| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-03-26 | |||
| 18:05:08 | sean-k-mooney | which might only work with specific hyperviors but if vmware and libvirt but suppoted the features/api actions they cared about they proably would not care as long as there application worked fine | |
| 18:06:33 | sean-k-mooney | i mean i think aws uses xen in some from and google cloud suses some form of kvm with its own lightweight qemu alternitive but i dont think most people care when they use either product | |
| 18:08:38 | gmann | in one of our RFP, the customer asked to provide hypervisor-based choice to the user request of VM. not sure how good/bad/usable that was. | |
| 18:09:13 | gmann | though I am not sure it was user request or just customer thought. | |
| 18:09:25 | sean-k-mooney | well that is not realy that hard to do you just use multple virt dirvers in one cloud | |
| 18:09:47 | sean-k-mooney | there are then several filter you can use | |
| 18:11:21 | sean-k-mooney | the over used example is running windows instnace on hyperv but you can use custom extra specs in flaovr or a trait today to support that | |
| 18:58:38 | mnaser | sean-k-mooney: aws has moved away from xen btw :p | |
| 19:03:15 | sean-k-mooney | mnaser: good to know but im not sure there customer will notice which was kind of my point. to them the use an awx m1.whatever instnace | |
| 19:04:20 | mnaser | sean-k-mooney: yep agreed | |
| 20:06:01 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: im currently testing resculde. it seams to work but sofar i have just added a raise ValueError at the top of spawn in the libvirt driver | |
| 20:06:19 | dansmith | cool | |
| 20:06:23 | sean-k-mooney | the allocation and arq were correctly created against the second host | |
| 20:06:37 | sean-k-mooney | is there anything else you want me to check specificlly | |
| 20:08:28 | dansmith | on reschedule? | |
| 20:08:37 | dansmith | I forget, did you try cold migration? | |
| 20:09:04 | sean-k-mooney | no but i can. i thikn we expect that to fail like evaucate and resize fails. | |
| 20:09:51 | dansmith | ah okay.. I can see migration working and resize not, but only in a few scenarios, so if you did that already that's fine | |
| 20:09:52 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: this is the current list of followups that we need to adress after the current series is merged https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cyborg-nova-followup | |
| 20:10:03 | dansmith | evac is a little different since it doesn't get help from the original node | |
| 20:10:20 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: ah sweet, hadn't seen this | |
| 20:10:32 | sean-k-mooney | ya so evac works but it does not claim an fpga on the dest or update the arq | |
| 20:10:46 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: sundar created it todeay | |
| 20:10:49 | sean-k-mooney | *today | |
| 20:11:02 | dansmith | doesn't try to update the arq, or fails because the old one isn't deleted? | |
| 20:11:33 | sean-k-mooney | good question i will check but since the placemnt allocation does not have a device i suspect it doesnt even try | |
| 20:11:48 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: the rebuild path does not have to do any arq updates | |
| 20:11:55 | sean-k-mooney | so i suspect it does not try | |
| 20:12:17 | dansmith | but we scheduled to pick a new host, | |
| 20:12:18 | dansmith | but yeah, fair point | |
| 20:12:42 | sean-k-mooney | ill go check and let you know | |
| 20:14:44 | dansmith | I'm sure there are plenty of things missing, but yeah it'd be good to know where we're starting from | |
| 20:17:15 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: ah so cold migration is blocked in the code :) | |
| 20:17:16 | sean-k-mooney | Forbidden with instances that have accelerators. (HTTP 403) (Request-ID: req-c318fb6b-730c-4bd3-9ddf-cb7de6e472a3) | |
| 20:17:30 | dansmith | ah okay, I haven't really gotten to that patch at all | |
| 20:17:33 | dansmith | so... good :) | |
| 20:17:44 | sean-k-mooney | so that works at least although the respocne code still looks wrong to me | |
| 20:17:54 | sean-k-mooney | it should proably be a 400 or 409 | |
| 20:22:29 | dansmith | I thought we agreed on 403? | |
| 20:22:45 | sean-k-mooney | we proably did | |
| 20:23:08 | sean-k-mooney | i just find 403 forbiden which is normaly used for auth issues confusing | |
| 20:23:33 | sean-k-mooney | i would expect to get 403 if i did not have enough permission to do something not because its unsupported | |
| 20:26:15 | dansmith | IIRC, 401 means "authorization required" and 403 means "not permitted" - the latter which may or may not be because of insufficient or missing credentials | |
| 20:26:40 | sean-k-mooney | https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status/403 | |
| 20:26:49 | dansmith | "401 Unauthorized: If the request already included Authorization credentials, then the 401 response indicates that authorization has been refused for those credentials. 403 Forbidden: The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it" | |
| 20:27:19 | dansmith | "tied to the application logic" | |
| 20:27:36 | sean-k-mooney | ya it gives us leway to use it this way | |
| 20:27:45 | dansmith | "such as (but not limited to) insufficient rights" | |
| 20:28:10 | sean-k-mooney | im just used to thinking about it as related to authorisation | |
| 20:28:33 | melwitt | zzzeek: I've been tracing the gate bug situation with DNM debug logging and the latest thing I found is that this call to _create_session never returns https://github.com/openstack/oslo.db/blob/master/oslo_db/sqlalchemy/enginefacade.py#L657-L658 any ideas how or why that could happen? | |
| 20:28:35 | dansmith | I think a lot of things don't use 401 and 403 properly, so it's common to not have a gut feeling about the difference | |
| 20:33:13 | sean-k-mooney | so this is interesting GET /placement/allocation_candidates?limit=1000&resources=DISK_GB%3A1%2CMEMORY_MB%3A64%2CVCPU%3A1&root_required=COMPUTE_ACCELERATORS%2C%21COMPUTE_STATUS_DISABLED | |
| 20:33:45 | sean-k-mooney | the placement request for the evacuate gets teh trait added by the prefilter | |
| 20:33:52 | sean-k-mooney | but not the resouce requests | |
| 20:37:22 | dansmith | yeah, that's weird... that means the prefilter is seeing the device profile in the flavor | |
| 20:37:29 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 20:37:51 | sean-k-mooney | im not seeing any attepmet to update teh ARQ | |
| 20:38:28 | sean-k-mooney | did we move to putting the resouce groups form the device profile into the request spec | |
| 20:38:59 | melwitt | gmann: I have a followup patch here related to the new policy rule I added earlier in the cycle, would appreciate your review https://review.opendev.org/713295 | |
| 20:44:15 | sean-k-mooney | interesting the "requested_resources" is null http://paste.openstack.org/show/791213/ | |
| 20:48:58 | sean-k-mooney | we do populate the accel_info in the resouces https://review.opendev.org/#/c/631244/69/nova/compute/manager.py@2604 | |
| 20:50:10 | sean-k-mooney | but i guess we never save that sice we call save on line 2570 | |
| 20:53:08 | sean-k-mooney | actully saving the instance in not important | |
| 21:46:17 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: nova-net: Remove unused parameters https://review.opendev.org/703974 | |
| 21:46:18 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: found the issue i think. https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/9d212738bec63d7490998a2840598d790a3c94fc/nova/conductor/manager.py#L1121-L1128 | |
| 23:05:46 | openstackgerrit | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] cyborg evacuate support https://review.opendev.org/715326 | |
| 23:48:25 | gmann | melwitt: +1. lgtm | |
| 23:48:40 | melwitt | thanks | |
| #openstack-nova - 2020-03-27 | |||
| 00:24:10 | openstackgerrit | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Expose instance action event details out of the API https://review.opendev.org/694430 | |
| 00:24:11 | openstackgerrit | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance actions v284 samples test https://review.opendev.org/706251 | |
| 00:27:56 | gmann | brinzhang_: thanks, lgtm. though you are racing on 2.84 with stephenfin. let's see who win. | |
| 00:28:53 | brinzhang_ | gmann: np, thanks for concerning this | |
| 00:52:10 | brinzhang_ | gibi, stephenfin: instance action events patch updated done. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/694430/ | |
| 00:53:13 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Create and bind Cyborg ARQs. https://review.opendev.org/631244 | |
| 01:05:03 | gmann | johnthetubaguy: how about making GET flavor access default to @ instead of admin-only. we cannot verify the owner in this API so anyone trying this API and not having the access to flavor will anyway get 404. changing to admin as i proposed currently will disallow the tenants who have access to flavor - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/713697/3/nova/policies/flavor_access.py@68 | |
| 01:06:58 | gmann | johnthetubaguy: keeping @ will keep existing deployment working as it is and also does not show flavor-access info to all who does not have access. | |
| 01:34:30 | openstackgerrit | Kevin Zhao proposed openstack/nova master: fix scsi disk unit number of the attaching volume when cdrom bus is scsi https://review.opendev.org/712607 | |
| 02:07:25 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Pass accelerator requests to each virt driver from compute manager. https://review.opendev.org/698581 | |
| 02:09:07 | brinzhang_ | gmann: Can I push a new to change the os-volume-attachment:update policy to os-volume-attachment:swap policy for swap volume api? | |
| 02:09:47 | brinzhang_ | gmann: and I would update the releasenote message with update attachments API changes | |
| 02:10:36 | gmann | brinzhang_: you mean to do in this ? https://review.opendev.org/#/c/711194/7 | |
| 02:11:09 | brinzhang_ | gmann: I dont want to change this in the update attachments API, it will looks complex | |
| 02:11:12 | brinzhang_ | gmann: yes | |
| 02:11:38 | gmann | brinzhang_: yeah that is fine. but functional tests you are merging right ? | |
| 02:11:45 | brinzhang_ | The 2 point you said | |
| 02:12:02 | brinzhang_ | gmann: maybe not merge the functional tests | |
| 02:12:04 | gmann | api-ref and functional sample test change we should do while changing code | |
| 02:12:58 | gmann | policy change is ok to do in separate as it change the other polciy also but api-ref and functional tests we do together with code change to get the complete picture in same patch | |
| 02:13:09 | brinzhang_ | To be honest, doing this function from scratch will waste my double time. I started thinking that now Dansmith insists, and I regret that I didn't insist on doing so at the time. | |
| 02:13:55 | brinzhang_ | gmann: ok, I can consinder merge the functional tests to the api change | |
| 02:14:27 | brinzhang_ | s/Dansmith/dansmith/ | |
| 02:15:56 | brinzhang_ | gmann: I think the PS32 what I should next to do https://review.opendev.org/#/c/580336/32/specs/ussuri/approved/destroy-instance-with-datavolume.rst | |
| 02:16:26 | brinzhang_ | Although I haven't finished all the reviews | |
| 02:16:52 | gmann | brinzhang_: yeah that way. but do not worry about spec update. we can do that later once code is done | |
| 02:17:54 | brinzhang_ | gmann: yeah, I will try my best, try not to postpone | |
| 02:20:11 | gmann | brinzhang_: if i remember that is 1. making volumeId in request as optional 2. if it is present and different then url volume_id perform swap operation OR if not present or same as url volume_id then update the delete flag. | |
| 02:21:03 | brinzhang_ | gmann: yes, that's the same as wrote in PS32 of its SPEC | |
| 02:21:13 | gmann | ok. | |
| 03:47:31 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add new default roles in os-hypervisors policies https://review.opendev.org/715071 | |
| 03:48:28 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Pass the actual target in os-hypervisors policy https://review.opendev.org/715074 | |