| *** jhorstmann is now known as Guest5975 | 07:51 | |
| *** jhorstmann is now known as Guest5997 | 13:46 | |
| jbernard | #startmeeting cinder | 14:00 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Wed Jan 15 14:00:43 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is jbernard. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 14:00 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 14:00 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'cinder' | 14:00 |
| jbernard | #topic roll call | 14:00 |
| jbernard | o/ | 14:00 |
| abishop | o/ | 14:00 |
| josephillips | o/ | 14:01 |
| Luzi | o/ | 14:01 |
| simondodsley | o/ | 14:01 |
| sp-bmilanov | hi! | 14:01 |
| sfernand | hi folks | 14:01 |
| jungleboyj | o/ | 14:01 |
| rosmaita | o/ | 14:01 |
| msaravan | Hi | 14:01 |
| jhorstmann | o/ | 14:01 |
| akawai | o/ | 14:01 |
| whoami-rajat_ | Hi | 14:02 |
| jbernard | hello everyone, thanks for joining | 14:03 |
| jbernard | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-epoxy-meetings | 14:04 |
| jbernard | before we jump into the topic, quick schedule update | 14:04 |
| jbernard | #link https://releases.openstack.org/epoxy/schedule.html | 14:04 |
| jbernard | we are currently at M2 | 14:05 |
| simondodsley | quick question: Why are there no Cinder points on this schedule | 14:06 |
| jbernard | final release is late march, but for coding we're looking at late feb | 14:06 |
| jbernard | simondodsley: ahh that's an easy one :) i didn't create them :) | 14:06 |
| josephillips | question in new on this meetings , to add a extra topic of review can be checked here? | 14:06 |
| simondodsley | lol - ok - F-cycle then... | 14:07 |
| jbernard | josephillips: sure, just add it to the etherpad | 14:07 |
| jbernard | josephillips: i scrape that each week and add it to my review list | 14:07 |
| jbernard | simondodsley: this brings me to my point | 14:08 |
| jbernard | aside from freezes, the important date we need to agree on is the midcycle | 14:08 |
| jbernard | becasue I didnt set the date already, we have some flexibility | 14:08 |
| yuval | o/ | 14:08 |
| simondodsley | why not just use he same as Manila | 14:09 |
| jbernard | generally, late jan or early feb is ideal, to give enough runway to implement anything that comes out | 14:09 |
| jbernard | simondodsley: that's fine with me | 14:09 |
| jbernard | i wanted to raise it here | 14:09 |
| jbernard | manilla midcyel is week R9 (jan 27) | 14:10 |
| yuval | wait, so where is the feature code freeze? | 14:10 |
| jbernard | yuval: feature freeze is R5 (feb 24) | 14:10 |
| simondodsley | can we state the feature freeze here so we are all aware? | 14:11 |
| yuval | got it | 14:11 |
| simondodsley | oops | 14:11 |
| jbernard | are there any conflicts or objections to repurposing our meeting into a midcycle the week of Jan 27? | 14:12 |
| jbernard | jan 29 to be precise | 14:12 |
| jbernard | (2 weeks from today) | 14:12 |
| rosmaita | works for me | 14:13 |
| jungleboyj | No concerns here. | 14:13 |
| abishop | +1 | 14:13 |
| yuval | +1 | 14:14 |
| sfernand | +1 | 14:14 |
| josephillips | +1 | 14:14 |
| jbernard | ok, great | 14:14 |
| jbernard | i will send a mail | 14:14 |
| jbernard | thanks | 14:15 |
| jbernard | #topic Enhanced Granularity and Live Applicationof Front-end QoS Policies | 14:15 |
| jbernard | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/enhanced-granularity-and-live-application-of-frontend-qos-policies | 14:15 |
| MengyangZhang[m] | Yes, I proposed this, just want to know if the community is interested in this feature | 14:16 |
| MengyangZhang[m] | before we commit to implement it | 14:16 |
| simondodsley | i love the idea of live changes to the QoS settings for a mounted volume. | 14:17 |
| simondodsley | The project specific QoS is also a good idea. Pure has a patch up now to do exactly the same for our backend QoS | 14:18 |
| jbernard | the summary looks good, is there anything like a spec, or more details on proposed implementation? that would likely be the next step | 14:18 |
| abishop | but wouldn't that be something for nova to implement? | 14:18 |
| MengyangZhang[m] | Yes that's the next step and indeed this is a cross project that also needs code changes on nova side. | 14:19 |
| jbernard | abishop: i would assume nova would have to be involved, a spec should show that | 14:19 |
| MengyangZhang[m] | I will try to create a similar bp on nova side and bring it up in next cinder-nova meeting | 14:19 |
| abishop | conceptually it all sounds good, and clearly specs will cover a lot of details | 14:20 |
| MengyangZhang[m] | simondodsley: great, is there a link to their patch? | 14:20 |
| jbernard | MengyangZhang[m]: yeah, if nova has no objections then specs for cinder and nova would allow us to properly review | 14:20 |
| simondodsley | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/933675 | 14:21 |
| MengyangZhang[m] | sounds good, i will bring it up in next nova meeting | 14:21 |
| MengyangZhang[m] | MengyangZhang[m]: would love to learn how they did it | 14:21 |
| rosmaita | MengyangZhang[m]: did your nova spec that we discussed last week get accepted? | 14:22 |
| MengyangZhang[m] | it passed the code freeze period for them so i have to wait until next cycle | 14:23 |
| MengyangZhang[m] | but overall they don't any objections about it | 14:23 |
| whoami-rajat_ | I think you can raise a spec freeze exception | 14:24 |
| rosmaita | ok, bummer about the delay, sorry that we were slow to act on the cinder side | 14:24 |
| whoami-rajat_ | I remember sean mooney suggesting the same | 14:24 |
| jbernard | ok, lets keep moving | 14:26 |
| jbernard | #topic 936619: Dell PowerMax: multi detach req caused race conditions (rosmaita) | 14:26 |
| rosmaita | hi | 14:26 |
| jbernard | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/936619 | 14:26 |
| rosmaita | this is the latest in my weekly series of patches that have stalled | 14:26 |
| rosmaita | the issue is that the dell driver maintainer wants this local fix that they say they have tested and is working | 14:27 |
| rosmaita | while some cinder cores are wondering whether the patch is a band aid, and a more thorough fix is required | 14:28 |
| rosmaita | i can see this both ways | 14:28 |
| rosmaita | which is the problem, i guess | 14:29 |
| whoami-rajat | the main worry here is that if we merge this and later some other deadlock occurs since we didn't fix this the proper way, we are again back to square 1 | 14:29 |
| rosmaita | what i would like is for us today to decide whether to accept the patch with reservations | 14:29 |
| rosmaita | or require more work | 14:29 |
| abishop | the topic pertains to coordination locks; currently there are lots of small locks around portions of the code, and the proposed fix would a new lock around a much larger operation | 14:31 |
| jbernard | this is all local to the powermax driver | 14:32 |
| rosmaita | right | 14:33 |
| jbernard | there is significant backlog to read | 14:33 |
| jbernard | the folks involved in the patch already, is there a consensus? | 14:34 |
| rosmaita | well, yian has a comment that this top level lock that we don't like is actually correct for the backend | 14:35 |
| rosmaita | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/936619/2#message-085723942bf6ec5a1e82390ec41a5a5c042fe12c | 14:35 |
| rosmaita | that said, i am inclined to trust Rajat's intuition that this may not fix everything | 14:36 |
| rosmaita | but, on the third hand, it's dell's driver and they do have an argument that this is an ok fix | 14:36 |
| rosmaita | and that it's been tested and avoids the race condition | 14:37 |
| abishop | that weighs in favor of Dell's patch, they own the solution but also any fallout/regression | 14:37 |
| jbernard | ^ this is where i lean as well | 14:38 |
| jbernard | but im not up to speed on this one | 14:38 |
| rosmaita | i guess my feeling is that since this doesn't touch the main cinder code, and dell is convinced that it is correct, we probably shouldn't hold it up | 14:38 |
| simondodsley | the comments mention OpenShift and also RHOSP - how are these related unless they mean RHOSO?? | 14:38 |
| simondodsley | and even then the dicconnects should be to the nova side which are not in pods | 14:39 |
| whoami-rajat | their approach is not totally wrong, they want to only allow either attach or detach of one volume at one time, it's just the scope of the lock is too big | 14:39 |
| whoami-rajat | I'm okay to remove my -1 if team thinks it's best to let the dell team handle the issue their way | 14:40 |
| simondodsley | in general the fix sounds reasonable and it is a powermax specific issue so the core cinder code doesn't need to be affected | 14:42 |
| jbernard | rosmaita, abishop? any strong feelings? | 14:43 |
| abishop | I think reviewer concerns are noted, but am OK with Dell proceding with their patch | 14:43 |
| rosmaita | i guess that's where i come down too ... Rajat's reasoning is explained well in his comment, and they will have something to go back to if the problem persists | 14:44 |
| rosmaita | (i mean, something to refer to) | 14:44 |
| jbernard | these are all good points | 14:44 |
| jbernard | ok, this one can unblock then | 14:45 |
| rosmaita | i think Rajat can keep his -1 if he likes | 14:45 |
| jbernard | that's fair | 14:45 |
| rosmaita | in fact, he should | 14:46 |
| rosmaita | and then he can say "i told you so" after i +2 the patch | 14:46 |
| jbernard | lol | 14:46 |
| rosmaita | :D | 14:46 |
| whoami-rajat | :D | 14:46 |
| rosmaita | seriously, though, i do think leave the -1 to make it clear that you have reservations | 14:46 |
| whoami-rajat | i removed it since it might discourage others to review it | 14:46 |
| whoami-rajat | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/936619/2#message-dd5cb190790e5ab109d6712cc8f994d35c3d1aa4 | 14:46 |
| whoami-rajat | ok, should i will add it again then ... | 14:47 |
| rosmaita | jbernard: i will review, will you be the 2nd reviewer? | 14:47 |
| rosmaita | (i just don't want this patch to continue to sit now that we've decided how to proceed) | 14:48 |
| jbernard | rosmaita: yes, i will have cycles this afternoon | 14:48 |
| rosmaita | ok, great ... thanks everyone for the discussion, that's all from me | 14:48 |
| whoami-rajat | done | 14:48 |
| whoami-rajat | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/936619/2#message-af9ae0adbfebdb8276edea8ef6b4fd38748af0cc | 14:48 |
| jbernard | cool | 14:48 |
| jbernard | #topic open discussion | 14:48 |
| flelain | Hey! Hope you guys are doing well! | 14:49 |
| jbernard | flelain: thanks, you too! | 14:49 |
| flelain | Don't know it that's the best slot but I have this pacth, staled for now: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/937526 | 14:49 |
| flelain | Yeah doing well thx! | 14:50 |
| flelain | And sorry if it's not the best time and place :-/ | 14:50 |
| jbernard | flelain: rosmaita will likely follow up on that as he's reviewed it already | 14:51 |
| sp-bmilanov | btw, last week there were talks of getting an internim os-brick release out, to help with getting Cinder changes in.. is that sill on the table? | 14:51 |
| rosmaita | i think that patch is good, i just wanted to look into whether the new exception class is really necessary | 14:51 |
| rosmaita | sp-bmilanov: i think it was released | 14:51 |
| jbernard | i +1'd the hash | 14:51 |
| whoami-rajat | we wouldn't even have that issue if nova cleaned up the leftover attachments during live migrate and other similar operations, but that's a long running discussion | 14:51 |
| rosmaita | (i'm sure flelain is right about the exception, i was just surprised and wanted to look more closely) | 14:51 |
| sp-bmilanov | rosmaita: where can I confirm this? The latest tag I see here is two months ago, but I might be looking at the wrong place: https://opendev.org/openstack/os-brick/tags | 14:53 |
| rosmaita | sp-bmilanov: sorry, the release is ready but hasn't happened yet: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/938578 | 14:53 |
| sp-bmilanov | ah, ok | 14:53 |
| yuval | rosmaita I need to update my 3rd party ci wiki, but I keep failing the sign in: https://wiki.openstack.org/w/index.php?title=Special:OpenIDLogin&returnto=Main_Page | 14:53 |
| yuval | can someone check if they are able to sign in - maybe its a running issue? | 14:53 |
| rosmaita | yuval: i will check | 14:54 |
| jbernard | yuval: i just logged in | 14:54 |
| jbernard | yuval: seems to be sucessful for me | 14:55 |
| sp-bmilanov | yuval: same as jbernard, I can log in | 14:55 |
| rosmaita | me too | 14:55 |
| josephillips | i have some doubts about this https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/cinder-rbd-qos-total-iops-per-gb | 14:56 |
| rosmaita | yuval: you were going to make the change we discussed yesterday? | 14:56 |
| josephillips | if i should use the same keys that is on this documentation https://docs.openstack.org/cinder/latest/admin/capacity-based-qos.html | 14:57 |
| rosmaita | yuval: i can edit the page now, and you can follow up with the infra team to get your login fixed | 14:57 |
| whoami-rajat | josephillips, i think yes, you just need to set the consumer to back-end | 14:57 |
| yuval | yes | 14:57 |
| josephillips | yes i dunderstand that but my question is if i can use the same keys? | 14:58 |
| yuval | yes please | 14:58 |
| whoami-rajat | josephillips, are you planning to implement it? don't we already have back-end qos for rbd? | 14:58 |
| josephillips | whoami-rajat yea i will going to implement it , not in a capacitive way | 14:59 |
| rosmaita | yuval: got it | 14:59 |
| josephillips | is not available whoami-rajat | 14:59 |
| yuval | I see it | 14:59 |
| yuval | 3rd party system: Lightbits CI | 14:59 |
| yuval | Thanks | 14:59 |
| whoami-rajat | josephillips, https://github.com/openstack/cinder/commit/f1bb51c25138a1aaab45b64e2934c0468b941677 | 15:00 |
| josephillips | yea but is static , nof depending the volume size | 15:00 |
| rosmaita | yuval: let's see if the ciwatch picks that up, otherwise we can reach out to smcginnis | 15:00 |
| yuval | http://cinderstats.ivehearditbothways.com/cireport.txt - maybe this need some time to be updated | 15:01 |
| simondodsley | there is no per gb qos in ceph | 15:01 |
| yuval | I will check it | 15:01 |
| josephillips | yea but is static , nof depending the volume size whoami-rajat | 15:01 |
| simondodsley | is that because ceph actually support this? | 15:01 |
| josephillips | ceph support QoS simondodsley but only a static way , if you see another manufacters example netapp they provide a key to allow it dinamic depending of the volume size | 15:03 |
| simondodsley | i'm not sure ceph supports per gb qos, so you will be limited to using the front-end qos that already exists | 15:03 |
| jbernard | (we are over time, can we continue this in #openstack-cinder?) | 15:04 |
| simondodsley | sure | 15:04 |
| jbernard | ok, thanks everyone! | 15:04 |
| jbernard | #endmeeting | 15:04 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Wed Jan 15 15:04:35 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 15:04 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/cinder/2025/cinder.2025-01-15-14.00.html | 15:04 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/cinder/2025/cinder.2025-01-15-14.00.txt | 15:04 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/cinder/2025/cinder.2025-01-15-14.00.log.html | 15:04 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!