Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2023-06-08
13:54:06 dansmith hmm, I'm not finding it
13:56:16 dansmith oh, feb 2022, not 2023 so was this already in yoga?
14:03:11 sean-k-mooney dansmith: where was some patalogical behvior which affected amd host that this helped adress
14:03:27 sean-k-mooney i need to join a meeting be let me loop back with the context i dont have it to hand
14:03:35 dansmith ack
14:15:26 opendevreview Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Reproducer for dangling bdms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/881457
14:15:27 opendevreview Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Delete dangling bdms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/882284
14:16:35 ykarel sean-k-mooney, bauzas when you get chance please revisit https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/868419
14:16:53 bauzas ykarel: ack
14:37:28 sean-k-mooney dansmith: so looping back https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1978372 was the amd bug where the balancing feature could be used to mitigate the impact. however while lookign at that i just rememebered that gibi aslo adress the issue directly by adding some caching https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/845896 so backporting htat would also adress the issue with a large
14:37:30 sean-k-mooney number of host numa nodes
14:38:03 sean-k-mooney it does not jsut affect amd by the way but they just have a higher propbaly of higher core/numa node counts
14:40:21 sean-k-mooney so https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1978372/comments/6 was the intiall workaround but if we backport gibis change insteads we dont need the balancing feature is bug
15:32:51 dansmith sean-k-mooney: yeah, seems a lot better to backport that fix from gibi
15:33:22 sean-k-mooney ack in that case care to leave that as a comment and we can backprot that instead
15:33:42 dansmith not only does it closes-bug instead of partial-bug, fixes instead of feature in reno, but it addresses the actual problem without adding new conf knobs and behaviors
15:34:01 dansmith sean-k-mooney: I've already commented and got an unhelpful response from the owner
15:34:09 dansmith but yeah I'll leave my -1 then
15:34:19 sean-k-mooney cool
15:52:52 opendevreview Vasyl Saienko proposed openstack/os-vif master: Don't break traffic if port already exists https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/885127
19:01:14 dansmith bauzas: we could probably benefit from a similar strategy: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-brick/+/885558/1/README.rst
#openstack-nova - 2023-06-09
05:28:31 opendevreview Kiran Pawar proposed openstack/nova-specs master: SR-IOV NIC device tracking in Placement https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/884569
08:54:26 plibeau1 hello guys, do you have sometime to review: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/861172
12:52:20 sean-k-mooney plibeau1: i dont see any of the previous feedback adressed
12:52:28 sean-k-mooney port creation should not be using the admin client
12:52:46 sean-k-mooney port binding should be using the admin client or service user
12:53:02 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Deletion of associated share mappings on instance deletion https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/881472
12:53:04 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add metadata for shares https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/850500
12:53:04 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add share_info parameter to reboot method for each driver (driver part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/854823
12:53:05 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Support rebooting an instance with shares (compute manager part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/854824
12:53:05 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add share_info parameter to resume method for each driver (driver part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/860284
12:53:06 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Support resuming an instance with shares (compute manager part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/860285
12:53:06 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add helper methods to rescue/unrescue shares https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/860286
12:53:07 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Support rescuing an instance with shares (driver part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/860287
12:53:08 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Support rescuing an instance with shares (compute manager part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/860288
12:53:08 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Allow to mount manila share using Cephfs protocol https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/883862
12:53:10 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add configuration option share_local_fs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/884994
12:53:10 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add hw_share_local_fs extra specs and image property https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/884995
12:53:12 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add LOCAL storage type https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/884996
12:53:12 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add share_local_fs scheduler filter https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/884997
12:53:14 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add new api to retrieve local share (object and db) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/884998
12:53:14 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Manage local share (driver part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/884999
12:53:16 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Manage local share (compute manager part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/885000
12:53:16 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Do not mount local share at startup (init_instance) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/885001
12:53:18 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Do not umount local share if instance id deleted https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/885002
12:53:18 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Support spawn an instance with a local share (driver part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/885003
12:53:20 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Support spawn an instance with a local share (compute manager part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/885004
12:53:20 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Attach Manila shares via virtiofs (API) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/836830
12:53:22 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Check shares support (API) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/850499
12:53:22 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance.share_attach notification https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/850501
12:53:24 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance.share_detach notification https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851028
12:53:24 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add shares to InstancePayload https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851029
12:53:26 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance.share_attach_error notification https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/860282
12:53:26 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance.share_detach_error notification https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/860283
12:53:28 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add libvirt test to ensure metadata are working. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/852086
12:53:28 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add virt/libvirt error test cases https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/852087
12:53:30 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Docs about Manila shares API usage https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/871642
12:53:30 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Check shares support (compute manager) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/885751
12:53:32 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Check shares support (only API exception) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/885752
12:53:32 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add helper methods to attach/detach shares https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/885753
12:59:19 opendevreview Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Reproducer for dangling bdms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/881457
12:59:20 opendevreview Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Delete dangling bdms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/882284
12:59:21 opendevreview Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Refactor CinderFixture https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/885756
13:01:20 Uggla_ sean-k-mooney, bauzas ^ I have reorganized the patch in the way that API is merged after introducing manilla_shares and scaphandre. I have also flaged the patches in 2 differents topics. Is it ok for ypu ?
13:05:04 sean-k-mooney Uggla_: the scaphandre changes are still after the db and object changes
13:05:24 Uggla_ sean-k-mooney, yep because I need them
13:05:59 sean-k-mooney you shoudl not need themn
13:06:21 sean-k-mooney because the scaphandre code shoudl not be using the db or ojbect changes form the manial feature
13:06:58 Uggla_ sean-k-mooney, I define a LOCAL share type --> and this to use metadata and block the ops due to virtiofs.
13:07:20 sean-k-mooney the scaphandre usage fo virtio fs si not a share
13:07:42 sean-k-mooney we shoudl not have a LOCAL share type
13:08:06 sean-k-mooney i assumne you did it that way to mirror the block device mappings...
13:09:05 Uggla_ sean-k-mooney, also to share some common code parts.
13:09:17 sean-k-mooney ya so i disgree with that approch
13:09:32 sean-k-mooney if its not a manial share it should not be modeled using share objects
13:13:49 Uggla_ sean-k-mooney, hum, but it so "close" so I though to reuse a maximum of stuff.
13:15:39 sean-k-mooney well im -2 on that and it is not what we approved in the spec
13:16:09 sean-k-mooney i need ot go to the pharmacy quickly but there are many sideffect to the approch you have taken that i dont think are correct form a design or mantaince point of view
13:16:53 sean-k-mooney we do not intent to allwo the share attapchment api to attach/detach "local shares" if we did that would eb a sperate feature and spec form either of the two you are working on
13:17:21 sean-k-mooney ill hopefully be back in 30-45 mins
13:17:25 Uggla_ ok
13:17:50 bauzas Uggla_: sean-k-mooney: I need to review the scaphandre patches tbh, but I don't have any problem to use a specific local share type
13:17:59 bauzas so we could persist it
13:23:07 Uggla_ sean-k-mooney, bauzas to be honest I thought that was a not so bad approach as 90% of the code is the same except that the mountpoint on the compute does not come from manila.
13:23:38 Uggla_ but let's wait sean-k-mooney to be back.
13:41:20 dansmith I haven't reviewed them, but if the idea is to create share objects for the local shares as if they were manila shares, I agree that seems wrong
13:42:34 sean-k-mooney that is the current approch
13:43:36 sean-k-mooney if we were to have a local share type and model it tha tway i would expect use to provde a way for end users to attach/detach them and have nova create a folder dynmicaly to hold the content and copy the content form one host to anohter on cold migration
13:43:52 sean-k-mooney the share attchment api as propsoed is not desginse to hanel that
13:44:40 sean-k-mooney for scaphandre there is nor requiremtn to copy data on cold migration it doesnt even make sense in that specific case
13:44:50 dansmith presumably it means the user sees that local share in the shares api, and (hopefully) is barred from deleting it
13:44:51 sean-k-mooney the share api has no way to speicf a capasity
13:45:34 sean-k-mooney dansmith: ya so we woudl not want it to be listed or deletable as that provides a second way to configure scaphandre mounts
13:45:43 dansmith right
13:46:09 sean-k-mooney the only thingn the manilla shares feature and scaphandre have in common is they both use virtio fs
13:46:15 dansmith right
13:46:38 dansmith so I would treat these local shares as "do whatever the conf says" that we handle when we're building the xml on reboot or whatever
13:46:45 sean-k-mooney the flavor extra spec/image porpety is the only metadta reiqured ot know if the feature is used
13:46:48 dansmith and not represent them in the database, api, etc
13:46:55 dansmith more like configdrive than anything else

Earlier   Later