[nova] review guide for the bandwidth patches
melwittt at gmail.com
Sat Jan 5 00:35:21 UTC 2019
On Fri, 04 Jan 2019 13:20:54 +0000, Sean Mooney <smooney at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-01-04 at 00:48 -0800, melanie witt wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 11:40:22 -0600, Matt Riedemann <mriedemos at gmail.com>
>>> On 12/28/2018 4:13 AM, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
>>>> I'm wondering that introducing an API microversion could act like a
>>>> feature flag I need and at the same time still make the feautre
>>>> discoverable as you would like to see it. Something like: Create a
>>>> feature flag in the code but do not put it in the config as a settable
>>>> flag. Instead add an API microversion patch to the top of the series
>>>> and when the new version is requested it enables the feature via the
>>>> feature flag. This API patch can be small and simple enough to
>>>> cherry-pick to earlier into the series for local end-to-end testing if
>>>> needed. Also in functional test I can set the flag via a mock so I can
>>>> add and run functional tests patch by patch.
>>> That may work. It's not how I would have done this, I would have started
>>> from the bottom and worked my way up with the end to end functional
>>> testing at the end, as already noted, but I realize you've been pushing
>>> this boulder for a couple of releases now so that's not really something
>>> you want to change at this point.
>>> I guess the question is should this change have a microversion at all?
>>> That's been wrestled in the spec review and called out in this thread. I
>>> don't think a microversion would be *wrong* in any sense and could only
>>> help with discoverability on the nova side, but am open to other opinions.
>> Sorry to be late to this discussion, but this brought up in the nova
>> meeting today to get more thoughts. I'm going to briefly summarize my
>> thoughts here.
>> IMHO, I think this change should have a microversion, to help with
>> discoverability. I'm thinking, how will users be able to detect they're
>> able to leverage the new functionality otherwise? A microversion would
>> signal the availability. As for dealing with the situation where a user
>> specifies an older microversion combined with resource requests, I think
>> it should behave similarly to how multiattach works, where the request
>> will be rejected straight away if microversion too low + resource
>> requests are passed.
> this has implcations for upgrades and virsion compatiablity.
> if a newver version of neutron is used with older nova then
> behavior will change when nova is upgraded to a version of
> nova the has the new micoversion.
> my concern is as follows.
> a given deployment has rocky nova and rocky neutron.
> a teant define a minium bandwidth policy and applise it to a network.
> they create a port on that network.
> neutorn will automatically apply the minium bandwith policy to the port when it is created on the network.
> but we could also assuume the tenatn applied the policy to the port if we liked.
> the tanant then boots a vm with that port.
> when the vm is schduled to a node neutron will ask the network backend via the ml2 driver to configure the minium
> bandwith policy if the network backend supports it as part of the bind port call. the ml2 driver can refuse to bind the
> port at this point if it cannot fulfile the request to prevent the vm from spwaning. assuming the binding succeeds the
> backend will configure the minium andwith policy on the interface. nova in rocky will not schdule based on the qos
> policy as there is no resouce request in the port and placement will not model bandwith availablity.
> note: that this is how minium bandwith was orignially planned to be implmented with ml2/odl and other sdn controler
> backend several years ago but odl did not implement the required features so this mechanium was never used.
> i am not aware of any ml2 dirver that actully impmented bandwith check but before placement was created this
> the mechinium that at least my team at intel and some others had been planning to use.
> so in rocky the vm should boot, there will be no prevention of over subsciption in placement and netuon will configure
> the minium bandwith policy if the network backend suports it. The ingress qos minium bandwith rules was only added in
> neutron be egress qos minium bandwith support was added in newton with
> so there are will be a lot of existing cases where ports will have minium bandwith policies before stein.
> if we repeat the same exercise with rocky nova and stein neutron this changes slightly in that
> neutron will look at the qos policy associates with the port and add a resouce request. as rocky nova
> will not have code to parse the resource requests form the neutron port they will be ignored and
> the vm will boot, the neutron bandwith will configure minium bandwith enforcement on the port, placement will
> model the bandwith as a inventory but no allocation will be created for the vm.
> note: i have not checked the neutron node to confirm the qos plugin will still work without the placement allocation
> but if it dose not its a bug as stien neutron would nolnger work with pre stien nova. as such we would have
> broken the ablity to upgrade nova and neutron seperatly.
> if you use stein nova and stein neutron and the new micro version then the vm boots, we allocate the bandiwth in
> placement and configure the enforment in the networking backend if it supports it which is our end goal.
> the last configuration is stein nova and stien neutron with old microviron.
> this will happen in two cases.
> first the no micorverion is specified explcitly and openstack client is used since it will not negocitate the latest
> micro version or an explict microversion is passed.
> if the last rocky micro version was passed for example and we chose to ignore the presence of the resouce request then
> it would work the way it did with nova rocky and neutron stien above. if we choose to reject the request instead
> anyone who tries to preform instance actions on an existing instance will break after nova is upgraded to stien.
> while the fact over subsription is may happend could be problematic to debug for some i think the ux cost is less then
> the cost of updating all software that used egress qos since it was intoduced in newton to explcitly pass the latest
> i am in favor of adding a microversion by the way, i just think we should ignore the resouce request if an old
> microversion is used.
Thanks for describing this detailed scenario -- I wasn't realizing that
today, you can get _some_ QoS support by pre-creating ports in neutron
with resource requests attached and specifying those ports when creating
a server. I understand now the concern with the idea of rejecting
requests < new microversion + port.resource_request existing on
pre-created ports. And there's no notion of being able to request QoS
support via ports created by Nova (no change in Nova API or flavor
extra-specs in the design). So, I could see this situation being reason
enough not to reject requests when an old microversion is specified.
But, let's chat more about it via a hangout the week after next (week of
January 14 when Matt is back), as suggested in #openstack-nova today.
We'll be able to have a high-bandwidth discussion then and agree on a
decision on how to move forward with this.
>> Current behavior today would be, the resource
>> requests are ignored. If we only ignored the resource requests when
>> they're passed with an older microversion, it seems like it would be an
>> unnecessarily poor UX to have their parameters ignored and likely lead
>> them on a debugging journey if and when they realize things aren't
>> working the way they expect given the resource requests they specified.
More information about the openstack-discuss