20:17:14 | sean-k-mooney | and osa used to support lxc for contol plane | |
| 20:17:52 | donnyd | I am pretty sure it still uses lxc, but i am not an osa expert so don't beat me too badly if they switched to docker | |
| 20:17:58 | sean-k-mooney | so osa used to install the compute nodes to bare metal but allow you to install the controler services in lxc | |
| 20:19:43 | donnyd | It would be great if we could get our CI to use LXC... at least for my shabby little cloud. I could probably do more | |
| 20:21:08 | sean-k-mooney | the first intel nfv ci was interesting... it used docker(pre 1.0) with the lxc backend to spin up super privaldges contaienr with which we then ran devstack in | |
| 20:21:53 | sean-k-mooney | we got really good density but it was entirly custom hacking with ducktape and sting | |
| 20:22:25 | donnyd | well duct tape does work... just sayin | |
| 20:23:24 | sean-k-mooney | it allowed use to handel every patch to neuton and respond back in less then 2 hours on a singel server with 40 cores and 128GB of ram | |
| 20:24:18 | sean-k-mooney | our nova ci that used vms to 3-4 servers to do the same with kvm | |
| 20:24:25 | donnyd | yea osa still uses lxc | |
| 20:25:34 | donnyd | i have 520 core and 1.1tb of memory here and I can only do 120 instances for nodepool | |
| 20:26:47 | sean-k-mooney | your ram limited | |
| 20:27:42 | donnyd | well I did have 2Tb of memory, but the other 1tb was unused | |
| 20:28:20 | sean-k-mooney | are you pinning the vms or disableing cpu oversuciption | |
| 20:28:33 | donnyd | seems like the right balance for my setup is 2:1 in cpu oversubscription | |
| 20:28:38 | donnyd | no | |
| 20:29:00 | sean-k-mooney | we used to run 4:1 for the old intel ci | |
| 20:29:12 | sean-k-mooney | and used hugepages for the memroy | |
| 20:29:31 | donnyd | I would oversubscribe more, but when i do nodepool spins up every tempest job it has in the pool and hands them all to the same hypervisor | |
| 20:30:10 | donnyd | literally burned up a cpu a few weeks back | |
| 20:30:40 | sean-k-mooney | that sound like you dont have either enough cooling or node pool is not configured correctly | |
| 20:31:10 | donnyd | servers run at 79 degrees | |
| 20:31:23 | donnyd | maybe a little on the warm side, but not too bad | |
| 20:31:54 | donnyd | i can't control what the CI nodepool does | |
| 20:32:25 | sean-k-mooney | well you can limit the quota it has on your provider | |
| 20:32:41 | sean-k-mooney | or you can limite the instance count on each server | |
| 20:34:17 | donnyd | Yes and yes - but if I take the ratio to 4:1 it will load all the tempest jobs it can find onto a single compute node.. (there is a great need for a sarcasm font) | |
| 20:34:49 | sean-k-mooney | you can tweek the weigher to spread by default | |
| 20:34:51 | donnyd | I do have the quota limited to 70 right now because I am adding in local nvmes | |
| 20:34:53 | sean-k-mooney | instead of pack | |
| 20:38:05 | sean-k-mooney | donnyd: set https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/configuration/config.html#filter_scheduler.cpu_weight_multiplier to ~8 and https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/configuration/config.html#filter_scheduler.ram_weight_multiplier to ~10 | |
| 20:38:17 | donnyd | I don't have someone elses money to buy more compute nodes, so I try to lean more toward the conservative side | |
| 20:38:47 | sean-k-mooney | oh you only have a single host | |
| 20:38:55 | donnyd | no, I have 8 | |
| 20:39:11 | donnyd | i just don't want to replace anymore of them | |
| 20:39:14 | donnyd | LOL | |
| 20:39:35 | sean-k-mooney | right. again it should be safe but its totally up to you. | |
| 20:39:49 | donnyd | And we were seeing high counts of timeouts with the ratios up higher | |
| 20:40:02 | sean-k-mooney | the point is when you change the allocation ratio you also want to adjust the multipliers | |
| 20:40:04 | donnyd | that also could have been from storage | |
| 20:40:09 | donnyd | oh ic | |
| 20:42:30 | donnyd | thanks for the help on the lxc thing sean-k-mooney | |
| 20:50:23 | donnyd | and i learned something new about nova today :) | |
| 20:57:17 | mriedem | couple of queens backports that could use a +W here https://review.opendev.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:stable/queens+label:Code-Review=2 | |
| 21:34:11 | mriedem | bnemec: is there anything like this in some oslo lib? https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/utils.py#L530 | |
| 21:35:45 | bnemec | mriedem: Not that I'm aware of. | |
| 21:35:59 | bnemec | Which is not necessarily the same thing as "no". :-) | |
| 21:36:18 | mriedem | yeah it's ok | |
| 21:38:51 | efried | mriedem: fwiw, that's effectively the same as | |
| 21:38:51 | efried | with mock.patch.object(...): | |