Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2024-11-08
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.
12:56:29 ratailor there is already finish_time field in InstanceAction object, but we don't show it to user in instance action show api response.
12:57:13 ratailor so this bp is just to add support for showing finish_time in instnace action show response.
12:58:08 ratailor after that there will be series of patches, to call finish method of instance action, where we start the action, but don't finish yet (which is case of every api where instance_action start mthod is called).

Earlier   Later