| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-05-13 | |||
| 15:50:49 | gibi | correct (shit, another edge case) | |
| 15:52:08 | dansmith | so here's a couple of less impactful options: | |
| 15:52:56 | dansmith | 1. Each time we cache an image, or run the periodic, we generate a disk allocation for the compute node uuid which consumes inventory according to how much space the cache is using | |
| 15:53:04 | dansmith | 2. Same as above, but adjust the reserved amount | |
| 15:53:50 | dansmith | both cases need to consider the case where the _base is not on the same filesystem as the instances, but there's less synchronization involved, and we're not spraying tons of new allocations into place | |
| 15:54:34 | dansmith | we could also make it a workaround that you opt into in the short term to see how it goes, because cleanup from it would be much easier (just nuke one $cnuuid allocation) | |
| 15:55:18 | dansmith | and we could make compute node startup nuke that allocation if present and the workaround is disabled (or the self-correcting reserved amount) | |
| 15:55:54 | gibi | right, I would use allocation instead of reserved as allocation has a consumer attached | |
| 15:56:16 | gibi | reserved would be a sum of configured + detected | |
| 15:56:30 | gibi | which is math, that I dont like :) | |
| 15:56:31 | dansmith | hopefully glance gives us enough information to be able to increase that allocation before we start the download, so we know "oh sorry, inventory says we don't have room for this base image, so fail()" | |
| 15:56:52 | dansmith | I know it would, but I think reserved would be more obvious to an operator | |
| 15:57:00 | dansmith | even though it's a composite value | |
| 15:57:20 | dansmith | just because listing allocations are a bunch of meaningless-to-the-human UUIDs | |
| 15:57:46 | dansmith | I'm not arguing for that, I'm just saying there're benefits both ways | |
| 15:57:57 | gibi | I see. yes it is a tradeoff | |
| 15:58:37 | dansmith | I gotta get on a call | |
| 15:58:41 | dansmith | food for thought | |
| 15:59:42 | gibi | dansmith: thanks! I appreciate your help | |
| 16:00:40 | gibi | I've checked. glance give use the physical size of the image on the API. Which is good for ensuring we have still disk for the download | |
| 16:02:14 | gibi | also I think even if nova is converting a qcow2 glace image to raw locally (due to force_raw_images config) the resulting raw file is sparse | |
| 16:02:34 | gibi | but it might dependent on the host OS + file system support | |
| 16:26:39 | gibi | dansmith: if we start allocating / reserving the cache disk usage in placement then do we still need a pre-filter as well? For me it is OK to simply let the boot fail on the compute side if the extra DISK_GB resource for the cache cannot be allocated? | |
| 16:27:02 | gibi | s/?// | |
| 16:27:21 | gibi | anyhow documented your idea in the bug report | |
| 16:27:55 | dansmith | gibi: weighing aside, any compute with enough space for an instance but not enough for the instance+image will become a magnet for new builds, which will all fail | |
| 16:28:42 | dansmith | so, yeah, we can just pretend that's not worth solving, but it also sucks because avoiding that is what we're trying to solve with placement | |
| 16:31:22 | gibi | OK, I can imagine this as a two step solution then. First the allocation / reservation management in the compute then second the pre-filter that uses instance + image DISK_GB request but allocate only the instance disk for the instance_uuid in placement | |
| 16:32:52 | dansmith | perhaps | |
| 16:40:04 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: DNM Try out running sphinx-build in parallel for releasenotes https://review.opendev.org/727429 | |
| 16:48:40 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: allow disabling image cache for raw images https://review.opendev.org/727261 | |
| 17:23:58 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: DNM Try out running sphinx-build in parallel for releasenotes https://review.opendev.org/727429 | |
| 19:05:50 | openstackgerrit | Jiri Suchomel proposed openstack/nova master: Add ability to download Glance images into the libvirt image cache via RBD https://review.opendev.org/574301 | |
| 20:20:37 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: DNM Try out running sphinx-build in parallel for releasenotes https://review.opendev.org/727429 | |
| 20:54:18 | openstackgerrit | Sean McGinnis proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: Test making EM branch release notes static https://review.opendev.org/727875 | |
| 23:15:54 | melwitt | gmann: do you understand why even after version bump we can get pep8 errors in gate? https://review.opendev.org/727589 | |
| 23:18:10 | gmann | melwitt: it would be an error now as hacking min version bump will stop the new checks added in flake8 3.8.0 version. | |
| 23:18:28 | gmann | this one- https://review.opendev.org/#/c/727347/1 | |
| 23:19:15 | melwitt | gmann: yeah but... (sorry) I thought bumping the version _stops_ the new checks from getting pulled in> | |
| 23:19:26 | melwitt | s/>/?/ | |
| 23:19:45 | gmann | sorry *would not be an error | |
| 23:19:53 | gmann | missing *not* | |
| 23:20:31 | melwitt | ok, makes sense. so why second patch needed? is it nice to have for future flake8 or something> | |
| 23:20:36 | melwitt | gah I keep hitting > | |
| 23:21:10 | gmann | yeah for future but we will not be able to verify it or all error till we have new hacking pulling new checks. | |
| 23:21:47 | melwitt | yeah, ok. | |
| 23:21:51 | gmann | I am going to release the new hacking version 4.0.0 which will pull new checks and then in 727589 patch we will bump hacking version to so that we can verify the fix | |
| 23:22:38 | gmann | I mean fix + new hacking version bump in a single patch. | |
| 23:31:57 | melwitt | gmann: yeah makes sense. +2 on the 3.0.1 patch though I wondered if it's needed to avoid gate failures, would have thought we'd have a gate-failure bug around it. that is, it wasn't clear to me if the patch is needed to fix gate failure | |
| 23:34:24 | gmann | melwitt: I did nova patch earlier before i described the situation in other patches cmt msg like this- https://review.opendev.org/#/c/727576/ | |
| 23:35:29 | gmann | melwitt: basically it will 1. fix local run where the latest fixed hacking 3.0.1 is not pulled automatically. in case of gate it is pulled as fresh installation. 2. it will protect if future flake8 3.9.0 version pull other new checks. | |
| 23:35:30 | melwitt | ah I see | |
| 23:35:55 | melwitt | oh ok so not a gate issue | |
| 23:36:04 | melwitt | cool thanks for explaining | |
| 23:36:12 | melwitt | I was confused before heh | |
| 23:37:05 | gmann | otherwise hacking before 3.0.1 is capping "flake8<4.0.0" so flake8 3.8.0 which ic current release and 3.9.0 future release both can be protected by bumping hacking to 3.0.1 | |
| 23:37:22 | melwitt | right | |
| 23:37:59 | melwitt | yeah, so needed for future | |
| 23:39:46 | gmann | it is actually confusing as all inbuild deps actually. hacking does protect cap for flake8 and flake8 does protect cap for pycodestyle. but if pycodestyle is pulled as latest by some flake8 plugins then again it fail like flake8-import-order then we need pycodestyle cap explicitly. like tempest case- https://review.opendev.org/#/c/727276/2/test-requirements.txt | |
| 23:40:13 | gmann | so our way of handling the flake8 with plugins is not so great. | |
| 23:40:22 | melwitt | wow. mind blown | |
| 23:41:24 | gmann | i added PR on flake8-import-order but not sure if they will accept or not with our hacky use case :) - https://github.com/PyCQA/flake8-import-order/pull/172 | |
| 23:41:56 | melwitt | ah, good luck :) | |
| #openstack-nova - 2020-05-14 | |||
| 00:46:44 | openstackgerrit | Wenping Song proposed openstack/nova master: delete sub resource provider when delete resource provider https://review.opendev.org/719163 | |
| 00:49:25 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Configure latex_engine = 'xelatex' for pdf docs build https://review.opendev.org/727898 | |
| 01:07:14 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Configure latex_engine = 'xelatex' for pdf docs build https://review.opendev.org/727898 | |
| 01:32:15 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Re-propose provider-config-file spec for Victoria https://review.opendev.org/725788 | |
| 01:36:51 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Re-proposes 'Proposal for a safer remote console with password authentication' https://review.opendev.org/719720 | |
| 02:48:28 | tony_su | gibi, sean-k-mooney : Thanks for reviewing and merging the spec. | |
| 02:50:43 | tony_su | gibi, sean-k-mooney : I will start to rebase related patches and send out for code review once they are ready. | |
| 03:03:55 | melwitt | fyi the openstack-tox-docs job is failing for nova since a recent upper-constraints bump, I have proposed a fix here https://review.opendev.org/727898 I have also sent a ML post | |
| 05:56:38 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Configure latex_engine = 'xelatex' for pdf docs build https://review.opendev.org/727898 | |
| 07:10:38 | openstackgerrit | Nalini Varshney proposed openstack/nova master: Add migration to make key field type VARBINARY in aggregate_metadata table, https://review.opendev.org/725522 | |
| 07:35:02 | brinzhang_ | sean-k-mooney: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/727589/2 do I need to update this patch? I have not concern stephenfin has already fixed these issue, but he abandoned. | |
| 07:49:09 | gibi | good morning Nova | |
| 07:49:29 | bauzas | whoops my manners | |
| 07:49:34 | bauzas | good morning Nova | |
| 07:50:26 | brinzhang_ | morning nova | |
| 07:50:59 | brinzhang_ | hi gibi, bauzas, I saw you are -1 for https://review.opendev.org/#/c/727140/1, the flake8 error fix patch | |
| 07:51:44 | gibi | brinzhang_: my -1 is about the fact that 3.8.1 added yet another check that needs to be fixed | |
| 07:51:48 | brinzhang_ | I submit a same one, before that I have not concern stephenfin's patch, do I need to continue ? | |
| 07:52:24 | brinzhang_ | gibi: I will see http://paste.openstack.org/show/793434/ | |
| 07:52:40 | bauzas | brinzhang_: my concerns was about making sure what we would need to change | |
| 07:52:49 | gibi | I guess stephenfin abandoned the patch as we went a different direction, capping the version | |
| 07:53:34 | brinzhang_ | yeah | |
| 07:53:55 | brinzhang_ | I mean, if there is no sense to fix, I think I would abandon too. | |
| 07:56:16 | brinzhang_ | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/727347/ gmann bumped hacking to 3.0.1, I am not sure whether this can avoid these pep8 error happen again | |
| 07:58:30 | brinzhang_ | gibi: stephenfin and I fixed the issue is reported by https://review.opendev.org/#/c/724260/6, and https://review.opendev.org/#/c/726564/2. | |
| 07:59:12 | brinzhang_ | I found your paste is not easy to fix, may need to change the function name, such as "./nova/tests/unit/api/openstack/compute/microversions.py:34:5: F811 redefinition of unused 'index' from line 29" | |
| 07:59:18 | brinzhang_ | :P | |
| 08:02:05 | gibi | brinzhang_: those redefinitions are intentional and not cause a python bug due to the decorator top of it will generate unique functions dynamically. So I think F811 needs to be ignored in tox.ini | |
| 08:03:01 | gibi | I think it is OK to fix the issues reported by the other new checks along with version bump | |
| 08:03:09 | gibi | but please consult stephenfin too | |
| 08:03:54 | brinzhang_ | gibi: agree | |
| 08:04:49 | brinzhang_ | gibi: yeah, I will try to update the patch to latest, and then consult | |
| 08:05:32 | gibi | OK, cool | |
| 08:20:58 | openstackgerrit | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Fix flake8 error from hacking <3.0.1 https://review.opendev.org/727589 | |
| 08:45:27 | bauzas | brinzhang_: gibi: FWIW, +Wd https://review.opendev.org/#/c/727347/1 | |
| 08:45:57 | bauzas | brinzhang_: but then I don't understand why we should merge https://review.opendev.org/#/c/727589/ | |
| 08:46:04 | gibi | bauzas: thanks | |