| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-08-21 | |||
| 18:09:19 | efried | sean-k-mooney: apt install git-gui | |
| 18:09:40 | efried | that's if you're running ubuntu. | |
| 18:09:47 | efried | If you're running another distro... just shoot yourself and be done. | |
| 18:10:07 | sean-k-mooney | PopOS which is based on ubuntu yes | |
| 18:10:18 | aspiers | efried: watch your mouth! | |
| 18:10:19 | efried | (sorry, I had a bad experience with rhel a decade ago and still haven't recovered) | |
| 18:10:31 | aspiers | you ran RHEL as a desktop? eww | |
| 18:10:34 | sean-k-mooney | although i have a rhel8 system for the last while... not sure i will keep it but it currently works | |
| 18:10:34 | aspiers | Fedora is OK | |
| 18:10:37 | efried | yeah, that was my problem | |
| 18:10:43 | aspiers | try openSUSE :) | |
| 18:10:50 | efried | is that still a thing?? | |
| 18:10:59 | efried | Is it written in FORTRAN? | |
| 18:11:09 | sean-k-mooney | aspiers: i used tumbelweed for a while and mostly liked it | |
| 18:11:13 | aspiers | ok, good time to leave | |
| 18:11:32 | sean-k-mooney | not sure i liked yast but it was nice to have up to date packages | |
| 18:49:40 | mriedem | melwitt: a couple of things in the archive patch https://review.opendev.org/#/c/507486/ | |
| 18:49:46 | mriedem | and a couple of nits in the nova-next patch on top of that | |
| 18:50:06 | mriedem | both should be small | |
| 18:50:52 | mriedem | melwitt: efried: i think we're ok to merge https://review.opendev.org/#/c/675218/6 now yeah? | |
| 18:51:11 | melwitt | thanks | |
| 18:51:49 | melwitt | yeah I think all is well | |
| 18:55:40 | mriedem | onto openstack resource provider inventory set --aggregate | |
| 18:57:35 | melwitt | heh | |
| 19:10:05 | melwitt | I was panicking with the potential loss of my launchpad bug text after a 503 "TimeoutError" but found when I reloaded the page, it posted everything I had written | |
| 19:10:16 | melwitt | phhheeewwww | |
| 19:13:21 | mriedem | happens a lot, just have to keep refreshing | |
| 19:17:34 | openstackgerrit | Adam Spiers proposed openstack/nova master: Add extra spec parameter and image property for memory encryption https://review.opendev.org/664420 | |
| 19:21:23 | openstackgerrit | Adam Spiers proposed openstack/nova master: Extract SEV-specific bits on host detection https://review.opendev.org/636334 | |
| 19:21:34 | openstackgerrit | Adam Spiers proposed openstack/nova master: Add |
|
| 19:22:51 | mriedem | melwitt: i think i have an idea for how to make one of multiple rps fail to set inventory in aggregate in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/640898/11 | |
| 19:22:56 | mriedem | add allocations to one of them | |
| 19:24:04 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Make a failure to purge_db fail in post_test_hook.sh https://review.opendev.org/677806 | |
| 19:25:01 | melwitt | mriedem: nice! thanks, I was stumped about that | |
| 19:25:19 | openstackgerrit | Adam Spiers proposed openstack/nova master: Add extra spec parameter and image property for memory encryption https://review.opendev.org/664420 | |
| 19:26:28 | openstackgerrit | Adam Spiers proposed openstack/nova master: Extract SEV-specific bits on host detection https://review.opendev.org/636334 | |
| 19:26:42 | openstackgerrit | Adam Spiers proposed openstack/nova master: Add |
|
| 19:28:40 | mriedem | melwitt: same, until about 5 minutes ago :) | |
| 19:29:50 | melwitt | \o/ | |
| 19:29:56 | mriedem | looking at the placement code i'm not totally sure if it handles the "drop inventory below what's allocated but don't remove the resource class" or if it's just "can't remove a resource class inventory that has allocations" - i see the latter in the placement code but not sure about the former, but i'm pretty sure it enforces that | |
| 19:29:58 | mriedem | efried: ^ right?! | |
| 19:31:08 | mriedem | hmm | |
| 19:31:08 | mriedem | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/640898/11 | |
| 19:31:09 | efried | mriedem: You can reduce inventory below what's allocated. You can't set total to zero (I'm 95% sure of that, would have to check). | |
| 19:31:10 | mriedem | ops | |
| 19:31:22 | mriedem | efried: not before 1.26 anyway.. | |
| 19:32:09 | mriedem | yeah so if your allocations exceed capacity it only logs a warning | |
| 19:32:10 | mriedem | https://github.com/openstack/placement/blob/master/placement/objects/resource_provider.py#L619 | |
| 19:32:35 | mriedem | if you try to remove a resource class entirely that has allocations it'll fail https://github.com/openstack/placement/blob/master/placement/objects/resource_provider.py#L84 | |
| 19:33:01 | mriedem | so melwitt i guess one of the providers has to have some resource class inventory and a consumer is using that rc, and then in set inventories you drop/omit that rc, | |
| 19:33:05 | mriedem | it could just be some CUSTOM_FOO in your test | |
| 19:33:25 | melwitt | ah ok | |
| 19:33:47 | melwitt | sophisticated | |
| 19:35:22 | mriedem | efried: can't set total to 0 but you can set reserved = total with 1.26 | |
| 19:35:27 | efried | yes | |
| 19:35:41 | efried | we did that specifically so you could take an ironic node out of the pool | |
| 19:35:46 | mriedem | yeah i know | |
| 19:36:04 | mriedem | mel is trying to trigger a failure on one provider's PUT inventories out of a set of providers in an aggregate | |
| 19:36:32 | mriedem | anyway, think it's figured out, i just didn't realize placement would let you do the other thing here https://github.com/openstack/placement/blob/master/placement/objects/resource_provider.py#L619 | |
| 19:36:41 | efried | does it matter what the failure is? | |
| 19:36:50 | efried | You could PUT a resource class that doesn't exist yet | |
| 19:37:20 | melwitt | like a custom class placement doesn't yet know about? | |
| 19:37:23 | efried | yeah | |
| 19:37:40 | melwitt | ahhh that would be easier | |
| 19:38:33 | efried | (careful if you're trying to drive this stuff through the report client - some paths will automatically ensure RCs for you) | |
| 19:38:33 | melwitt | I was thinking inside the box of the standard classes | |
| 19:38:48 | efried | well, you could make those fail too by setting total=0 :) | |
| 19:38:52 | melwitt | this is for osc-placement so should be safe there | |
| 19:39:10 | efried | or total=foo for that matter | |
| 19:39:42 | melwitt | ok, well, thanks for making this sound really stupidly easy :P | |
| 19:39:48 | efried | hell, getting an inventory PUT to *fail* is easy! | |
| 19:39:55 | efried | getting it to *succeed* is the hard part | |
| 19:39:58 | melwitt | well hang on | |
| 19:40:06 | melwitt | needs to fail for only one RP though | |
| 19:40:23 | efried | are you putting multiple inventories at once? | |
| 19:40:23 | openstackgerrit | Adam Spiers proposed openstack/nova master: Apply SEV-specific guest config when SEV is required https://review.opendev.org/644565 | |
| 19:40:28 | efried | like via a single REST call? | |
| 19:40:39 | melwitt | this is a new --aggregate command which will loop over RPs in an aggregate and do the same inventory set on all of them | |
| 19:40:43 | melwitt | and I need to fail one in the middle | |
| 19:40:57 | efried | right, so you need to fail one (entire) REST call in a loop of REST calls | |
| 19:40:59 | melwitt | for test coverage for a "log error and continue" behavior | |
| 19:41:00 | melwitt | yeah | |
| 19:41:12 | efried | so yeah, you can just make a bogus inventory value in that one call | |
| 19:41:25 | efried | which is kinda what you're talking about doing I guess. | |
| 19:41:29 | openstackgerrit | Adam Spiers proposed openstack/nova master: Enable booting of libvirt guests with AMD SEV memory encryption https://review.opendev.org/666616 | |
| 19:41:58 | melwitt | yeah but that's not what the command wants to do, it does the same 'set' for each | |
| 19:42:40 | melwitt | ideally I'd want to muck with one of the RPs ahead of time such that it would fail an identical request while the others succeed | |
| 19:43:00 | melwitt | so I think I will have to do the allocation thing | |
| 19:45:26 | efried | melwitt: Yeah, you can add a CUSTOM_FOO to (only) that RP and create an allocation against it. Then since you're PUTting the same inventory (which presumably lacks CUSTOM_FOO) against all the providers, it'll fail for that one since it would amount to removing the CUSTOM_FOO inventory. | |
| 19:45:30 | efried | Is that what mriedem suggested? | |
| 19:45:46 | melwitt | yes | |
| 19:45:51 | efried | smart man | |
| 19:45:56 | melwitt | yup | |
| 19:55:42 | melwitt | mriedem: how are you finding the good link to the post_test_hook run under ara-report? | |
| 19:56:26 | mriedem | you know to get to the ara-report right? https://0bde141365cc25860c5b-0b668b63edb9a2dd0711fb78b2335400.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/672840/11/check/nova-next/daad30a/ara-report/ | |
| 19:56:32 | melwitt | yeah | |
| 19:56:45 | mriedem | i find the post.yaml with 1 task after the devstack-tempest run | |
| 19:56:47 | melwitt | oh, I was clicking the > arrow | |
| 19:56:58 | melwitt | and just saw a ton of hashes | |
| 19:56:59 | mriedem | expand that, then click on the 'changed' box | |