| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2023-04-12 | |||
| 10:08:43 | noonedeadpunk | is there any way to tell if online_data_migrations are needed at all? Like by some exit code of smth? | |
| 10:09:12 | bauzas | noonedeadpunk: see the upgrade docs, this explains it way better than me now https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/admin/upgrades.html#rolling-upgrade-process | |
| 10:10:06 | bauzas | noonedeadpunk: wait, I said something wrong | |
| 10:10:29 | bauzas | noonedeadpunk: https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/cli/nova-status.html#upgrade | |
| 10:11:25 | bauzas | you need to do DB schema expands/contracts before with the migrations | |
| 10:11:38 | bauzas | then, you run the status check | |
| 10:11:51 | bauzas | and only then you need to start the compute services | |
| 10:12:37 | bauzas | neither the online data migrations | |
| 10:15:11 | bauzas | noonedeadpunk: as a summary, say that during a Bobcat release we may add some data online migrations | |
| 10:15:33 | noonedeadpunk | ok, so status check before service restart but after online migrations? | |
| 10:15:39 | bauzas | we would provide the nova-manage command to perform such data migrations | |
| 10:16:11 | bauzas | accordingly, we would propose a nova-status check addition that would check whether the data is fully migrated | |
| 10:16:38 | bauzas | so when upgrading to C, you would run this nova-status check that would fail if you forgot to run the online data migrations command | |
| 10:16:56 | bauzas | same goes with Placement | |
| 10:17:26 | bauzas | say that by Bobcat, we start using a new Placement API call | |
| 10:17:38 | bauzas | we would need to continue supporting the old Placement calls | |
| 10:18:13 | bauzas | but if we start using that sole version of Placement, then we would need to add a nova-status check that would fail if you forgot to update Placement | |
| 10:19:36 | bauzas | I just hope I haven't lost you :) | |
| 10:25:06 | wangrong | dansmith: sean-k-mooney: Thank you for your feedback in generic-vdpa spec. Regarding some of the issues you raised, I have explained them in my reply. Could you please take a look at the submission again. Thank you for your assistance. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/879338 | |
| 10:25:52 | sean-k-mooney | i saw i skimmed it breifly this morning | |
| 10:25:56 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2008716 this seems to be a real bug in our migration code but you had comments before reagarding different dbs being targeted. I don't see how that is possible given the error message states the that column is missing not the table | |
| 10:26:15 | noonedeadpunk | bauzas: sorry, was side-pinged :( | |
| 10:26:19 | sean-k-mooney | wangrong: in general i think we will still need to change the design singnifcalty form what you orginaly propsosed | |
| 10:27:07 | noonedeadpunk | that makes total sense. | |
| 10:27:44 | noonedeadpunk | So yes, once I've upgraded packages on Bobcat, I should do migrations, and then check upgrade to ensure it's safe to restart now | |
| 10:35:48 | noonedeadpunk | ok, now will try to make some patches out of this discussion | |
| 10:37:29 | wangrong | sean-k-mooney: ok, could you offer more detail info about the problem of current design in the review comment | |
| 10:41:52 | sean-k-mooney | yes i need to also fully re read your comments | |
| 10:42:35 | sean-k-mooney | wangrong: basically i think we need two feature before we can implement the feature you are proposing | |
| 10:43:05 | sean-k-mooney | allow seting the hw_vif_model per port and allow setting hw_disk_bus per cinder volume | |
| 10:43:29 | sean-k-mooney | if we have both feature we can add hw_vif_modle=vdpa and hw_disk_bus=vdpa | |
| 10:43:36 | sean-k-mooney | to enabel generic vdpa support | |
| 10:46:23 | wangrong | sean-k-mooney: yes, I think so, if we plan to use hw_xxx. | |
| 11:07:12 | opendevreview | Oleksandr Klymenko proposed openstack/placement master: CADF audit support for Placement API https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/880145 | |
| 11:38:40 | noonedeadpunk | No, wait. I'm confused again. What's written in docs, is that I should run online_data_migrations _after_ service restart, and upgrade check _before_ restart. So upgrade check should be run before migrations | |
| 11:46:40 | bauzas | noonedeadpunk: because the upgrade check would verify something else but the online data migrations for the same cycle | |
| 11:51:20 | noonedeadpunk | yeah, ok, we just got things mixed up a bit | |
| 11:51:47 | noonedeadpunk | we were running online_data_migrations early, before first conductor is restarted, but upgrade_check when all services are | |
| 11:51:54 | noonedeadpunk | So i got really confused | |
| 11:52:16 | sean-k-mooney | so you should be able to do db sync before an restarts | |
| 11:52:23 | sean-k-mooney | im not sure about online migration | |
| 11:52:59 | noonedeadpunk | yeah, db_syncs are done before, but were followed with online migrations... | |
| 11:53:01 | sean-k-mooney | part of me expect thost to happen after the db models are updated i.e. after all the contoelr services are restarted | |
| 11:53:35 | noonedeadpunk | What I'm not sure about, if upgrade_check is going to pass if only conductor/api is available, but no computes. I assume it should not care as long as cell mappings are in place. | |
| 11:53:38 | sean-k-mooney | so im not sure that will break things but it leave a window where more data could be created because fo the old db model that is in use | |
| 11:54:00 | noonedeadpunk | Well. That is true. | |
| 11:54:15 | sean-k-mooney | so i think online migration shoudl be after the restarts | |
| 11:54:16 | noonedeadpunk | But docs you've shown say it should be done after everything | |
| 11:54:30 | sean-k-mooney | ya | |
| 11:54:39 | sean-k-mooney | i would generally put them right at the end | |
| 11:54:43 | noonedeadpunk | As partially data will be migrated when requested even without migrations | |
| 11:54:44 | sean-k-mooney | when all services are fully upgraded | |
| 11:55:01 | noonedeadpunk | yup, great, thanks for help as usual! | |
| 11:55:38 | sean-k-mooney | so the thing is as long as you are not trying to skip several release | |
| 11:55:45 | sean-k-mooney | we will have the fall back code | |
| 11:55:57 | sean-k-mooney | so the online migrations coudl be done even in a seperate maintaince window | |
| 11:55:59 | noonedeadpunk | well, it seemed working nicely old way as well for years, so I was quite tentative to touch anything there :D | |
| 11:56:15 | sean-k-mooney | but tis better to do them as part of the normal upgrade after all the services are updated | |
| 11:56:52 | sean-k-mooney | where you would have a probelm is if there is a db contraction | |
| 11:57:00 | sean-k-mooney | alotugh i dont think that woule be part of the online migrations | |
| 11:57:14 | sean-k-mooney | i.e. if we removed a column | |
| 11:57:32 | noonedeadpunk | Yeah, that what I was thinking about | |
| 11:57:57 | noonedeadpunk | that if db schema changes - it should not be done post, but I assume it's done during db_sync | |
| 11:58:14 | noonedeadpunk | which is done really at early stage | |
| 11:58:15 | sean-k-mooney | ya that a good point | |
| 11:58:26 | sean-k-mooney | schema chagnes are seperate | |
| 11:58:39 | sean-k-mooney | the online migation are just data migrations | |
| 11:59:07 | noonedeadpunk | ok, then will see how CI will fail dramatically with my changes :D | |
| 12:04:49 | bauzas | noonedeadpunk: as it was written in the docs I passed, db sync are only changing the schemas | |
| 12:05:42 | bauzas | noonedeadpunk: then either we change the data internally (either by a lazy call, or when restarting the service), or we ask operators to run online_data_migration | |
| 12:06:26 | bauzas | but online_data_migration can run during all the cycle, until you want to upgrade to a new release | |
| 12:07:34 | bauzas | then, once you want to upgrade, you can before run nova-status upgrade check for verifying that you're done with the online data migrations | |
| 12:08:38 | noonedeadpunk | with N-1 online data migrations, right? | |
| 12:10:07 | noonedeadpunk | so running upgrade check on N will verify that N-1 migrations are done | |
| 12:10:22 | noonedeadpunk | or well, N-2 with slurp, but that's different topic :D | |
| 12:13:40 | bauzas | yup | |
| 12:14:08 | noonedeadpunk | ok, awesome, thanks for your time and patience :) | |
| 13:35:58 | dansmith | noonedeadpunk: yeah, can't run online migrations until you're past the point where conductors, api, scheduler are upgraded (or stopped before upgrade | |
| 13:36:12 | dansmith | noonedeadpunk: the idea is that online migrations should be run *after* everything is done and back up | |
| 13:36:34 | dansmith | services will migrate what they need on-demand, and the online migrations are just there to push things that don't get migrated on demand | |
| 13:38:53 | noonedeadpunk | yup, thanks for confirming that! | |
| 13:41:10 | noonedeadpunk | will go bug cinder folks with the same question then :-) | |
| 13:45:37 | dansmith | ack, I didn't mean to repeat, just wasn't sure there was a clear summary of that convo, but sounds like you got it :) | |
| 13:46:56 | noonedeadpunk | yeah, I've pushed change as a result - I should have posted it https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-os_nova/+/880147 | |
| 13:57:41 | dansmith | noonedeadpunk: I think running the status check after online migrations also makes sense as there are cases where it will tell you that there are still pending migrations to do if they're not complete | |
| 13:57:51 | dansmith | but regardless, the meat of that change sounds right yeah | |
| 14:52:29 | bauzas | dansmith: thanks for having explained it better than me :) | |
| 14:52:53 | bauzas | your summary is far easier :) | |
| 15:12:49 | dansmith | bauzas: when you're done with the current call you're on I want to chat about some resource tracker stuff | |
| 15:54:38 | noonedeadpunk | between not that long ago (on PTG?) we've discussed enable_new_services option. And it should be applied not for computes at the end of the day, but somewhere on conductor/scheduler/api - not sure where exactly as I have them combined at same place (with same nova.conf) | |
| 15:55:34 | noonedeadpunk | so while it's defined in nova.conf.compute - it's not compute option | |
| 15:55:51 | noonedeadpunk | (https://opendev.org/openstack/nova/src/branch/master/nova/conf/compute.py#L1456-L1474) | |
| 15:57:08 | dansmith | conductor | |
| 15:57:11 | dansmith | but we could also fix that | |
| 16:00:09 | bauzas | dansmith: I'm here | |
| 16:00:29 | dansmith | bauzas: so... the RT has this notion of "disabled compute nodes" | |
| 16:00:51 | dansmith | which seems to cover things actually disabled (via ironic) as well as "no such compute node on this host" | |
| 16:01:06 | dansmith | we do some weird things in move claims if we think the compute node is missing, | |
| 16:01:13 | dansmith | like accept the migration but do no claim | |
| 16:01:15 | bauzas | iirc, this was done for the latter, not the former case | |