| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2024-11-08 | |||
| 01:55:49 | sean-k-mooney | ok im fixing a py3.9 comaptiblity issue with the openstackdoctheme | |
| 01:56:59 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: oh, nice. it looks like in the gate it is 3.9 https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/71de468bcd5b419994f13b8bcff71f16/log/job-output.txt#440 so likely to be fixed with your fix I expect | |
| 01:57:16 | sean-k-mooney | this is not the bug im fixing | |
| 01:57:48 | sean-k-mooney | we build with warnings threaded as errors | |
| 01:57:48 | melwitt | oh | |
| 01:57:50 | sean-k-mooney | https://paste.opendev.org/show/bsKc2Q1VihOwLG5Czvd4/ | |
| 01:58:23 | melwitt | yeah. this just seems recent but I guess I hadn't noticed | |
| 01:58:26 | sean-k-mooney | so ya a new sphinx release happend on Oct 13, 2024 | |
| 01:58:40 | sean-k-mooney | so i think those are just new warnings that should be simple enough to fix | |
| 01:58:57 | melwitt | someone might have already proposed a fix. checking.. | |
| 01:59:56 | melwitt | hm no, doesn't look like it https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/nova-specs+is:open | |
| 01:59:56 | sean-k-mooney | this is my docsthme patch in case your interested https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstackdocstheme/+/934384 | |
| 02:00:44 | melwitt | ah cool | |
| 02:05:37 | sean-k-mooney | im going to go to sleep quickly but ill just confirm i can repodcue the issues locally. do you plan ot fix them or will i? | |
| 02:06:31 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: up to you. I don't know what the footnote warning means off the top of my head | |
| 02:06:55 | melwitt | so it might be faster if you do it | |
| 02:07:32 | melwitt | hah. that's cause nova-specs renders everything from the beginning of time | |
| 02:08:13 | sean-k-mooney | an with that done its a perfect time to rememeber tha ton py39 we clamp to an older version of sphinx | |
| 02:08:41 | sean-k-mooney | on the plus side is this deffinly just a problem because a new version was released | |
| 02:08:51 | melwitt | goes back to at least juno | |
| 02:10:03 | sean-k-mooney | i vagly remember the before times of the nova wiki | |
| 02:10:24 | sean-k-mooney | it was confusing when they were first being intoduced but it was a big imporvement in the end | |
| 02:10:28 | melwitt | oh yeah | |
| 02:22:18 | sean-k-mooney | so the problem seems to be that ehre are a missmatch in the number of footnotes defiend vs used. | |
| 02:22:42 | sean-k-mooney | we use a footnote by doing [#]_ allows use to not have to name the link | |
| 02:23:04 | sean-k-mooney | we define it by doing .. [#] <linke goes here> | |
| 02:23:25 | sean-k-mooney | if we look at /home/smooney/repos/nova-specs/doc/source/specs/queens/implemented/multi-attach-volume.rst:304: WARNING: Footnote [#] is not referenced. [ref.footnote] | |
| 02:23:39 | sean-k-mooney | there are 4 footnotes but only 3 are used in the doc | |
| 02:24:01 | melwitt | ahhh | |
| 02:24:31 | sean-k-mooney | im going to head to bed but i can take a look in the morning assuming you dont get to it tonight | |
| 02:24:53 | sean-k-mooney | it shoudl be pretty simple to fix we just need to figure out where the extra one shoudl go and or delete it | |
| 02:24:54 | melwitt | ok, seeya tomorrow o/ | |
| 08:25:07 | zigo | I upgraded to latest point release of Nova for both Antelope and Bobcat, in both case, when running unit tests, I get the OOM killer saying hello ... | |
| 08:25:15 | zigo | Any clue what unit test is using so much RAM ? | |
| 08:32:57 | gibi | zigo: interesting we did not noticed that in the upstream gate. What are the memory limits in your env? | |
| 08:33:15 | zigo | I run my jenkins package building with 8 GB of RAM. | |
| 08:33:44 | gibi | thanks I will try to check it in 8G VM then :) | |
| 08:33:46 | zigo | There's Jenkins itself taking a bit of RAM of course, but like 6 GB at least should be available for the unit tests, I'm guessing. | |
| 08:34:07 | zigo | FYI, I've run latest point release exactly, not tip of stable branches. | |
| 08:34:09 | gibi | what level of parallelism do you use in your env? | |
| 08:34:53 | zigo | I have 4 VCPU, so I'm guessing, 4 threads for running tests. | |
| 08:35:43 | zigo | When I look in "top" with the server being idle, I have only 1.2 GB used by my Jenkins env. | |
| 08:35:53 | zigo | So that's 6.8 GB available for building. | |
| 08:37:54 | gibi | ack | |
| 08:47:17 | frickler | zigo: the CI nodes also use only 8GB, so likely some other delta. can you share the complete oom and the test output? I assume this is on bookworm? we could try to test with that in CI instead of noble/jammy | |
| 08:47:43 | zigo | Yes, I'm running on Bookworm, with a chroot & sbuild. | |
| 08:54:15 | zigo | frickler: It killed "java" (ie: my jenkins...), so you wont see anything in the OOM kill log. | |
| 08:55:19 | zigo | The build log, however, looks like in that conversion unit test thing... | |
| 08:55:23 | zigo | 95.12% done, estimate finish Fri Nov 8 08:19:53 2024 | |
| 08:55:23 | zigo | 97.02% done, estimate finish Fri Nov 8 08:19:53 2024 | |
| 08:55:23 | zigo | 98.93% done, estimate finish Fri Nov 8 08:19:53 2024 | |
| 08:55:59 | zigo | Looks like it's finishing the test, finishes to write stuff, and then OOM killer kicks in. | |
| 08:58:02 | zigo | So, this would likely be related to the new image inspector unit tests. | |
| 10:39:04 | gibi | zigo: I checked 27.3.0 and 27.5.1 with py39, 4 cores, and the unit test run in both cases takes a max of 1.7GB memory. | |
| 10:39:24 | gibi | so I did not see an increase in consumption | |
| 11:35:20 | zigo | gibi: Oh ok, thanks for the tests, I'm therefore not sure what happened, and will try to investigate. | |
| 15:27:27 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/2023.2: Reproduce bug 2085975 in functional https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934305 | |
| 15:27:28 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/2023.2: Route shared storage RPC to evac dest at startup https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934306 | |
| 15:27:29 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/2023.2: [Stable-Only]Make CastAsCall configurable https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934434 | |
| 15:30:20 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/2023.1: Reproduce bug 2085975 in functional https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934308 | |
| 15:30:21 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/2023.1: Route shared storage RPC to evac dest at startup https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934309 | |
| 15:30:22 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/2023.1: [Stable-Only]Make CastAsCall configurable https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934435 | |
| 18:58:49 | opendevreview | Jan Gutter proposed openstack/placement master: DNM -- testing fix in external PR https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/926743 | |
| 19:18:45 | opendevreview | Richard Gold proposed openstack/placement master: Use separate transaction in capacity check https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/934451 | |
| 21:07:13 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova-specs master: fix footnote refernces https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/934493 | |
| 21:12:52 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova-specs master: fix footnote refernces https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/934493 | |
| 21:31:19 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Re-propose config option for behavior of unset unified limits https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/934391 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2024-11-09 | |||
| 01:48:13 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/nova master: Drop remaining logic for websockify < 0.9.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934517 | |
| 01:49:22 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/nova master: Drop remaining logic for websockify < 0.9.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934517 | |
| 09:33:49 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage: Add flavor scanning to migrate_to_unified_limits https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924110 | |
| 23:25:03 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage: Add flavor scanning to migrate_to_unified_limits https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924110 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2024-11-10 | |||
| 02:08:08 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Add [quota]unified_limits_required_resources list https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924025 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2024-11-11 | |||
| 01:30:44 | opendevreview | Si Snow proposed openstack/nova master: Improve the use of castellan.key_manager https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934225 | |
| 03:24:32 | opendevreview | Si Snow proposed openstack/nova master: Improve the use of castellan.key_manager https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934225 | |
| 05:44:09 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Remove default override for config options policy_file https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934578 | |
| 10:05:18 | ratailor | #openstack-nova Can I get attention on my open patches, some of those are having +1 from zuul but waiting for reviews from cores. | |
| 10:05:33 | ratailor | https://review.opendev.org/q/owner:ratailor@redhat.com+status:open | |
| 10:06:28 | ratailor | specially https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/928933 where api-samples tests are failing, I tried to debug, but couldn't get what's missing. It would be great if anyone having expertise in api-samples could help there. | |
| 12:42:38 | gibi | ratailor: added hints | |
| 12:43:39 | ratailor | gibi. Thanks! | |
| 12:43:58 | ratailor | but there is no api action yet, because nowhere finish method of instance action is called as of now. | |
| 12:44:41 | ratailor | that's why its the first patch in bp to add support for showing the same to user in show api response. | |
| 12:47:45 | gibi | ratailor: do you mean that the finish_time is always None after your first patch? If so then the template for the api test should expect None not an strtime | |
| 12:48:11 | gibi | ratailor: but also we tend to order the patches differently to have the API change as the last one in the series. | |
| 12:48:11 | ratailor | gibi, let me check if version bump resolves this. | |
| 12:48:25 | gibi | the version bump only resolves some of the tests, the version api tests | |
| 12:48:39 | ratailor | this is the only patch for implementation | |
| 12:49:07 | ratailor | but we have strtime for other time related fields, like start_time, updated_at etc. | |
| 12:52:09 | ratailor | gibi, also could you please review other patches, which are waiting for review since some time https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873901 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/911108 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/901810 | |
| 12:52:49 | gibi | ratailor: I could not commit to other reviews right now. | |
| 12:53:03 | gibi | but lets discuss the finish_time further as I'm confused | |
| 12:53:19 | ratailor | gibi, whenever you have time later, but please add those to your review list. :) | |
| 12:53:26 | ratailor | gibi, yea, sure. | |
| 12:53:39 | gibi | 13:44 < ratailor> that's why its the first patch in bp to add support for showing the same to user in show api response. | |
| 12:53:42 | gibi | vs | |
| 12:53:48 | gibi | ratailor> this is the only patch for implementation | |
| 12:54:06 | gibi | so will there be other patches in the bp? | |
| 12:55:36 | ratailor | no, for nova this is only patch. and if osc and sdk related changes are required, then those also. | |
| 12:55:47 | gibi | or is this just adding a field to the API that is always None? | |
| 12:55:56 | ratailor | so long story short, we have this lp https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2058928 which required to call finish method of instnace action, which we don't do currently. | |