Open Stack

Sorry folks for the late reply, I'll try to also weigh in the Gerrit change.

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 04/23/2018 05:51 PM, Arvind N wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the detailed options Matt/eric/jay.
>>
>> Just few of my thoughts,
>>
>> For #1, we can make the explanation very clear that we rejected the
>> request because the original traits specified in the original image and the
>> new traits specified in the new image do not match and hence rebuild is not
>> supported.
>>
>
> I believe I had suggested that on the spec amendment patch. Matt had
> concerns about an error message being a poor user experience (I don't
> necessarily disagree with that) and I had suggested a clearer error message
> to try and make that user experience slightly less sucky.
>
> For #3,
>>
>> Even though it handles the nested provider, there is a potential issue.
>>
>> Lets say a host with two SRIOV nic. One is normal SRIOV nic(VF1), another
>> one with some kind of offload feature(VF2).(Described by alex)
>>
>> Initial instance launch happens with VF:1 allocated, rebuild launches
>> with modified request with traits=HW_NIC_OFFLOAD_X, so basically we want
>> the instance to be allocated VF2.
>>
>> But the original allocation happens against VF1 and since in rebuild the
>> original allocations are not changed, we have wrong allocations.
>>
>
> Yep, that is certainly an issue. The only solution to this that I can see
> would be to have the conductor ask the compute node to do the pre-flight
> check. The compute node already has the entire tree of providers, their
> inventories and traits, along with information about providers that share
> resources with the compute node. It has this information in the
> ProviderTree object in the reportclient that is contained in the compute
> node resource tracker.
>
> The pre-flight check, if run on the compute node, would be able to grab
> the allocation records for the instance and determine if the required
> traits for the new image are present on the actual resource providers
> allocated against for the instance (and not including any child providers
> not allocated against).
>
>
Yup, that. We also have pre-flight checks for move operations like live and
cold migrations, and I'd really like to keep all the conditionals in the
conductor, because it knows better than the scheduler which operation is
asked.
I'm not really happy with adding more in the scheduler about "yeah, it's a
rebuild, so please do something exceptional", and I'm also not happy with
having a filter (that can be disabled) calling the Placement API.


> Or... we chalk this up as a "too bad" situation and just either go with
> option #1 or simply don't care about it.


Also, that too. Maybe just provide an error should be enough, nope?
Operators, what do you think ? (cross-calling openstack-operators@)

 -Sylvain


>
> Best,
> -jay
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20180424/12d439cb/attachment.html>