Friday, 2021-12-03

opendevreviewGhanshyam proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Allow project admin to list hypervisors  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/79301100:45
gmanndansmith: gibi addressed your comment for project-admin-list-hypervisors spec, please check https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/79301100:47
opendevreviewGhanshyam proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Allow project admin to list hypervisors  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/79301102:25
opendevreviewBalazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Reproduce bug 1952941  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/82012109:08
opendevreviewBalazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Migrate RequestSpec.numa_topology to use pcpuset  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/82015309:08
gibigmann: ack. I'm swamped with downstream issues, but I will try to get back to the spec09:08
opendevreviewBalazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Migrate RequestSpec.numa_topology to use pcpuset  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/82015309:13
bauzasmelwitt: I didn't know Depends-On works with a HTML link09:56
bauzascontext : https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/81223609:56
bauzasmelwitt: are you sure you use the dependent change ?09:57
bauzas(ie. for me, I was thinking you need to provide a Gerrit change-id and not a link)09:57
bauzasmelwitt: nevermind my ping, I was wrong, this works as we can see it in https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/9df08666e366407b9c35e09a603d8358/log/job-output.txt#538010:15
opendevreviewRajat Dhasmana proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Add support for volume backed server rebuild  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/82036810:25
lyarwoodbauzas: yeah that has worked for a while, I think it's actually preferred by the zuul devs11:14
opendevreviewLee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Ensure all volume drivers log the instance whenever possible  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/78026012:07
opendevreviewLee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: Add regression test for bug #1937084  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/81212612:07
opendevreviewLee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: block_device: Ignore VolumeAttachmentNotFound during detach  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/81212712:07
opendevreviewLee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Create qcow2 disks with the correct size without extending  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/77927512:08
opendevreviewLee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: nova-next: Drop NOVA_USE_SERVICE_TOKEN from subnode  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/81674012:08
opendevreviewLee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: nova-next: Deploy noVNC from source instead of packages  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/81673812:09
lyarwood^ just rebasing various things that are ready for review if cores have time12:09
opendevreviewGabriel Silva Trevisan proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] Set resize claim resource when changing host  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/82038113:28
rlooHi, we have some downstream info that we put in nova server's metadata (via --property) when doing a create or rebulid. I didn't see anything explicit about this so wanted to confirm. In the rebuild, if any metadata was explicitly specified as part of the rebuild command, that metadata replaces the server's metadata, so eg keys specified in the create that weren't explicitly specified in the rebuild, are gone. Is that the expected 15:36
rloobehaviour? (https://opendev.org/openstack/nova/src/commit/7670303aabe16d1d7c25e411d7bd413aee7fdcf3/nova/compute/api.py#L3640)15:36
gmanngibi: thanks 16:49
sean-k-mooneyrloo: i dont think rebuild allows updating metadta it only allows updateing user-data17:07
sean-k-mooneythey are not the same thing17:07
sean-k-mooney so if you use --property to update teh instance metadata the isntance metadata shoudl still be preserved but an image metadtaa will be updated form the new image and that will replace it17:08
sean-k-mooneyand if you speciy new user data on rebuild that shoudl also update the user data17:08
rlooi'm interested in the instance metadata, not the user data. 17:08
sean-k-mooneyhum it looks like metadta can be inclded in teh rebuild instance action https://docs.openstack.org/api-ref/compute/?expanded=rebuild-server-rebuild-action-detail#rebuild-server-rebuild-action17:09
sean-k-mooneyi would expect that to replace all metadta if specifed17:10
sean-k-mooneyi would conder it a bug if it only did a partila update17:10
sean-k-mooneywhich behavior are you seing17:10
rlooi believe the userdata part is correct. but the code that handles metadata looks like it replaces the server's metadata (wahtever was there), with metadata specified in the rebuild. i didn't test, but i think eg 'openstack server create myinstance --property foo=atcreate', then 'openstack server rebuild myinstance --property bar=atrebuild', the server will only have property 'bar=atrebuild'.17:10
sean-k-mooneyrloo: well full replacemnt not partil update is what i would expect17:11
rlooso what you describe is what I see. why do you expect full replacement? (my mental model is diff so want to grok)17:11
sean-k-mooneywell partly because this is a post/put not a patch then openstack apis generally do not support a paritl update approch17:13
sean-k-mooneyit would be strange if this api did when the othere are typicaly a full replacemnt17:13
rloofrom user/my point of view,  I don't know why i'd want to specify all the properties at rebuild. eg if no properties are specified at rebuild, i get the properties from create. if i specify one property value at rebuild, that wipes out all the properties at create.17:13
sean-k-mooneyrloo: well if you do a merge it wont be idompoented as it will depend on the existing state17:14
sean-k-mooneythe real question is what do we do it you do not specify it 17:14
rlooif no property is specified in the rebuild command, the existing properties are used.17:15
sean-k-mooneyok so that is where the discontinuty might arise17:15
sean-k-mooneywe are effectily calling https://docs.openstack.org/api-ref/compute/?expanded=replace-metadata-items-detail#replace-metadata-items17:15
sean-k-mooneyrloo: your expection is that we woudl iterate over teh item and only update them17:16
rlooI don't use the --key-name thing, but I am guessing that is similar behaviour? if one key pair is specified in the rebuild, any existing key pairs are gone?17:16
sean-k-mooneybut then you could not remove metadta on rebuild only modify or add17:16
sean-k-mooneywith the current approch you can do both17:16
rlooyes, that's my expectation. that the new value for key is used.17:16
sean-k-mooneyso as the api is today that is not how its ment to work17:17
rloonew value for the specified property (key) is used.17:17
sean-k-mooneywe would losue functionality if we change it without adding a way to remove keys17:17
rloowell, one can set/unset via 'openstack server set', 'openstack server unset' 17:18
sean-k-mooneyyep which would be a valid way to achive your goa17:18
sean-k-mooneyrebuidl with current metadata and then update17:18
sean-k-mooneythe alterniive is get the meddtata, update it client side and pass the desired state to rebuidl17:19
rlooexcept that we (downstream) need the values for the rebuild operation itself. and our users don't think they have to set them if they've already set them. they just want to change one of the properties/metadata fields.17:19
rlooi can do a downstream patch for this, just wanted to grok what the upstream/intent was, to figure out if we need to carry this patch downstream forever or not.17:20
sean-k-mooneywhich downsteam?17:20
rlooor force our users to explicitly specify all the property values in the rebuild command. or have them specify via the 'set' command, then do a rebuild w/o specifying any.17:21
sean-k-mooneythis is not something we would backprot in redhat for example in osp as it a breaking api change17:21
rlooyahoo downstream.17:21
sean-k-mooneyrloo: to change this we would need a spec and new api microverion17:21
sean-k-mooneyin that version we would likel add a second filed to allow specifying if the metadta was replaced or updated17:21
sean-k-mooneyin the short term forcing users to speciy all the metadta is the way to work around it17:22
sean-k-mooneyor do the metadta update first17:22
sean-k-mooneythen rebuild17:22
rloowell, it seems like what you describe is the intent (vs a bug). i have other things i'd like upstreamed that are more important/useful than this I think so going to hack for now :) Thx for explaining!17:22
sean-k-mooneyno porblem. this likely would be a simple thing to add in that its only a singel new filed17:23
sean-k-mooneyand fairly self contained17:23
sean-k-mooneybut sicne its an api change ti requires a spec.17:23
opendevreviewGustavo Santos proposed openstack/nova master: Reattach mdevs to guest on resume  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/81537317:23
sean-k-mooneyif you decied to file one feel freee to ping me and ill review17:23
rloothx sean-k-mooney!17:24
sean-k-mooneyrloo: looking at the api verions history i dont see this refernce https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/reference/api-microversion-history.html so i suspect this is from our pre 2.1 api17:24
sean-k-mooneyi would proably add "metadata_update_method: replace|merge|clear" if i was to extend the api 17:26
opendevreviewGabriel Silva Trevisan proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] Set resize claim resource when changing host  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/82038117:29
rloosean-k-mooney: it seems to me that i'd want to modify/enhance the existing rebuild API: https://docs.openstack.org/api-ref/compute/?expanded=rebuild-server-rebuild-action-detail#rebuild-server-rebuild-action17:30
sean-k-mooneyrloo: yes17:33
sean-k-mooneyenhance it so you can specify how the metadat is process by addin ga metadata_update_method or some other enhacsement so you can opt into the merge behavior17:34
sean-k-mooneyor even make that the default for the new microversion and allow opting in to the replace behavior17:34
sean-k-mooneybut we need a microversion to ensure we do not break clients17:35
sean-k-mooneythat rely on the current behavior17:35
rloothx sean-k-mooney, I'll keep that in mind!17:38
opendevreviewLee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: conf: Allow cinderclient and os_brick to independently log at DEBUG  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/82039918:22
opendevreviewArtom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Ignore exception.CPUUnpinningInvalid when deleting  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/82040118:33
*** tbachman_ is now known as tbachman20:55

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!