| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-09-04 | |||
| 11:44:02 | sean-k-mooney | maybe im just using whicever version tox installs | |
| 11:44:05 | aspiers | Turns out that reporting bugs sometimes helps get them fixed ;-) | |
| 11:44:14 | sean-k-mooney | although i have not recreate all my envs since then | |
| 11:44:24 | aspiers | stestr>=1.0.0 # Apache-2.0 | |
| 11:44:28 | aspiers | from test-requirements | |
| 11:44:36 | aspiers | we should bump that | |
| 11:44:36 | brinzhang | sean-k-mooney: yeah, cloning, but so slowly... | |
| 11:44:51 | sean-k-mooney | brinzhang: if your doing it locally it should be fast | |
| 11:45:00 | sean-k-mooney | e.g. the file system clone i suggested above | |
| 11:46:24 | brinzhang | git clone ~/repos/nova what do you mean? isnot use git clone https://review.opendev.org/openstack/nova clone to another directory? | |
| 11:47:28 | brinzhang | this is the clone speed "Receiving objects: 3% (21352/550825), 6.94 MiB | 27.00 KiB/s" | |
| 11:50:40 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Bump min for oslo.service & .privsep to fix SIGHUP https://review.opendev.org/679974 | |
| 11:53:54 | openstackgerrit | Silvan Kaiser proposed openstack/nova stable/stein: Exec systemd-run without --user flag in Quobyte driver https://review.opendev.org/660705 | |
| 12:26:25 | sean-k-mooney | brinzhang: git can use filesystem urls | |
| 12:26:45 | sean-k-mooney | brinzhang: so if you have a copy of a git repo you can clone a second copy using the file sytem path | |
| 12:27:09 | sean-k-mooney | so for example i keep my dev repos under ~/repos | |
| 12:27:27 | sean-k-mooney | if i do "mkdir ~/temp; cd temp" | |
| 12:27:53 | efried | alex_xu, luyao: Are you around? | |
| 12:28:39 | sean-k-mooney | then do "git clone ~/repos/openstack/nova" | |
| 12:29:00 | sean-k-mooney | it give me a clean copy of the nova git tree in ~/temp/nova | |
| 12:29:37 | brinzhang | sean-k-moony: Clone completed in another directory, and run tox -e ok, you are right, maybe the tempory file cause this issue. | |
| 12:30:13 | luyao | efried: I'm here | |
| 12:30:36 | brinzhang | sean-k-moony: I know your mean now, and I do it like you were said :P | |
| 12:35:22 | efried | luyao: Do you need any help to make progress on the vpmem series at this point? Do you understand what dansmith is asking for on the bottom two patches? | |
| 12:38:11 | luyao | efried: I do have some questions on the patch anout DB change. | |
| 12:39:41 | efried | luyao: Okay. I don't have a good understanding of such things, but dansmith usually arrives on the scene in about 20 minutes. I know it's late for you... | |
| 12:41:17 | luyao | efried: Ii'll wait for him, and I was going to wait. haha :) | |
| 12:41:31 | efried | okay | |
| 12:49:10 | sean-k-mooney | brinzhang: for what it is worth. whenever i hit test issue like that i first create a second local clone and test on the clean repo with master and with my patch branch if i still hit the issue i then check in a conainter. | |
| 12:49:54 | openstackgerrit | Luyao Zhong proposed openstack/nova master: db: Add resources column in instance_extra table https://review.opendev.org/678447 | |
| 12:49:55 | openstackgerrit | Luyao Zhong proposed openstack/nova master: object: Introduce Resource and ResouceList objs https://review.opendev.org/678448 | |
| 12:49:55 | openstackgerrit | Luyao Zhong proposed openstack/nova master: Add resources dict into _Provider https://review.opendev.org/678449 | |
| 12:49:56 | openstackgerrit | Luyao Zhong proposed openstack/nova master: Retrieve the allocations early https://review.opendev.org/678450 | |
| 12:49:56 | openstackgerrit | Luyao Zhong proposed openstack/nova master: Claim resources in resource tracker https://review.opendev.org/678452 | |
| 12:49:57 | openstackgerrit | Luyao Zhong proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Enable driver discovering PMEM namespaces https://review.opendev.org/678453 | |
| 12:49:58 | openstackgerrit | Luyao Zhong proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: report VPMEM resources by provider tree https://review.opendev.org/678454 | |
| 12:49:58 | openstackgerrit | Luyao Zhong proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Support VM creation with vpmems and vpmems cleanup https://review.opendev.org/678455 | |
| 12:49:59 | openstackgerrit | Luyao Zhong proposed openstack/nova master: Parse vpmem related flavor extra spec https://review.opendev.org/678456 | |
| 12:49:59 | openstackgerrit | Luyao Zhong proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Enable driver configuring PMEM namespaces https://review.opendev.org/679640 | |
| 12:50:00 | openstackgerrit | Luyao Zhong proposed openstack/nova master: Add functional tests for virtual persistent memory https://review.opendev.org/678470 | |
| 12:51:31 | brinzhang | sean-k-mooney: Good experience, got it. | |
| 13:09:46 | mriedem | bauzas: can you push this simple refactor through? https://review.opendev.org/#/c/679651/ | |
| 13:10:18 | bauzas | mriedem: sure thing | |
| 13:10:58 | luyao | dansmith: Are you around? | |
| 13:17:20 | bauzas | mriedem: gibi: I was paying attention to the qos-bandwith series but I'm a bit lost with it | |
| 13:17:26 | bauzas | gibi: what's the top change ? | |
| 13:17:29 | bauzas | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/679653/ ? | |
| 13:17:44 | bauzas | because I don't see yet changes for cold migrate | |
| 13:17:55 | openstackgerrit | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: multi numa nfv testing job https://review.opendev.org/679656 | |
| 13:17:56 | openstackgerrit | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [DNM] test migration with pinning https://review.opendev.org/679754 | |
| 13:18:08 | mriedem | gibi: replied in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/656422/18/nova/compute/manager.py@2122 | |
| 13:18:30 | bauzas | nah nevermind https://review.opendev.org/#/c/679019/4 | |
| 13:18:39 | bauzas | gerrit fucks up with the series | |
| 13:18:48 | bauzas | there are some branches | |
| 13:18:51 | gibi | bauzas: this is the top https://review.opendev.org/#/c/679019/4 | |
| 13:19:07 | gibi | bauzas: but I will respin the whole soonish to fix mriedem's comments | |
| 13:19:11 | gibi | mriedem: looking | |
| 13:19:20 | bauzas | gibi: okay i can wait then | |
| 13:19:46 | mriedem | gibi: tl;dr i think you need the service version check in conductor after scheduler picks a dest and also a check in compute in case the compute rpc api versions are pinned in config | |
| 13:20:00 | mriedem | i.e. the compute services can be running train but configured to only send stein level messages during an upgrade | |
| 13:20:04 | mriedem | artom ran into this yesterday | |
| 13:20:36 | mriedem | both are temporary and can be removed in U | |
| 13:21:22 | brinzhang | mriedem: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/673133/14/nova/compute/api.py@4028, I was updated that comment, found the volume_bdm.save() report an "ObjectActionError: Object action obj_load_attr failed because: attribute id not lazy-loadable" | |
| 13:21:34 | brinzhang | mriedem: That why? | |
| 13:21:40 | gibi | mriedem: ack. I will put the checks in the conductor. Good point about that the service version is no enough | |
| 13:21:53 | mriedem | brinzhang: in unit tests or a tempest run? | |
| 13:22:08 | artom | *me meerkats up* | |
| 13:22:08 | mriedem | brinzhang: if unit tests, you need to mock the BlockDeviceMapping.save call | |
| 13:22:13 | brinzhang | mriedem: functioanl test failed | |
| 13:22:44 | openstackgerrit | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: multi numa nfv testing job https://review.opendev.org/679656 | |
| 13:22:44 | openstackgerrit | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [DNM] test migration with pinning https://review.opendev.org/679754 | |
| 13:22:54 | mriedem | brinzhang: ok i can look in a bit | |
| 13:23:25 | gmann | brinzhang: mriedem just commented, it should be passed in via reserve_block_device_name() | |
| 13:23:50 | artom | mriedem, I don't think they can be removed in U - dansmith can explain in more detail when he comes online because I'm not sure I understand it fully, but you can't remove a check until the next major version bump | |
| 13:24:04 | artom | Or maybe I'm misunderstanding it | |
| 13:24:28 | mriedem | gmann: no it shouldn't | |
| 13:24:39 | gmann | we can directly save ? | |
| 13:24:42 | mriedem | gmann: see my earlier comments on that very thing - i specifically don't want to do that b/c it adds a lot of unnecessary complexity | |
| 13:24:57 | mriedem | i have to take my kid to the bus stop, will look into this later | |
| 13:25:09 | gmann | ohk, did not see the previous comment | |
| 13:25:41 | brinzhang | gmann: that will be change the rpc version, in PS13 do that | |
| 13:26:05 | gibi | bauzas: It might take more time to update the bandwidth series than I first aniticipated. I will ping you when the new version is up | |
| 13:26:13 | gmann | i did not see that, checking.. | |
| 13:28:10 | bauzas | gibi: no worries, I'm still working on updating the placement audit command | |
| 13:35:26 | dansmith | artom: to what are you referring? | |
| 13:36:11 | artom | dansmith, all those checks I have about either making sure we got a param that appears in RPC 5.3, or that we can send RPC 5.3, those can only be removed in the next major version bump, right? | |
| 13:36:29 | artom | dansmith, if so, mind explaining why, exactly? It's still not clear in my head why they can't just go away in U | |
| 13:37:05 | dansmith | well, it's because there are two sets of "rules" at play here: | |
| 13:37:25 | dansmith | The first is that we don't allow RPC upgrades from N-2 to N in terms of releases | |
| 13:38:00 | dansmith | we do that not just because of strict rpc compatibility, but because of stuff buried deeper that expects fields to be filled out two releases from now, data migrations to have run, etc | |
| 13:38:13 | artom | dansmith, this means that we don't support Train anything talking to Rocky anything, right? Only Stein | |
| 13:39:18 | dansmith | the second is that the RPC versioning rules say that within a major version, you must be backwards compatible, able to accept anything back to 5.0 and able to send anything back to 5.0 if asked (by the version pin). If we always bumped versions on every release, then you could always remove stuff two releases from when you added it (since each release would have to bridge between two majors, you could never remove it in the next one) | |
| 13:39:59 | dansmith | artom: that's what it means, but since the rpc version is all we have, it's really a soft statement of support that we can't validate or quantify, | |
| 13:40:04 | dansmith | especially since people backport stuff | |
| 13:40:31 | artom | People backport RPC stuff? | |
| 13:40:56 | dansmith | the RPC versioning scheme that we have is why, in many cases, you actually can run N-2 talking to N when things haven't shifted much, and what would save our bacon if we had to start supporting such a thing | |
| 13:41:04 | dansmith | upstream doesn't, but distros have in the past for sure | |
| 13:41:05 | dansmith | however, | |
| 13:41:29 | dansmith | it's easy to backport something that doesn't technically affect the rpc interface directly, but definitely changes behavior or semantics | |
| 13:41:41 | dansmith | like something that causes a field to be filled out that wouldn't have been if the client was really as old as it is, etc | |