| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-02-08 | |||
| 20:01:58 | melwitt | yes | |
| 20:02:03 | sean-k-mooney | its not pretty | |
| 20:02:15 | melwitt | that's why I told them they really need to have their archive cron dialed in | |
| 20:02:35 | sean-k-mooney | well yes that is one reason for that | |
| 20:02:44 | melwitt | yes, one of many | |
| 20:02:52 | sean-k-mooney | did you see the os-archive topic on the mailing list | |
| 20:03:23 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/ovh/osarchiver | |
| 20:03:33 | melwitt | ah, yeah | |
| 20:04:03 | sean-k-mooney | assuimg that becomes an offila project we shoudl perhaps exploer if that would be a better approch | |
| 20:04:17 | sean-k-mooney | e.g. move all archiving external to the services | |
| 20:05:00 | sean-k-mooney | they apparently dont use shadow tabels at all and that operats on a retention policy archiving/deleteing deleted instance after a period of time | |
| 20:05:19 | melwitt | re: usage, I think that one is a challenge for operators because if you don't use the "easy" way of nova's tenant usage which just uses soft deleted instances, you need something else to store the info on instances from the past, which means another service as you said. so simple tenant usage appeals in that way | |
| 20:05:58 | sean-k-mooney | ya the placment verion is point in time not a historic view | |
| 20:06:59 | sean-k-mooney | that said im still not conviece this should be an api provide by nova or placment | |
| 20:07:06 | sean-k-mooney | its nice to have | |
| 20:07:09 | melwitt | I wonder if horizon would be ok to have the tenant overview be point in time only | |
| 20:07:30 | sean-k-mooney | if they are then plamcent solves that usecase | |
| 20:07:36 | melwitt | right | |
| 20:07:38 | sean-k-mooney | that is more or less the only think i used that for | |
| 20:08:07 | sean-k-mooney | melwitt: placement does not have soft delete or shaddow tabels for alocations right | |
| 20:08:13 | melwitt | right | |
| 20:08:23 | sean-k-mooney | that proably the right choice | |
| 20:08:33 | sean-k-mooney | but also means we cant look at deleted allcoations | |
| 20:09:04 | melwitt | yeah | |
| 20:09:52 | sean-k-mooney | at the end of the day i think a small service that subsribes to the instance events versioned notifications | |
| 20:10:18 | sean-k-mooney | and maintains the usage externally is proably the way to go | |
| 20:10:30 | sean-k-mooney | but ya extra service | |
| 20:10:36 | melwitt | yeah, I agree. I assume that's what cloudkitty did/does | |
| 20:11:29 | sean-k-mooney | melwitt: im not sure if it pulled form celomiter or not | |
| 20:11:45 | sean-k-mooney | it has a data colector | |
| 20:12:21 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/cloudkitty/tree/master/cloudkitty/collector | |
| 20:12:35 | sean-k-mooney | so it pulls form gnocchi monasca or prometheus | |
| 21:39:14 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Add regression test for bug #1908075 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/766976 | |
| 21:39:14 | openstack | bug 1908075 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Nova allows a non-multiattach volume to be attached to multiple instances *if* its volume state is reset by an admin" [Low,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1908075 - Assigned to Lee Yarwood (lyarwood) | |
| 22:45:14 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: api: Reject volume attach requests when an active bdm exists https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/768472 | |
| 22:45:45 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: fup: Merge duplicate volume attachment checks https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/773380 | |
| 22:49:57 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: testing Tempest without 'member' role https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/774559 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2021-02-09 | |||
| 06:39:28 | openstackgerrit | Yongli He proposed openstack/nova master: smartnic support https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/758944 | |
| 07:59:24 | gibi | dansmith: thanks for the help with the gerrit groups | |
| 07:59:37 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: thanks for the answer on the multiple fixed ip question | |
| 07:59:51 | sean-k-mooney | o/ | |
| 07:59:58 | sean-k-mooney | i hope it made sense | |
| 08:00:05 | gibi | yeah it made | |
| 08:00:24 | gibi | one port is one l2 domain even if it has multiple ips | |
| 08:00:38 | gibi | the trunk port case is interesting but I agree to keep it out of scope | |
| 08:01:25 | sean-k-mooney | ya unless you put a vswitch in between and do some bridging/trunking 1 port can be at most 1 l2 domain | |
| 08:01:50 | sean-k-mooney | if this was real hardar you could only plug one cable into it after all | |
| 08:01:56 | gibi | yepp | |
| 08:02:10 | gibi | those nasty limitation of the physical world | |
| 08:02:31 | gibi | like speed of light | |
| 08:03:02 | gibi | and the pauli exclusion principle | |
| 08:09:01 | sean-k-mooney | :) | |
| 08:09:44 | sean-k-mooney | im +1 on the first two patches and the last 1 and have a question in the 3rd one but nothing minor | |
| 08:10:00 | sean-k-mooney | so hopefully we can get that feature done this week | |
| 08:11:12 | gibi | I hope too, it was a long drag | |
| 08:23:47 | bauzas | gibi: sean-k-mooney: hola | |
| 08:24:04 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: o/ | |
| 08:24:13 | bauzas | yeah, having IPs from different segments for the same port looked to me weird | |
| 08:24:22 | bauzas | but, alas. | |
| 08:24:55 | bauzas | I've been teached that there are no limits to the creativity of a fooled brain, if this brain works on networking | |
| 08:25:03 | gibi | :) | |
| 08:25:23 | bauzas | anyway, there is a FIXME, I think we're good with this | |
| 08:26:01 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 08:26:14 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: you said you have a question in the patch, looking | |
| 08:26:23 | sean-k-mooney | multiple ips is fine but multiple ips from different segments not so much | |
| 08:26:30 | sean-k-mooney | patch 3 | |
| 08:26:54 | sean-k-mooney | the get segments by subnet function if i rememebr correctly | |
| 08:27:16 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: multiple IPs is totally fine | |
| 08:27:21 | bauzas | think of v4 and v6 | |
| 08:27:44 | bauzas | but, indeed, from two different segments, really ? | |
| 08:27:47 | sean-k-mooney | there are cases where it is not. e.g. if they are form different segments on the same port and its not a trunk | |
| 08:28:13 | bauzas | for those cases, please refer to my first comment of the morning here | |
| 08:28:24 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/773976/3/nova/network/neutron.py#3543 | |
| 08:28:30 | bauzas | I'm totally OK with excluding those usecases at first | |
| 08:28:37 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 08:28:52 | bauzas | as I don't pretend to be able to solve all the world problems, including starvation and climate change | |
| 08:29:24 | bauzas | even if I appreciate people think I could act this way | |
| 08:30:07 | sean-k-mooney | basically my question on the patch is are we sure its valid to assume that if the segment extention is enabled all networks have segments | |
| 08:30:31 | sean-k-mooney | im not sure that is correct so im not sure raisign an exception when we dont find them is correct | |
| 08:30:34 | bauzas | if not, this would be an operational issue, nope ? | |
| 08:30:38 | sean-k-mooney | unless you are catching that | |
| 08:30:54 | sean-k-mooney | not nessisarly | |
| 08:30:55 | bauzas | https://docs.openstack.org/neutron/latest/admin/config-routed-networks.html | |
| 08:31:05 | bauzas | the docs says you have to segment | |
| 08:31:17 | sean-k-mooney | it would depend on if you had a mix of tenant networks and routed provider networks in teh same cloud | |
| 08:31:29 | bauzas | I need coffee | |
| 08:31:42 | sean-k-mooney | in any one netwok you have to either have all subnets connect to segments or none | |
| 08:31:43 | bauzas | because I think I'll suffer headache very soon | |
| 08:32:03 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: back up a littler | |
| 08:32:13 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: if you configure routed networks | |
| 08:32:13 | sean-k-mooney | if you have 2 networks 1 can be routed and the other not | |
| 08:32:17 | bauzas | right | |
| 08:32:36 | bauzas | technically, you can have net1 with segments and net2 with not | |
| 08:32:43 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 08:32:52 | bauzas | hmmm | |
| 08:33:07 | sean-k-mooney | so i dont think we should be raising excpeiton if we dont find segments or networks | |
| 08:33:13 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: indeed | |
| 08:33:19 | sean-k-mooney | unless you catch it | |
| 08:33:22 | bauzas | that's a good call | |
| 08:33:35 | bauzas | that said | |