| opendevreview | Juan Larriba proposed openstack/cloudkitty master: Add Loki as a v2 dataframe storage https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/950868 | 08:31 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Juan Larriba proposed openstack/cloudkitty master: Add Loki as a v2 dataframe storage https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/950868 | 08:32 |
| opendevreview | Rafael Weingartner proposed openstack/cloudkitty master: Feature to skip processed datapoints persistence https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/953827 | 11:05 |
| rafaelweingartner | #startmeeting cloudkitty | 14:07 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Mon Sep 1 14:07:52 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is rafaelweingartner. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 14:07 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 14:07 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'cloudkitty' | 14:07 |
| rafaelweingartner | Hello guys | 14:07 |
| rafaelweingartner | sorry the delay | 14:07 |
| rafaelweingartner | Roll count | 14:08 |
| rafaelweingartner | \0 | 14:08 |
| rafaelweingartner | =) | 14:09 |
| mrunge_ | o/ | 14:10 |
| mrunge_ | hello | 14:10 |
| rafaelweingartner | Awesome to see you again here :) | 14:10 |
| mrunge_ | my pleasure | 14:11 |
| rafaelweingartner | mattcrees are you here as well? | 14:11 |
| rafaelweingartner | I guess we can move on with the meeting. If the others appear, we can get them up to date then. | 14:14 |
| rafaelweingartner | #topic vPTG | 14:14 |
| rafaelweingartner | The team was registered, but the process to schedule the room is not yet open. Therefore, as soon as it starts, I will register our room as usual. | 14:14 |
| mrunge_ | great, thank you! | 14:15 |
| rafaelweingartner | Moving on, we have the reviews | 14:16 |
| rafaelweingartner | #topic Target reviews | 14:16 |
| rafaelweingartner | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/950868, this one is ready to be merged by me. | 14:17 |
| rafaelweingartner | I see that Pierre has reviewed it already and request some minor changes | 14:17 |
| mrunge_ | Juan followed up and provided the requested changes | 14:18 |
| rafaelweingartner | Let's see his feedback after the patch was updated | 14:18 |
| rafaelweingartner | yes, I saw | 14:18 |
| rafaelweingartner | moving on, #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/953827 | 14:20 |
| rafaelweingartner | I proposed a patch that is interesting to have. We got a +1 from mrunge_, but we need to align with Pierre and Matt to see what they think about it | 14:20 |
| mrunge_ | yes. agree | 14:20 |
| rafaelweingartner | I so not see much problems with the Eval, because it is a similar situation as we did in Ceilometer, and it is very very useful | 14:21 |
| mrunge_ | it's a bummer that it did not make it into flamingo | 14:21 |
| rafaelweingartner | We manage to save a lot of work in Ceilometer since the Dynamic pollsters | 14:21 |
| rafaelweingartner | no worries :), but we will get into the next one | 14:21 |
| rafaelweingartner | For InfluxDB, it is a great plus to reduce the number of items being persisted | 14:21 |
| rafaelweingartner | We managed to reduce almot 10kk elements being persisted, which were making InfluxDB quite slow. | 14:22 |
| mrunge_ | for us, influx is not an option | 14:22 |
| rafaelweingartner | I see | 14:23 |
| rafaelweingartner | We did an analysis, and we are probably going to add Gnocchi as a storage backend for CloudKitty. It can scale better than influx. We did some tests, and with the same dataset, where influx takes amost 10min., Gnocchi was ablet o do in 70seconds | 14:23 |
| mrunge_ | wow. | 14:24 |
| rafaelweingartner | off course, InfluxDB is standalone and not distributed, and we were distributing the queries in 12 different nodes og Gnocchi API | 14:24 |
| mrunge_ | sure | 14:24 |
| rafaelweingartner | so, there is no magic | 14:24 |
| rafaelweingartner | it is just a matter of changing the design | 14:24 |
| rafaelweingartner | moving on, we have #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/953762 | 14:25 |
| rafaelweingartner | I have reviewed it, and it is fine by me | 14:26 |
| rafaelweingartner | I guess we could move on and merge it. I pinged Matt and Pierre | 14:26 |
| rafaelweingartner | The same goes for #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/957435. I am not sure though, if this patch is actually needed as the code does not seem to be used anymore for a long time. | 14:27 |
| tkajinam | I can squash these all to drop the whole cloudkitty-writer code, but I think the separate changes may help us understand the scope we can drop more safely. | 14:29 |
| rafaelweingartner | I agree | 14:29 |
| rafaelweingartner | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/957436, it looks fine by me | 14:31 |
| rafaelweingartner | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/957437, I will review now, but I am not sure if somebody did a mistake and forgot it and never used the class | 14:33 |
| tkajinam | for me it looks like it was added as part of initial import but it has never been used. | 14:35 |
| tkajinam | as far as I could imagine from git log | 14:35 |
| rafaelweingartner | I see | 14:35 |
| rafaelweingartner | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/958374 is also fine by me | 14:35 |
| rafaelweingartner | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/958255 is a great idea. I approve it already | 14:36 |
| rafaelweingartner | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/957656, I would like to hear from Pierre and Matt about it | 14:37 |
| rafaelweingartner | and FInally, last, but not least, #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/954880. It looks fine to me. Thanks for the patch!! | 14:37 |
| tkajinam | :-) | 14:38 |
| rafaelweingartner | Do you guys have something else to add? | 14:38 |
| tkajinam | I have one patch I want to discuss | 14:38 |
| tkajinam | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-cloudkittyclient/+/958175 | 14:38 |
| tkajinam | cloudkittyclient-devstack-functional-v1-client has been failing since recent change in cloudkitty was merged | 14:39 |
| tkajinam | and I see this change unblocks it | 14:39 |
| tkajinam | I wonder if we can merge it and request an exception to include it in 2025.2 or you have any other idea to fix the job without it. | 14:40 |
| tkajinam | I mean request an exception to get another 2025.2 release of python-cloudkittyclient | 14:40 |
| rafaelweingartner | That would be perfect | 14:40 |
| rafaelweingartner | do you guys think that we can get this exception? | 14:40 |
| mrunge_ | depending on the policy you're following | 14:41 |
| mrunge_ | ultimately, it is up to the release liaison | 14:41 |
| tkajinam | the failure indicates incompatibility with 2025.2 cloudkitty and 2025.2 python-cloudkittyclient without this | 14:41 |
| tkajinam | so I'm inclined to move it forward | 14:41 |
| rafaelweingartner | I would agree with you tkajinam | 14:42 |
| rafaelweingartner | I mean the CLi is no incompatible | 14:42 |
| rafaelweingartner | it is only the test that is incompatible | 14:42 |
| rafaelweingartner | Pedro add the other options to make a bit more easier for the users to use the feature | 14:43 |
| tkajinam | ok | 14:43 |
| rafaelweingartner | and then he changed the test to use the new behavior of the API | 14:43 |
| tkajinam | so it fixes the tests and also extends client to support new features merged during this cycle. | 14:43 |
| rafaelweingartner | exactly | 14:43 |
| rafaelweingartner | we forgot about it, as we never use the CLI, we have other system on top of the API | 14:44 |
| tkajinam | ok | 14:44 |
| tkajinam | because I'm not aware of any other projects using cloudkittyclient within OpenStack projects, I believe merging this is low-risk | 14:45 |
| tkajinam | (contrary to a few other "core" clients such as keystoneclient | 14:45 |
| tkajinam | so I think we are fine with merging it for 2025.2 | 14:45 |
| rafaelweingartner | Ok | 14:45 |
| mrunge_ | +1 | 14:46 |
| rafaelweingartner | I pinged Matt and Pierre there | 14:46 |
| rafaelweingartner | let's see their feedback an dmerge it | 14:46 |
| tkajinam | ok | 14:46 |
| rafaelweingartner | And that is it for today :) | 14:47 |
| tkajinam | that's all from me. | 14:47 |
| tkajinam | :-) | 14:47 |
| rafaelweingartner | Do you guys have something else? | 14:47 |
| mrunge_ | nope | 14:47 |
| tkajinam | no :-) | 14:47 |
| rafaelweingartner | thank you all for participating. Have a nice week! | 14:48 |
| rafaelweingartner | sorry the delay today :) | 14:48 |
| rafaelweingartner | I was reading a document, and forgot the meeting | 14:48 |
| rafaelweingartner | #endmeeting | 14:48 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Mon Sep 1 14:48:41 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 14:48 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/cloudkitty/2025/cloudkitty.2025-09-01-14.07.html | 14:48 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/cloudkitty/2025/cloudkitty.2025-09-01-14.07.txt | 14:48 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/cloudkitty/2025/cloudkitty.2025-09-01-14.07.log.html | 14:48 |
| mrunge_ | no worries, thank you for running the meeting | 14:48 |
| mattcrees | Hi guys, sorry I wasn't able to join, I have a clashing meeting atm. I'll prioritise reviewing that patch #958175 tomorrow morning | 15:23 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.0.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!