| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-02-25 | |||
| 16:56:59 | bauzas | so please understand that people have other priorities for now | |
| 16:57:34 | bauzas | MengyangZhang[m]: the best if you want is to have a cross-project discussion with the cinder folks at the PTG | |
| 16:57:46 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: context for this | |
| 16:57:50 | bauzas | that would I guess answer most of the design questions, and it would be quick | |
| 16:58:01 | MengyangZhang[m] | understood, meanwhile can I have some clarity on that design question? I may shift my focus to other projects in my company and won't be able to follow this until q2 | |
| 16:58:06 | sean-k-mooney | i was orginally asking that we have a min version ceck to know that the compute node can supprot the new frontend qos option | |
| 16:58:24 | sean-k-mooney | it turns out that cinder allows you to update the qos on a volume type | |
| 16:58:28 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: that's the usual upgrade pattern yeah | |
| 16:58:37 | sean-k-mooney | and it will take effect to all volumes of that type | |
| 16:58:42 | sean-k-mooney | on the next move op | |
| 16:58:50 | sean-k-mooney | or when we next update the attachment | |
| 16:59:06 | bauzas | so even old computes would see it ? | |
| 16:59:07 | sean-k-mooney | so cinder is not caching it liek we do with the falvor/image properties when the volume is created | |
| 16:59:10 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 16:59:21 | sean-k-mooney | so this is a pre exisitng upgrade problem | |
| 16:59:24 | bauzas | that's an harder upgrade pattern to solve | |
| 16:59:30 | bauzas | yeah, sounds | |
| 16:59:43 | sean-k-mooney | so i dont think we can actully really protect agaisnt this in nova | |
| 16:59:43 | bauzas | like, someone has to do a pre-upgrade flight | |
| 17:00:04 | bauzas | we could say 'unsupported until all your computes are upgraded' | |
| 17:00:06 | sean-k-mooney | anyway we shoudl dicuss more with the cinder folks | |
| 17:00:32 | sean-k-mooney | but we cant just enforce "not supported until all upgraded" in our code just in docs | |
| 17:00:33 | bauzas | is there any API impact? tbh I haven't reviewed the spec | |
| 17:00:39 | bauzas | hah | |
| 17:01:00 | bauzas | sounds to me then a perfect cinder-nova PTG discussion | |
| 17:01:13 | bauzas | MengyangZhang[m]: could you join the PTG ? | |
| 17:01:29 | bauzas | anyway, we're on time | |
| 17:01:35 | bauzas | thanks all | |
| 17:01:39 | bauzas | #endmeeting | |
| 17:01:39 | opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Feb 25 17:01:39 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | |
| 17:01:39 | opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2025/nova.2025-02-25-16.00.html | |
| 17:01:39 | opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2025/nova.2025-02-25-16.00.txt | |
| 17:01:39 | opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2025/nova.2025-02-25-16.00.log.html | |
| 17:01:45 | MengyangZhang[m] | sure, do i need to register for the event? You mean the one from April 7-11, right? Let me know what I need to do | |
| 17:02:04 | MengyangZhang[m] | sorry would be my first time joining | |
| 17:02:40 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: no api impact on our side or cinders becuase they dont version this part of the api | |
| 17:03:17 | sean-k-mooney | althogh that coudl depend on the ptg dicussion | |
| 17:03:25 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: I definitely need to review the spec then | |
| 17:03:34 | sean-k-mooney | one topic MengyangZhang[m] was interested in was a way to refesh the qos on a volume live | |
| 17:03:37 | fwiesel | Thanks everyone | |
| 17:03:40 | sean-k-mooney | that woul likely need a new instance action | |
| 17:03:48 | bauzas | wow | |
| 17:03:54 | sean-k-mooney | but i dont think that is in the spec | |
| 17:04:04 | bauzas | 'taint my instance' | |
| 17:04:06 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: libvirt supprot updatign them | |
| 17:04:12 | sean-k-mooney | we just dont | |
| 17:04:15 | bauzas | libvirt can do many things we don't | |
| 17:04:19 | MengyangZhang[m] | it's a separate bp and doesn;t have a spec yet | |
| 17:04:37 | bauzas | this doesn't mean that we should wrap all libvirt things | |
| 17:04:52 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: its basically asking us to sync nova state with cidner state since it allows it to change without our say so | |
| 17:04:54 | bauzas | we're a cloud API, libvirt is an hypervisor | |
| 17:05:05 | bauzas | diffreent usecases | |
| 17:05:22 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: today it gets updated on live migration... | |
| 17:05:41 | sean-k-mooney | so you update it in cinder and the new atachment used for live migation will get the new qos... | |
| 17:06:14 | sean-k-mooney | nova does not offically supprot that | |
| 17:06:26 | sean-k-mooney | i personally consier that a but but its apprely what happens today | |
| 17:06:27 | bauzas | we had events for cross-project communication, right? | |
| 17:06:36 | sean-k-mooney | we do it does nto use that | |
| 17:06:45 | sean-k-mooney | its because we only use those event on the volume | |
| 17:06:53 | sean-k-mooney | where as they are chging the qos on teh voluem type | |
| 17:06:58 | bauzas | anyway, looks we definitely need to design it at the PTG | |
| 17:07:09 | sean-k-mooney | basiclly they are updating there version fo a flavor and applying it to all instnaces | |
| 17:07:16 | bauzas | and I need to leave now, python meeting downtown | |
| 17:07:29 | sean-k-mooney | o/ | |
| 17:09:11 | MengyangZhang[m] | thanks for all the discussion. sounds like we will continue this in PTG, let me know how to register it coz I think it already passed the registration deadline of Feb 21, no? | |
| 17:12:18 | MengyangZhang[m] | Oh i think i managed to register on openinfra site | |
| 17:16:07 | opendevreview | Stefan Hoffmann proposed openstack/os-vif master: [ovs] Add method to get external_ids from Interface https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/942715 | |
| 17:35:32 | vsaienko | hello nova team, please add to your review queue. Fixes non working ironic serial console https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/942575 | |
| 17:35:44 | vsaienko | already has +1 from Ironic folks | |
| 17:39:16 | JayF | and I think we should be able to backport it given the osdk fix is backporting, too | |
| 19:07:09 | opendevreview | Douglas Viroel proposed openstack/nova master: Add support for showing scheduler_hints in server details https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/938604 | |
| 19:09:32 | mikal | Morning | |
| 19:16:54 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Per-Property ImageMetaPropsWeigher https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941601 | |
| 20:07:24 | opendevreview | Douglas Viroel proposed openstack/nova master: DNM - Testing microversion 2.100 changes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/942728 | |
| 21:25:03 | opendevreview | Alan Bishop proposed openstack/nova master: Show swap_progress in attachment details https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941476 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2025-02-26 | |||
| 00:16:07 | sean-k-mooney[m] | bauzas: can you review this in your morning and the repoducer patch above it https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/932931/2 i would like to make sure thats included in epoxy so we can start backporting it to stable ideally beforee bobcat goes eol. | |
| 00:17:30 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage: Add --max-rows option to 'db purge' command https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/927339 | |
| 00:19:57 | sean-k-mooney[m] | so i think that is related to a donwstream bug report right ^ should the user really have to pass —max rows or should nova just do it in bataches automatically | |
| 00:21:41 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: it is related to a downstream bug report but the bug reporter noted that what we need is the same ability we have for archive_deleted_rows (which allows someone to control what size they want the batches to be). --max-rows defaults to 1000 | |
| 00:24:51 | sean-k-mooney[m] | i commented on the review as well but ya i noticed that defaulting when i looked more closely | |
| 00:25:30 | sean-k-mooney[m] | i guess that kind of indirectly does what i asked for so im ok with that i think | |
| 00:26:16 | sean-k-mooney[m] | basiclly it would be good for nova to hide this impelation detail form the user. its unlikely that archiveing 1000 instance would exceeed the transaction limit size | |
| 00:26:27 | sean-k-mooney[m] | posible but unlikely | |
| 00:26:40 | sean-k-mooney[m] | * purgeing not archiveing | |
| 00:27:25 | sean-k-mooney[m] | to me the fact a transaction size limit is a internal detail that a user of nova manage should ideallly not need to care about | |
| 00:27:26 | melwitt | fwiw the database transaction limit and packet size etc is all configurable on the database side so it's not something you can assume | |
| 00:27:46 | sean-k-mooney[m] | right but it is something we can look up | |
| 00:27:54 | melwitt | in my experience, operators do like to tune this to how they want, so I haven't thought about hiding bc of that | |
| 00:28:40 | sean-k-mooney[m] | im still of the opion that nova should not have shadow tables and archiving should be done externally to noav using other tooling :) | |
| 00:28:49 | melwitt | not really because we can't go looking into their innodb config or whatever | |
| 00:29:11 | sean-k-mooney[m] | you can make an sql query to look it up i touhgt | |
| 00:29:22 | sean-k-mooney[m] | the same way you can do that to get the connection limit | |
| 00:29:26 | melwitt | oh. I guess you could do that | |
| 00:30:59 | sean-k-mooney[m] | https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.4/en/group-replication-system-variables.html#sysvar_group_replication_transaction_size_limit | |
| 00:31:19 | sean-k-mooney[m] | melwitt that could be a future thing | |
| 00:31:28 | melwitt | I feel like that would be a separate thing where if we did it we would change archive to work the same way, at the same time. I think they should be consistent. | |
| 00:31:31 | sean-k-mooney[m] | the fact you providing a default kind of paper over the problem | |
| 00:32:06 | sean-k-mooney[m] | ya im not going to ask you to put it in the current patch fro that reason | |
| 00:32:14 | melwitt | and this patch is addressing the fact that today, if your shadow tables are too large, you are just screwed and you can't purge them with nova tooling and you have to truncate them manually | |
| 00:32:19 | sean-k-mooney[m] | i just wanted to raise that design point | |