| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2024-12-09 | |||
| 12:27:12 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: test with placement ac breadth-first https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937275 | |
| 13:32:33 | opendevreview | Kaloyan Kotlarski proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Fetch the available vCPUs from the respective cgroup https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/927474 | |
| 13:40:39 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/placement master: Add a global limit on the number of allocation candidates https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/936658 | |
| 13:40:39 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/placement master: Factor out allocation candidate generation strategy https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/937273 | |
| 13:40:40 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/placement master: Add round-robin candidate generation strategy https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/936832 | |
| 13:40:40 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/placement master: DNM: test with breadth-first in tempest https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/937274 | |
| 15:21:00 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: api: Add response body schemas for bare metal node APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924591 | |
| 15:23:10 | gibi | melwitt: the whole https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22bug/2070257%22 is ready for review now | |
| 15:34:01 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: trivial: Remove legacy API artifact https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937377 | |
| 15:36:48 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: you have 3 actual patches adn two DNMs to test this in ci with the new order if im readign that right? | |
| 15:37:25 | sean-k-mooney | is the plan to enabel the breadth-first appochec in nova-next or similar? | |
| 15:38:17 | sean-k-mooney | i assume we woudl like to have both tested between the set of jobs we have | |
| 15:38:56 | sean-k-mooney | given the limited useage of nested resouce providers in the upstream gate i doubt we woudl see an observable diffence | |
| 15:39:45 | sean-k-mooney | although i coudl see use eventually chanigng the default fo the placement config option in a future release so setting it in nova-next i think woudl make sesne | |
| 15:40:39 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: if you would like me to be a second review on that i can try and do so next year but i wont have time to do that this week | |
| 15:41:03 | sean-k-mooney | if others feel like they have a better grasp on placmenet that fine too | |
| 15:41:35 | sean-k-mooney | i was hopign melwitt would be one of the reviewer on thsi but i dont know who is next best positioned to review | |
| 15:58:49 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: 3 actual placement patch yes, the DNMs are just running tempest with the fix | |
| 15:59:43 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: I feel this patch will wait for review until the new year, so you will have a chance to look at it | |
| 15:59:57 | gibi | melwitt is already signalled interest | |
| 16:00:54 | gibi | I'm OK to enable this config in nova-next, I think it is pretty safe. But as you noted we don't have much nested coverage in upstream CE | |
| 16:00:57 | gibi | CI | |
| 17:23:38 | auniyal | sean-k-mooney, please have a look at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/929858 for review | |
| 17:24:23 | sean-k-mooney | sure | |
| 17:25:22 | auniyal | thanks :) | |
| 17:44:40 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: trivial: Remove legacy API artifact https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937377 | |
| 17:50:47 | sean-k-mooney | auniyal: +1.5 comments inline | |
| 18:03:20 | opendevreview | Douglas Viroel proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add spec for show scheduler hints in server details https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/936140 | |
| 18:29:09 | sean-k-mooney | dviroel: ^ i have +2'd the spec but also left some nits that coudl be improved. i am proably +1.6 which is why i rounded up to a +2 instead of down to a +1 but im happy with the over all direction of this | |
| 18:41:29 | dviroel | thanks sean-k-mooney. yeah, there are some implementation/testing details missing in the spec, but mainly because I am not familiar with all nova doc/test details. But for sure I will follow previous implemented API microversions to check all required changes. | |
| 18:42:27 | sean-k-mooney | yep if other are happy with the implict understandign that all standard testing will be added at implemeation time im happy to just review for that when reviewing the code change | |
| 18:49:53 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: api: Add response body schemas for console auth token APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924592 | |
| 19:35:09 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Add instance.share_attach_error notification https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/860282 | |
| 19:51:58 | sean-k-mooney | artom: -1 on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/936775 but i think its mostly ok | |
| 19:52:15 | artom | You wrote me a freaking novel :P | |
| 19:52:26 | artom | Thanks for reading, I'll need to some to ingest all of that | |
| 19:52:34 | artom | *some time | |
| 19:53:19 | sean-k-mooney | main things are we shoudl not use nova in the image property value we shoudl use `compute` and the opt in path for exising instnace does not really work | |
| 19:53:29 | sean-k-mooney | a user can resize to opt in but thats about it | |
| 19:53:58 | artom | Ack on "compute" | |
| 19:54:00 | sean-k-mooney | they could update an image the uploaded and rebuild to it but that lesses data | |
| 19:54:15 | sean-k-mooney | *looses | |
| 19:54:45 | artom | Right - so how do new image properties currently get "synced"? Is the answer "they don't"? | |
| 19:54:58 | sean-k-mooney | i think what you propsoe can be extedned to encypted cidner voluems so if we say we plan to do that in a sepete spec later that fine | |
| 19:55:10 | sean-k-mooney | artom: they dont by design | |
| 19:55:26 | artom | OK, I need to rethink that bit then. | |
| 19:55:34 | sean-k-mooney | we take a snap shot of them and stor them in the instace_system_metadata table wit a img_ prefix | |
| 19:56:09 | sean-k-mooney | i think you can just say the only way to apply this to existing instnace is resize or the nova manage command with the user triggering a hard reboot or simialr | |
| 19:56:42 | artom | Ack | |
| 19:57:36 | sean-k-mooney | the -1 is mainly the nova vs compute thing | |
| 19:57:45 | melwitt | gibi: ack, will look | |
| 19:57:45 | sean-k-mooney | but please read the rest when you have time | |
| 19:57:45 | artom | Yeah | |
| 19:57:50 | artom | Yep | |
| 19:58:52 | sean-k-mooney | i might have time before i go on pto to do another pass but if other are ok with the desgin then you dont strictly need to wait for me to re reivew | |
| 19:59:08 | sean-k-mooney | if its still open when im back ill take another pass early january | |
| 20:06:05 | artom | I don't think anyone's expecting it to merge in 2024. We wanted to at least get a couple of review passes, with maybe a +1 or +2. | |
| 20:09:35 | abishop | hi, cinder guy here who is looking for a "feature liaison" to help me with a feature I'd like to work on for epoxy | |
| 20:09:37 | abishop | in the 2025.1 PTG our teams discussed a possible enhancement to the "Update a volume attachment" API to support cinder's driver assisted volume migration | |
| 20:09:39 | abishop | that turns out to not be feasible for several (cinder) reasons, and so I'm now pursuing an alterntive approach to improving the user experience | |
| 20:09:41 | abishop | it would entail a small enhancement to the "Show a detail of a volume attachment" but that would still require a microversion which means a spec | |
| 20:09:43 | abishop | I have a few liaison questions, starting with what's the epoxy deadline for specs? | |
| 20:27:38 | artom | abishop, you don't necessarily need a feature liaison right off the bat, you could pick up one during spec review. Official deadline is E-2, so Jan 10, but we're trying to get specs posted ASAP and at least looked at before the end of 2024, because otherwise the time because real short. | |
| 20:29:21 | abishop | artom phew, Jan 10 is great news to me and I can post something by mid next week | |
| 20:29:58 | artom | abishop, I don't think bauzas ever posted our "unofficial" timeline, but yeah, get something up ASAP | |
| 20:30:03 | artom | (posted on the ML) | |
| 20:30:52 | abishop | on the ML? I though it would be submitted for review to nova-specs | |
| 20:32:38 | abishop | though I don't know how nova specs transition from proposed to the "approved" directory | |
| 20:37:48 | artom | No no, I was completing my previous sentence: "ever posted on the ML" | |
| 20:38:13 | artom | abishop, they don't, you write them directly under the approved directory. They become approved when they merge. | |
| 20:38:47 | abishop | ah, that makes sense | |
| 21:28:42 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Rephrase the help message https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/925207 | |
| 23:34:43 | sean-k-mooney | abishop: the unoffical deadlien for specs is thusrday of r-16 december 12th i.e this thursday but that really just because most nova folks will be on pto starting sometime this/next week. | |
| 23:35:44 | sean-k-mooney | https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/r.4f297ee4698e02c16c4007f7ee76b7c1#L204 | |
| 23:36:29 | sean-k-mooney | so in theory tomorow is a spec review day, thrusday is the soft freeze and the actul freeze is january 9th | |
| 23:36:51 | sean-k-mooney | i.e. epoxy milestone two https://releases.openstack.org/epoxy/schedule.html#e-2 | |
| 23:42:54 | sean-k-mooney | abishop: by the way we are still waitign on cinder folks to weigh in on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/932653 | |
| 23:43:26 | sean-k-mooney | we dont nessiarly have concerns with adding new volume frontend qos types provide the cinder side of it is done first | |
| 23:55:06 | abishop | sean-k-mooney: thank you for the additional details; I'll try to post the spec ASAP (I'm also out for the rest of the year starting next Thu). I don't have any info on the other qos spec, but will see what I can find | |
| 23:56:12 | sean-k-mooney | abishop: as far as im aware the burts qos value are not standardised in cinder so i think they need a cinder spec first to add those | |
| 23:56:20 | sean-k-mooney | im not sure if they have create one since | |
| 23:56:48 | sean-k-mooney | that seams to be the only review the author has so proably now | |
| 23:56:50 | sean-k-mooney | *not | |
| #openstack-nova - 2024-12-10 | |||
| 01:37:49 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: api: Add response body schemas for flavor access API https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924593 | |
| 02:15:30 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/placement master: Require cchardet>=2.2.0a2 for perfload job https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/937423 | |
| 05:26:20 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/placement master: Require cchardet>=2.2.0a2 for perfload job https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/937423 | |
| 05:27:57 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/placement master: Use cchardet>=2.2.0a2 for placement-perfload job https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/937423 | |
| 09:31:48 | opendevreview | Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Update Nova bdm with updated swap info https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/929858 | |
| 09:38:13 | opendevreview | Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Update Nova bdm with updated swap info https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/929858 | |
| 10:34:41 | bauzas | gibi: I have an appointment today at 5:30pm which means I can't run the nova meeting | |
| 10:34:50 | bauzas | could you run it ? | |
| 11:47:28 | gibi | bauzas: I also have a 1:1 scheduled to 5:30 today so I cannot run the second half of the meeting | |
| 11:47:44 | gibi | but I can do a 30 minutes one | |
| 12:42:33 | fwiesel | bauzas: I forgot to mention last time, that I can't attend this meeting. I'll be hopefully on a plane. | |
| 12:57:43 | frickler | sean-k-mooney: is https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/933365 ready for reviews? ralonsoh made some good progress on the neutron side, so IMO it would be good to get this blocker removed from nova | |
| 13:20:32 | sean-k-mooney | frickler: so i have not really had time to look at this | |
| 13:20:51 | sean-k-mooney | i dont think the removel of lock ustis and going to treading.RLOCK is a generic solution that we can take | |
| 13:21:09 | sean-k-mooney | frickler: i belive that is what neutron were trying yes? | |
| 13:22:10 | sean-k-mooney | it does seam to be passign now but didt we have some issue with it still deadlocking in one run | |
| 13:25:08 | frickler | if more work is needed, I fine with that, too, I just wasn't sure whether I should try to look for reviewers | |