Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2023-07-17
16:03:32 sean-k-mooney i vaguly recall that but not the details
16:16:04 gmann sean-k-mooney: just saw your message and devstack change is merged already. ping me anything else pending on devstack side
16:34:19 sean-k-mooney gmann: cool i think if that is merge to stop addign it by default we can proceed on the nova side
16:48:50 dansmith melwitt: I've been seeing an increase in frequency of that mkfs timeout thing lately...
16:49:48 melwitt dansmith: me too. I feel like I see it hit most changes. do you always see it in test_stamp_pattern or any other test? I tried a tempest change to add "no discard" to the command and it didn't help
16:50:31 dansmith melwitt: yep that's the one I just saw fail, not sure if the others are the same or not
16:50:46 dansmith this one I did see IO errors in the console log though,
16:50:55 dansmith so perhaps it's something more going on than just the discard thing
16:51:07 dansmith [ 289.096098] Buffer I/O error on dev vdb, logical block 6, lost async page write
16:51:14 melwitt dansmith: this was the change I tried https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/886991 I have never seen it hit any other test. and I don't see what is unique about this test to be the only one exhibiting this?
16:51:25 dansmith ack
16:52:51 melwitt there's definitely something else going on than discard imho but I hadn't noticed the IO errors
16:53:58 melwitt the test isn't trying to do anything weird, I'm stumped as to why it's only test_stamp_pattern
16:54:13 dansmith yeah
16:55:52 dansmith Jul 17 16:01:08 np0034696204 kernel: iSCSI Login timeout on Network Portal 10.209.97.252:3260
16:57:03 dansmith several iscsi errors there in the log
16:57:58 dansmith do you have another example log to look at? this one was nova-multi-cell and it was on the compute worker node in the syslog around the time of the failure
16:59:52 gmann sean-k-mooney: lgtm, one question regarding copy/mentioning the upgrade notes to next SLURP release https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/886779/4/releasenotes/notes/az-filter-removal-587f7337040b6216.yaml#2
17:00:24 gmann I am not sure we have figured that out in TC but in case we need to tag/make a note somehere to remember it for C release
17:13:01 gmann sean-k-mooney: I am +1 and can convert to +2 as ^^ should not be blocker for it. just bringing it here and in TC also to finalize the guidelines. added this in next TC meeting agenda
17:14:04 melwitt dansmith: maybe this one https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/f8734471732246aaab8a8c41e3761af3/logs
17:15:17 melwitt and I had opened this bug about it and put an opensearch query in the first comment https://bugs.launchpad.net/tempest/+bug/2024859
17:20:13 dansmith melwitt: yeah that one has the login timeout message in the controller's syslog
17:20:18 gmann sean-k-mooney: can you check this again as you were +2 already. I asked ykarel to change the exception type to raise (after checking meeting discussion I am ok now to raise exception instead of warning) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/868419
17:20:20 dansmith so that could be the common link
17:31:26 sean-k-mooney gmann: it depend if we raise and excption we woudl ant it to stop the agent form startign right
17:31:49 sean-k-mooney i think that is ok for invalid config i.e. enabling this if the min version is not met
17:38:40 opendevreview Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Delete dangling bdms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/882284
17:48:11 auniyal hi elodilles
17:48:11 auniyal here https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/882914
17:48:11 auniyal you meant until "enable validations in nova-lvm" get merged in zed right ?
17:48:11 auniyal this: https://review.opendev.org/q/Ia198f712e2ad277743aed08e27e480208f463ac7
17:51:50 auniyal dansmith , melwitt can these get merged https://review.opendev.org/q/Ia198f712e2ad277743aed08e27e480208f463ac7 ?
17:54:14 melwitt auniyal: yeah I can review
19:35:35 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova stable/wallaby: Remove deleted projects from flavor access list https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/888333
19:37:33 elodilles auniyal: yes, those are the gate fixing patches
19:50:11 auniyal thanks melwitt, ack elodilles
19:50:47 auniyal stable/2023.1 will be merged in some time, can you please merge this as well - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/888230
19:57:08 auniyal melwitt, regarding your comment https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873648/comment/e8d05cbb_aa954e91/ in "Added context manager for instance lock" as per lyarwood Note we need to create new context to unlock the instance.
19:59:06 melwitt auniyal: yeah, we'll do that one next
19:59:52 melwitt auniyal: oh, hm. sorry I didn't notice that comment, on the surface, I'm not sure why we would need or want a new request-id for the unlock
20:00:07 melwitt so let me think on that for a bit
20:00:23 auniyal ack, thanks, will fix rest meanwhile
20:00:34 melwitt ++
20:02:05 auniyal if you have time today, can you have another look on resize one as well; I think its somewhat better now; I have documented alot in it for now intentionally will remove them once good from review side.
20:02:41 melwitt ok, I'll try to get to that today
20:46:53 melwitt auniyal: I just added another comment on the review. thanks for pointing out about the unique request-id's
21:12:29 dansmith auniyal: can you please respond to all comments and/or mark them as resolved when they're no longer relevant? You never responded to my question about needing to target in one place and not another, pushed up another rev, and asked me to re-review..
21:12:45 dansmith it's hard to know whether you intended to change what I commented about because the old comment had no reply and is still unresolved, on a nonsense line in the new patcheset now
22:20:47 opendevreview melanie witt proposed openstack/nova stable/train: Enforce quota usage from placement when unshelving https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/888509
23:44:46 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova master: Add config option to configure TB cache size https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/868419
#openstack-nova - 2023-07-18
00:25:56 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova stable/2023.1: enable validations in nova-lvm https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/887674
07:22:51 bauzas good morning nova
07:41:14 kashyap gibi: Morning
07:41:28 kashyap gibi: So, here's the one failure: from my patch : https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/a151d31cbcf74a648e1948986686d08a
07:41:34 kashyap "Something" seems off
07:47:54 gibi looking
08:08:19 gibi kashyap: left a comment, I think the test case can be removed
08:08:29 kashyap gibi: You read my mind!
08:09:03 kashyap I was thinking the same thing
08:19:39 gibi it is ceartanly easier to read others mind if they are looking at the same ~10 lines of code :)
08:22:50 bauzas gibi: kashyap: do I understand there is a CI failure ?
08:23:02 kashyap gibi: Haha
08:23:17 kashyap bauzas: We were talking about a specific patch change - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/887255
08:23:26 kashyap (The failure there is expected due to a now-invalid test)
08:24:06 bauzas ah oooof, ok :)
08:37:36 opendevreview Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova master: Bump MIN_{LIBVIRT,QEMU} for "Bobcat" https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/887255
09:04:35 kashyap gibi: --^ Fixed
09:25:58 gibi added some cleanup requests inline but other than that it looks good
10:03:09 kashyap Ah, I missed a few more; good catch! I will fix them too
10:03:12 kashyap Thank you.
10:12:27 opendevreview Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Added context manager for instance lock https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873648
10:14:41 opendevreview Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Added context manager for instance lock https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873648
10:33:58 opendevreview Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Added context manager for instance lock https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873648
10:33:59 opendevreview Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Disconnecting volume from the compute host https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/877446
12:15:04 stephenfin bauzas: sean-k-mooney: gibi: Think one of you could add https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/880669/ and https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/886230/ to your review list?
12:22:00 sean-k-mooney stephenfin: im +2w on the first patch im not sure about the job
12:22:11 sean-k-mooney im ok wiht addign it but im not sure it should be voting
12:22:44 sean-k-mooney since we are ignoring upper constraits by using both oslo.db and sqlachemy form master/main
12:46:26 gibi yeah I agree with sean-k-mooney on both patch
13:03:30 opendevreview Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova master: Bump MIN_{LIBVIRT,QEMU} for "Bobcat" https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/887255
13:49:07 stephenfin sean-k-mooney: gibi: The issue is that we are currently SQLAlchemy 2.x compatible and don't want to regress. However, people don't look at non-voting jobs so they're effectively useless for anti-regression purposes IMO
13:50:06 stephenfin There is of course a risk that SQLAlchemy could introduce a breaking change but if we're serious about being ready for SQLA 2.x by C then we'll need to handle those issues. Also, SQLA is super mature so the chances of that seem minute, while we can simply toggle it to non-voting if they inadvertently introduce a bug
13:52:54 stephenfin Also also, I've proposed the same thing for ironic, cinder, placement, and a few others. Neutron are running all their functional tests with sqlalchemy master for some time now. I think the benefits outweigh the concerns
13:56:21 bauzas sean-k-mooney: I quite agree with stephenfin, let's KISS
13:56:28 bauzas we also have other jobs
13:58:52 bauzas but -1 b/c of the gate
13:59:56 dansmith could we not just make the 310 job SA 2.0 and leafve the 3.9 one as it is? having another job seems excessive to me
14:00:36 sean-k-mooney i would prefer to just raise our min version to 2.0
14:00:40 auniyal hi dansmith, sorry for not responding on your question on time before new revision, yes as you mentioned in comment, on melwitt suggestion, I passed the context from caller and did not created new context and I added the assert. as per suggestion. Actually I had the reply on draft but was waiting for CI job to pass that time.
14:00:54 sean-k-mooney but ya i can also live with dansmith suggestion i guess
14:01:01 gibi yeah, if we want to track 2.0 then lets bump now to 2.0
14:01:05 dansmith we're really running three functional jobs and it seems like we could just re-use one to move forward
14:01:34 sean-k-mooney could we bump the uc for py3.10 specificaly to 2.0
14:01:55 sean-k-mooney then we could follow the same pattern in all project
14:02:09 dansmith can we do that? if so that'd also work I suppose
14:02:12 sean-k-mooney or as i said just move nova to 2.0
14:02:23 dansmith I mean I know requirements.txt can do it, but will a bot complain?
14:02:33 sean-k-mooney dansmith: we can we used ot do it for py2.7 vs py 3
14:02:42 dansmith sean-k-mooney: we can't move nova to *require* 2.0 right now

Earlier   Later