| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-02-11 | |||
| 12:24:29 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Support unshelve with qos ports https://review.opendev.org/704759 | |
| 12:25:58 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Enable unshelve with qos ports https://review.opendev.org/705475 | |
| 12:27:26 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Merge qos related renos for Ussuri https://review.opendev.org/706766 | |
| 12:36:41 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: api: Add support for extra spec validation https://review.opendev.org/704643 | |
| 12:38:24 | frickler | hello nova, the new alembic==1.4.0 is causing this failure, please have a look https://c264ca14759376f2bea5-6cd49316b9babb1f90743cae9cd67f9e.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/705380/10/check/cross-nova-py36/8bcec81/testr_results.html , I'll pin to the previous version for now, see https://review.opendev.org/705380 | |
| 13:14:23 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: api: Add support for extra spec validation https://review.opendev.org/704643 | |
| 13:23:18 | efried | bauzas, gibi: o/ | |
| 13:23:18 | efried | What's the question? | |
| 13:25:19 | gibi | efried: my remaning open question is https://review.opendev.org/#/c/552924/16/specs/ussuri/approved/numa-topology-with-rps.rst@223 about upgrade checks | |
| 13:25:49 | gibi | but I have to jump on a call for the next 1 and a half hour so talk to you later | |
| 13:36:09 | bauzas | efried: gibi: will ping you later, just updating the spec now | |
| 13:47:27 | alex_xu | bauzas: I leave one also https://review.opendev.org/#/c/552924/16/specs/ussuri/approved/numa-topology-with-rps.rst@421 | |
| 13:50:35 | bauzas | ack | |
| 13:52:31 | bauzas | alex_xu: good point, I was thinking of the upgrade issue when rolling the compute upgrades | |
| 13:53:23 | alex_xu | good news, we can just copy the way of standard-cpu-resource-tracking way | |
| 13:53:55 | alex_xu | probably need another workaround config option for disable the fallback placement query | |
| 13:53:57 | bauzas | I'll sat this | |
| 13:54:06 | bauzas | say* | |
| 14:39:16 | efried | bauzas, gibi: responded. | |
| 14:39:33 | bauzas | dammit, need to Ctrl-R | |
| 14:39:46 | bauzas | I'm litterally writing live | |
| 14:40:00 | efried | bauzas: shouldn't be anything earth-shattering in my response. | |
| 14:40:01 | bauzas | eek, sean-k-mooney did too | |
| 14:42:20 | bauzas | efried: for the placement-ish syntax, I'm all for docs | |
| 14:42:26 | bauzas | and not code | |
| 14:42:27 | bauzas | FWIW | |
| 14:42:36 | bauzas | like, you can do it but you can mess it | |
| 14:42:39 | bauzas | your dog | |
| 14:43:10 | bauzas | anyway, continuing to write | |
| 14:43:49 | efried | IMO the only reason we shouldn't block placement-ish syntax is because we might miss something in our translation utility and have to provide a workaround until we fix it. | |
| 14:44:11 | efried | even there be tygers. | |
| 14:45:20 | LiangFang | gibi: hi gibi, regarding https://review.opendev.org/#/c/689070/ | |
| 14:47:01 | LiangFang | gibi: how do you think to set trait for the host machine, and specify trait in flavor extra spec? | |
| 14:47:59 | LiangFang | gibi: so the guest can be scheduled to the host with cache capability | |
| 15:22:12 | openstackgerrit | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Proposes NUMA topology with RPs https://review.opendev.org/552924 | |
| 15:22:38 | bauzas | efried: gibi: sean-k-mooney: alex_xu: thanks for the comments, here is another baking of NUMA topology spec https://review.opendev.org/552924 | |
| 15:23:18 | gibi | LiangFang: if we only care about having a cache configured on the host then it can be a capability represented by a trait. If we also needs to think about the available size of the caches then it is a resource | |
| 15:24:15 | gibi | bauzas, efried: ack, will check back soon | |
| 15:39:49 | stephenfin | dansmith: Any particular reason we don't use entrypoints for custom scheduler filters? Is it something we could/should do? | |
| 15:40:05 | dansmith | don't we already? | |
| 15:40:09 | dansmith | bauzas: | |
| 15:40:27 | stephenfin | Custom scheduler drivers, yes. Not filters for the filter_scheduler though | |
| 15:40:44 | dansmith | I was sure we did | |
| 15:40:53 | stephenfin | You've to configure them via a python path in '[filter_scheduler] enabled_filters' | |
| 15:40:55 | stephenfin | fwict | |
| 16:02:28 | spatel | sean-k-mooney: morning | |
| 16:02:42 | spatel | let me know if you around i want to share my load-test result. | |
| 16:06:31 | gibi | bauzas: thanks for the update on the NUMA spec it looks good to me now | |
| 16:24:39 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: im skiming through it now but ya im more or less happy with it. ill proably +1 it when i finish this pass | |
| 16:26:55 | bauzas | dansmith: sorry was AFK | |
| 16:27:35 | bauzas | stephenfin: yeah you have to set a specific option | |
| 16:27:38 | dansmith | bauzas: np. I thought our scheduler filter interface was already using entry points, but stephenfin says it's not.. I'm sure he's right I was just poking you in case you were also surprised | |
| 16:28:10 | bauzas | https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/configuration/config.html#filter_scheduler.available_filters | |
| 16:28:15 | bauzas | stephenfin: ^ | |
| 16:28:25 | stephenfin | right, matches up with what I suspected so | |
| 16:28:44 | stephenfin | bauzas: any reason not to deprecate that an ask people to use entrypoints instead? | |
| 16:28:53 | stephenfin | given I'll be asking them to do that for extra spec validators | |
| 16:29:12 | bauzas | well, I don't have any opinion | |
| 16:29:25 | bauzas | we had a lot of entrypoints | |
| 16:29:37 | bauzas | so for sure we could just use another one | |
| 16:30:19 | sean-k-mooney | spatel: did you see an improvement? | |
| 16:32:06 | bauzas | stephenfin: dansmith: that's how Nova knows about filters https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/loadables.py#L78 | |
| 16:33:56 | bauzas | for example you can ask to have a new custom filter by doing something like scheduler_available_filters = myownproject.scheduler.filters.climate_filter.ClimateFilter | |
| 16:35:40 | efried | bauzas, gibi, sean-k-mooney: I don't understand the "fallback" thing. | |
| 16:36:14 | efried | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/552924/17/specs/ussuri/approved/numa-topology-with-rps.rst@516 | |
| 16:36:40 | sean-k-mooney | efried: its mimicing PCPUS | |
| 16:37:57 | sean-k-mooney | basically when procesing a vm request with a numa toplogy if and only if the placement allocation candiates responce is empty we will fall back to the non numa aware query and let the numa toplogy filter elimidate the host if it cant fit | |
| 16:38:14 | bauzas | efried: try: <call placement asking for NUMA-aware instances> except NoValidHosts: <call Placement like in Train> | |
| 16:38:43 | sean-k-mooney | yes but without using excption for control flow :P | |
| 16:38:52 | efried | Sorry, let me clarify | |
| 16:39:03 | bauzas | efried: sean-k-mooney: I could have provided a link to the implementation instead of the spec :) | |
| 16:39:04 | efried | I understand the what/how. I don't understand the why. | |
| 16:39:14 | bauzas | efried: because, | |
| 16:39:24 | bauzas | say a rolling upgrade | |
| 16:39:27 | sean-k-mooney | efried: so we dont need to have a global flag in the schduler to turn on the translation | |
| 16:40:04 | bauzas | or just a Ussuri cloud with only one node being transformed | |
| 16:40:10 | bauzas | then we could have some problems | |
| 16:40:12 | sean-k-mooney | the same reason we did it for PCPUs to make upgrdade simpler | |
| 16:40:41 | bauzas | efried: have you seen the Upgrade Impact section already ? | |
| 16:40:47 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: ya the single node case is basicaly during a rolling upgrade | |
| 16:40:50 | bauzas | I tried to explain the *why* there | |
| 16:41:30 | efried | Because what's going to happen here is: | |
| 16:41:30 | efried | I'll upgrade to Ussuri, where my workaround option is set to not reshape; | |
| 16:41:30 | efried | and all my flavors will continue to work, only a teeny bit slower because I'll get empty allocation candidates on the first query 100% of the time. | |
| 16:41:30 | efried | And I won't notice, so I'll never flip the workaround off. | |
| 16:42:33 | efried | so, | |
| 16:42:33 | efried | Am I misunderstanding what release/combination will have this fallback mechanism in play? | |
| 16:43:18 | gibi | efried: I understand the need to push the operators to switch. But pushing them to do the switch right at the upgrade feels too much to me. It would like an ultimate. "When you upgrade to Ussuri you will loose all the NUMA aware capacity of your cloud, but you can get them back iff you do the reshape one every NUMA aware compute, but you should not do that all at once as that will overload placement." | |
| 16:43:47 | gibi | s/one/on/ | |
| 16:44:06 | dansmith | gibi: you think that's okay? | |
| 16:44:08 | efried | Well, I don't buy that it would overload placement. The reshape will be one query per compute host. | |
| 16:44:26 | sean-k-mooney | efried: i would hope we remove it when we remove the config option | |
| 16:44:32 | gibi | dansmith: I think it is not OK to loose all the NUMA aware capacity at upgrade | |
| 16:45:04 | dansmith | gibi: okay you were describing the problem, not the goal, is that right? | |
| 16:45:04 | sean-k-mooney | we could remove it when we change the default but i would hope it will not last more then 2 releases | |
| 16:45:37 | efried | Then we kind of have to position this as a "tech preview" or experimental change. | |
| 16:45:38 | gibi | dansmith: my goal is not to loose the capacity at upgrade. I dont like the the quoted part | |
| 16:45:44 | efried | It just seems pretty pointless to me. | |
| 16:45:48 | dansmith | gibi: ++ | |
| 16:46:03 | efried | because we're going to do a bunch of work to enable something that nobody is going to use. | |