| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2024-05-14 | |||
| 16:32:49 | sean-k-mooney | and you want to knwo if they have been looked at or how to progress them | |
| 16:33:38 | andrewbonney | Sure. For maybe one I could propose a patch, but generally they need review from those more familiar with the codebase | |
| 16:33:44 | bauzas | andrewbonney: we agreed on previous PTG that we can't really triage the new bugs every week as we lack volunteers and time for that | |
| 16:33:52 | andrewbonney | Sure | |
| 16:34:09 | sean-k-mooney | looking at the first one https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2058725 sound familar and im trying to recall if it was intentional | |
| 16:34:18 | bauzas | unfortunately, we then let the reporters to communicate to us any bug in particular they could consider as critical | |
| 16:34:55 | bauzas | andrewbonney: for the other bugs that are less important, our channel is always open for discussion and you shouldn't be afraid of pinging ourselves | |
| 16:35:00 | gibi | andrewbonney: if you could try to push a test case that reproduces the issue in unit or functional test env would greatly increas the chance that we get to it | |
| 16:35:25 | bauzas | some people usually bug ourselves in this chat, asking either for reviews, help or categorisation | |
| 16:35:33 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Follow-up for openapi spec https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/919603 | |
| 16:36:10 | andrewbonney | Thanks, just don't want to annoy | |
| 16:37:05 | sean-k-mooney | its fine. https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2065403 sound like you are not running it in a loop until completion | |
| 16:37:44 | sean-k-mooney | although the interaction with -max-count problmeatic | |
| 16:37:57 | andrewbonney | I think the default behaviour does run in a loop, that's where the problem lies. With max-count it doesn't run in a loop as far as I can see | |
| 16:38:42 | bauzas | if people agree, we can close the meeting now and let people to discuss about andrewbonney's bug reports just after | |
| 16:38:49 | sean-k-mooney | sure | |
| 16:39:30 | bauzas | cool | |
| 16:39:32 | bauzas | thanks all then | |
| 16:39:38 | bauzas | #endmeeting | |
| 16:39:38 | opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue May 14 16:39:38 2024 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | |
| 16:39:38 | opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2024/nova.2024-05-14-16.01.html | |
| 16:39:38 | opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2024/nova.2024-05-14-16.01.txt | |
| 16:39:38 | opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2024/nova.2024-05-14-16.01.log.html | |
| 16:40:34 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Upload glance image with --file in ceph job https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/918689 | |
| 16:41:11 | fwiesel | Thanks | |
| 16:41:48 | sean-k-mooney | hum 29147 instnace in batches of 50. i wonder if we are missing a marker/stable order | |
| 16:45:32 | andrewbonney | I was wondering why populate_instance_compute_id relied on exception handling rather than checking for 'node' presence in the initial DB query, but there may be good reasons | |
| 16:46:47 | andrewbonney | The fact there's no DB cursor means it hits the same un-migratable records on each iteration | |
| 16:47:39 | sean-k-mooney | well node here https://opendev.org/openstack/nova/blame/commit/7096423b343ffce9622fd078fc2b3a87fd3386f7/nova/objects/instance.py#L1366 | |
| 16:47:43 | sean-k-mooney | is not coming form the instnace | |
| 16:48:41 | sean-k-mooney | that is looking up the compute node record | |
| 16:49:04 | sean-k-mooney | instnace.node i think is the compute node name | |
| 16:49:50 | dansmith | yeah I don't understand the question.. we're not "relying" on exception handling for anything in that code | |
| 16:50:02 | dansmith | ... and we do loop ... | |
| 16:51:09 | sean-k-mooney | my incliantion is to say that of the 30k instances a large proporation fo those recored are for deleted instnaces? | |
| 16:51:12 | sean-k-mooney | thats a guess | |
| 16:51:20 | andrewbonney | Yes that's right | |
| 16:51:35 | andrewbonney | I think this is only an issue where lots of records are not running instances | |
| 16:52:15 | andrewbonney | Do you end up in a state where the method exits because the first 50 records returned by the DB don't qualify for migration, which triggers the end of the loop | |
| 16:52:19 | andrewbonney | *So | |
| 16:52:25 | sean-k-mooney | so a workaround in that case would be to run nova-manage archive-deleted-rows | |
| 16:52:27 | dansmith | sorry I missed something, what is the issue ? | |
| 16:53:06 | sean-k-mooney | when they run the commadn its printing "50 rows matched query populate_instance_compute_id, 6 migrated" | |
| 16:53:21 | dansmith | oh I see above, you're expecting to be able to run just --max-count $number_of_active_instances ? | |
| 16:53:21 | sean-k-mooney | https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2065403 | |
| 16:53:43 | dansmith | yeah I mean you have to run those things untll they're done | |
| 16:54:03 | dansmith | sometimes we can skip records that are deleted and other times we can't really | |
| 16:54:08 | andrewbonney | We ran without max-count initially as part of a standard upgrade. It completed, but hasn't migrated everything because once the first 50 records are unsuitable it exits | |
| 16:54:49 | andrewbonney | I only realised our first deployment was in this state because I noticed the migration taking ~15 mins plus on a second deployment, because it keeps trying to migrate unsuitable records | |
| 16:55:00 | dansmith | ah, I see because you have a bunch of (hopefully deleted) instances that point to missing compute nodes? | |
| 16:55:07 | andrewbonney | Yeah that's it | |
| 16:55:11 | dansmith | gotcha | |
| 16:55:37 | andrewbonney | Happy to work around it for us, but I doubt we'll be the only ones to hit it | |
| 16:55:59 | sean-k-mooney | so just looking at our docs https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/cli/nova-manage.html#db-online-data-migrations | |
| 16:56:11 | sean-k-mooney | we state that if you dont pass --max-count | |
| 16:56:11 | dansmith | yeah, I'm not sure the best way to handle that in the context of how that manage command works | |
| 16:56:21 | sean-k-mooney | we will loop internanlly in batchs of 50 | |
| 16:56:36 | dansmith | yeah, but we don't have marker stuff there to prevent us from looping over the same 50 over and over | |
| 16:56:42 | sean-k-mooney | but if you do pass --max-count you have to loop externally and look at the repsoce code | |
| 16:56:54 | sean-k-mooney | well we dont actully need that | |
| 16:57:13 | dansmith | so I mean, we could just ignore deleted instances, but that means we may have a problem adding a constraint later where this will come up again | |
| 16:57:14 | sean-k-mooney | since we only get instnace that dont have the compute_id set | |
| 16:57:30 | sean-k-mooney | but the issue is we are not settign a sentinel for those that dont match | |
| 16:57:33 | dansmith | right but the problem is that if the 50 are not migratable, we'll never mark them as identified and keey finding them | |
| 16:57:38 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 16:57:49 | sean-k-mooney | so we need to set it to all 0 or something like that | |
| 16:57:53 | dansmith | I mean, that's one way to go, but it's not really reasonable I think | |
| 16:57:58 | dansmith | because that makes it not an FK | |
| 16:58:18 | sean-k-mooney | oh right ya it would fail the FK check | |
| 16:58:47 | sean-k-mooney | can we return the instance uuid as a marker if we add an orderby | |
| 16:58:57 | dansmith | I mean, it's not marked as an FK right now, because we suck at that, but still, it's "wrong" I think | |
| 16:59:12 | dansmith | right, so we could add in marker stuff there, but that's kindof a bigger deal really | |
| 16:59:24 | dansmith | changes the interface of all of these migration routines | |
| 16:59:38 | sean-k-mooney | well it woudl need a new cli arg for a start and it woudl chnage the resonce so not backporable | |
| 17:00:09 | dansmith | one thing we could do is if we get to the bottom of this loop and couldn't migrate any of the things we found, just raise an exception and say "yo dawg, you need to archive your db" | |
| 17:00:28 | dansmith | it's not a CLI thing so much as the interface for these migration functions | |
| 17:00:34 | dansmith | they all return all,hit right now | |
| 17:01:50 | dansmith | I need to be reviewing the monster EE spec, so let's just table this and I | |
| 17:01:56 | dansmith | will do some thinking on it later | |
| 17:03:21 | andrewbonney | Thanks for the time | |
| #openstack-nova - 2024-05-15 | |||
| 03:08:09 | stan | is there any way to connect the vm instance CPU and memory usage? | |
| 08:28:07 | opendevreview | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova master: Fix typos and punctuation issues https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/878779 | |
| 14:19:03 | opendevreview | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Enable OCaaS for several nova jobs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/919738 | |
| 14:19:04 | opendevreview | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Stop using split UEC image (mostly) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/919739 | |
| 14:25:40 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: OCasS is openstack client as a service right? creating a single cleint instnace and reusing it to make queies | |
| 14:25:48 | dansmith | yes | |
| 14:26:07 | sean-k-mooney | when did that merge cause i rememebr that beign a thing in the works for years | |
| 14:26:19 | dansmith | saves 5m of wasted wall clock time alone on a simple devstack run, not to mention the cpu and disk | |
| 14:26:37 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: yesterday, I just freshened it up and fixed some stuff and we shoved it in | |
| 14:26:48 | sean-k-mooney | ok cool | |
| 14:28:15 | sean-k-mooney | ill review both those once the ci runs | |
| 14:28:39 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: can you hit this https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/915562 | |
| 14:28:53 | sean-k-mooney | there is a placement one too | |
| 14:29:09 | sean-k-mooney | here https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/915568 | |
| 14:30:52 | dansmith | gladly | |
| 15:08:26 | opendevreview | mike_mp@zzzcomputing.com proposed openstack/nova master: do not use str(url) to stringify a URL for subsequent use https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/913910 | |
| 15:08:30 | chris218 | Hi I'm reading about CPU topologies and pinning in the docs, from the looks of it if I configure few CPUs as dedicated I won't be able to use them as shared if I run out CPUs specified as shared? | |
| 15:10:08 | gibi | chris218: you understand it correctly. You need to statically split your physical CPUs between shared, dedicated, reserved for the os | |
| 15:11:45 | chris218 | So there isn't a way to tell nova to treat all the CPUs as shared or dedicated depending on what the users will request? | |
| 15:20:33 | opendevreview | Alexey Stupnikov proposed openstack/nova master: [doc] Improve description for nova-manage db purge https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/919746 | |