| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-03-31 | |||
| 14:30:32 | zigo | But then, the API will be still available, I was hoping for it to say "404: cephfs API not activated, please use virtio-fs instead" or something ... | |
| 14:32:06 | sean-k-mooney | no | |
| 14:32:14 | sean-k-mooney | because manilla does not know about virtiofs | |
| 14:32:31 | sean-k-mooney | that an internal implemation detail of nova (sepcrically the libvirt driver) | |
| 14:33:45 | sean-k-mooney | zigo: i belive there might be a way to limit what info is shown to nova (via the service role) and the user (member/reader) | |
| 14:33:51 | sean-k-mooney | on the manilla side | |
| 14:42:07 | opendevreview | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Invalidate PCI-in-placement cached RPs during claim https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944149 | |
| 14:42:07 | opendevreview | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Support "one-time-use" PCI devices https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/943816 | |
| 14:42:08 | opendevreview | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Add one-time-use devices docs and reno https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944262 | |
| 14:42:08 | opendevreview | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: Test nova with placement alloc fix https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/945626 | |
| 14:48:53 | dansmith | gibi: are you intending to hold off approving/merging OTU until after discussion at the PTG? | |
| 14:49:19 | sean-k-mooney | are there open desgin decisions ? | |
| 14:49:54 | sean-k-mooney | i.e. that need dicsussion at the ptg | |
| 14:49:58 | dansmith | not that I'm aware of, and the spec is merged, I just had the thought that maybe gibi was expecting to wait | |
| 14:50:01 | sean-k-mooney | or is it just normal code review that needed | |
| 14:50:07 | dansmith | just normal review, I think | |
| 14:50:12 | sean-k-mooney | ack | |
| 14:50:23 | dansmith | it's on the PTG for discussion, but TBH i was hoping to have it merged before then | |
| 14:50:32 | dansmith | since I'll be out for part of it (and the week after) | |
| 14:50:33 | sean-k-mooney | i personally have not had time to loop back to the impl much | |
| 14:50:57 | gibi | dansmith: I think we can progress with the normal code review. Right now I don't see any open questions on the spec level | |
| 14:50:59 | sean-k-mooney | but i didnt have any huge concern with the approch that was nto adressed in the spec | |
| 14:51:30 | dansmith | gibi: ack, I agree, I just realized I wasn't sure what others were actually thinking | |
| 14:51:42 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: the only thing that comes to mind really are your expermient with using virt-rng ot try and test this in ci | |
| 14:52:06 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: I've already got the images modified on vexx, and was planning to try to work on that next sprint | |
| 14:52:07 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: I still have the intention to test it with IGB locally | |
| 14:52:22 | sean-k-mooney | that not blocking i just dont know fi you want to present that approch to folks | |
| 14:52:27 | dansmith | but I also don't want to hold this up for that, since that is more just general PCI testing, and OTU in tempest will be a bit difficult | |
| 14:52:29 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: oh cool good to know | |
| 14:52:57 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: i was more thinking did we want to dicuss what else we could test with that | |
| 14:53:05 | dansmith | OTU in tempest is probably not doable because I need a single device, a dedicated flavor, no parallelism, etc, so I suspect whitebox is the best option | |
| 14:53:42 | sean-k-mooney | it might be possibel in upstream tempest but i dont think anyone would object to whitebox | |
| 14:54:04 | sean-k-mooney | anyway if we keep the ptg session this is what i was expecting to come up | |
| 14:54:27 | dansmith | the problem is tempest would need to know the alias in order to create the flavor in the one test we use it, or we'd need to communicate another flavor devstack setup that is only for that one test | |
| 14:54:31 | sean-k-mooney | not really OTU itself but how can we improve passhtough testing in general | |
| 14:54:34 | dansmith | but yeah, maybe we use the PTG to discuss testing | |
| 14:54:49 | sean-k-mooney | like we never finish the mdev testing work | |
| 14:55:06 | sean-k-mooney | we have your mtty devstack supprot just missing the nova bit to use it | |
| 14:55:25 | dansmith | ack, I thought bauzas had ruled that out | |
| 14:55:27 | dansmith | but it'd be nice | |
| 14:55:40 | sean-k-mooney | i think bauzas was just to busy to finish it | |
| 14:55:48 | dansmith | okay | |
| 14:55:54 | sean-k-mooney | i dont know of anything blockign completing the work | |
| 14:55:56 | bauzas | I'm pretty burned about vgpu but I can try to update my mtty series | |
| 14:56:49 | sean-k-mooney | the other thing gibi and i were hopign to do is after a coulple of the provider get to epoxy we would like to see if we can get image with igb enbaled | |
| 14:56:58 | sean-k-mooney | so we can test sriov | |
| 14:57:07 | sean-k-mooney | not sure when that will happen but its related. | |
| 14:57:18 | Uggla | bauzas, maybe you can offload some vgpu stuff to me. | |
| 14:59:12 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: on a related note but changing the topic slightly https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/945465 is being tracked as a bugfix, but do you think its a backportable change or master only | |
| 14:59:31 | gibi | https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-2025.2-ptg#L378 | |
| 14:59:53 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: I think it's backportable and would be a good candidate, personally, since it's very self-contained and the bug really sucks for operators, IMHO | |
| 15:00:18 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: but, I have not been able to test that it actually fixes the nova migration problems yet since I need two computes to do it | |
| 15:00:35 | sean-k-mooney | ack my follow up is if that backportable do we need nova work for the existing nova bug or do you think cold migration ectra woudl just start working? | |
| 15:00:51 | dansmith | I believe this should make it just work on the nova side | |
| 15:01:42 | sean-k-mooney | ack, not that our downsteam qe have a lot of capsity for upstream work but we might want to talk to them about how we coudl test the previously broken operation in upstream tempest | |
| 15:02:23 | sean-k-mooney | well or whitebox | |
| 15:02:32 | dansmith | again, this requires putting the compute node into overcapacity state with an allocation_ratio change, so I don't really think we can do that in upstream parallel tempest | |
| 15:02:38 | dansmith | whitebox potentially | |
| 15:04:34 | sean-k-mooney | tempest has the ida of serial test that run one by one. that might help here but many of these edge cases have the potentil to conflict wth other test so i guess we would need to be carful about how we would test this | |
| 15:05:05 | dansmith | yeah, true.. it just seems sort of off the table for tempest by scope too, but perhaps not | |
| 15:05:38 | sean-k-mooney | the other concern i have is will this break any current functionl tests if we have repoducer for any of the nova bugs | |
| 15:05:44 | sean-k-mooney | i dont think we do | |
| 15:06:02 | sean-k-mooney | but if you fix it in placment it will presumable sto raising an error with the placement driect fixture | |
| 15:06:14 | dansmith | if we do, I'm not aware of them | |
| 15:06:51 | gibi | having a placement only tempest test for the overallocation fix could be written to be independent from any other test by creating a separate RP, but I'm not sure that worth it compared to a full nova migration test with overallocation. | |
| 15:07:15 | sean-k-mooney | ok in that case i realy dont have any other question related to this. | |
| 15:07:27 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: that could be done but gabit kind fo does that already right | |
| 15:07:38 | gibi | yeah | |
| 15:07:40 | dansmith | gibi: yeah could definitely do that but the placement functional tests feels just as good for that to me | |
| 15:08:01 | gibi | I a big believer in functional tests :) | |
| 15:08:08 | gibi | I'm | |
| 15:11:04 | dansmith | certainly for this they're plenty adequate I think | |
| 16:19:10 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: didn't you have a recipe for using the upstream ansible playbooks to deploy multinode devstack locally? | |
| 16:54:23 | ivveh | hey, im looking to be pointed in the correct direction. i want to nova to build my custom xmls. like hooks or some other method that is supported by nova and preferably has a framework for that. i'd like to avoid modifying the libvirt driver as much as possible | |
| 17:05:32 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: sorry yes i have | |
| 17:07:47 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: https://github.com/SeanMooney/ard/blob/master/ansible/deploy_multinode_devstack.yaml is the playbook that does it that was driven by molecule with vagrant_libvirt to provdie the vms https://github.com/SeanMooney/ard/blob/master/molecule/default/molecule.yml | |
| 17:08:11 | dansmith | ah with vagrant | |
| 17:08:24 | sean-k-mooney | you didnt need vagrant | |
| 17:08:41 | sean-k-mooney | the playbooks could work with any servers once you hadd ssh access | |
| 17:09:28 | sean-k-mooney | so like i provisioned some server internally for vdpa testing and just poited the palybooks at it with an inventory file | |
| 17:09:45 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/SeanMooney/ard/tree/master/examples/vdpa | |
| 17:11:13 | sean-k-mooney | i wrote 3 roles devstack_{common,compute,controller} that wrappted the upstream devstack roles form teh gate jobs | |
| 17:11:17 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/SeanMooney/ard/tree/master/ansible/roles | |
| 17:12:49 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: its been like 3+ years since i used any of this | |
| 17:12:59 | sean-k-mooney | it proably still wroks but i havent been maintining it | |
| 17:13:15 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: was there a specific reason you asked | |
| 17:14:22 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: I was struggling through re-re-remembering the multinode devstack rain dance | |
| 17:14:28 | dansmith | but I got it figured out whilst waiting | |
| 17:14:37 | sean-k-mooney | ah ok | |
| 17:14:44 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: gibi: can confirm that just that placement change fixes the nova migrate-while-over-capacity bug | |
| 17:14:52 | sean-k-mooney | i have some downstream docs of the process with bash | |
| 17:15:09 | dansmith | I was able to repro, then literally swapped placement to that commit, restarted, retried the same migration and it went, confirmed, all good | |
| 17:15:18 | sean-k-mooney | and one of my team recently wrote an ansible playbook to deploy multi node devstack on our internal cloud i can ping you does internally | |
| 17:15:33 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: oh nice | |
| 17:16:24 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: thanks, I need to formalize my own notes, because I have some of my own scripting and making things work with those is most ideal, | |
| 17:16:31 | dansmith | I just suck at persisting the notes after I get it workin, | |
| 17:16:39 | dansmith | but I'm going to do that now | |
| 17:18:11 | ivveh | as more context to my previous question is that i want to include iothread stanza into the xml (for now) | |
| 17:19:58 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: the main parts of multi node are syncing the tls/ceph data, exchantign the ssh keys/known_hosts, ntp sync and updating /etc/hosts before deploying the comptues. then adding a discover host at the end | |
| 17:20:28 | dansmith | yeah, it was just the CA stuff I forgot this time | |