On 2/20/15 9:06 AM, Mike Dorman wrote:
I can report that we do use this option (‘global' setting.) We have to
enforce name uniqueness for instances’ integration with some external
systems (namely AD and Spacewalk) which require unique naming.
However, we also do some external name validation which I think
effectively enforces uniqueness as well. So if this were deprecated, I
don’t know if it would directly affect us for our specific situation.
Other operators, anyone else using osapi_compute_unique_server_name_scope?
I use it! And, in fact, added it in the first place :(
I have no real recall of what we concluded when originally discussing
the associated race. The feature is useful to me and I'd love it if it
could be moved into the db to fix the race, but I concede that it's a
pretty big can o' worms, so if no one else cries out in pain I can live
with it being deprecated.
-Andrew
Mike
On 2/19/15, 3:18 AM, Matthew Booth mbo...@redhat.com wrote:
Nova contains a config variable osapi_compute_unique_server_name_scope.
Its help text describes it pretty well:
When set, compute API will consider duplicate hostnames invalid within
the specified scope, regardless of case. Should be empty, project or
global.
So, by default hostnames are not unique, but depending on this setting
they could be unique either globally or in the scope of a project.
Ideally a unique constraint would be enforced by the database but,
presumably because this is a config variable, that isn't the case here.
Instead it is enforced in code, but the code which does this predictably
races. My first attempt to fix this using the obvious SQL solution
appeared to work, but actually fails in MySQL as it doesn't support that
query structure[1][2]. SQLite and PostgreSQL do support it, but they
don't support the query structure which MySQL supports. Note that this
isn't just a syntactic thing. It looks like it's still possible to do
this if we compound the workaround with a second workaround, but I'm
starting to wonder if we'd be better fixing the design.
First off, do we need this config variable? Is anybody actually using
it? I suspect the answer's going to be yes, but it would be extremely
convenient if it's not.
Assuming this configurability is required, is there any way we can
instead use it to control a unique constraint in the db at service
startup? This would be something akin to a db migration. How do we
manage those?
Related to the above, I'm not 100% clear on which services run this
code. Is it possible for different services to have a different
configuration of this variable, and does that make sense? If so, that
would preclude a unique constraint in the db.
Thanks,
Matt
[1] Which has prompted me to get the test_db_api tests running on MySQL.
See this series if you're interested:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/156299/
[2] For specifics, see my ramblings here:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/141115/7/nova/db/sqlalchemy/api.py,cm
line 2547
--
Matthew Booth
Red Hat Engineering, Virtualisation Team
Phone: +442070094448 (UK)
GPG ID: D33C3490
GPG FPR: 3733 612D 2D05 5458 8A8A 1600 3441 EA19 D33C 3490
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
