| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-03-10 | |||
| 17:32:12 | stephenfin | I think I know what you're going for | |
| 17:32:21 | sean-k-mooney | if you want go for it | |
| 17:33:23 | sean-k-mooney | i tried to break it out at first to be logicly split but then i found later when i got the real hardware i need to fix some thing and some of those fixed end in the last patch | |
| 17:33:37 | sean-k-mooney | i would like to bring those fix to the correct patch | |
| 17:38:06 | bauzas | dansmith: okay, I looked at all your comments and thanks for them | |
| 17:38:31 | bauzas | dansmith: you made a great point, which is I made extra work for free when trying to continue to support 5.0 | |
| 17:38:35 | bauzas | instead of 5.12 | |
| 17:38:58 | dansmith | bauzas: well, not "for free", it clearly cost you something :D | |
| 17:39:14 | bauzas | dansmith: I probably misunderstood that we were pinning to the least supported version from all computes, which is *not* 5.0 | |
| 17:39:16 | dansmith | (but I know what you mean) | |
| 17:39:43 | dansmith | bauzas: well, I think you aren't able to faithfully support 5.0 anyway, was my point | |
| 17:39:56 | bauzas | yeah | |
| 17:40:22 | bauzas | the point is, we're entering the RC period and touching my change for removing stuff could require me some further work | |
| 17:40:52 | bauzas | so maybe let's just pretend we can support 5.0, which is impossible anyway | |
| 17:41:01 | dansmith | yes, although this is pretty much the time to be doing that | |
| 17:41:04 | dansmith | but as you wish | |
| 17:41:28 | bauzas | I'll first reply to the other comments and do a quick respin | |
| 17:41:37 | dansmith | ack | |
| 17:41:39 | bauzas | and if we have time, I can look at removing the unnecessary bits | |
| 17:42:01 | bauzas | which should simplify my change | |
| 17:42:09 | bauzas | but here, baby steps | |
| 17:42:17 | bauzas | to secure the RPC bump anyway | |
| 17:42:34 | dansmith | sounds good | |
| 17:43:48 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: since your here and talking about this topic | |
| 17:44:00 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: when can we do ovo major version bumps | |
| 17:44:11 | dansmith | you guys talking about me being here now makes me sad :/ | |
| 17:44:26 | sean-k-mooney | do they have to align with RPC bumps or not | |
| 17:44:31 | dansmith | they do not | |
| 17:44:40 | sean-k-mooney | well it was actully a time zone reference not avaiablity | |
| 17:44:47 | dansmith | I did an instance bump long ago, let me show you my scars... | |
| 17:45:15 | dansmith | but if you find that it should be a good map of how to do it for the worst case, and the newer backport manifest stuff likely makes it easier nowadays | |
| 17:45:36 | sean-k-mooney | ok that is fine so we have a few comment for some other objects like the compute_node object to do X i 2.0 | |
| 17:45:46 | bauzas | I remember the instance major bump pain | |
| 17:46:05 | dansmith | instance is like the worst case though, compute node is probably easier since we don't pass it around everywhere | |
| 17:46:32 | sean-k-mooney | ya i was more wondering what the rules were around it | |
| 17:46:32 | bauzas | good point, but still something difficult | |
| 17:46:50 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: the idea is, you have to understand which services are using the object | |
| 17:46:54 | bauzas | and which version of it | |
| 17:47:19 | sean-k-mooney | yep we can check what the max version is supproted on the dest right | |
| 17:47:26 | sean-k-mooney | and then we backlevel before sending | |
| 17:47:27 | bauzas | it's not just the compute | |
| 17:47:34 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: the rules are similar to the rpc interface, but you have to be able to support both version of the object across the boundary.. compute has to support the 1.x object in case another compute sends it (although likely not the case for compute_node), | |
| 17:47:38 | bauzas | or the object being passed over the wire | |
| 17:47:39 | dansmith | and of course conductor has to be able to support both | |
| 17:48:04 | bauzas | and other services also have to understand the new minimum version | |
| 17:48:08 | sean-k-mooney | yep that is more or less what i was assuming regarding supproting both | |
| 17:48:14 | bauzas | if they get the object | |
| 17:48:23 | bauzas | I mean, if they rehydrate it | |
| 17:48:56 | dansmith | yup | |
| 17:48:59 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: which ovo object are you considering to bump ? | |
| 17:49:11 | sean-k-mooney | its somewhat bounded now that we have the check for min compute service version now | |
| 17:49:14 | bauzas | computenode is also used by a lot of services, hence my concern | |
| 17:49:28 | sean-k-mooney | e.g. that it now enforce n+1 max delta | |
| 17:49:49 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: well im not nessisaly suggesting we do that one next cycle | |
| 17:49:58 | sean-k-mooney | just trying to figure out when we are allowed too | |
| 17:50:03 | bauzas | yup, gotcha | |
| 17:50:22 | bauzas | should we now discuss about raising the API minimums, just for the fun ? | |
| 17:50:33 | bauzas | REST* APIs | |
| 17:50:43 | bauzas | :) | |
| 17:50:58 | sean-k-mooney | well we have a todo to stop declaring the numa_toplogy object as a stign adn declar it as an ovo filed | |
| 17:50:59 | dansmith | bauzas: it is, but not passed around between them as much right? | |
| 17:51:01 | sean-k-mooney | form like juno | |
| 17:51:26 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: so remove in 2.0 came up when i review artoms patchs | |
| 17:51:38 | sean-k-mooney | which is why it was on my mind since we addded anouther one of those comments | |
| 17:52:05 | bauzas | dansmith: trying to think about it | |
| 17:52:18 | bauzas | dansmith: as a nested object, can't promise it isn't used | |
| 17:52:37 | sean-k-mooney | give that todo is 5 years old https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/ab07507e5cfce6232fef373d07ff92ea704541da/nova/objects/compute_node.py#L84-L86 | |
| 17:52:37 | dansmith | what other object includes computenode in it? | |
| 17:52:48 | bauzas | good question | |
| 17:53:03 | dansmith | bauzas: you said "as a nested object" ... | |
| 17:53:45 | bauzas | dansmith: the Service object at least, I remember writing the nesting | |
| 17:54:03 | dansmith | okay but I don't think that gets passed around either | |
| 17:54:10 | bauzas | hah, and the RequestSpec one | |
| 17:54:21 | dansmith | reqspec has computenode in it? | |
| 17:54:25 | bauzas | the SchedulerRetries one | |
| 17:54:47 | bauzas | it has a list of cn objects in it | |
| 17:55:01 | sean-k-mooney | do we use that any more | |
| 17:55:07 | bauzas | which itself is nested in the spec object | |
| 17:55:09 | sean-k-mooney | i tought we dont do retreis since placment | |
| 17:55:17 | sean-k-mooney | we use alternate hosts | |
| 17:55:33 | dansmith | that seems weird because those are from different DBs, but maybe we just jam them in there to pass around for the retries? | |
| 17:56:09 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: we should check if its still needed i think that might have been for when we used the retryfilter | |
| 17:56:12 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: good point, it's no longer used | |
| 17:56:19 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 17:56:34 | dansmith | well, I certainly hadn't remembered that we do that, but changing it would mean more bumps, so.. | |
| 17:56:41 | dansmith | however, | |
| 17:56:51 | dansmith | I'm not sure it's really likely to be a problem | |
| 17:57:04 | dansmith | it's sourced from the control services, so if they put 1.x in there until everyone is upgraded, | |
| 17:57:06 | dansmith | it should be fine | |
| 17:57:56 | sean-k-mooney | ya again just raised this because i was trying to under stand when we can adress the Do X in next major version comments that are in some objects | |
| 17:58:07 | sean-k-mooney | many of which have been there for years at this point | |
| 18:01:40 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/1337890ace918fa2555046c01c8624be014ce2d8 was the instance one so i guess reviewing that is a good start. | |
| 18:02:46 | sean-k-mooney | oh ya i rembere the obj_relationships stuff | |
| 18:05:05 | sean-k-mooney | oh i see we had a _BaseInstance and InstanceV1 and InstanceV2 class for a cycle kind of like the proxy for rpc | |
| 18:06:18 | sean-k-mooney | then that patch actully drop V1 after we were shoudl everytin supported v2 | |
| 18:07:47 | sean-k-mooney | i vaguely remeber this happening https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/713d8cb0777afb9fe4f665b9a40cac894b04aacb added 2 objects. | |
| 19:18:04 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: add constants for vnic type vdpa https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/770474 | |
| 19:18:04 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: objects: Add 'VDPA' to 'PciDeviceType' https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/777481 | |
| 19:18:05 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Add vDPA nodedev parsing https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/770533 | |
| 19:18:05 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Add guest generation for vDPA https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/770532 | |