Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2025-04-28
08:52:57 gibi mkuroha: thanks for proposing that patch. It looks pretty clean and simple, so I like it. How do you feel about this approach?
08:54:55 gibi bauzas: yeah, I want to see the first light locally that nova-scheduler starts without monkey patching and with all the spawn calls actually taking native threads from a threadpool. If it start and not imediately fails that is already success. Then I will try throwing tempest at it and see if it works, does not hang, does not loose threads from the pool, etc.
08:55:34 gibi bauzas: it needs to depend the still open (and not fully working) oslo.sevice patch so this will be mostly local trials and maybe CI runs if I can extend devstack to pass env variable to nova-scheduler at start
08:56:27 gibi I expect that this means less actual reviewable patches proposed, and more WIP patches iterated
08:56:36 gibi this week.
08:57:01 gibi Also this week I'm off Thrusday, Friday
08:57:10 gibi so it is a short week anyhow
08:58:24 gibi so you can review the long series for spotting conceptual errors but that series is mostly WIP and expected to change based on the feedback provided by the local testing of scatter-gather in the scheduler in native threading mode.
08:58:43 gibi I will write up a post about how to replicate the local testing setup I have so others can try
09:10:27 bauzas gibi: cool, sorry wasn't nagged by a notification when you pinged me
09:10:44 bauzas gibi: I'll also be on PTO on Thur and Fri
09:11:36 bauzas gibi: so tbc, that's this gerrit branch that I could look at ? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948064/3
09:12:20 gibi yes that is the one I'm trying to use to test things locally
09:12:36 bauzas noted
09:12:44 gibi there are two independent patches. A small delete https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/947260?usp=search
09:13:03 gibi and the replacement series here https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/947212
09:13:29 gibi on the latter I expect Kamil to propose more similar patches this week
09:13:56 bauzas I already reviewed the hacking patch
09:14:10 gibi yeah, I just noticed. Thanks
09:14:41 bauzas for the moment, the removals and hacking patches were easy to review and without any concerns
09:14:45 gibi if you look at the recheck history of https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/947212 you see that our gate is not super happy
09:15:03 gibi I filed https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/2109428
09:15:04 bauzas but the futurist branch needs more brain time for me :)=
09:15:17 gibi bauzas: yeah the long barnch is more complicated
09:15:20 gibi and less hashed out
09:15:50 bauzas yeah saw the libvirt failure
09:15:55 bauzas seems a new regression IMHO
09:16:17 gibi also we reverted a pyroute2 bump over the weekend https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/2109428
09:16:27 gibi sorry worng link
09:16:28 gibi https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/948283
09:17:12 gibi but the author of pyroute2 already responded in https://bugs.launchpad.net/os-vif/+bug/2109396 so that is nicely moving along
09:17:42 bauzas thanks for the info
09:18:50 gibi now that I'm back to relying on the upstream CI, I will spend more time caring for it and filing bugs j)
09:18:54 gibi :)
09:31:07 mkuroha gibi: Thank you for the confirmation!!:) I have one concern: I'm wondering if there is any concern in the behavior when /etc/nova/provider.yaml is deleted while /applied_provider_config/provider.yaml is present. (Current: the additional.traits of the resource provider and the /applied_provider_config/provider.yaml file remain.).
09:31:33 mkuroha Additionally, in this patch, are there any tests other than the nova's functional tests that should be added? (This is my almost first patch for nova, and I'm not very familiar with it, so I would like to confirm it.)
09:33:07 gibi mkuroha: good point about the edge case of deleting /etc/nova/provider.yaml. I think the expected behavior in this case that all the traits that are listed in the applied file is removed and then the applied file is deleted at the end.
09:35:25 gibi mkuroha: the functional test looks good to me. Adding one for the deleted provider.yaml case would be nice too. If you feel that the merge_provider_config or other changes could benefit from some unit test then that is also OK to add.
09:36:04 gibi but for me the current PoC would be enough to write and approve a spec
09:37:32 gibi so I suggest to write a small spec based on the PoC, so that we can approve that by the rest of the team
09:40:15 mkuroha gibi: I see, thank you for your all comments!! I will start working on fixing the spec side :)
09:40:25 gibi mkuroha: thanks for the effort!
10:13:47 opendevreview Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova stable/2025.1: FUP Remove unnecessary PCI check https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/946623
10:17:56 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova master: Replace eventlet sleep with time.sleep https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/947212
11:39:06 sean-k-mooney melwitt: dansmith we proably need to go fix https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2076614
11:39:57 sean-k-mooney is there any reason not to delete all the online migration beofre the bobcat one on master?>
11:40:29 sean-k-mooney the previous one was for victoria when upgrading to wallaby
11:41:07 sean-k-mooney so no modern cloud shoudl be running anythin other then the latest one. even if your coming form yoga
11:41:18 sean-k-mooney or wallaby
13:52:00 dansmith sean-k-mooney: removing the super old ones seems fine.. are you suggesting removing the one from victoria?
13:52:15 sean-k-mooney that im unsure
13:52:22 sean-k-mooney i was thinkign yes
13:52:23 dansmith either way, that fake deleted instance marker thing probably needs to be cleaned in its own migration and never done again
13:52:27 sean-k-mooney and only keeping the last one
13:52:36 sean-k-mooney but i wanted your input on where to draw the line
13:52:41 dansmith keeping the bobcat one you mean
13:52:50 sean-k-mooney ya so we should keep that one
13:52:59 sean-k-mooney because you can still go form antelope to carical
13:53:12 sean-k-mooney but vitoriay is very much eol
13:53:24 sean-k-mooney so i think we coudl drop that on master
13:53:44 dansmith yeah
13:54:24 sean-k-mooney the reason this is on my mind
13:54:37 sean-k-mooney is there is a mailing list thread
13:54:42 sean-k-mooney on slup upgrades
13:55:11 sean-k-mooney and apprently this is impacting folks so i wanted to highlight this again so we can figure out how to adress this
13:56:45 dansmith yeah
13:59:29 sean-k-mooney by the way i noticed that we only run the online migrations
13:59:42 sean-k-mooney if we pass a var to grenade
14:00:01 sean-k-mooney https://opendev.org/openstack/grenade/src/branch/master/projects/60_nova/upgrade.sh#L83-L86
14:00:22 sean-k-mooney i have not checked yet but i wonder if we are passing FORCE_ONLINE_MIGRATIONS in our ci jobs
14:00:23 dansmith online migrations are supposed to be post-upgrade idle time work, so the default is to not run them in grenade to make sure they aren't *required* to make things work
14:00:35 sean-k-mooney oh ok
14:00:46 sean-k-mooney so that intentional
14:00:50 dansmith yeah
14:01:02 sean-k-mooney i guess we would only set that for a blocker data migration?
14:01:29 sean-k-mooney i was just trying to think is there any way we could catch the isseu in ci
14:02:35 dansmith no, a blocker migration is something that blocks the schema upgrade, before we've upgraded code
14:02:52 dansmith so the only way we'd hit that is if we were somehow doing a multi-step upgrade in ci
14:03:04 dansmith sean-k-mooney: a functional reproducer for this would be best I think,
14:03:04 sean-k-mooney ok i was not sure if we had both blocker migration for schema and data or not
14:03:12 dansmith as it requires going through old migrations and new ones right?
14:03:41 dansmith like, you have to have run the vif one years ago and *then* run the more recent ones with that deleted entry still in there?
14:03:43 sean-k-mooney maybe we might need to tweak or aovid some of the db fixture
14:03:49 dansmith also doesn't a db archive clean this up?
14:04:27 dansmith oh nm, it gets re-created even if we don't have anything to migrate I guess? ugh, that was such a mistake
14:04:36 sean-k-mooney i think, we might replicate the fake isntance issue
14:04:53 sean-k-mooney if we created the scemea with the latest verion
14:05:00 sean-k-mooney and then did the online migration twice
14:05:05 dansmith yeah, twice
14:05:06 sean-k-mooney but im not sure
14:05:14 dansmith or we can just nuke that old stuff and move on
14:05:49 sean-k-mooney so tryign to replciat this manually might be a good first step just to make sure we can replciate this in say devstack by hand
14:06:07 sean-k-mooney then we can comment out the old migrations and see if it works
14:06:17 sean-k-mooney although i think we will need to clean up the fake isntance
14:06:44 sean-k-mooney im trying not to get nerd sniped into actully fixing this myslef
14:06:52 sean-k-mooney which is why i have not tried that yet
14:07:06 sean-k-mooney but if others dont have tiem i can maybe try that
14:08:45 dansmith $ nova-manage db online_data_migrations
14:08:45 dansmith Running batches of 50 until complete
14:08:45 dansmith ERROR nova.objects.instance [None req-f81c2435-02e7-4cb1-83be-41c1d58c0114 None None] [instance: 730e0a06-3164-4096-8713-4d1f87d3260b] Unable to migrate instance because host None with node None not found: nova.exception.ComputeHostNotFound: Compute host None could not be found.

Earlier   Later