| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2023-06-09 | |||
| 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 | |
| 13:47:02 | sean-k-mooney | yes | |
| 13:47:08 | sean-k-mooney | configdrive is a good example | |
| 13:49:18 | sean-k-mooney | by the way i can see usecasue for being able to have local storage on a host exposed to the guest as virtio-fs passthough. i just dont htinke the share attachemt feature is what we should use to build that | |
| 13:49:54 | dansmith | you mean more use cases than just scaphandre right? I definitely can | |
| 13:50:02 | sean-k-mooney | that is its own seperate feature | |
| 13:50:06 | dansmith | but not user-controllable and not visible like an attachment | |
| 13:50:45 | sean-k-mooney | well i coudl see it being user contoleable but there is a quota aspect that woudl have to be adress | |
| 13:51:08 | dansmith | when would we ever want to allow the user to request "show me /etc on the host" ? | |
| 13:51:24 | sean-k-mooney | that not what i mean | |
| 13:51:56 | sean-k-mooney | i mean we coudl allow the user to have addtional storage form a folder we create on the host like ephemeal storage | |
| 13:52:19 | dansmith | oh sure, right | |
| 13:52:30 | dansmith | not sure we should expose that as a share in the same way as manila though | |
| 13:52:32 | sean-k-mooney | i.e. a way to add addtional sotrage without having to do it via a resize | |
| 13:52:48 | sean-k-mooney | ya its a seperate thing | |
| 13:52:52 | dansmith | agree | |
| 13:53:11 | dansmith | I was just typing out "we might want to expose ephemeral disks as filesystems instead" before you said it | |
| 13:53:25 | dansmith | so yeah, I can definitely see that, but I think that's a sort of third use case for this | |
| 13:53:46 | sean-k-mooney | its more "As a user i would like to be ablt to attch addtion local storage to an instance without needign to resize" | |
| 13:53:50 | dansmith | first being manila, second being "the admin wants this configdrive-like thing inserted into me", and third epehemeral fs space | |
| 13:54:00 | dansmith | well, resize or mkfs but yeah | |
| 13:54:39 | sean-k-mooney | honestly the motivation for ti is pretty low until you can do it while the vm is running | |
| 13:55:53 | dansmith | I can also imagine people wanting two instances with hard affinity to share a fast local disk as a filesystem | |
| 13:56:01 | dansmith | i.e. db-and-http workers and things | |