Open Stack

Le mer. 29 mars 2023 à 08:06, Nguyễn Hữu Khôi <nguyenhuukhoinw at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> Hello.
> I have one question.
> Follow this
>
> https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/admin/availability-zones.html
>
> If the server was not created in a specific zone then it is free to be
> moved to other zones. but when I use
>
> openstack server show [server id]
>
> I still see the "OS-EXT-AZ:availability_zone" value belonging to my
> instance.
>
>
Correct, this is normal. If the operators creates some AZs, then the
enduser should see where the instance in which AZ.


> Could you tell the difference which causes "if the server was not created
> in a specific zone then it is free to be moved to other zones."
>
>
To be clear, an operator can create Availability Zones. Those AZs can then
be seen by an enduser using the os-availability-zones API [1]. Then, either
the enduser wants to use a specific AZ for their next instance creation
(and if so, he/she adds --availability-zone parameter to their instance
creation client) or they don't want and then they don't provide this
parameter.

If they provide this parameter, then the server will be created only in one
host in the specific AZ and then when moving the instance later, it will
continue to move to any host within the same AZ.
If they *don't* provide this parameter, then depending on the
default_schedule_zone config option, either the instance will eventually
use a specific AZ (and then it's like if the enduser was asking for this
AZ), or none of AZ is requested and then the instance can be created and
moved between any hosts within *all* AZs.

That being said, as I said earlier, the enduser can still verify the AZ
from where the instance is by the server show parameter you told.

We also have a documentation explaining about Availability Zones, maybe
this would help you more to understand about AZs :
https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/admin/availability-zones.html


[1]
https://docs.openstack.org/api-ref/compute/#availability-zones-os-availability-zone
(tbc, the enduser won't see the hosts, but they can see the list of
existing AZs)



> Nguyen Huu Khoi
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 8:37 PM Nguyễn Hữu Khôi <nguyenhuukhoinw at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello guys.
>>
>> I just suggest to openstack nova works better. My story because
>>
>>
>>    1.
>>
>>    The server was created in a specific zone with the POST /servers request
>>    containing the availability_zone parameter.
>>
>> It will be nice when we attach randow zone when we create instances then
>> It will only move to the same zone when migrating or masakari ha.
>>
>> Currently we can force it to zone by default zone shedule in nova.conf.
>>
>> Sorry because I am new to Openstack and I am just an operator. I try to
>> verify some real cases.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nguyen Huu Khoi
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 7:43 PM Sylvain Bauza <sbauza at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le lun. 27 mars 2023 à 14:28, Sean Mooney <smooney at redhat.com> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 14:06 +0200, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>>>> > Le lun. 27 mars 2023 à 13:51, Sean Mooney <smooney at redhat.com> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>> >
>>>> > > On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 10:19 +0200, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>>>> > > > Le dim. 26 mars 2023 à 14:30, Rafael Weingärtner <
>>>> > > > rafaelweingartner at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Hello Nguyễn Hũu Khôi,
>>>> > > > > You might want to take a look at:
>>>> > > > > https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/864760. We
>>>> created a
>>>> > > patch
>>>> > > > > to avoid migrating VMs to any AZ, once the VM has been
>>>> bootstrapped in
>>>> > > an
>>>> > > > > AZ that has cross zone attache equals to false.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > Well, I'll provide some comments in the change, but I'm afraid we
>>>> can't
>>>> > > > just modify the request spec like you would want.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Anyway, if you want to discuss about it in the vPTG, just add it
>>>> in the
>>>> > > > etherpad and add your IRC nick so we could try to find a time
>>>> where we
>>>> > > > could be discussing it :
>>>> https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-bobcat-ptg
>>>> > > > Also, this kind of behaviour modification is more a new feature
>>>> than a
>>>> > > > bugfix, so fwiw you should create a launchpad blueprint so we
>>>> could
>>>> > > better
>>>> > > > see it.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > i tought i left review feedback on that too that the approch was not
>>>> > > correct.
>>>> > > i guess i did not in the end.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > modifying the request spec as sylvain menthioned is not correct.
>>>> > > i disucssed this topic on irc a few weeks back with mohomad for
>>>> vxhost.
>>>> > > what can be done is as follows.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > we can add a current_az field  to the Destination object
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/objects/request_spec.py#L1092-L1122
>>>> > > The conductor can read the instance.AZ and populate it in that new
>>>> field.
>>>> > > We can then add a new weigher to prefer hosts that are in the same
>>>> az.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > I tend to disagree this approach as people would think that the
>>>> > Destination.az field would be related to the current AZ for an
>>>> instance,
>>>> > while we only look at the original AZ.
>>>> > That being said, we could have a weigher that would look at whether
>>>> the
>>>> > host is in the same AZ than the instance.host.
>>>> you miss understood what i wrote
>>>>
>>>> i suggested addint Destination.current_az to store teh curernt AZ of
>>>> the instance before scheduling.
>>>>
>>>> so my proposal is if RequestSpec.AZ is not set and
>>>> Destination.current_az is set then the new
>>>> weigher would prefer hosts that are in the same az as
>>>> Destination.current_az
>>>>
>>>> we coudl also call Destination.current_az Destination.prefered_az
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I meant, I think we don't need to provide a new field, we can already
>>> know about what host an existing instance uses if we want (using [1])
>>> Anyway, let's stop to discuss about it here, we should rather review
>>> that for a Launchpad blueprint or more a spec.
>>>
>>> -Sylvain
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/b9a49ffb04cb5ae2d8c439361a3552296df02988/nova/scheduler/host_manager.py#L369-L370
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > This will provide soft AZ affinity for the vm and preserve the fact
>>>> that if
>>>> > > a vm is created without sepcifying
>>>> > > An AZ the expectaiton at the api level woudl be that it can migrate
>>>> to any
>>>> > > AZ.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > To provide hard AZ affintiy we could also add prefileter that would
>>>> use
>>>> > > the same data but instead include it in the
>>>> > > placement query so that only the current AZ is considered. This
>>>> would have
>>>> > > to be disabled by default.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > Sure, we could create a new prefilter so we could then deprecate the
>>>> > AZFilter if we want.
>>>> we already have an AZ prefilter and the AZFilter is deprecate for
>>>> removal
>>>> i ment to delete it in zed but did not have time to do it in zed of
>>>> Antielope
>>>> i deprecated the AZ| filter in
>>>> https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/7c7a2a142d74a7deeda2a79baf21b689fe32cd08
>>>> xena when i enabeld the az prefilter by default.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ah whoops, indeed I forgot the fact we already have the prefilter, so
>>> the hard support for AZ is already existing.
>>>
>>>
>>>> i will try an delete teh AZ filter before m1 if others dont.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > > That woudl allow operators to choose the desired behavior.
>>>> > > curret behavior (disable weigher and dont enabel prefilter)
>>>> > > new default, prefer current AZ (weigher enabeld prefilter disabled)
>>>> > > hard affintiy(prefilter enabled.)
>>>> > >
>>>> > > there are other ways to approch this but updating the request spec
>>>> is not
>>>> > > one of them.
>>>> > > we have to maintain the fact the enduser did not request an AZ.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > Anyway, if folks want to discuss about AZs, this week is the good
>>>> time :-)
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > -Sylvain
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 8:20 AM Nguyễn Hữu Khôi <
>>>> > > nguyenhuukhoinw at gmail.com>
>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Hello guys.
>>>> > > > > > I playing with Nova AZ and Masakari
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/admin/availability-zones.html
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Masakari will move server by nova scheduler.
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Openstack Docs describe that:
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > If the server was not created in a specific zone then it is
>>>> free to
>>>> > > be
>>>> > > > > > moved to other zones, i.e. the AvailabilityZoneFilter
>>>> > > > > > <
>>>> > >
>>>> https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/admin/scheduling.html#availabilityzonefilter
>>>> >
>>>> > > is
>>>> > > > > > a no-op.
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > I see that everyone usually creates instances with "Any
>>>> Availability
>>>> > > > > > Zone" on Horzion and also we don't specify AZ when creating
>>>> > > instances by
>>>> > > > > > cli.
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > By this way, when we use Masakari or we miragrated instances(
>>>> or
>>>> > > > > > evacuate) so our instance will be moved to other zones.
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Can we attach AZ to server create requests API based on Any
>>>> > > > > > Availability Zone to limit instances moved to other zones?
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Thank you. Regards
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Nguyen Huu Khoi
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > --
>>>> > > > > Rafael Weingärtner
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20230329/39d6b893/attachment-0001.htm>