| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2024-11-08 | |||
| 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). | |
| 12:58:19 | ratailor | so currently this is the case | |
| 12:58:19 | ratailor | https://paste.opendev.org/show/bKShu6Vcc0Q9Ej4nzZgj/ | |
| 13:00:33 | gibi | ratailor: OK. So it does mean that after the new microversion finish_time will be None for all responses unitl the further patches are added to actully call action_finish. | |
| 13:00:47 | ratailor | gibi, yes. | |
| 13:00:54 | gibi | then 1) you need to change the api sample template to expect None instead of strtime | |