15:00:00 #startmeeting ironic 15:00:00 Meeting started Mon Apr 25 15:00:00 2022 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is iurygregory. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:00 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:00:00 The meeting name has been set to 'ironic' 15:00:10 Hello ironicers! 15:00:11 o/ 15:00:12 o/ 15:00:16 Welcome to our weekly meeting! 15:00:22 o/ 15:00:22 o/ 15:00:33 o/ 15:00:35 o/ 15:00:44 o/ 15:00:49 the agenda for our meeting can be found in the wiki 15:00:57 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Ironic#Agenda_for_next_meetin 15:01:09 o/ 15:01:12 ops wrong link 15:01:37 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Ironic#Agenda_for_next_meeting 15:01:50 #topic Announcements / Reminder 15:02:12 #info Zed PTG Summary is the ML 15:02:19 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-April/028293.html 15:02:34 o/ 15:02:38 o/ 15:03:08 sorry about the delay on this and also on the patch with the priorities for the cycle, last two weeks were a bit complicated downstream 15:04:08 #info First bugfix branch to be created next week 15:04:11 I guess I'm curious, first bugfix like 4 weeks into the new cycle? 15:04:14 thx for the PTG summary iurygregory! 15:04:30 TheJulia, yeah... 15:04:34 what, there's a bug? :D 15:04:40 There are always bugs 15:04:45 They shall rule the world one day! 15:04:53 More, now that it's spring :) 15:04:59 rpioso: exactly! 15:05:25 iurygregory: just every six week timing from the last? 15:06:07 some information to help on that front.. downstream we consume bugfix and stable branches, and we had some changes in the calendar 15:06:29 I think we're in between 5 and 7 weeks, so we should be good? Next week is 5 weeks from the branch cut 15:06:55 yeah we will be 5 weeks I think 15:06:59 Okay 15:07:24 it would help so we don't have to do downstream backports from a feature we had included in *zed* to *yoga* downstream 15:07:57 ugh 15:07:59 fun! 15:08:13 Anyway, onward 15:08:25 ok o/ 15:08:53 #topic Review action items from previous meeting 15:09:23 well I don't think I added as action item, but it's one.. I had to push the summary + the priorities patch so people cold review 15:09:46 I've done the summary with some delay, the patch with priorities will be up after my lunch today 15:10:10 #Review subteam status reports 15:10:32 we will likely skip this week and get back to it next week, thoughts? 15:12:01 ok, moving on =) 15:12:12 yeah, move on 15:12:17 #topic Deciding on priorities for the coming week 15:12:25 #link https://review.opendev.org/q/status:open+hashtag:ironic-week-prio 15:13:35 I'm thinking of putting multipath patches up... if I do so, any objection if I add them to the prio review list? 15:13:44 Does anyone have topics that we should review? we only have 4, I know the tempest-plugin one have been open for a while (I will take a look, I was quite busy past 3 weeks) 15:13:51 TheJulia, ++ to adding 15:14:37 rpittau, since you have a -2 on it, what are your thoughts? 15:14:58 So looks like I could add the auto-add lessee id field feature. two minor things to fix and it shoudl be good to go 15:15:17 I'm thinking so we actually have a disk representing it, although it might break our RAID testing. Would be interesting to see! 15:15:42 iurygregory: let's add that to priority, my -2 was related to the testing part 15:15:49 I'm also focused on trying to get our v6 job sorted 15:15:52 i would just try to keep as simple as possible so we can backport without many problems TheJulia =D 15:15:57 but I think the issue is in devstack at the moment 15:16:04 rpittau, ack =) 15:16:19 iurygregory: well, at least on master we can likely start testing it fairly easily 15:16:25 I'll add related patches once they are up 15:16:50 makes sense to me 15:18:13 I will also add the grenade skip one after looking at the feedback (tks TheJulia and dtantsur ) 15:18:51 and ofc the one with the priorities I will push =D 15:19:37 ok, moving on 15:19:45 #topic Open discussion 15:19:55 we have one topic today \o/ 15:20:06 #info Transition Victoria to EM 15:20:08 skipping rfe review? 15:20:22 rfe is after sig 15:20:29 ahh, open discussion should be at the end 15:20:30 at least in the order I see in the agenda... 15:20:34 Sorry 15:20:45 since open ended discussions can end the meeting 15:20:50 Anyway, ignore me 15:20:55 no worries! 15:20:57 I think i figured out why our v6 job is broken 15:21:15 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/837937 15:22:14 I'm wondering if we want to push some releases before tagging victoria-em 15:22:29 seems reasonable if they are out of date 15:22:57 #action iury to check if we have releases in victoria before moving to em 15:23:40 #topic Baremetal SIG 15:23:54 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/bare-metal-sig 15:24:06 #info Recording of the last SIG meeting - Manuel Holtgrewe on "Bare Metal for Health - Using OpenStack Ironic for HPC at Berlin Institute of Health" 15:24:16 #link https://youtu.be/5yJvXFOqzSI 15:24:28 arne_wiebalck, anything to add for the SIG? 15:26:29 ok, I think Arne is not around today =) 15:26:31 moving on 15:26:40 #topic RFE review 15:27:15 #info Prevent mass instance deletions/rebuilds 15:27:23 #link https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2010007 15:27:30 TheJulia, o/ 15:27:50 So! 15:27:56 I proposed two RFE's based upon discussions during the PTG 15:28:09 The first is a basic mechanism to allow preventing mass deletions of nodes 15:28:43 The idea being lightweight, and simple to implement, and I believe fairly easy for us to wire in. I'd appreciate any feedback. 15:29:08 The latter is regarding Agent power savings 15:29:12 #link https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2010008 15:29:24 I've posted a WIP of this and did some local experimentation, just to keep it simple 15:29:59 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic-python-agent/+/839095 15:30:20 basically, just changes the governor and tries to invoke intel's internal pstate selector if present 15:30:47 Please let me know if there are any thoughts or concerns, otherwise I'll proceed with as I've started 15:31:24 this is related to the safeguards we talked at the PTG right? 15:31:30 yes 15:32:01 ok, in my mind it was only for cleaning, but the idea does make a lot of sense after reading what you wrote in the RFE 15:32:08 sorry, I need to drop, I'll check the backlog later o/ 15:32:36 bye rpittau =) 15:33:23 I'm thinking upstream can carry a reasonable default, and folks like Arne can tune the setting down to match their environment's usage 15:33:35 ++ yeah 15:34:02 and actually, that reasonable default *could* just default on startup to number of conductors * threads too 15:34:20 maybe that is not reasonable 15:34:22 Anyway, just thoughts 15:34:56 oh, we should add https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic/+/818299 to the list for reviews 15:35:20 interesting idea (# conductors * threads) 15:35:30 In similar vain of protections, I posted another WIP to get an idea out of my head 15:35:33 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic-python-agent/+/839084 15:35:42 Which also kind of starts building a groundwork an intern can carry forward 15:36:16 TheJulia, I just noticed you mention in the RFE *This spec proposes* 15:36:32 in the end you think it requires a spec? 15:36:43 oh, old habits maybe? 15:36:48 maybe =) 15:37:12 I just wanted to double check, because after reading I don't think it would require one... 15:37:43 but maybe is just me :D we need more feedback to make a final decision 15:38:05 to me it does make sense, no objections 15:38:10 I did go through and look for common shared disk/lun block filesystems 15:38:21 and added the 3 to that patch that made sense 15:38:30 I don't think we should add all filesystems 15:38:34 maybe not for GPFS, but I found a shared block device example in IBM's docs 15:38:40 only that magical ones that can wipe the cluster via iBFT or whatever 15:38:48 yeah, and those are these filesystems 15:38:49 I highly doubt GFS2 is one 15:39:13 According to docs, it is, but I'm happy to remove it. It also doesn't use partitions or a table, which caused me to raise an eyebrow some 15:39:24 s/table/mbr or gpt table/ 15:39:34 I mean... there is a legitimate case of wiping members of distributed file systems 15:39:41 think, decomissioning of a storage node 15:39:42 absolutely! 15:39:55 I don't disagree that people should do a clean-up first, but it may be impossible e.g. if the OS has died 15:39:56 and distributed filesystems in network distributed mode, absolutely 15:40:19 agreed, which is why I've also though to fan easy node and global level knob 15:40:30 "smash it all, I don't care" sort of button 15:40:34 but maybe not a button 15:40:37 TBD 15:40:40 GFS2 is for shared access to the same device. So I think it is something we want to protect? 15:40:53 being a distributed fs is not enough 15:41:14 but shared block to same device is kind of it, Distributed as in Ceph doesn't use shared block devices 15:41:17 we're talking about some $magic that will let the cluster notice (and get broken) even if the cluster software is no longer running 15:41:36 indeed, and GFS2 is one of those 15:41:38 so, some ring -1 level magic 15:41:45 it is not magic actually 15:41:53 it is range locking instead of whole device locking 15:41:58 for IO at least 15:42:06 range locking that survives reboot? 15:42:13 Depends on the SAN! 15:42:24 * TheJulia has had to reboot a SAN controller due to it keeping a range lock in RAM 15:42:39 With VMFS actually 15:42:44 I couldn't vmotion the VMs off the dead hypervisor 15:42:52 isn't GFS a software thing? 15:42:52 because the block ranges were locked 15:42:58 No, its a kernel module 15:43:12 still, you're talking about a SAN 15:43:15 GFS as in Google Filesystem.. .is unrelated and is software AIUI 15:43:39 gfs2 is like any other filesystem, it just does range locking instead of whole device locking 15:44:09 specifically Red Hat GFS2 15:44:38 Anyway, we can move on 15:44:53 got our v6 devstack scripting past Neutron \o/ 15:45:07 yay 15:45:15 ok, next topic o/ 15:45:28 #topic Who is going to run the next meeting? 15:45:37 do we have any volunteers? 15:46:29 I will run the next meeting, thanks everyone! 15:46:48 #endmeeting