On Apr 17, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Joshua Harlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just an honest question (no negativity intended I swear!). > > If a configuration option exists and only works with a patched eventlet why > is that option an option to begin with? (I understand the reason for the > patch, don't get me wrong). > Right, it’s a valid question. This feature has existed one way or another in nova for quite a while. Initially the implementation in nova was wrong. I did not know that eventlet was also broken at the time, although I discovered it in the process of fixing nova’s code. I chose to leave the feature because it’s something that we absolutely need long term, unless you really want to live with DB calls blocking the whole process. I know I don’t. Unfortunately the bug in eventlet is out of our control. (I made an attempt at fixing it, but it’s not 100%. Eventlet folks currently have an alternative up that may or may not work… but certainly is not in a release yet.) We have an outstanding bug on our side to track this, also. The below is comparing apples/oranges for me. - Chris > Most users would not be able to use such a configuration since they do not > have this patched eventlet (I assume a newer version of eventlet someday in > the future will have this patch integrated in it?) so although I understand > the frustration around this I don't understand why it would be an option in > the first place. An aside, if the only way to use this option is via a > non-standard eventlet then how is this option tested in the community, aka > outside of said company? > > An example: > > If yahoo has some patched kernel A that requires an XYZ config turned on in > openstack and the only way to take advantage of kernel A is with XYZ config > 'on', then it seems like that’s a yahoo only patch that is not testable and > useable for others, even if patched kernel A is somewhere on github it's > still imho not something that should be a option in the community (anyone can > throw stuff up on github and then say I need XYZ config to use it). > > To me non-standard patches that require XYZ config in openstack shouldn't be > part of the standard openstack, no matter the company. If patch A is in the > mainline kernel (or other mainline library), then sure it's fair game. > > -Josh > > From: Chris Behrens <[email protected]> > Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, April 17, 2014 at 3:20 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List <[email protected]> > Subject: [openstack-dev] oslo removal of use_tpool conf option > >> >> I’m going to try to not lose my cool here, but I’m extremely upset by this. >> >> In December, oslo apparently removed the code for ‘use_tpool’ which allows >> you to run DB calls in Threads because it was ‘eventlet specific’. I noticed >> this when a review was posted to nova to add the option within nova itself: >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59760/ >> >> I objected to this and asked (more demanded) for this to be added back into >> oslo. It was not. What I did not realize when I was reviewing this nova >> patch, was that nova had already synced oslo’s change. And now we’ve >> released Icehouse with a conf option missing that existed in Havana. >> Whatever projects were using oslo’s DB API code has had this option >> disappear (unless an alternative was merged). Maybe it’s only nova.. I don’t >> know. >> >> Some sort of process broke down here. nova uses oslo. And oslo removed >> something nova uses without deprecating or merging an alternative into nova >> first. How I believe this should have worked: >> >> 1) All projects using oslo’s DB API code should have merged an alternative >> first. >> 2) Remove code from oslo. >> 3) Then sync oslo. >> >> What do we do now? I guess we’ll have to back port the removed code into >> nova. I don’t know about other projects. >> >> NOTE: Very few people are probably using this, because it doesn’t work >> without a patched eventlet. However, Rackspace happens to be one that does. >> And anyone waiting on a new eventlet to be released such that they could use >> this with Icehouse is currently out of luck. >> >> - Chris >> >>
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
