Open Stack

On 8/29/2019 10:45 AM, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
> As feature freeze is closing in I try to raise awareness of the 
> implementation status of the support-move-ops-with-qos-ports 
> <https://review.opendev.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:bp/support-move-ops-with-qos-ports> bp 
> [1].

Thanks for this since I know you've been pushing patches but I haven't 
been able to get myself past the hump that is [3] yet.

> 
> The original goal of the bp was to support every move operations (cold 
> migrate, resize, live-migrate, evacuate, unshelve). Today I have ready 
> and tested (unit + functional) patches proposed for cold migrate and 
> resize [2]. I don't think every move operations will be ready and merged 
> in Train but I still hope that there is a chance for cold migrate and 
> resize to land. Sure I will continue working on supporting the 
> operations that miss the Train in the U release.

This is probably OK since we agreed at the PTG that this blueprint was 
essentially going to be closing gaps in functionality introduced in 
Stein but not adding a new microversion, correct? If so, then doing it 
piece-meal seems OK to me.

> 
> One possible complication in the current patch series is that it 
> proposes the necessary RPC changes for _every_ move operations [3]. This 
> might not be what we want to merge in Train if only cold migrate and 
> resize support fill fit. So I see two possible way forwards:
> a) Others also feel that cold migrate and resize will fit into Train, 
> and then I will quickly change [3] to only modify those RPCs.
> b) We agree to postpone the whole series to U. Then I will not spend too 
> much time on reworking [3] in the Train timeframe.

Or (c) we just land that change. I was meaning to review that today 
anyway so this email is coincidental for me. I think passing the request 
spec down to the compute methods is fine and something we'll want to do 
eventually anyway for this series (even if the live migration stuff is 
deferred to U).

> 
> A connected topic: I proposed patches [4] to add cold migrate and resize 
> tempest coverage to the nova-grenade-multinode (renamed from 
> nova-grenade-live-migrate) job as Matt pointed out in [3] that we don't 
> have such coverage and that my original change in [3] would have broken 
> a mixed-compute-version deployment.

I'm just waiting on CI results for those but since I've already been 
through them in some form and they are pretty small I think there is a 
good chance of landing these soon.

-- 

Thanks,

Matt