[openstack-dev] [nova] Nova Midcycle Summary (i.e. mid mitaka progress report)

Matt Riedemann mriedem at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Tue Feb 2 16:17:18 UTC 2016

On 2/2/2016 4:07 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
> Hi,
> For all the details see this etherpad:
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mitaka-nova-midcycle
> Here I am attempting a brief summary, picking out some highlights.
> Feel free to reply and add your own details / corrections.
> **Process**
> Non-priority FFE deadline is this Friday (5th Feb).
> Now open for Newton specs.
> Please move any proposed Mitaka specs to Newton.
> **Priorities**
> Cells v2:
> It is moving forward, see alaski's great summary:
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-January/084545.html
> Mitaka aim is around the new create instance flow.
> This will make the cell zero and the API database required.
> Need to define a list of instance info that is "valid" in the API
> before the instance has been built.
> v2.1 API:
> API docs updates moving forward, as is the removal of project-ids and
> related work to support the scheduler. Discussed policy discovery for
> newton, in relation to the live-resize blueprint, alaski to follow up
> with keystone folks.
> Live-Migrate:
> Lots of code to review (see usual etherpad for priority order). Some
> details around storage pools need agreeing, but the general approach
> seems to have reached consensus. CI is making good progress, as its
> finding bugs. Folks signed up for manual testing.
> Spoke about the need to look into the token expiry fix discussed at the summit.
> Scheduler:
> Discussed jay's blueprints. For mitaka we agreed to focus on:
> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/mitaka/approved/resource-classes.html,
> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/mitaka/approved/resource-providers.html,
> and possibly https://review.openstack.org/253187. The latter is likely
> to require a new Scheduler API endpoint within Nova.
> Overall there seemed a general agreement on the approach jaypipes
> proposed, and happiness that its almost all in written down now in
> spec changes.
> Discussed the new scheduler plan in relation to IP scheduling for
> neutron's routed networks with armax and carl_baldwin. Made a lot of
> progress towards better understanding each others requirements
> (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/263898/)
> priv-sep:
> We must have priv-sep in os-brick for mitaka to avoid more upgrade problems.
> Go back and do a better job after we fix the burning upgrade issue
> os-vif:
> Work continues.
> Decided it doesn't have to wait for priv-sep.
> Agreed base os-vif lib to include ovs, ovs hybrid, and linux-bridge
> **Testing**
> * Got folks to help get a bleeding edge libvirt test working
> * Agreement on the need to improve ironic driver testing
> * Agreed on the intent to move forward with Feature Classification
> * Reminder about the new CI related review guideline
> **Cross Project**
> Neutron:
> We had armax and carl_baldwin in the room.
> Discussed routed networks and the above scheduler impacts.
> Spoke about API changes so we have less downtime during live-migrate
> when using DVR (or similar tech).
> Get me a network Neutron API needs to be idempotent. Still need help
> with the patch on the Nova side, jaypipes to find someone. Agreed
> overall direction.
> Cinder:
> Joined Cinder meetup via hangout.
> Got a heads up around the issues they are having with nested quotas.
> A patch broke backwards compatibility with olderer cinders, so the
> patch has been reverted.
> Spoke about priv-sep and os-brick, agreed above plan for the brute
> force conversion.
> Agreed multi-attach should wait till Newton. We have merged the DB
> fixes that we need to avoid data corruption. Spoke about using service
> version reporting to stop the API allowing mutli-attach until the
> upgrade has completed. To make remove_export not race, spoke about the
> need for every volume attachment having its own separate host
> attachment, rather than trying to share connections. Still questions
> around upgrade.
> **Other**
> Spoke about the need for policy discovery via the API, before we add
> something like the live-resize blueprint.

While the policy discovery discussion was mostly prompted by the live 
resize spec, I think it also applies to multi-attach since that's 
backend specific and operators are likely to disable the API if they 
aren't supporting it, e.g. Rackspace since the xenapi driver doesn't 
implement multi-attach.

> Spoke about the architectural aim to not have computes communicate
> with each other, and instead have the conductor send messages between
> computes. This was in relation to tdurakov's proposal to refactor the
> live-migrate workflow.
> **Thank You**
> Many thanks for Paul Murray and others at HP for hosting up during our
> time in Bristol, UK.
> Also many thanks to all who made the long trip to Bristol to help
> discuss all these up coming efforts, and start to build consensus
> ahead of the Newton design summit in Austin.
> Thanks for reading,
> johnthetubaguy
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



Matt Riedemann

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list