Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2025-02-12
16:38:44 dansmith but if you want to clump your windows instances on windows machines you can set a trait on those hosts, and a requested-but-not-required trait on the image, right?
16:38:45 sean-k-mooney baiscly avoiding host with complciated things unless you ask for it. in this uescase they wanted to group similar isntances together based on the image properies
16:38:59 sean-k-mooney dansmith: no
16:39:02 dansmith it won't dynamically scale the pool, but otherwise that will be a strong but uncomplicated magnet right?
16:39:04 sean-k-mooney we dont have prefered traits
16:39:10 dansmith no?
16:39:29 sean-k-mooney if we did have a prefered trait wiegher for that it woudl be ideal
16:39:54 sean-k-mooney but we would also have to dynmical export the widnows trait once an instnace lands on the host in that case
16:40:15 dansmith we have trait=required but no trait=anythignelse?
16:40:26 dansmith no we wouldn't
16:40:29 dansmith we could
16:40:37 dansmith but not strictly required, IMHO
16:41:03 sean-k-mooney i guess you could pre export it with provider yaml
16:41:10 dansmith right
16:41:13 sean-k-mooney i.e. tag the nodes up front
16:41:21 dansmith I think I've made this mistake before, I guess because I assume if there's an =required there must be an =somethingelse :)
16:41:46 dansmith right.. that doesn't make it fully automatic, but also makes it less complicated, predictable, and strong
16:42:28 sean-k-mooney so we coudl do both. the simple automatic clumping
16:42:36 sean-k-mooney and in the future add prefered traits supprot
16:42:42 sean-k-mooney with another weither
16:42:44 sean-k-mooney https://github.com/openstack/glance/blob/5cfecc79995c6a9524f0dbc4553b4a88761b382f/doc/source/admin/useful-image-properties.rst?plain=1#L277-L306
16:43:03 sean-k-mooney ^ we only supprot required but not forbiden or prefered in the image
16:43:09 dansmith preferred traits needs no placement support, right? just a weigher
16:43:16 dansmith yep
16:43:21 sean-k-mooney just a weigher and much of the work is done
16:43:42 sean-k-mooney we jsut need to put the provider summeries in the hoststate object
16:43:45 dansmith is that not basically the same amount of work as this? why not just do that?
16:44:09 dansmith oh, do we not have the ability to see traits on hosts from the weighers now
16:44:28 sean-k-mooney no but we already have the info in the host manger
16:44:33 sean-k-mooney we only pass the allcoations
16:44:45 sean-k-mooney so we can see what you asked for but not what is on the host
16:44:52 sean-k-mooney so we can just pass both
16:45:10 sean-k-mooney because we have both in the schduler alrady so no change to the placement request
16:45:20 dansmith ack, seems like that would be a non-trivial increase in the hoststate though
16:46:06 sean-k-mooney its more like a exnetion in the time before its garbage collected maybe
16:46:24 sean-k-mooney i think we end up keepign them in memory anyway because of the function call path but i might eb wrong
16:46:39 dansmith so we already report we just don't expose it to the weighers?/
16:46:59 sean-k-mooney yes
16:47:24 sean-k-mooney so i was randomly hackign on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/933478 a while ago and wanted to use them and found its not aviabel
16:48:51 sean-k-mooney dansmith: we didnt have ether aviabel to the weiers untile pci in palcemnt and gibi only passed the allcoation since that is all they needed
16:49:19 bauzas okay, I hear your voices, I'll keep that weigher stupidly simple
16:50:03 dansmith maybe we should have a gmeet amongst the four of us and make sure we have a path forward
16:50:31 dansmith I don't think gibi is going to be happy with simple, and it may not address the actual concern according to him, so we might just want to get on the same page
16:51:22 sean-k-mooney we can if we want too
16:51:35 sean-k-mooney but i wonder if we should be rushing into the design
16:52:14 sean-k-mooney im find we havign a call to see if we have a common undersanding
16:52:50 sean-k-mooney i just wonder if we shoudl disucss this at the ptg instead. we can totally do it now if we think there is a useful veriosn we coudl deviler this cycle
16:53:26 sean-k-mooney but i dont want to merge somethign we think wont acutlly be useful
16:53:33 dansmith I don't want to rush, but I also don't think this is complicated enough that we need to push it off... it doesn't affect rpc or api, which means getting it perfect the first time is not really a big deal, IMHO
16:54:21 sean-k-mooney ack
16:54:36 sean-k-mooney fyi https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/32326d48949525a995d132bddc90e710c229947f/nova/scheduler/manager.py#L195-L205 is where we have the allcoation and the provider summeries already
16:55:57 sean-k-mooney we also pass them into _schedule https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/32326d48949525a995d132bddc90e710c229947f/nova/scheduler/manager.py#L195-L343
16:56:45 sean-k-mooney we are just not assocating them with the host or pasing them to get_sorted_hosts https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/32326d48949525a995d132bddc90e710c229947f/nova/scheduler/manager.py#L421
17:28:36 gibi sorry I was not able to follow this discussion as I had parallel back to back meetings. At this point I only care about solving the real use case.
17:31:06 gibi If there is an agreement that the current proposal solves the real use case, or even solve a real use case, then I'm OK with it.
17:35:10 opendevreview Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: Add a new ImagePropertiesWeigher https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940642
17:35:21 bauzas I just uploaded a new rev
17:35:29 bauzas but I'm fried for today
17:35:48 bauzas I'll rather grab a beer and hardstop
17:36:06 bauzas -ETOOMUCHCONTEXTSWITCHING
17:37:49 sean-k-mooney ya im feeling really unproductive today for the same reason
17:44:11 gibi indeed a lot of parallel things these days
17:49:07 bauzas this chan is logged and public, but you guys know and I'm just a sad panda to not have decent time for reviewing
17:49:18 bauzas tomorrow, I'll litterally block my agenda for such thing
18:06:25 sean-k-mooney gibi: bauzas i comemted on the latest version. i think the best path forward would be to have a second patch to copy the metric where imple for matching on indiviual properteis if we really want to supprot that
18:06:57 sean-k-mooney that way we keep the syntax common between the two weigher and if we agree we want both then we can merge both pathces
18:07:12 sean-k-mooney if we think we just want to keep it simple then we merge the first one
18:43:57 mikal What user do tempest tests run as? Because https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/a2c28aa2ebc248509f5b586411172955 is getting {'code': 403, 'message': "Policy doesn't allow os_compute_api:os-console-auth-tokens to be performed."} which it shouldn't if its an admin user.
18:48:54 dansmith depends on the test and the client you use
18:49:28 dansmith there's like a self.client and self.admin_client on most test classes, but I think maybe not always if the setup didn't foresee the need
18:49:35 dansmith but that might give you a grep thread to follow
18:49:51 sean-k-mooney if you want to call admin apis you expelcity need to use an admin client in the test ya
18:50:19 mikal Hmmm, ok. I cargo culted the vnc tests, and its using "self.servers_client", whatever that is.
18:50:43 sean-k-mooney you might be ablle to just pass admin=ture to that
18:51:00 sean-k-mooney there are diffent helpers in different parts to do that
18:51:56 sean-k-mooney https://github.com/openstack/tempest/blob/master/tempest/api/compute/base.py#L691C13-L691C33
18:52:32 sean-k-mooney you can maybe just copy paste cls.admin_servers_client = cls.os_admin.servers_client
18:53:14 mikal Oh, I can just inherit from BaseV2ComputeAdminTest not BaseV2ComputeTest I think.
18:53:24 sean-k-mooney that would proably work too
18:54:04 sean-k-mooney if you do that you might want to move the test to https://github.com/openstack/tempest/tree/master/tempest/api/compute/admin
18:54:26 dansmith just curious though, why is admin required here?
18:54:46 sean-k-mooney the hypervior ip/ports are only shown to the admin
18:54:59 mikal Turning a console token into hypervisor IP and port requires admin.
18:55:21 dansmith oh because no proxy like normal I guess?
18:55:36 sean-k-mooney right so we allow kerbside to get them but not the normal user
18:55:46 dansmith gotcha
18:56:00 mikal Yeah, a normal user can request a console but then has to ask kerbside to connect to it for them.
18:56:30 mikal Oh, which I guess means I need two clients in this test...
18:56:34 mikal Attempt 11!
18:58:38 sean-k-mooney well you could cheat and jsut do everythin as admin but if you wanted to have a negitive test adn show normal user cant see this then ya
19:01:45 opendevreview Alan Bishop proposed openstack/nova master: Show swap_progress in attachment details https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941476
20:10:06 opendevreview Mengyang Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Add Burst Length Support to Cinder QoS https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/939490
20:15:41 opendevreview Mengyang Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Add Burst Length Support to Cinder QoS https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/939490
20:25:11 opendevreview Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Add [libvirt]default_tpm_secret_security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940194
20:25:11 opendevreview Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Add [libvirt]supported_tpm_secret_security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940195
20:25:12 opendevreview Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Add hw_tpm_secret_security image property https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940196
20:25:12 opendevreview Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Add hw:tpm_secret_security extra spec validation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940197
20:25:13 opendevreview Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Ensure secret security policy for TPM instances https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941062
20:25:13 opendevreview Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Allow vTPM live migration for `deployment` secret security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/925771
20:25:14 opendevreview Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Modify vTPM LM block to block legacy instances https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941483

Earlier   Later