Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2022-05-10
09:22:59 sean-k-mooney bauzas: yes that is what i want to do doo
09:23:02 sean-k-mooney *too
09:23:09 sean-k-mooney if it was pinned before we pin to the new az
09:23:26 gibi I tried to collect my view: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/RiWsCJFEI1LP80-niWho
09:23:45 bauzas sean-k-mooney: I just count the days before we would have a RFE saying 'I want to unpin my instance from any AZ"
09:24:57 gibi we could use the explicit AZ:none in the unshelve to trigger unpin
09:25:03 gibi if we want
09:25:49 Uggla gibi, +1
09:26:10 gibi can we try to collect a similar table in the spec after we agreed on the semantic?
09:28:37 gibi awesome that you comment directly the etherpad it makes a lot easier to track the argument for different cases
09:29:17 sean-k-mooney bauzas: unshleve --AZ None :P
09:29:18 bauzas gibi: yep, we could profit from that microversion to allow AZ to be None
09:29:29 sean-k-mooney reject it if it does not contain the :P
09:29:34 bauzas (if we don't support it *yet*)
09:32:46 bauzas I'll have to disappear son
09:32:48 bauzas soon
09:33:04 bauzas but I captured my thoughts and I feel we're on the same page between gibi, sean-k-mooney and me
09:33:33 gibi yes I think so too
09:33:57 gibi lets figure out how the no AZ -> AZ case behaves today
09:34:02 gibi then we can settle the whole thing
09:35:59 sean-k-mooney i have a multi node devstack
09:36:09 sean-k-mooney ill quickly create some azs and boot some vms
09:36:10 bauzas me too but I have gym
09:38:01 sean-k-mooney ill update the etherpad
09:44:14 gibi I quickly checked if booted without AZ then unshelved to nova AZ then the RequestSpec was updated from null to nova
09:44:19 bauzas I like gibi's etherpad, short to read
09:44:38 bauzas gibi: :/
09:56:01 sean-k-mooney gibi: just confirming my self but ok i guess we need to decied if we also want to change unshelve to az as part fo this micoverion
10:10:22 sean-k-mooney Uggla: so assuming we all agree that we should change the behavior for unshleve to az with no az in boot the request spec initally
10:10:38 sean-k-mooney can you add 2 tables to the spec
10:10:56 sean-k-mooney 1 with the existing behavior for all the cases in gibis etherpad and then a second with the new behaiovr
10:11:48 Uggla sean-k-mooney, yep based on the etherpad table it is clear. Of course I will change the specs with previous and new behavior.
10:13:48 sean-k-mooney i have copied it to my other etherpad and created the updated tables
10:13:55 sean-k-mooney https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/unshelve-to-host#L63
10:14:13 sean-k-mooney gibi: ^
10:19:02 Uggla sean-k-mooney, I think table is fine
10:22:02 sean-k-mooney actully there is a conflict
10:22:18 sean-k-mooney so we cant supprot unshlve to any az without a new paramater
10:26:36 sean-k-mooney ill just strick though those lines ot note that we can ignore it
10:26:41 sean-k-mooney if that works for you
10:28:26 gibi sean-k-mooney: so the conflict is that we cannot distinguish between {availability=null} and the {} request?
10:29:16 sean-k-mooney yes
10:29:32 sean-k-mooney well more how to store that delta in the python object
10:29:59 sean-k-mooney as in the request_spec used by the schduler
10:30:14 sean-k-mooney since both woudl have AZ=None
10:30:18 gibi ahh yes
10:30:37 gibi but wait
10:30:46 sean-k-mooney hum
10:30:48 sean-k-mooney would they
10:30:50 gibi do we need to differentiate in the request spec object? not just in the request itself?
10:31:05 sean-k-mooney ya im thinking about that again
10:31:22 sean-k-mooney can we tell the difference between {availability=null} and the {}
10:31:52 sean-k-mooney the the reqested destination object that caries this i guess
10:32:00 gibi the request_spec contains None means no restriction. if the API request contains az=null that means reset what is in the request spec, if the API request contains {} then that means dont change the what is in the request_spec
10:32:22 sean-k-mooney gibi: ya that proably would work
10:32:32 sean-k-mooney ok maybe we can add that back
10:34:43 opendevreview Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/xena: Retry in CellDatabases fixture when global DB state changes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/840949
10:38:06 sean-k-mooney gibi: Uggla updated the etherpad hopefully that is now correct
10:38:46 gibi sean-k-mooney: yep it looks good to me
10:38:56 gibi thanks for trying out all the legacy cases I was sloppy
10:39:09 sean-k-mooney we dont have a way to pin an unpinned guest in this caes
10:39:19 sean-k-mooney unless you use the old microverion
10:39:41 sean-k-mooney is that an issue
10:41:46 sean-k-mooney im going to take a break form this spec for a while but ill come back to it after Uggla has updated it
10:43:32 gibi sean-k-mooney: I agree that pinnin is not possible now but I think that is OK
10:44:20 gibi I remember a lot more questions about unpinning than pinning in the past
10:44:43 sean-k-mooney ya we could always add it later if needed. i think we have enough to update the spec and then we can get bauzas's and dansmith's input to see if they agree
10:46:14 gibi I agree
11:53:19 gibi bauzas: left feedback in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/840217
12:03:29 gibi bauzas: fyi I cannot attend the today's nova meeting
12:03:32 gibi I will read back
12:26:21 sean-k-mooney artom: are you plannign to adress gibi's nits in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/841170/3/nova/tests/functional/libvirt/test_evacuate.py or adress them in the follow up change that adressed the issue
12:35:43 gibi artom: left feedback in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/840974
12:35:50 opendevreview Andre Aranha proposed openstack/nova master: Test setting the nova job to centos-9-stream https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/831844
12:39:30 bauzas gibi: ack, thanks for the spec review and ack for missing the meeting
12:47:53 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Re-propose allow Project admin to list allowed hypervisors https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/833165
12:53:26 gibi bauzas: have you thought about abandoning open specs that was not re-proposed to the zed directory yet? It would clean up the open spec query a bit
12:53:49 bauzas gibi: we can do this
12:54:19 bauzas but let's discuss this on the next meeting as you're not there for today
12:54:31 gibi fine by me
12:54:56 sean-k-mooney im ok with abandoing them by the way
12:55:06 sean-k-mooney the owner can unabandone them
12:55:12 sean-k-mooney if they repopose them
12:55:32 sean-k-mooney but we are also not in a rush
12:55:43 sean-k-mooney so im fine to wait to make that desision
12:57:02 gibi it was just a sudden urge to close out the spec bottom third of the https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack%252Fnova-specs+status:open
12:57:08 gibi *specs
12:58:06 sean-k-mooney :)
13:06:08 bauzas but I'll respin https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/840974 first
13:06:17 gibi bauzas: thanks, take an extra coffee :)
13:06:31 bauzas oh wait, wrong link
13:06:35 gibi sean-k-mooney: also thanks for the feedback on that one I will go through it
13:06:44 bauzas https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/840217
13:20:47 artom gibi, much thanks! So, with that spec, I'd really like for the original customer requesting it to weigh in
13:21:03 artom Since I'm not sure that in its current form it's of any use to them
13:21:34 artom sean-k-mooney, yeah, I can address the nits, I'll need to figure out a fix regardless and push that
13:26:22 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Allow unshelve to a specific host https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/831507
13:35:16 opendevreview Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Proposes to remove keypair generation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/840217
13:36:22 gibi artom: ack, does the original requested aware of that we are discussing this in the spec?
13:36:30 artom gibi, yeah, sent them an email

Earlier   Later