| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-11-16 | |||
| 10:25:58 | jkulik | we've downstream extended the server-groups api to allow adding servers after the fact. we opted for not allowing to add servers if this would be against the server-group's rules | |
| 10:25:59 | gibi | looking | |
| 10:27:53 | gibi | kashyap: I think you got hit by https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1940425 | |
| 10:28:06 | jkulik | it helps customers if they already spawned an instance and forgot the server-group and now want to spawn another instance in some affinity to the existing one | |
| 10:28:08 | gibi | the stack trace is the same | |
| 10:28:42 | gibi | jkulik, jengbers: so both of you would like the same behavior, you should team up proposing this upstream :) | |
| 10:28:46 | kashyap | gibi: Oh, thank you | |
| 10:29:10 | kashyap | gibi: Now what? ... Should I do a "recheck 1940425"? | |
| 10:29:25 | kashyap | Or pray to the ju-ju at the bottom of the sea? Or... | |
| 10:29:26 | gibi | kashyap: yepp, recheck bug 1940425 | |
| 10:29:46 | jkulik | https://github.com/sapcc/nova/commit/7220be3968ee1dd257c9add88228cc5bb9857795 is the main commit downstream for us | |
| 10:30:16 | jkulik | gibi: yes, we talked internally already about proposing this upstream, but small team, much work :/ | |
| 10:30:18 | gibi | kashyap: I added your run to the bug maybe that way we can get attention to the failure as it is still happening | |
| 10:30:21 | kashyap | gibi: Thx for the quick spot | |
| 10:31:03 | gibi | jkulik: no pressure, I know that type of frustration | |
| 10:35:46 | bauzas | jkulik: we tried discussing this in the past upstream, but operators are very afraid by the races conditions it creates | |
| 10:36:39 | bauzas | jkulik: problem is, in a distributed service model like Nova, you can't get a valid answer whether you can do it, as when you validate, you don't ask the nova-compute service | |
| 10:37:48 | jkulik | bauzas: that reminds me ... we wanted to change the DB to disallow having a server in multiple server-groups to help with races. we haven't done that, yet. thanks :D | |
| 10:38:20 | bauzas | in theory we should hold new instance creations per compute once you ask for adding a new instance to the group | |
| 10:40:02 | jkulik | our problem is a little different, still, as we use VMware and not libvirt. thus, we have a lot of hidden hypervisors as nova only sees the cluster. therefore, hard anti-affinity doesn't really matter for us that much | |
| 10:40:48 | jkulik | customers want to make sure they run on different hypervisors and thus we sync the server-groups to the VMware clusters. VMware then migrates VMs around to make sure the rules apply. | |
| 10:42:46 | jkulik | i.e. most of our customers depend on soft-anti-affinity, which is a Weigher in nova-scheduler anyways | |
| 11:43:54 | kashyap | bauzas: Alright, added it to the Open Discussion here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Nova#Agenda_for_next_meeting | |
| 11:44:48 | opendevreview | Rajat Dhasmana proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add spec for volume backed server rebuild https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/809621 | |
| 12:10:11 | dmitriis | gibi: tyvm for the feedback | |
| 12:10:50 | gibi | dmitriis: you are welcome. it is a well written spec, thanks for putting in the effort | |
| 12:22:45 | sean-k-mooney | i dont know if i set send on my respocne to the last verions of it | |
| 12:23:02 | sean-k-mooney | gibi you are correct the pci passhtoug filter will be suffiect without the prefilter | |
| 12:23:29 | sean-k-mooney | but the prefiletr can help reduce the set if we only report the new trait on host that have off path devices | |
| 12:23:47 | sean-k-mooney | and the capablity to use them of course | |
| 12:24:04 | sean-k-mooney | ill re review that specs later today | |
| 12:26:06 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: yes, exactly my argument, the prefilter is not mandatory but it is good to have | |
| 13:00:21 | dmitriis | sean-k-mooney: ack, ty for confirming | |
| 13:02:28 | sean-k-mooney | i dont currently have access to hardware to test what you have done but i may have access before the end of the cycle. if i do i might reach out to you and try and test it end to end although i dont know if i will have time to do that or not | |
| 13:24:48 | elodilles | bauzas: i'll update now the meeting wiki #stable section if that is not interfering with you right now | |
| 13:26:55 | dmitriis | sean-k-mooney: btw, fnordahl and I have done end-to-end testing of this in a lab. Here's a PPA https://launchpad.net/~fnordahl/+archive/ubuntu/smartnic-enablement that was used in the process (the WIP reviews are in use there). It has https://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2021-November/msg00431.html included as well - I am trying to get | |
| 13:26:55 | dmitriis | someone to review it sooner than later. | |
| 13:28:20 | dmitriis | it doesn't yet have the prefilter and compute capability parts that were recently added to the spec but I will work on updating the WIP review soon with that and on raising a relevant os-traits change | |
| 13:30:44 | dmitriis | We had a VM booted with a floating IP assigned which we then connected to via a router. The flows were offloaded into the ConnectX-6 chip present on BF2. | |
| 13:31:52 | sean-k-mooney | i think i have ping that patch to people dowstream already but ill let the vert team know | |
| 13:31:57 | sean-k-mooney | *virt | |
| 13:32:11 | dmitriis | ack, tyvm | |
| 13:33:28 | dmitriis | sean-k-mooney: besides testing overlays we also tried using VLAN provider networks. That worked as well but the only thing to note there is that collocating VMs with ports attached to overlay networks via PCI devices with the ones that are directly attached to VLAN networks is going to be problematic with the current whitelist based lookup | |
| 13:33:28 | dmitriis | implementation. | |
| 13:34:06 | dmitriis | entries in the whitelist get a physnet tag (either null for overlay networks or a physnet label) | |
| 13:34:28 | sean-k-mooney | correct they do | |
| 13:34:36 | dmitriis | but there is only one vendor/device id pair | |
| 13:34:36 | sean-k-mooney | and technially null was never intended to be supported | |
| 13:35:08 | sean-k-mooney | we never had a nova feature to support overlays with pci devices | |
| 13:35:23 | sean-k-mooney | they exploted a lack of null checking and it happend to work | |
| 13:36:02 | sean-k-mooney | dmitriis: anyway back to your point why is that problematic | |
| 13:36:04 | dmitriis | sean-k-mooney: heh, yes, I wasn't aware of the history but the hardware offload docs explicitly mention that null needs to be used https://docs.openstack.org/neutron/latest/admin/config-ovs-offload.html#configure-nodes-vxlan-configuration | |
| 13:36:23 | sean-k-mooney | dmitriis: yes that was never intended to work | |
| 13:36:37 | sean-k-mooney | but peopel now have it in produciton | |
| 13:37:20 | sean-k-mooney | dmitriis: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1915282 | |
| 13:37:20 | dmitriis | sean-k-mooney: IIRC PCI requests come with a specific physnet parameter (or null). So when PCI stats are looked at, this parameter is used for lookup | |
| 13:37:28 | dmitriis | let me find that code again | |
| 13:37:59 | sean-k-mooney | yes we end up passing python NONE in the pci request | |
| 13:38:14 | sean-k-mooney | becaue the physent of a vxlan or geneve netowrk is not set | |
| 13:38:31 | sean-k-mooney | that wil match the null phsynet specified in the whitelist | |
| 13:39:04 | dmitriis | ((Pdb)) request | |
| 13:39:04 | dmitriis | InstancePCIRequest(alias_name=<?>,count=1,is_new=<?>,numa_policy=<?>,request_id=c3a87cba-323a-4203-bca7-0916927dcd5b,requester_id='28ea5b12-729c-46b4-b441-518fe786ea10',spec=[{physical_network=None,remote_managed='True'}]) | |
| 13:39:10 | dmitriis | I had something like this ^ | |
| 13:39:20 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 13:39:26 | sean-k-mooney | that shoudl work | |
| 13:39:37 | sean-k-mooney | that is the python None | |
| 13:39:43 | sean-k-mooney | not its not quoted | |
| 13:39:48 | sean-k-mooney | *note | |
| 13:40:03 | sean-k-mooney | that will match physical_network=null | |
| 13:40:05 | dmitriis | ah, maybe that's an old note that I have. It was since fixed to use a string | |
| 13:40:50 | sean-k-mooney | you have to use "'physical_network':null" not "'physical_network':'null'" in the whitelist | |
| 13:41:32 | sean-k-mooney | like this passthrough_whitelist={ "vendor_id":"15b3", "product_id":"101e", "physical_network":null } | |
| 13:42:06 | sean-k-mooney | that enabels a connectx-6 dx for overlay networking | |
| 13:43:04 | sean-k-mooney | dmitriis: if you want to have some VF for vlan/flat and other for geneve tunnels you need to use the adress field to partion the vfs into groups | |
| 13:44:22 | dmitriis | sean-k-mooney: I suppose that could be one way to do it | |
| 13:44:32 | sean-k-mooney | dmitriis: this is because tunnels was never ment to be supported at all so we never impleted a way to allow a device to be part of multile physnets | |
| 13:45:20 | sean-k-mooney | dmitriis: if it was not for the fact that this was used as production we would have closed this as a secuirty bug and blocked the use of null the detail are in the bug | |
| 13:46:03 | dmitriis | sean-k-mooney: yeah, makes sense. I think that documenting this and suggesting address-based partitioning as a workaround is viable for now | |
| 13:46:52 | sean-k-mooney | dmitriis: the tl;dr is we use a json parser to parse the whitelist and in json unquoted null is mapped to the python None object which just happens to be what we get when we parse the phsynet form networks that dont have one | |
| 13:47:46 | sean-k-mooney | which is why physical_network=None in the pci request will actully match | |
| 13:48:09 | sean-k-mooney | sicne that is also python None object not the stirng 'None' | |
| 13:49:50 | sean-k-mooney | fyi hte docs for the whitelist are not greate but incase yo udont know we support both bash style globs and python regex expression in the adress filed | |
| 13:50:07 | sean-k-mooney | and we supprot both in either the sting or dict form | |
| 13:50:12 | sean-k-mooney | https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/configuration/config.html#pci.passthrough_whitelist has some examples | |
| 13:50:29 | dmitriis | sean-k-mooney: I recall some other place in Nova where I had to use a string instead (trying to find where so maybe I wrongly brought this up here). | |
| 13:51:28 | sean-k-mooney | there might be if you find it let me knwo and i might know the history or it might just be a bug | |
| 13:52:48 | dmitriis | sean-k-mooney: that's what we used in the lab | |
| 13:52:48 | dmitriis | passthrough_whitelist = [{"vendor_id": "15b3", "product_id": "101e", "physical_network": null, "remote_managed": "true"}] | |
| 13:53:13 | dmitriis | and for physnets: passthrough_whitelist = [{"vendor_id": "15b3", "product_id": "101e", "physical_network": "physnet1", "remote_managed": "true"}] | |
| 13:53:59 | sean-k-mooney | not at the same time right | |
| 13:54:23 | sean-k-mooney | if you add the adress filed you could use both but both look valid to me the first for geneve and the second for flat/vlan | |
| 13:55:07 | sean-k-mooney | huh interesting | |
| 13:55:51 | sean-k-mooney | the VFs for the connectx-6 on the bluefiled 2 have the same vendor and product id as a normal connectx-6 | |
| 13:59:59 | bauzas | elodilles: sure, please do it, I'll just update the wikipage after you | |
| 14:06:46 | dmitriis | sean-k-mooney: ack on the address field usage. | |
| 14:07:57 | dmitriis | sean-k-mooney: I don't have a separate ConnectX-6 at hand but BF2 has ConnectX-6 in it. Let me check the PCI ID DB - I think I've seen different ids but maybe that's for something else. | |
| 14:11:10 | elodilles | bauzas: done, thanks (i might overused the info and link markers o:) feel free to edit :)) | |
| 14:11:29 | bauzas | elodilles: ack, thanks | |
| 14:13:07 | dmitriis | sean-k-mooney: so the PF is different but VFs look like the ones from a "regular" ConnectX-6. | |
| 14:13:07 | dmitriis | PF: | |