Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2021-06-22
17:13:03 bauzas yup, I got it
17:13:19 sean-k-mooney your are 13 mins passed your hard stop :)
17:13:41 bauzas but it's premature I think to get a device profile based on an assumption that a flavor asked for a vgpu
17:14:04 sean-k-mooney bauzas: that not how that works
17:14:09 bauzas you should get the device profile only if the allocated resource is owned by cyborg
17:14:15 bauzas sean-k-mooney: I know
17:14:28 sean-k-mooney right now the only way to request cybrog resoruce is via a device profile
17:14:44 sean-k-mooney supprot cybrog via the resouce: sysntax is totallyout of scope
17:14:47 bauzas sean-k-mooney: I understand and I don't wanna change this
17:15:01 bauzas ok, ok,
17:15:27 bauzas so a flavor is set with a device profile that's turned into a resources query by a prefilter, right?
17:15:49 sean-k-mooney yes
17:15:52 bauzas in this case, there is ZERO possibility to mix resources
17:16:01 bauzas whatever the resource is
17:16:01 sean-k-mooney well not refilter i thik we have explict logic for cyborg
17:16:15 sean-k-mooney today correct
17:16:26 bauzas so the mixed case is impossible today
17:16:30 sean-k-mooney yes
17:16:42 bauzas so, we're discussing about non-mixed resources
17:16:48 bauzas which can be solved with custom RCs
17:16:55 sean-k-mooney unless tehy break one fo the rule we have about palcment useage
17:17:19 sean-k-mooney bauzas: it can but it does not have to be
17:17:40 bauzas sean-k-mooney: the other possibility implies a huge change for existing deployments, right?
17:17:47 sean-k-mooney no
17:17:50 sean-k-mooney not really
17:18:08 sean-k-mooney just that we would add a trait to all nova rps
17:18:17 sean-k-mooney and we would automatically add it with a prefilter
17:18:28 bauzas yup, I got this, this is a technical answer
17:18:53 bauzas which prevents us to discuss about alternatives
17:19:06 sean-k-mooney we can discuss alternitves
17:19:18 bauzas and the one I'm proposing (again, for the non-mixed case) doesn't imply upgrade impacts
17:19:19 sean-k-mooney but we have discsuted this for 2+ cycle now
17:19:43 sean-k-mooney correct but it means we dotn need os-resouce classes
17:19:54 sean-k-mooney since resouce classes will have to be different per service
17:20:06 sean-k-mooney so its not free
17:20:51 sean-k-mooney bauzas: if we ant differnt service to use diffeernt resouces classes for the same resouce class we can do that
17:20:54 bauzas the whole situation is that we need some scheduling query for telling "yo' I really want cyborg"
17:20:59 sean-k-mooney but its restricting the usfulness of placment
17:21:18 sean-k-mooney or i really want nova but yes
17:21:59 sean-k-mooney which is why the ownwer trait was proposed so we could make a qualitave statmetn about the resouce provier
17:22:03 bauzas nope, in general, you don't need to tell placement "give me nova stuff"
17:22:28 bauzas because if you ask for nova resouces, you get nova stuff
17:22:36 sean-k-mooney you may not
17:22:50 bauzas agreed
17:22:52 sean-k-mooney zun could create RPs with cpu ram and disk
17:23:00 bauzas if cinder was using placement for their own volumes
17:23:15 bauzas you could ask placement for things that nova doesn't knoxw
17:23:22 sean-k-mooney yes
17:23:34 bauzas zun is a good example
17:23:39 sean-k-mooney we have demonstarted that with provider.yaml also
17:24:22 sean-k-mooney bauzas: i think you jsut made an argument indirecly that i might be able to get behind
17:24:58 sean-k-mooney i never want people ot user resouce_# syntax with traits_# sysntax in teh falvor directly
17:25:24 sean-k-mooney e.g. i dont want people to have to use the placmenet group sysntax in flavors
17:25:54 sean-k-mooney so if we are getttign resouce owned by differetn service i dont want them to have to specify traits in request groups in the flavor
17:26:09 bauzas that's reasonable
17:26:33 sean-k-mooney with different resouce_class we dont have to do this
17:26:47 sean-k-mooney along as we dont share resouce classes or do it in a managed way
17:27:30 sean-k-mooney e.g. cindr can use the disk_GB resouce class as long as it does so useing sharing aggreates and does nto create RPs or inventorees under the compute
17:28:07 sean-k-mooney cyborg could use vgpu rc in the same way but only if its not under the compute RP
17:28:46 sean-k-mooney well hum no i need to take a break and think about this with a clear head
17:28:59 bauzas me too
17:29:09 bauzas my hardstop was a softstop
17:29:21 bauzas but my wife should kill me if I'm still writing in 2 mins
17:29:33 bauzas (me joking tbc)
17:29:57 sean-k-mooney i think im going to finsih here also :)
#openstack-nova - 2021-06-23
08:05:01 lyarwood morning \o
08:59:48 gibi \o
09:15:13 frickler lyarwood: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1452641 just came up in #openstack-dev , are you still planning to proceed with https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/579004/ ? (changing ceph mon addresses)
09:18:14 lyarwood frickler: yeah but not as part of that change anymore, I'm writing up a spec at the moment to provide a set of nova-manage commands to allow operators to do refresh this for SHUTOFF instances
09:18:48 lyarwood frickler: the alternative is for users to shelve and unshelve the instances
09:20:30 frickler lyarwood: well from an operator perspective it would be great to have a solution that it transparent to the users and allows them to keep instances running, but I admit that that may not be achievable
09:21:20 lyarwood yeah that's pretty hard if impossible
09:22:24 bauzas will be back around 1130UTC
09:57:50 opendevreview Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: zuul: Add CentOS 8 stream integrated compute tempest job to gate https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/797616
11:58:26 sean-k-mooney frickler: the best way to do that might just be to alwasy put the ceph monds behind haproxy or a keepalived vrrp vip
11:58:42 sean-k-mooney frickler: e.g. do not have the actul mon ips present
11:58:57 sean-k-mooney have a sperate one that you can move there instead
11:59:46 gibi sean-k-mooney, bauzas: I've left my view about vgpu in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/780452
12:00:17 bauzas gibi: ack
12:01:36 sean-k-mooney "Does OWNER_CYBORG trait on an RP means that _every_ RC on that RP is managed by Cyborg?" so yes traits apply to all invetories in a RP
12:01:46 sean-k-mooney that is why traits are on the RP not the inventory
12:02:12 bauzas gibi: so your comment would be about providing only traits for Cyborg VGPUs ? I'm OK if so
12:02:37 sean-k-mooney bauzas: we woudl have to use a forbiden trait on nova if we only do if for cyborg
12:02:38 bauzas the cyborg-agent could create the RPs with the same RCs
12:02:46 gibi "Based on these assumptions keeping the VGPU RC for nova usage and creating a new standard or custom RC for cyborg works for me. Personally I vote for a new standard trait for cyborg vGPUs." that is my summary
12:03:02 gibi shit
12:03:11 gibi Personally I vote for a new
12:03:15 gibi standard RC
12:03:16 gibi :D
12:03:31 sean-k-mooney so standard is where i have a problem with that approch
12:03:38 bauzas sean-k-mooney: not, not really
12:04:00 sean-k-mooney are you really suggesting that every time we want 2 service to manage the same thing that we need service speicifc resouce classes
12:05:02 bauzas sean-k-mooney: we could have some kind of pre-filter asking for a non-Cyborg, only if we have configuratin options for cyborg
12:05:04 gibi sean-k-mooney: I think we should avoid having two service manage the same resource. (you probably know that I'm against duplicating vgpu logic between nova and cyborg)
12:05:43 sean-k-mooney right but honestly i dont think vgpus should be in cyborg
12:05:50 sean-k-mooney they are not a prgramable devce
12:06:26 bauzas sean-k-mooney: as we discussed, it looks to me it's a non-mixed resource
12:06:41 bauzas if so, having another RC is understoodf
12:06:56 gibi sean-k-mooney: I stopped arguing on either side of moving the logic to cyborg or keeping it to nova only.
12:07:30 gibi sean-k-mooney: that would require one side of the table compromise

Earlier   Later