| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2024-03-19 | |||
| 13:21:03 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/2023.2: Power on cores for isolated emulator threads https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/913195 | |
| 13:40:59 | bauzas | fwiesel: cool | |
| 13:44:52 | fwiesel | But I do not know enough how it is supposed to work in libvirt to make a good suggestion on how to implement it differently. I mean, I assume it makes sense that it is implemented the way it is. | |
| 13:53:08 | bauzas | fwiesel: you're referring to https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/manager.py#L4132-L4137 | |
| 14:00:25 | bauzas | fwiesel: _rebuild_default_impl is a virt-agnostic solution for rebuild which does delete the old guest and then create a new one https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/manager.py#L3648-L3731 | |
| 14:02:52 | gibi | elodilles: thanks for the reviews so far. the parent of https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/913196 is merged now. So when you have time please check this backport too | |
| 14:02:56 | bauzas | as you can read, we power off the guest, detach its volumes, (reimage the root disk if volume-backed), destroy the guest, attach the volumes again and spawn the guest | |
| 14:14:52 | sean-k-mooney | fwiesel: the way its currently implemtned shoudl wor for vmware too | |
| 14:15:22 | sean-k-mooney | fwiesel: the only driver that does anythign custom is ironic | |
| 14:16:09 | sean-k-mooney | the vmware dirver can provide its own solution | |
| 14:17:43 | elodilles | gibi: ACK, will do | |
| 14:18:44 | sean-k-mooney | the imporant thing to remember about rebuild is rebuild is not a move operations, evacuate is a rebuild to a diffent host but by default a normal rebuild shoudl never change host. if you change image however you do need to call the schduler with the current host adn the existin flavor and new iamge to confirm that host is valid. that should all be handeled for you in the | |
| 14:18:46 | sean-k-mooney | generic compute manager code so the only thing the driver level rebuidl needs to do is ensure the root disk is reimaged | |
| 14:19:35 | sean-k-mooney | if there is a more effiecnt way to do that in vmware then the generic approch then that is fine to use | |
| 14:20:05 | dansmith | not "should never change host" but "does not change host" | |
| 14:20:14 | dansmith | even the driver shouldn't be able to override that | |
| 14:22:08 | sean-k-mooney | right | |
| 14:22:31 | sean-k-mooney | im just tyring to say that if there was to be a vmware version fo rebuidl in the vmware driver the only thing it should od is reimage the disk | |
| 14:22:47 | sean-k-mooney | the vm must remain on the same hypervior host | |
| 14:23:14 | sean-k-mooney | i just mentioned evcautate because the driver code will have to work when called in that code path too | |
| 14:23:26 | dansmith | yep | |
| 14:27:56 | fwiesel | sean-k-mooney: The current implementation calls driver.destroy, and *then* calls detach volume. In my mind, that shouldn't work in the general case. | |
| 14:33:03 | bauzas | no | |
| 14:33:13 | bauzas | fwiesel: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/manager.py#L3675-L3676 | |
| 14:33:44 | bauzas | poweroff, detach, destroy is the workflow | |
| 14:34:38 | fwiesel | Destroy: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/manager.py#L3695-L3701 and then via https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/manager.py#L3713-L3715 comes https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/manager.py#L3589-L3595 | |
| 14:35:43 | fwiesel | bauzas: The root volume is being detached after the instance has been destroyed if reimage_boot_volume and is_volume_backed | |
| 14:36:26 | fwiesel | So, poweroff, detach everything except the root-disk, destroy, detach the root_disk (in the case of reimage_boot_volume and is_volume_backed) | |
| 14:36:31 | bauzas | we still detach the volumes, including the root bdm in https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/manager.py#L3675-L3676 | |
| 14:37:49 | fwiesel | Sure, and after the desotry the _rebuild_volume_backed_instance -> _detach_root_volume | |
| 14:40:39 | fwiesel | Well, we have `reimage_boot_volume=True` ergo `detach_root_bdm = not reimage_boot_volume = False`, so `detach_block_devices(..., detach_root_bdm=False)`. | |
| 14:51:09 | bauzas | fwiesel: ah you're right, it's a bool | |
| 14:51:25 | bauzas | okay, so the root volume isn't detached yet, my bad | |
| 14:53:24 | bauzas | and ack, we rebuild the root volume in _rebuild_volume_backed_instance() | |
| 14:55:26 | bauzas | where we detach the volume, delete the old attachment, and then reimage the volume thru cinder | |
| 14:56:13 | bauzas | interestingly enough, we destroy the guest indeed before the detach, but we skip its bdm when we call the driver destroy | |
| 15:06:15 | fwiesel | There is probably a reason for that. I mean it is done very explicitly so. But as I said, I don't have any idea why. | |
| 15:21:16 | opendevreview | Fabian Wiesel proposed openstack/nova master: Do not close returned image-chunk iterator & get_verifier early https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/909474 | |
| 15:30:14 | opendevreview | Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova stable/2024.1: [stable-only] Update .gitreview for stable/2024.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/913631 | |
| 15:30:40 | opendevreview | Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova stable/2024.1: [stable-only] Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/2024.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/913632 | |
| 15:30:52 | opendevreview | Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova stable/2024.1: [stable-only] Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/2024.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/913632 | |
| 16:00:45 | bauzas | #startmeeting nova | |
| 16:00:45 | opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue Mar 19 16:00:45 2024 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is bauzas. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | |
| 16:00:45 | opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | |
| 16:00:45 | opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'nova' | |
| 16:00:48 | bauzas | heyho | |
| 16:00:52 | bauzas | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Nova#Agenda_for_next_meeting | |
| 16:01:26 | fwiesel | o/ | |
| 16:01:30 | elodilles | o/ | |
| 16:01:41 | auniyal | o/ | |
| 16:01:56 | gibi | o/j | |
| 16:02:25 | bauzas | okay, let's sofly start | |
| 16:02:31 | sean-k-mooney | o/ | |
| 16:02:36 | grandchild | o/ | |
| 16:03:32 | bauzas | #topic Bugs (stuck/critical) | |
| 16:03:50 | bauzas | #info No Critical bug | |
| 16:03:56 | bauzas | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?search=Search&field.status=New 63 new untriaged bugs (-2 since the last meeting) | |
| 16:04:01 | bauzas | #info Add yourself in the team bug roster if you want to help https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-bug-triage-roster | |
| 16:04:15 | bauzas | gibi: could you please take the baton for this week ? | |
| 16:04:56 | gibi | bauzas: sorry I cannot promise to do meaningful triage this week either | |
| 16:05:03 | gibi | can we skip me?j | |
| 16:05:27 | bauzas | okay | |
| 16:05:34 | gibi | I hope I will have more time in the coming months | |
| 16:05:51 | bauzas | melwitt is the next in the queue | |
| 16:05:57 | bauzas | melwitt: would you be okay ? | |
| 16:07:14 | bauzas | okay, anyone else wanting to take the baton ? if not, I'll take it again... :) | |
| 16:08:13 | bauzas | okay | |
| 16:08:20 | elodilles | i'd rather wait until we release 2024.1 Caracal o:) | |
| 16:08:28 | bauzas | #info bug baton is bauzas | |
| 16:08:50 | bauzas | moving on | |
| 16:08:55 | bauzas | #topic Gate status | |
| 16:08:59 | bauzas | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.tag=gate-failure Nova gate bugs | |
| 16:09:03 | bauzas | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-ci-failures-minimal | |
| 16:09:07 | bauzas | #link https://zuul.openstack.org/builds?project=openstack%2Fnova&project=openstack%2Fplacement&pipeline=periodic-weekly Nova&Placement periodic jobs status | |
| 16:09:13 | bauzas | #info Please look at the gate failures and file a bug report with the gate-failure tag. | |
| 16:09:24 | bauzas | anything to discuss about the gate ? | |
| 16:09:27 | bauzas | oh, one point | |
| 16:09:48 | bauzas | I just saw slaweq's email on bare rechecks | |
| 16:10:01 | Uggla | o/ | |
| 16:10:22 | bauzas | as a reminder, please avoid to say only "recheck" when you have a gate failure | |
| 16:10:38 | dansmith | or "recheck unrelated" | |
| 16:10:45 | bauzas | and please add a good comment explaining what's the root problem | |
| 16:10:47 | dansmith | it can be unrelated, but at least say why | |
| 16:10:52 | bauzas | and try to find a second to understand the reason | |
| 16:11:17 | bauzas | yeah, or at least please tell in the comment which job fails and with which exception | |
| 16:11:59 | bauzas | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/7L6DSFN6GB65FBVHQATTLSQ7HWGBZJHM/ | |
| 16:12:13 | sean-k-mooney | honestly i dont think calling this out here helps | |
| 16:12:14 | bauzas | #info please avoid bare rechecks | |
| 16:12:34 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: really? the tc has asked PTLs and other project leaders to help get this word out | |
| 16:12:37 | sean-k-mooney | the people that are here already know we should avoid it | |
| 16:13:06 | bauzas | not only folks discussing here look at our meetings :) | |
| 16:13:08 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: sure but doing this in the team metting i dont think helps | |
| 16:13:25 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: it's exactly what we've asked for, AFAIK | |
| 16:13:28 | sean-k-mooney | ok but we disucssed about stoping to do this here in the past | |
| 16:13:29 | bauzas | I know some folks look at our minutes | |
| 16:13:37 | dansmith | and I think it does help because as bauzas says, people might not be here but read the minutes | |
| 16:13:59 | sean-k-mooney | ok but we stopped doing it in meeting becasue we didnt think it was working | |
| 16:14:12 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: 15% on nova are still bare, and a higher proportion are "recheck unrelated" so there's still work to do | |
| 16:14:13 | sean-k-mooney | we can go back to doing it | |
| 16:14:24 | bauzas | 16% is a bad value IMHO | |