| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-02-13 | |||
| 15:48:52 | dansmith | because if you want the latter, it should use stronger guarantees | |
| 15:48:57 | gibi | dansmith: VMs from the same image attract each other I agree. So if we only have a single windows image then the solution works | |
| 15:49:20 | dansmith | gibi: or some small number of them that are probably going to be similar | |
| 15:49:25 | bauzas | we have a meeting in 20 mins | |
| 15:49:28 | bauzas | 10 mins* | |
| 15:49:42 | bauzas | but I think we need a design discussion indeed | |
| 15:50:00 | bauzas | so if you want, let's do that after the internal meeting, ie. 1700UTC | |
| 15:50:24 | bauzas | would 1700UTC work for the three of you ? sean-k-mooney gibi dansmith | |
| 15:50:34 | dansmith | I figure not gibi | |
| 15:50:40 | dansmith | but wfm | |
| 15:51:44 | bauzas | OK, I refreshed my brain on the metricsweigher | |
| 15:51:56 | sean-k-mooney | sure | |
| 15:52:13 | bauzas | fun fact, there was a note with my name, so I already walked that code | |
| 15:52:27 | gibi | dansmith: yeah this is a balancing act. if you have more windows images or if the windows images have a lot of other prop than os_type then you are losing the feature. Now the question is is this compromise acceptable for the customer requesting the feature. Telling them to limit the number of different windows VMs or limit the number of image props (it is already a lot by default from glance) might | |
| 15:52:29 | bauzas | but gosh my brain is so bad at remembering things | |
| 15:52:33 | gibi | be OK or might not. I leaning towards no. But we can probably ask :) | |
| 15:53:00 | gibi | bauzas: I can take a 30 min meeting after our internal call | |
| 15:53:11 | bauzas | gibi: sean-k-mooney's approach mimicing the metricsweigher seems a reasonable trade-off as a follow-up patch | |
| 15:53:38 | dansmith | gibi: yeah, all goes to how strongly you expect it to work. I expected weak optimization because it needs to be fully automatic | |
| 15:53:55 | dansmith | or intended to be fully automatic I mean | |
| 15:54:01 | bauzas | basically, it makes the weigh multiplier less easy to configure but that gives you a possibility to weigh per prop | |
| 15:54:14 | sean-k-mooney | for hard affinity we have the "isolating aggrates with placement" feature | |
| 15:54:22 | dansmith | I pretty much assume any weigher implementation is just trying to make better-than-random decisions, but not anything you'd bet on | |
| 15:54:49 | dansmith | bauzas: you mean my suggestion of a dict of properties and weights? | |
| 15:55:26 | dansmith | I think that gets closer to gibi's goal, but I also offered that suggestion along with a good example of why it's too simplistic | |
| 15:55:27 | sean-k-mooney | the weigher multipler is for seting the relitve weight between weighers when nomalising | |
| 15:55:50 | sean-k-mooney | the per property weight is internal | |
| 15:56:03 | sean-k-mooney | to how we calulate a weight for a given host before we normalise | |
| 15:56:13 | sean-k-mooney | so they have 2 distinct usecases | |
| 15:57:13 | sean-k-mooney | anyway shall we pick this up in an hour | |
| 15:58:51 | bauzas | yup, let's see ourselves in 1 hour | |
| 15:58:55 | bauzas | I'll ping back here | |
| 15:59:05 | bauzas | others can chime if they want | |
| 17:02:01 | gibi | need 2 minutes and I can join | |
| 17:02:32 | bauzas | okay, I'm starting a gmeet | |
| 17:03:52 | bauzas | https://meet.google.com/vye-tjns-bai <= for discussing about https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940642/ | |
| 17:42:13 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: gibi dansmith melwitt on an unrelated note. neutron removed linuxbridge supports weeks ago | |
| 17:42:25 | sean-k-mooney | os-vif and nova have linux bridge jobs | |
| 17:42:45 | sean-k-mooney | the nova one only tirggers on specific files | |
| 17:43:17 | sean-k-mooney | tehre was a mailing list post about this a while ago but i just want to get poeopel opions on how to move forward | |
| 17:43:34 | sean-k-mooney | first ill put up a patch to drop hte job form nova's check pipeline | |
| 17:44:09 | sean-k-mooney | beyond that there is a patch to remove the job form os-vif but i think we should also remove the linux brindge os-vif plugin | |
| 17:44:43 | sean-k-mooney | os-vif's policy has always been we only have pluggins for in tree neutron backends | |
| 17:45:16 | sean-k-mooney | so question 1 is do i defer the plugin removal to 2025.2 or do it in 2025.1/epoxy | |
| 17:45:51 | sean-k-mooney | second question is there is linux bridge speciric code in nova. wehn shoudl we remove that? | |
| 17:46:07 | sean-k-mooney | my propsoal is to formally deprecate the linux bridge support in nova this cycle | |
| 17:46:18 | sean-k-mooney | and remove the linux brdige code in nova in 2025.2 | |
| 17:47:22 | sean-k-mooney | you would only be able to user linux brdige in nvoa as part fo 2025.1 if you had an older neutron but since we never deprecated support you could argure that that is the best path forward | |
| 17:47:34 | sean-k-mooney | we coudl also just be more agressive and delete the code now | |
| 17:48:28 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: gibi dansmith melwitt ^ we dont have to decied now but let me know what ye woudl perfer | |
| 17:49:14 | dansmith | idk, deprecate and lag on removal I guess | |
| 17:50:43 | sean-k-mooney | if we go with that approch ill change my review on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/941567 | |
| 17:58:57 | sean-k-mooney | ill prepare patches to do the formal dpercations and unblock ci this evening and we can review in the irc meeting on tusday. the non clint lib freeze is next week so we need to do an os-vif release wiht the deprecation but i that thats ok | |
| 18:36:05 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/os-vif master: Deprecate linux bridge supprot https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/941585 | |
| 18:36:06 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/os-vif master: remove linux bridge plugin https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/941586 | |
| 18:37:08 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/os-vif master: Deprecate linux bridge plugin https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/941585 | |
| 18:37:09 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/os-vif master: remove linux bridge plugin https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/941586 | |
| 19:02:27 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: still there ? | |
| 19:03:38 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: just a question, given the logic of the conf options for the metricsweigher sound reasonable to me, I wonder whether I should duplicate those options for my specific weigher or reuse those metrics options by adding a doc modification saying that the ImageMetaWeigher could also use them ? | |
| 19:04:15 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 19:04:40 | bauzas | yep about which alternative ? dup or reuse ? | |
| 19:04:40 | sean-k-mooney | you need to duplicate them | |
| 19:04:44 | bauzas | ok | |
| 19:04:44 | sean-k-mooney | yep im here | |
| 19:05:27 | bauzas | OK then let's go for specifying them | |
| 19:05:31 | bauzas | thanks | |
| 19:06:01 | sean-k-mooney | the other reason they have to be seperated is | |
| 19:06:32 | sean-k-mooney | with the new weither if the new config option is not defied we effectivly weigh each option as 1 | |
| 19:06:35 | sean-k-mooney | i.e. evenly | |
| 19:07:03 | sean-k-mooney | but when its defiend we woudl only apply the weigts to the specified values and ignore the rest | |
| 19:07:30 | sean-k-mooney | where as for the metric weigher the cofnig option is required for it to work | |
| 19:07:40 | sean-k-mooney | instead of being optional | |
| 19:07:46 | sean-k-mooney | so we dont want to share it | |
| 19:26:01 | mikal | Morning | |
| 19:29:09 | mikal | It seems like its been fairly quiet on the spice patches overnight, apart from gmann approving the temptest test (thanks gmann!). Are there any actions items for me right now that I should know about? | |
| 19:29:20 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: fine, then I'll just provide *one* additional config option, by default we'll stick to evenly weigh the props | |
| 19:30:25 | sean-k-mooney | +1 | |
| 19:30:50 | sean-k-mooney | mikal: i honestly didnt have time to look at the current state | |
| 19:31:03 | sean-k-mooney | but you got it to the point of workign and testign in a ci job | |
| 19:31:19 | sean-k-mooney | so i think we could move forward with merging some/all of these? | |
| 19:31:24 | mikal | sean-k-mooney: yeah, no worries. | |
| 19:31:41 | sean-k-mooney | alos we should move forward iwth os-trait patch if not allready done? | |
| 19:31:46 | mikal | sean-k-mooney: yes. The tempest test passes in the ovs-plug job, assuming that the entire rube goldberg machine of changes is landed | |
| 19:31:52 | gmann | mikal: pinged frickler for devstack change 2nd review review in qa channel | |
| 19:32:14 | mikal | sean-k-mooney: yeah, once the spice-direct series is landed the os-traits change will be the main thing blocking me. It blocks the sound / usb changes. | |
| 19:32:18 | mikal | gmann: thank you. | |
| 19:32:46 | sean-k-mooney | we need a second +2 on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-traits/+/940418 and we need to a release before the non clinet lib freeze next week | |
| 19:32:54 | mikal | sean-k-mooney: I am a little unsure if we want to compress your zuul changes into a single change with the spice API changes or keep it like this. I definitely don't want to take credit for your work by stealing your changes. | |
| 19:33:21 | sean-k-mooney | steal all the things | |
| 19:33:27 | mikal | sean-k-mooney: that freeze is a week before feature freeze, or at the same time? | |
| 19:33:29 | sean-k-mooney | im fine with squashing them if you want | |
| 19:33:38 | gmann | bauzas: not sure if you see my message early this week. but let me know what I need to do to get this spec merged? I added it in Nova meeting agenda for spec exception approval (but i would not be able to attend meeting due to time conflict). I started code change in parallel if that help, manager role is almost ready and will work on service role change https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/937650 | |
| 19:33:49 | sean-k-mooney | mikal: the non client freeze is a week before feature freeze | |
| 19:33:52 | mikal | sean-k-mooney: I'd prefer to not squash them unless there's a really solid reason why we should. I think the history is useful. | |
| 19:34:16 | sean-k-mooney | then i think we can jsut try and move them forward as is | |
| 19:34:22 | bauzas | gmann: this cycle, I unfortunately don't have a lot of time upstream | |
| 19:34:26 | bauzas | so I saw your ping | |
| 19:35:01 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: is the code written and tested? | |
| 19:35:13 | sean-k-mooney | becasue otherwise i think this need to go to next cycle | |
| 19:35:14 | bauzas | yeah, that's my question | |