15:00:20 <haleyb> #startmeeting neutron_dvr
15:00:20 <openstack> Meeting started Wed May  4 15:00:20 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is haleyb. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:21 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:23 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_dvr'
15:00:38 <haleyb> #chair Swami
15:00:39 <openstack> Current chairs: Swami haleyb
15:01:12 <haleyb> #topic Announcements
15:01:54 <haleyb> Hope everyone had a good week at Summit and got home safely
15:02:26 <haleyb> Now we have to get back to work :)
15:02:28 <Swami> Yep
15:02:34 <haleyb> #topic Bugs
15:02:55 <Swami> haleyb: there are no new bugs this week.
15:03:16 <Swami> haleyb: There was just one RFE that was filed this week for the fast path exit.
15:03:32 <Swami> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1577488
15:03:34 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1577488 in neutron "[RFE]"Fast exit" for compute node egress flows when using DVR" [Wishlist,Triaged]
15:04:22 <Swami> But we still have a bunch of bugs that we need to close.
15:04:38 <haleyb> yes, there are still many open patches
15:05:15 <Swami> haleyb: I had a question on this bug
15:05:35 <Swami> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/306065/
15:06:23 <Swami> There was a comment from Hon Hui Xiao on this patch regarding a chance of regression.
15:06:35 <haleyb> yes, and i see it passed jenkins this time :-/
15:07:09 <Swami> What do you think, since that is being handled in another patch, I don't want to include it here. Do you think we should also add some check in here for the delete function to check for real existence of the namespace.
15:07:55 <haleyb> does the other patch do an "exists" first?  i think that's the case
15:08:25 <Swami> haleyb: Yes in the other patch on the super class delete, we are checking for the device exist.
15:08:49 <Swami> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/300358/
15:10:15 <haleyb> Swami: does the first patch actually open the possibility of that delete() failure?
15:10:38 <haleyb> hmm, maybe it does
15:10:41 <Swami> I am not sure, at this point who calls that delete even.
15:11:57 <Swami> May be when the router is removed, this delete in dvr_edge_router is called.
15:12:33 <haleyb> I guess we should try and test that path then, since there's no flag indicating we actually created the namespace, just the struct
15:12:51 <Swami> If it makes sense, we can add the 'exists' check in this patch and so it can be backported without causing any regression.
15:13:07 <haleyb> yes, i was thinking the same thing
15:14:00 <Swami> haleyb: ok let me then add the exists check to the patch.
15:15:28 <haleyb> It's almost like the Namespace class should have a flag to show we created the namespace, but that's not perfect either i think
15:16:28 <Swami> yes, I always think it is better to check the system rather then the object, because the namespace in the system can be deleted directly.
15:16:30 <haleyb> i.e. self.created or self.exists
15:17:02 <haleyb> right, users with sudo or that cleanup script
15:17:12 <Swami> haleyb: yes
15:17:31 <Swami> haleyb: so it is better to check rather then depending on the flag that we update while creating.
15:19:49 <Swami_> sorry got disconnected
15:20:10 <haleyb> np
15:20:28 <Swami_> The next one in the list is
15:20:29 <haleyb> had a question regarding https://review.openstack.org/#/c/308068/5/neutron/agent/l3/dvr_local_router.py
15:20:47 <Swami_> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/308068/5
15:20:55 <Swami_> yes I am coming to that patch.
15:21:00 <haleyb> Is it safe adding those static routes everywhere?
15:21:12 <haleyb> oh, i thought we already did, but later is fine
15:21:34 <Swami_> It should not cause any issues.
15:21:49 <Swami_> Other than raising a runtime error when the interfaces are not there.
15:22:08 <Swami_> So the routes will not be even added there if the interfaces are not there.
15:22:24 <haleyb> ah, i'm now remembering this conversation
15:22:31 <Swami_> The issue here is you might pollute the logs with the runtime error.
15:23:02 <Swami_> So eventually we might have to check the cidr of the next hop and only add routes that are applicable to the namespace.
15:23:31 <Swami_> I had a patch that was doing this, but carl_baldwin suggested not to complicate and add the routes to all namespaces.
15:23:56 <Swami_> So we should probably revisit later and fix this to be specific to the namespace.
15:24:14 <Swami_> If we feel that raising a runtime error is an issue.
15:24:27 <haleyb> yeah, maybe another way is to check the interface exists (if we have that info)
15:24:52 <Swami_> haleyb: yes
15:24:59 <haleyb> but i'm fine leaving as-is for now
15:25:10 <Swami_> haleyb: #agreed
15:27:13 <haleyb> continue with the other bugs/patches
15:27:20 <Swami_> yes
15:27:41 <Swami_> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/300268/
15:28:10 <Swami_> This patch I still have a failure in the functional test that I am trying to fix it. I am not sure what is happening.
15:28:48 <Swami_> When I debug, it is calling the right l3_notifier, but it fails the test case. Something might be messy with the mock.
15:29:04 <Swami_> If you get a chance can you take a look at it.
15:29:21 <haleyb> ok
15:30:15 <Swami_> The next one in the list is
15:30:42 <Swami_> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/289172/
15:31:31 <Swami_> haleyb: one question on this patch.
15:32:20 <Swami_> since carl_baldwin is reverting a patch that went it to fix this issue, should I have my patch as a dependent of the revert patch or can it be alone.
15:32:46 <Swami_> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/301348/
15:33:52 <carl_baldwin> Swami_: I think xiaohhui might have upload a different patch that doesn't revert the entire thing.  I can look in a bit.
15:34:05 <Swami_> carl_baldwin: ok thanks
15:34:13 <Swami_> carl_baldwin: do you have the link for the patch.
15:34:31 <carl_baldwin> Swami_: Not at the moment but I will look when I get a chance.
15:34:41 <Swami_> carl_baldwin: thanks no problem.
15:34:44 <haleyb> right, that was a partial revert
15:35:29 <Swami_> ok
15:36:09 <Swami_> haleyb: there is another patch regarding the floatingip and allowed_address_pair for delayed fip.
15:36:28 <Swami_> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/304905/
15:37:17 <haleyb> i'll take a look, but think you addressed my comments
15:37:19 <Swami_> haleyb: Lbaas folks did test this patch and had some concern regarding the check that we make for ACTIVE ports.
15:37:29 <Swami_> haleyb: yes I have addressed your comments.
15:38:00 <Swami_> haleyb: it seems thier use case is both the VM ports will always be ACTIVE irrespective of who is MASTER or SLAVE.
15:38:42 <haleyb> Swami_: so will it need another update?
15:39:07 <Swami_> haleyb:no we are going to have another meeting today with the lbaas folks, and I will update after it if required.
15:39:34 <Swami_> haleyb: I need to drop off, since I have another meeting, can you continue. That's all I had for bugs.
15:40:22 <Swami_> bye
15:40:23 * haleyb wonders if talking to himself for 20 minutes is useful :)
15:41:53 <haleyb> If noone else is listening I will just end the meeting and resume next week
15:42:00 <fitoduarte> I am : )
15:43:04 <haleyb> fitoduarte: hi adolfo
15:45:23 <fitoduarte> sorry I am late again, but just want to make sure the following was mentioned:
15:45:26 <fitoduarte> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/307526/
15:45:39 <fitoduarte> it needs some review love
15:46:44 <haleyb> ok, i hadn't seen that one.  Is an HA "expert" looking?
15:48:06 <fitoduarte> Not sure, i can add amuller and johns to reviwers.
15:48:37 <haleyb> yeah, especially adding all those new tests
15:48:51 <fitoduarte> will do tx
15:50:07 <haleyb> anyone have other bugs/patches to discuss ?
15:50:46 <Swami_> back in
15:51:14 <Swami_> I don't have any at this point
15:51:24 <haleyb> ok
15:51:41 <haleyb> #topic Gate failures
15:52:10 <haleyb> The multi-node jobs seem to be trending upwards, and i've seen "qrouter namespace doesn't exist" errors this week
15:52:15 <Swami_> haleyb: I did see that the multinode job failures were high last week.
15:52:38 <Swami_> haleyb: Is that seen just in the functional tests, or all tempest tests.
15:53:20 <haleyb> i'm looking at tempest in https://goo.gl/L1WODG haven't got to grafana yet
15:54:06 <Swami_> haleyb: for the multinode I suspect that there is some infra issue, since both the neutron multinode and dvr multinode are failing.
15:55:01 <haleyb> dvr is even below the plain multinode
15:55:47 <haleyb> in the check queue
15:55:53 <Swami_> haleyb: you mean dvr has more failures then the plain multinode
15:56:12 <haleyb> no, dvr has less, let's make it voting! :)
15:56:18 <Swami_> haleyb,
15:56:22 <Swami_> haleyb: sure
15:56:44 <Swami_> haleyb: do you know of any tempest folks that can help us in writing the scenarion test for the live migration.
15:57:23 <Swami_> haleyb: I am not a tempest expert, since that is dependency for the nova live migration patch to go in.
15:57:31 <haleyb> i don't know any tempest folks
15:57:52 <haleyb> yes, is there anyone else lurking that wants to help with this?
15:58:09 <Swami_> haleyb: just to speed up the process.
15:58:33 <Swami_> haleyb: I don't know
15:59:27 <haleyb> Swami_: maybe we can mark it "low hanging fruit" :)
15:59:35 <Swami_> haleyb: good idea
15:59:44 <Swami_> haleyb: I like your proposal
15:59:48 <haleyb> We're about out of time, so will pick this up again next week
16:00:12 <haleyb> #endmeeting