Wednesday, 2015-03-25

*** zhill has quit IRC00:00
openstackgerritSamuel Merritt proposed openstack/swift: EC: fix PUT with If-None-Match: *  https://review.openstack.org/16745600:02
hogood morning guys!00:04
mattoliverauho: morning00:09
homattoliverau: morning!00:11
*** vinsh has joined #openstack-swift00:23
openstackgerritDenis Cavalcante proposed openstack/swift: Add storage policy support for sorting method  https://review.openstack.org/16087700:26
*** kota_ has joined #openstack-swift00:35
*** gyee has quit IRC00:48
openstackgerritMerged openstack/swift: Fix common misspellings  https://review.openstack.org/16684300:53
*** shri has quit IRC00:54
InAnimaTelooks like one day00:57
notmynamepeluse: to be pendantic, functional tests against an *EC* policy only fully pass once a couple of outstanding patches land ;-)00:58
mattoliverauInAnimaTe: cool, thanks for searching for it. Sorry, don't hack on python-swiftclient much.. Should remedy that someday :)00:58
mattoliveraunotmyname: so you want to go land more patches?00:59
InAnimaTemattoliverau: yeah it appears its just the same as tempauth since they are so simiar00:59
InAnimaTehowever, im not seeing any way to force expire a token, which forces a client to re-auth and pull a new x-storage-url, which is what i need to do since ours are presently an ip address01:00
InAnimaTewhich isn't cool01:00
notmynamemattoliverau: that's what I'm doing tonight :-)01:00
mattoliverauInAnimaTe: for tempauth, clear it out of the memcache and the client will have to re-auth01:02
InAnimaTeohh and derp of course i find it after the fact: https://github.com/gholt/swauth/blob/master/swauth/middleware.py#L12801:05
InAnimaTeohhh, crap thats a good idea01:05
InAnimaTei dont really know how to work with memcache but is there a way i can clear only that token for specific user x? or do i just need to clear the entire cache?01:06
mattoliverauInAnimaTe: I think you can clear individual objects.. but you'd have to google, you can like telnet in and run commands or something01:06
InAnimaTeso01:08
InAnimaTeswauth-cleanup-tokens01:08
InAnimaTe^that exists01:08
InAnimaTehowever, just running it tracebacks01:08
InAnimaTelol01:08
notmynamemaster->ec merge is being rechecked01:18
notmyname(again)01:18
*** tsg_ has quit IRC01:18
mattoliverauYay, this time for sure :p01:26
notmynamesuccess!01:27
notmyname(with the requirements job)01:28
peluseawesome!01:28
pelusethe rest is a cake walk :)01:28
notmynameheh01:28
openstackgerritDenis Cavalcante proposed openstack/swift: Add storage policy support for sorting method  https://review.openstack.org/16087701:32
yuanpeluse, mattoliverau, is everything OK of the feature/ec branch on your side? I saw a few unit tests failures if I set the default policy to a EC one01:44
*** panbalag has quit IRC01:45
*** jkugel has joined #openstack-swift01:46
*** kei_yama has joined #openstack-swift01:52
*** km has joined #openstack-swift01:52
peluseyuan, there's a big merge that's going to land here pretty soon01:52
peluselike approved in the next 10 min then as long as it takes to make it through01:53
*** peluse has left #openstack-swift01:53
*** peluse has joined #openstack-swift01:54
*** ChanServ sets mode: +v peluse01:54
peluseand then after that there's a ton of changes coming...01:54
*** haomaiwang has joined #openstack-swift01:58
peluseBTW earlier I mentioned probe, unit and func all passing on feature/ec after the merge - that's with a repl pol as def.  with Ec as default there's still work to do on func but unit should all work.  I'd wait til after the next big chain lands before digging into anything not directly related to something you're working on though02:02
pelusebut again, should be 0 issues with unit test after the merge lands02:02
pelusegit branch02:02
* peluse grumbles02:02
openstackgerritYuan Zhou proposed openstack/swift: Update contianer sync to use internal client  https://review.openstack.org/14379102:05
*** doxavore has joined #openstack-swift02:11
*** agentle has joined #openstack-swift02:13
*** dencaval has quit IRC02:17
*** agentle has quit IRC02:48
*** agentle has joined #openstack-swift02:53
*** ppai has joined #openstack-swift02:55
*** jkugel has quit IRC02:57
*** agentle has quit IRC02:57
*** doxavore has quit IRC02:59
openstackgerritMerged openstack/swift: Merge master to feature/ec  https://review.openstack.org/16742903:12
mattoliverauyay03:27
kota_great03:27
*** kei_yama_ has joined #openstack-swift03:28
*** kei_yama has quit IRC03:28
notmynamehello, again03:31
notmynameyuan: still here?03:33
notmynameyuan: please rebase https://review.openstack.org/#/c/162890/ when you get a chance03:37
*** mikehn has quit IRC03:38
*** mikehn has joined #openstack-swift03:38
openstackgerritSamuel Merritt proposed openstack/swift: EC: fix PUT with If-None-Match: *  https://review.openstack.org/16745603:42
notmynametorgomatic: rebase?03:43
torgomaticnotmyname: yup03:43
yuannotmyname, sure03:44
notmynameyuan: thanks :-)03:44
peluseI'll start on "the chain" in the morning unless some elves take care of it tonight.... over and out03:56
notmynamepeluse: sleep well. tomorrow's another big day ;-)03:58
notmynameinteresting. S3 just added cross-region replication https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-cross-region-replication-for-amazon-s3/03:59
kota_notmyname: oh, really?03:59
kota_interesting...04:00
*** km_ has joined #openstack-swift04:03
*** km has quit IRC04:04
openstackgerritYuan Zhou proposed openstack/swift: Fix copy from different type policy  https://review.openstack.org/16289004:07
*** tsg has joined #openstack-swift04:07
notmynametorgomatic: if you're still around tonight, can you validate (with your +2) that yuan's rebase is still ok in your estimation? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/162890/04:17
*** ppai has quit IRC04:27
*** kota_ has quit IRC04:29
*** km has joined #openstack-swift04:30
*** km_ has quit IRC04:32
*** ppai has joined #openstack-swift04:41
*** sandywalsh_ has quit IRC04:52
*** reed has quit IRC05:00
*** sandywalsh has joined #openstack-swift05:04
notmynamewell that's cool05:06
notmynamewith https://review.openstack.org/#/c/162890/ applied on top of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/167456/, every functional test against a cluster with a default ec policy passes!05:07
zaitcevnice05:08
notmynameyuan: if the patches land in that order, then there may need to be a conflict resolution. I did it locally for testing, and it's really simple05:11
*** zaitcev has quit IRC05:25
*** tsg has quit IRC05:29
*** welldannit has quit IRC05:34
yuannotmyname, OK I 'll watch out for that05:36
*** kota_ has joined #openstack-swift05:43
*** SkyRocknRoll has joined #openstack-swift05:44
*** zhill has joined #openstack-swift05:49
*** zhill has quit IRC05:49
*** jamielennox is now known as jamielennox|away05:49
openstackgerritHisashi Osanai proposed openstack/swift: Clarify the description of backward compatibility in Keystoneauth's docstring  https://review.openstack.org/16668105:57
yuankota_, is there a link for the shss backend?06:13
kota_yuan: src?06:13
kota_yuan: or binary?06:13
yuanboth are OK06:14
kota_yuan: neither of those, sorry.06:14
*** bkopilov has joined #openstack-swift06:15
kota_yuan: currently, it's our proprietary product.06:15
kota_yuan: so there is no online link to shss engine.06:16
yuanoh I see. I was doing something tests with liberasurecode here so want to have a try06:16
kota_yuan: I see, sorry for the inconvenience...06:17
yuankota_, never mind06:17
kota_yuan: However, liberasurecode tests works well in my env with/without shss06:18
kota_yuan: it will show something like "backend library is not avairable" when shss didn't be installed.06:19
kota_yuan: If you want to make some changes for pyeclib/liberasurecode, please push it to the bitbucket repository. If so, I could test with shss at my local env.06:21
*** nshaikh has joined #openstack-swift06:21
yuanyeah, also working on my env. I was tyring to make some small benchmark tools for liberasurecode so just want to have all the lib ready06:22
kota_yuan: sounds great :) Let's push it to upstream ;)06:23
yuankota_, yeah I will push out later this week.06:29
openstackgerritHisashi Osanai proposed openstack/swift: Enable Object Replicator's failure count in recon  https://review.openstack.org/13834206:32
*** silor has joined #openstack-swift07:00
openstackgerritMerged openstack/swift: Fix copy from different type policy  https://review.openstack.org/16289007:10
*** Novtopro_ has joined #openstack-swift07:26
*** Novtopro_ has quit IRC07:30
*** Novtopro_ has joined #openstack-swift07:31
*** ppai has quit IRC07:35
*** Novtopro_ has quit IRC07:40
*** ppai has joined #openstack-swift07:49
*** Bsony has joined #openstack-swift07:50
*** chlong has quit IRC07:52
openstackgerritYuan Zhou proposed openstack/swift: EC: fix PUT with If-None-Match: *  https://review.openstack.org/16745607:55
*** jordanP has joined #openstack-swift07:59
*** joeljwright has joined #openstack-swift08:01
*** mmcardle has joined #openstack-swift08:18
hoyuan: I could not see any difference on above patch. could you teach me it?08:19
hoyuan: #16745608:20
yuanho, yes, it's only some minor rebasing work08:22
yuanotherwise there's a merge conflict08:22
hoyuan: i see. thanks :)08:25
*** jistr has joined #openstack-swift08:38
*** km has quit IRC08:45
*** geaaru has joined #openstack-swift08:47
*** kei_yama_ has quit IRC08:47
*** Bsony_ has joined #openstack-swift08:51
*** Bsony has quit IRC08:54
*** ho has quit IRC08:59
*** srsakhamuri has quit IRC09:15
cschwedeacoles_away: is it ok for you if i fix the two minor things mentioned by Kota on patch 165208 (logging/unused variable)? Don’t want to delay things, and I would like to put a +2 afterwards on it09:17
patchbotcschwede: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/165208/09:17
*** ppai has quit IRC09:20
*** Bsony_ has quit IRC09:22
*** acoles_away is now known as acoles09:34
*** ppai has joined #openstack-swift09:34
acolescschwede: hi! re logging, i confess i did the same as the finalize_put method to be consistent. I did wonder why that called logging.exception and not the logger - can you see any reason?09:39
acolescschwede: see line 933 in the patchset diskfile.py09:40
cschwedeacoles: i think that could be changed as well, i’m happy to submit a patch to use self._diskmanager.logger there too. just noticed that Sam introduced self.logger in ECAppIter as well, thus we could make it consistent to use self.logger / self.manager.logger everywhere09:44
cschwedethus said, i see no reason not to use self.manager.logger09:44
*** kota_ has quit IRC09:44
acolescschwede: ah, i see clayg made the change at line 1783 do its consistent to make the one other change at line 179909:45
acolescschwede: (i'm just catching up with last nights rebases/changes!)09:45
acolescschwede: so if you are happy to push over those changes then please do or i can do it this morning. PLease don't change finalize_put logging though - we are trying to leave the legacy DiskFile classes as untouched as possible in the ec patches09:47
cschwedeacoles: ok, i only change _finalize_durable (the one kota commented on as well)09:49
acolescschwede: there's one other nit still not fixed too - test_write_durable_fsync --> test_commit_fsync line 2139 test_diskfile.py09:49
cschwedeshall i rename it?09:49
acolescschwede: yes please! or you want me to do the changes?09:50
cschwedeacoles: already done :)09:50
openstackgerritChristian Schwede proposed openstack/swift: Add commit method to interface of DiskFile  https://review.openstack.org/16520809:50
acolescschwede: so 3 changes in total - the logger call, remove expected=1 and the test method name09:50
cschwedehttps://review.openstack.org/#/c/165208/7..8/swift/obj/diskfile.py09:51
cschwedehttps://review.openstack.org/#/c/165208/7..8/test/unit/obj/test_diskfile.py09:51
cschwedethat’s all i changed09:51
acolescschwede: fast! i guess you are 1 hour ahead of me :)09:51
*** joeljwright1 has joined #openstack-swift09:52
acolescschwede: thanks!09:52
*** joeljwright has quit IRC09:53
cschwedeacoles: you’re welcome!09:53
*** navid__ has joined #openstack-swift09:54
*** navid__ has quit IRC09:54
*** navid__ has joined #openstack-swift09:55
*** nshaikh has quit IRC09:55
*** navid__ has quit IRC09:55
*** nshaikh has joined #openstack-swift09:55
openstackgerritChristian Schwede proposed openstack/swift: EC: better failure handling for GETs  https://review.openstack.org/16740609:58
openstackgerritChristian Schwede proposed openstack/swift: EC: support multiple ranges for GET requests  https://review.openstack.org/16657609:58
acolesnotmyname: joeljwright1 : just reading your discussion about a swiftclient release in my scrollback. i agree we should cut a release with what we have, there's good stuff still to come but there is good stuff there already so lets get it out the door and press on with reviewing joeljwright1 other patches post-EC.09:59
joeljwright1acoles: notmyname cut 2.4.0 last night09:59
joeljwright1acoles: quite pleased to have some of those patches in a released version :)10:04
joeljwright1acoles: you might also want to take a look at this patch post-EC https://review.openstack.org/#/c/161043/10:10
joeljwright1looks really useful10:10
mattoliverauacoles, cschwede: just took a quick look at patch 165208 and wondered if the write_durable in the test function names should now also called commit as well? I've only +1'ed for now based on that.. happy to +2 it once gerrit has come back and told me its good (it's late and I'm lazy) :P10:17
patchbotmattoliverau: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/165208/10:17
cschwedemattoliverau: good catch - I could quickly submit another patchset if you want (and acoles is ok with it too)10:19
mattoliverausure, if you do, I10:19
mattoliverau*i'll run tox and if all good with give it my +210:19
mattoliveraucschwede: ^10:20
openstackgerritChristian Schwede proposed openstack/swift: Add commit method to interface of DiskFile  https://review.openstack.org/16520810:23
cschwedemattoliverau: acoles: done10:23
cschwedei quickly grepped trough the code, couldn’t find any other traces of write_durable10:24
mattoliveraucschwede: nice, looks good. Running a tox now and as soon as jenkins comes back and has passed I'll +2/+A it :)10:26
*** ppai has quit IRC10:42
*** Bsony has joined #openstack-swift10:48
acolescschwede: mattoliverau oh were there other test method names we missed :/ thanks for sorting those out! loving this globally distributed effort :)10:52
*** ppai has joined #openstack-swift10:55
mattoliverauacoles: it is pretty cool :)10:58
acolesjoeljwright1: hi! thx for the update (i only scanned scrollback quickly!) i added myself on 161043 so i keep track of it11:00
*** admin6 has joined #openstack-swift11:01
openstackgerritChristian Schwede proposed openstack/swift: EC: support multiple ranges for GET requests  https://review.openstack.org/16657611:14
openstackgerritChristian Schwede proposed openstack/swift: EC: better failure handling for GETs  https://review.openstack.org/16740611:16
mattoliverauCools, +A'ed. On that note, I'm going to bed. Night all11:17
acolesmattoliverau: thanks! g'night11:18
*** dmorita has quit IRC11:18
*** panbalag has joined #openstack-swift11:31
*** a1|away is now known as AbyssOne11:33
*** ppai has quit IRC11:33
*** AbyssOne is now known as a1|away11:34
*** a1|away is now known as AbyssOne11:35
openstackgerritMerged openstack/swift: Handle ENOSPC in mkstemp()  https://review.openstack.org/16171311:35
*** ppai has joined #openstack-swift11:45
*** cdelatte has joined #openstack-swift11:49
*** chlong has joined #openstack-swift11:50
pelusehey, I like what I'm reading.  acoles - how goes the battle?11:55
acolespeluse: hi. well we have two patches heading to landing this morning on the diskfile chain11:56
pelusenice!11:56
pelusemaybe I should go back to bed!11:57
acolespeluse: i'm reviewing the next one in the chain right now (clayg's hash suffixy stuff)11:57
acolespeluse: where else should i be paying some attention? any gaps in the effort?11:58
pelusethe chain should be job #1 right now so sounds like guys have been rocking it11:58
admin6Hi guys, I’d like to know what is the status of EC development and if it is planned to be included as stable version in kilo ?11:58
peluseadmin6, it will be in kil as a beta11:59
acolesadmin6: we are working really hard towards that goal right now11:59
peluseand depending on feedback the plan will be to release production when its ready :)12:00
admin6I know that you’re working reaaly hard :-)12:00
peluseso later this year.  we need lots of performance feedback, likely some tuning - few bug fixes along the way.  that kinda stuff.  Its a pretty big change12:00
acolespeluse: so i stay focussed on the hash sufix/ssync/reconstructor chain?12:00
admin6‘when its ready’ is a good timeframe12:00
peluseacoles, perfect!12:00
acolespeluse: i think we made some progress with getting policy configurable func tests to work yesterday too, so i'm pretty hopeful we can guide that in by end of week12:01
peluseI'm going to stay on the reconstructor but holla if you need me12:02
peluseman, the good news keeps coming :)12:02
cschwedei’m reviewing patch 159637 atm, will finish the review/tests later. ping me if someone needs another review for EC today12:02
patchbotcschwede: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/159637/12:02
acolescschwede: great, i'm looking at 159637 too so if we're both happy we may get that approved today too.12:03
acolespeluse: i'll go look for some bad news to balance things out ;)12:03
pelusecschwede, thanks for the efforts here lately - really have made a difference12:03
cschwedepeluse: you’re welcome!12:04
*** openstackgerrit has quit IRC12:06
*** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-swift12:07
*** haigang has joined #openstack-swift12:11
*** haigang has quit IRC12:13
*** haigang has joined #openstack-swift12:14
*** haigang has quit IRC12:14
*** happyeveryday has joined #openstack-swift12:14
tdasilvagood morning12:17
tdasilvawow, looks like you guys got a lot done overnight :-)12:17
tdasilvasweet, patch 167429 landed. I will rebase 16495012:18
patchbottdasilva: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/167429/12:18
tdasilvaacoles: do you have a sec to talk about func. tests?12:19
tdasilvaI guess Janie is not around yet?12:19
tdasilvaacoles: I started to create a patch for the functional tests on master with the change to select we talked about, but then I realized that for the CrossPolicy testing, we might need to allow the selection of the default policy, in the case there are only two policies defined.12:21
tdasilvaacoles: so it first tries to pick the one defined in the env. variable, but if that is already being used, then it may select another random one (which could be the default one)12:22
*** admin6_ has joined #openstack-swift12:29
*** admin6 has quit IRC12:30
*** admin6_ is now known as admin612:30
acolestdasilva: hi. thanks for following up on that. i think its fine to select the default for the second policy.12:45
acolestdasilva: maybe i confused you in discussion yesterday12:46
tdasilvaacoles: nah, it's just that when you actually start working on the code, some things become more clear :-)12:47
tdasilvaacoles: in fact, when I took a step back, I started wondering why not just have people change the default policy when running func tests?12:47
tdasilvawe are just trying to override the default policy, right?12:48
acolestdasilva: at risk of chinese whispers distorting someone else's intent :) ... i think the goal was to make it easier to switch between policy type under test, not having to hack config and restart cluster. Plus, you may not have access to cluster to change default policy when running func tests12:50
*** Bsony has quit IRC12:50
acolestdasilva: so one day we might have devstack configured with multiple policies, then run a jenkins job for func test using each policy in turn12:50
acoles*one day* !12:51
tdasilvaacoles: ok, that's what I figured...it's just that coming from me just running these tests on my SAIO vm, I started wondering why would I ever use this12:51
acoless/devstack/devstack swift/12:51
tdasilvaacoles: but yeah, that makes sense12:51
tdasilvaacoles: thanks for the clarification :-)12:55
*** ppai has quit IRC12:55
*** Bsony has joined #openstack-swift12:56
acolestdasilva: no problem12:56
openstackgerritMerged openstack/swift: Cleanup ECDiskFile classes  https://review.openstack.org/16709712:59
openstackgerritMerged openstack/swift: Add commit method to interface of DiskFile  https://review.openstack.org/16520813:00
openstackgerritPrashanth Pai proposed openstack/swift: Make object creation more atomic in Linux  https://review.openstack.org/16224313:01
peluseyes!13:02
*** jkugel has joined #openstack-swift13:04
*** jkugel1 has joined #openstack-swift13:05
*** jkugel has quit IRC13:09
*** Bsony has quit IRC13:16
*** foexle has joined #openstack-swift13:17
*** foexle has quit IRC13:17
*** foexle has joined #openstack-swift13:17
*** Bsony has joined #openstack-swift13:21
*** jrichli has joined #openstack-swift13:23
*** Bsony has quit IRC13:29
*** doxavore has joined #openstack-swift13:30
doxavoreshould one expect the auditor to consistently do a lot _writing_? like a 1:7 read:write ratio, all the time?13:35
*** SkyRocknRoll has quit IRC13:36
doxavore(as measured in MB/s and i/o utilization)13:36
*** openstackgerrit has quit IRC13:36
*** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-swift13:36
*** Bsony has joined #openstack-swift13:38
*** annegentle has joined #openstack-swift13:42
openstackgerritMerged openstack/swift: EC: fix PUT with If-None-Match: *  https://review.openstack.org/16745613:48
*** wasmum has quit IRC13:48
jrichlitdasilva acoles: how is the functest change going?  I saw the exchange from earlier today13:54
tdasilvajrichli: hi, I was about to send a patch to master, but I'd be happy to just send you a patch in case you want to submit it yourself13:55
jrichlioh, so you are making a new review on master?13:56
jrichlitdasilva: you made more changes, though, on top of what I had done.  so I would think it should have your name.13:58
tdasilvajrichli, acoles: yeah, I was just following on the idea from acoles that this is generic enough that could be on master14:00
openstackgerritThiago da Silva proposed openstack/swift: Select policy when running functional test  https://review.openstack.org/16759514:00
acolescschwede: i am looking at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/159637/25/test/unit/obj/test_diskfile.py and think that some of the tests have been duplicated, e.g. test_hash_cleanup*14:00
tdasilvajrichli: ^ check it out and please feel free to take over as you see fit14:00
jrichlitdasilva: sure, I will take a look.  thanks!14:01
jrichlitdasilva: thanks for the reference in the commit message :-)14:02
tdasilvajrichli: it's really nothing more than your patch, plus the change to select, so you deserve all the credit!14:02
acolescschwede: when i reviewed version 20 the originals in TestDiskFileModuleMethods had been removed but now they are back in version 25, so I am thinking there's been a mistake14:02
acolescschwede: so similar tests appear in TestDiskFileModuleMethods and TestSuffixHashes14:03
acolescschwede: i'll have a go at cleaning it up then wait to see what clayg has to say later14:03
cschwedeacoles: hmm, yes, i think you’re right. you mean the tests in line 258 ff in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/159637/20..25/test/unit/obj/test_diskfile.py , right?14:05
acolescschwede: yes14:06
acolescschwede: ok i'll try to fix it without breaking it ;)14:07
*** uschreiber_ has joined #openstack-swift14:08
*** lpabon has joined #openstack-swift14:10
cschwedeacoles: let me know if i can help out14:11
*** mahatic has joined #openstack-swift14:13
*** nshaikh has left #openstack-swift14:14
*** Bsony has quit IRC14:22
*** vinsh has quit IRC14:23
*** wasmum has joined #openstack-swift14:34
*** vinsh has joined #openstack-swift14:44
*** reed has joined #openstack-swift14:47
openstackgerritThiago da Silva proposed openstack/swift: Validate the PUT method extraction for EC  https://review.openstack.org/16495014:51
tdasilvaclayg: ^^^proxy refactoring rebased14:52
*** tsg_ has joined #openstack-swift14:54
*** zaitcev has joined #openstack-swift14:57
*** ChanServ sets mode: +v zaitcev14:57
petertr7Is there anyone working on or interested in an opensource version of swiftstack?15:06
openstackgerritAlistair Coles proposed openstack/swift: Multiple Fragment Archive support for suffix hashes  https://review.openstack.org/15963715:06
acolescschwede: ^^15:06
tdasilvaacoles: got a python question: whenever I try to move the import statement to the top in this file https://review.openstack.org/#/c/167595/1/test/functional/swift_test_client.py I get this error: AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'functional'15:06
tdasilvaacoles: any ideas?15:06
tdasilvajrichli: did you run into this issue too?15:07
jrichlitdasilva: yes15:07
*** mahatic has quit IRC15:08
jrichlitdasilva: that is why I put the import where it is.  It is because there is a cyclical dependency, I think15:08
*** openstackgerrit has quit IRC15:08
*** uschreiber_ has quit IRC15:09
*** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-swift15:09
tdasilvajrichli: mm..i see15:10
acolestdasilva: looking...15:11
tdasilvaacoles, jrichli: I need to step out for a bit, but will be back later...for now I'm sending a new patchset with acoles comments applied minus this import issue15:13
jrichlitdasilva: ok, thx15:14
straycatis the ring building/rebalancing process deterministic?15:16
*** happyeveryday has quit IRC15:16
straycatso, can i run it on 3 nodes separately with the same options to obtain the same configs rather than running on one node and distributing to the rest?15:17
*** happyeveryday has joined #openstack-swift15:20
openstackgerritThiago da Silva proposed openstack/swift: Select policy when running functional test  https://review.openstack.org/16759515:20
cschwedestraycat: no, there are some randomly choosen values in it for the distribution. it’s not deterministic, and thus you have to distribute the same set of ringfiles to all storage/proxy nodes15:21
acolestdasilva: jrichli : yes there is a cycle there, best ask one of the python gurus what the best practice is15:22
acolesclayg: i need to you to doublecheck what i have done on https://review.openstack.org/159637 - it looks like there was some old code crept back in to v25, and i gambled that was not what you  intended, but maybe you did??15:27
straycatcschwede, thanks15:38
*** mahatic has joined #openstack-swift15:39
claygacoles: looking15:48
claygcschwede: you can pass in a seed tho15:50
claygacoles: for some reason the 25->26 change has a bunch of noise?15:50
claygacoles: i guess the master merge went down15:50
*** annegentle has quit IRC15:51
cschwedeclayg: right, but then you need to rebalance the ring on all nodes instead doing it only once, and i think the whole process might be error-prone15:51
claygcschwede: yeah well... i'm not saying it's a good idea - just that if you tried it and it didn't work you could always file a bug - because it's *supposed* to work that way15:53
claygacoles: looks good to me - let's merge everything15:54
cschwedeclayg: agreed, very true15:55
*** Bsony has joined #openstack-swift15:56
claygacoles: oh, you guys already did :\15:56
*** annegentle has joined #openstack-swift15:57
claygwow - great work guys - I love the "here I'll just push up a new change set - ftfy +2" style reviews!15:59
*** Bsony has quit IRC16:02
claygtdasilva: thanks for the help with patch 164950 - your last message said you're stepping out so I'm going to fix up some jenkins errors16:02
patchbotclayg: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164950/16:02
notmynamegood morning. just read scrollback16:02
notmynamestraycat: you can give the ring builder a seed value for the PRNG so that it is deterministic across machines (/cc cschwede)16:03
acolesclayg: 25->26 noise is just a few cleanup in the  patches that landed earlier16:04
straycatokay, what about rebalancing?16:04
claygnotmyname: everyone is pickin' on poor cschwede this morning - he's all like trying to be the voice of reason "WHY would you do that to yourself?!" and we keep saying "yeah but you *could* do it"16:04
straycati realise what i'm trying to do isn't exactly the standard route16:04
claygstraycat: I think we normally call that "crazytown"16:04
claygbut that's ok - we *like* crazy16:05
straycat:')16:05
notmynamelol. the reason it was implemented was because a deployer wanted to build rings locally on all hosts. they submitted a patch. (then they stopped using swift altogether *grumble*)16:05
claygnotmyname: i like having the see for tests - that about it16:05
notmynameya, it helps for tests too :-)16:05
*** bkopilov has quit IRC16:06
notmynameoh, heh. clayg I just saw that you had already said the same thing to cschwede16:06
claygnotmyname: maybe it's a sign that if straycat tries to do this he'll eventually decide swift's to hard?16:06
straycatsorry, so ring creation is deterministic, is rebalancing?16:07
claygthere is some pseudo randomness that can be forced to be deterministic with a seed16:07
notmynamestraycat: there isn't actually a difference there. it's all the same method under the covers. ie the seed value applies16:07
straycatokay16:08
straycati basically need to automate the deployment of identical nodes, and i'd like to do this without having to make one node distribute the ring files to the others16:08
straycatso that's why i'm asking16:08
claygstraycat: so you have to co-ordinate the seed when rebalancing - but other than that it'll work out16:08
claygstraycat: and after the initial deployment how are you going to handle capacity management?16:08
claygwhere to you co-ordinate how the identical nodes get a list of all nodes - can the guy who distributes that distribute the ring's?16:09
straycatclayg, i don't follow your last question16:10
straycatin this particular case i'm not expecting the deployment to change over time16:10
straycatthe set of devices will stay the same16:10
claygheh16:10
cschwedestraycat: sounds like you have something like puppet,chef,ansible whatever in place? you could use that tool to deploy the ring instead of the ring settings?16:11
claygthat would be *awesome* - can I buy some of these never failing devices from you?16:11
notmynamelol16:11
claygnotmyname: no think about it - the drives never change - that would be a game changer - you don't even need a balancing algo - you just write out replica2part2dev and be done with it16:12
straycatcschwede, exactly, i've got a tool that will that will run the ring builder and copy the result onto the node's filesystem, then deploy that filesystem to hardware16:13
cschwedenotmyname: interesting to get to know the history of these little details (seed for ring builder). i only assumed it was for testing purposes only16:13
claygnotmyname: why can't I think of that guys name... McSomething?16:14
clayger. Mac?  worked with the dickhead that's at pivitol labs now16:14
claygoh McKenty - so what was the other guy?16:14
claygChris?16:14
*** jkugel1 has quit IRC16:15
claygMcGowan - how did I never notice before they were *both* Mc!16:17
notmynameclayg: be nice16:17
clayg:D16:18
*** chlong has quit IRC16:22
cschwedestraycat: so, assuming none of your disks will ever change it could work if you use the same seed value. that said i still think there are better/safer ways. simplest example would be a file on a puppetmaster that gets distributed to the nodes (same mechanism would apply to other deyploment tools)16:22
cschwedestraycat: have a look at https://github.com/stackforge/puppet-swift/tree/master/manifests if you by chance use puppet16:22
straycatcschwede, am using baserock for this ( http://wiki.baserock.org/ )16:25
cschwedestraycat: ah, i have an assumption about your idea. makes sense to use a deterministic ring building process then16:29
straycatcool, thanks16:30
cschwedestraycat: assuming your nodes might be located on different networks, make sure the storage network uses a vpn (if there are public networks between the nodes)16:30
*** jordanP has quit IRC16:31
*** jordanP has joined #openstack-swift16:31
claygi don't get why the disk image based approach means that deterministic ring building makes more sense than just distributing the ring.gz on image instead of the .builder?16:32
notmynameclayg: I'm cleaning up what's starred in gerrit16:32
notmynameI think I've got the root of the various patch chains there16:32
notmynameclayg: but what about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164950/ ?16:32
*** chlong has joined #openstack-swift16:33
claygnotmyname: that's the one i'm working on right now!16:33
claygnotmyname: wait, what's the question?16:33
straycatclayg, it seems simpler, to distribute i have to wait for the nodes to boot and bring up ssh or something16:33
notmynameclayg: shall I star it? is it needed for beta?16:33
notmynameie is it one that needs to be reviewed asap?16:34
acolesclayg: re patch 159637 i can't see what test replaces test_hash_suffix_one_file i.e. a test that passes reclaim_age to hash_suffix and tests .ts is reclaimed?16:34
patchbotacoles: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/159637/16:34
straycatcschwede, why, does seeding make the setup vulnerable?16:34
claygnotmyname: oh - yes please star - should be reviewable shortly16:34
claygacoles: oh no!16:35
acolesclayg: the new tests all call df_mgr.get_hashes which doesn't pass reclaim_age ??16:35
acolesclayg: warning - my eyes are really tired today!)16:35
claygacoles: i tried to be careful :\16:35
claygacoles: rather than passing in reclaim age I probably would have written a test that just created an old tombstone and made sure the hash got all reset and the suffix was reaped16:36
claygacoles: but maybe I didn't write that test yet16:36
claygacoles: I *should* - ding me on the review16:36
openstackgerritClay Gerrard proposed openstack/swift: Validate the PUT method extraction for EC  https://review.openstack.org/16495016:37
acolesclayg: yes thats the kind of test i've been hunting for - something that creates a .ts at (now-ONE_WEEK)16:37
notmynamejrichli: if work is going on master for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/166097/ please abandon this one. I want to keep feature/ec open patches focused16:38
claygacoles: cool i'm on it - can you try and find some more?16:38
claygstupid coffee cup must have a hole in it16:39
*** chlong has quit IRC16:39
jrichlinotmyname: done16:40
notmynamejrichli: thanks16:40
jrichlinp!16:41
acolesclayg: i'm trying my best :) we do test that HCL reclaims, but I just removed the reclaim_age arg from hash_suffix and all test_diskfile.py tests passed so think there is a gap there.16:42
*** jkugel has joined #openstack-swift16:42
claygacoles: we test that the module function reclaims - or the manager function16:42
claygacoles: what about the quarantined suffix dir that's in the red just right above the one_file test?  where did it go?16:43
claygi would have gone in order when I was working on them16:44
notmynameok, gerrit cleaned up. I love all of your patches equally, but right now I love https://review.openstack.org/#/c/159637/ more equally. that looks liek the one that needs the most time16:44
clayglol16:44
acolesclayg: mgr, in new tests its line 2900 test_hash_cleanup_listdir_purge_old_ts16:44
notmynameok, omw to the office16:44
cschwedeactually patch 159637 is quite nice already16:45
patchbotcschwede: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/159637/16:45
acolesclayg: we have test_hash_suffix_hash_cleanup_listdir_enotdir_quarantined that i think covers what was the quarantine test in red16:45
acolesclayg: basically i'm going through the old one by one and finding what in the new replaces it16:46
acolesclayg: so far i'm at 4 out of a gazillion :D16:46
claygacoles: yeah that's awesome - so you think test_hash_cleanup_listdir_purge_old_ts is a good replacement for test_hash_suffix_one_file16:46
straycatcschwede, okay i assume yes, sorry for the dumb question i just wanted to be sure i understood your suggestion16:46
cschwedestraycat: seeding doesn’t make it vulnerable; i am more worried that some nodes apply a wrong update, for example when a newer swift version is rolled out, but one node uses an old one for example. thus i feel more comfortable when the ring is built in one place and the .ring.gz are shipped16:47
straycatcschwede, right, we can also assume the swift version won't change16:47
acolesclayg:no because it didn't fail when i did this http://paste.openstack.org/show/196674/16:48
claygacoles: so that's in the module level function16:48
*** gyee has joined #openstack-swift16:49
claygacoles: oh - never mind ok i got it16:49
acolesclayg: it doesn;t test the hash_suffix path16:49
acolesclayg: k, i'll comment and continue with audit16:50
*** jistr has quit IRC16:58
claygacoles: do you think running a test in a for loop to make sure it's deterministic is "doing it right" or does that mean I'm doing something way wrong?16:58
acolesclayg: not sure what you mean? you mean repeat test over and over and check result is always the same?16:59
*** zhill has joined #openstack-swift17:02
acolesclayg: i like that you added some more meaning to the test names17:03
claygacoles: YOU FOUND A BUG!17:05
claygthe way I had plumbed _get_hashes it always used the default reclaim age17:06
claygacctully this bug may have been there when i started17:07
*** admin6 has left #openstack-swift17:08
*** annegentle has quit IRC17:11
*** annegentle has joined #openstack-swift17:12
acolesclayg: plumbing to _get_hashes looks the same on master - the mgr get_hashes doesn't pass a reclaim age, looks like just the calls from replicator17:12
acolesdirect to module function17:12
claygfigures17:12
clayggood think EC doesn't use the replicator17:13
clayg?17:13
*** vinsh_ has joined #openstack-swift17:13
claygacoles: wait - so do you think I shouldn't change it?17:13
acolesclayg: change what ?17:13
acolesthe plumbing?17:14
claygshould get hashes pass in the reconfigured reclaim age?17:14
claygwell... i mean of course it should?17:14
claygwhat if you set your reclaim age to a month - it can't just go useing the default like a mad man!17:14
*** vinsh has quit IRC17:16
acolesthe config sample only has reclaim_age option for replicator (and reconstructor) ??17:17
*** vinsh has joined #openstack-swift17:17
acoles# The replicator also performs reclamation17:18
acoles# reclaim_age = 60480017:18
acolesso is that meant to suggest that the object-server doesn't reclaim?17:18
claygidk, it's not like the default is "dont reclaim anything" - it's reclaim anything older than one week - it doesn't make *any* sense to me for one process to use one value and another something different17:18
acolesclayg: agree, and if i set that option to one month i'd expect to see some .ts hanging around for 4 weeks17:19
claygfo' sure17:19
acolesclayg: so what was this about deterministic testing?17:20
claygi'm going to fix it in DiskFileManager.get_hashes - I think it's most obvious there that it has a self.reclaim_age option and it's not using17:20
clayg*it*17:20
*** lpabon has quit IRC17:20
*** vinsh_ has quit IRC17:20
claygacoles: do you ever run the same unittest in a for loop - for i in {1..10}; do !!; if [ $? -ne 0]; then break; fi; done17:21
acolesclayg: yes if i thought the test was non-deterministic meaning it has random seed values or something17:22
claygi do this a fair amount - and rather than making me think i'm being diligent - sometimes it just makes me feel like I don't trust the tests i'm writing :D17:22
*** cdelatte has quit IRC17:23
claygacoles: i've taken to doing it in any test that has any calls to "time" in it anywhere :P17:23
acoleswe have tests that choose random conditions , idk, what i don't like about that is they aren't repeatable17:23
claygmaybe not quite that bad17:23
acolesso if we see a test failure we do a recheck and it goes away and we move on17:23
acolesideally i'd have every test be repeatable/deterministic, try to cover all scenarios, and then also have randomly seeded "soak tests" that log their starting state if they fail17:24
acoleslike, in an ideal world17:25
claygsoak test - i like it17:26
acolesclayg: case in point - https://bugs.launchpad.net/swift/+bug/1435538 what happened there???17:26
openstackLaunchpad bug 1435538 in OpenStack Object Storage (swift) "intermittent ratelimit unit test failure" [Low,New]17:26
claygacoles: I think maybe the Mixin's might help us cover more types of policies with less test maintance17:26
acolesclayg: i'm over the mixin hate, I put +2+A on that :P17:27
acolesbut yes, i *like* the pattern17:27
acolesi'm channeling my angst at my ide today17:28
claygwell i don't want it to distrupt your workflow - I think the abc thing would probably work - but I don't have pycharm installed to test it - so it's all you17:28
claygacoles: just stick a few def assertX on the mixin and see if it doesn't shut up?17:28
claygacoles: anyway that bug looks like your average run of the mill gate was slow bug?  that test only has 100ms varience on it - i'm surprised it doesn't fail more often than it does?17:30
claygacoles: you want me to push this over -> https://gist.github.com/clayg/44b341b9e131289c260317:31
claygacoles: you could also go ahead and make your comments and I'll address what you have - or just wait patiently17:31
acolesclayg: i'm not sure about making the reclaim_age change in this patch? shouldn't that go on master? idk17:34
claygof course it *should* :P17:34
acolesclayg: you slipped a _one_ into test_hash_suffix_one_reclaim_tombstone17:34
acolesclayg: :P17:34
acolesbut notmyname isn't watching17:34
claygwell there *is* only *one* reclaim tombstone17:34
claygit's not test_hash_suffix_two_reclaim_tombstone - that's a totally different test17:35
acolesk, silly me17:35
claygacoles: yeah id17:35
claygidk17:35
acolesclayg: i'll submit what i have as comments, all this chat, i'm on about 8 tests from a gazillion, all good so far otherwise17:36
claygheh17:37
claygok yeah i'm about to leave so you can make some progress17:37
claygi have an idea for what to do about that test but i'll wait till your done to submit everything17:37
claygthat you SO much for your hard work reviewing17:37
* clayg remembers that one time when we were going to do fast-POST and it was going to be awesome :'(17:38
acolesclayg: my heart sinks as i realise the merge conflict hell i will have when i revive fast post17:39
claygOH NO!17:40
acolesclayg: on query on version 25 comments too17:40
claygi'll help i promise17:40
claygacoles: i updated the gist -> https://gist.github.com/clayg/44b341b9e131289c260317:41
acolesclayg: heh. you know this channel is archived now so i can hold you to that :P17:41
claygwe'll fix ours and leave replication doing it's thing - i'll open a bug - and whoever fixes it will have a failing test already written ;)17:42
claygacoles: good call!17:42
claygacoles: i'm looking at your comments17:42
acolesclayg: sneaky. +1.17:43
acolesclayg: i have a hard stop today so i am going to press on with test audit. will be gone soon, you and peluse should let me know any tasks that need picking up tomorrow.17:44
claygtest_get_hashes_creates_partition_and_pkl should cover the test at line 981?17:44
claygthe other "dont' just do the listdir count check" comments sound good17:44
claygi could try and finish the audit - I see what you're doing just naming where all the tests went on the diff17:45
claygwe could probably also use coverage17:45
*** jordanP has quit IRC17:48
acolesclayg: k i'll submit what i have when i leave (30 mins)17:51
acolesnotmyname: you here ?17:51
peluseacoles, rock on man - thanks (I was out fr the last few hrs)17:51
acolesnotmyname: apologies i have a conflict with today's meeting17:53
notmynameacoles: I'm here17:54
notmynameacoles: ok. meeting today should be EC status update and plans for the merge to master17:54
*** mmcardle has quit IRC17:55
acolesnotmyname: so, my 2c worth,  patch 159637 code is good, only delay in my +2 on that is  i'm auditing the test changes (see scrollback)17:55
patchbotacoles: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/159637/17:55
notmynameok17:56
acolesi'll be back on that tomorrow am if its not been finished by others,17:56
acolesthen i'll move up that chain reviewing17:57
notmynamegreat :-)17:58
acolesnotmyname: tdasilva and jrichli had a question about cyclic import on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/167595/ which i couldn't answer (like how to deal with it), maybe someone could advise cos we may be able to land that soon17:59
acolespeluse: have a great trip!18:00
jrichlibrb18:00
*** jrichli has quit IRC18:00
peluseacoles, thanks!!!18:02
claygis the meeting in like 58 mins?18:02
petertr7I think so, according to the wiki18:04
notmynameclayg: yes18:06
*** cutforth has joined #openstack-swift18:07
*** jrichli has joined #openstack-swift18:08
*** j_king has quit IRC18:08
*** erlon has joined #openstack-swift18:11
*** stack_ has joined #openstack-swift18:11
*** doxavore has quit IRC18:20
*** Gues_____ has joined #openstack-swift18:21
*** Gues_____ has quit IRC18:27
*** j_king has joined #openstack-swift18:31
acolesclayg: ok, i got most auditing done, couple i was unsure about and ran out of time. ttfn.18:31
*** acoles is now known as acoles_away18:32
*** doxavore has joined #openstack-swift18:37
*** jrichli has quit IRC18:40
*** Gues_____ has joined #openstack-swift18:45
*** jrichli has joined #openstack-swift18:46
pelusenotmyname, any reason why we can't land patch 164108?18:48
patchbotpeluse: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164108/18:48
notmynamepeluse: it can land. but that will also come in with ec, right?18:49
*** ho has joined #openstack-swift18:49
pelusenotmyname, right now its proposed to master18:49
notmynameya, that's fine18:49
pelusenotmyname, easy enough to abandon that one and do one against ec though18:49
notmynameat this point, master is fine18:50
peluseOK, it has my +2 :)18:50
pelusezaitcev had a comment about packaing though (in the review)18:50
zaitcevMore than comment, meanwhile. I'm going to work with the maintainer of eventlet to package it in Rawhide first, see what breaks, if anything, then push it downstream.18:51
zaitcevI think it's Padraig18:51
pelusezaitcev, does that somehow keep us from landing the req on master?18:52
zaitcevI don't like it, but I'm taking it as fait accompli and working to deal with the fallout18:53
notmynamezaitcev: isn't that the point of global requirements? to give distros a set of non-conflicting stuff to use for openstack? ie won't it be with the kilo release anyway?18:53
zaitcevI don't see any other project needing 0.16.1. We did package 0.15.2, which is the OpenStack global.18:54
notmynamehttps://github.com/openstack/requirements/blob/master/global-requirements.txt#L3018:55
notmynamepeluse: which seems to look like that patch won't land anyway18:55
zaitcevhmm18:55
notmynamepeluse: since it doesn't exactly match18:56
notmynameI'm not sure what the issue with 0.17.0 is18:56
zaitcevDo we have anyone looking at switching to HTTP/2 for proxy<->a/c/o18:56
pelusehmm, well we can tweak ours too like that one right and resubmit18:56
notmynamezaitcev: careful. you might be volunteering for that ;-)18:57
notmynamezaitcev: but, no18:57
zaitcevI know Clay loves all that stuff but he's mad busy with real work18:57
*** kota_ has joined #openstack-swift18:59
*** Bsony has joined #openstack-swift18:59
mattoliveraumorning18:59
notmynamehello18:59
notmynamemeeting time in #openstack-meeting18:59
*** joeljwright1 has quit IRC19:00
*** joeljwright has joined #openstack-swift19:00
kota_morning19:00
clayglet's do this thing!19:01
openstackgerritpaul luse proposed openstack/swift: Bump eventlet version to 0.16.1  https://review.openstack.org/16410819:03
*** Gues_____ has quit IRC19:03
tsg_peluse: thanks for 164108 update19:05
peluseya19:06
*** silor1 has joined #openstack-swift19:10
*** silor has quit IRC19:12
*** tsg_ has quit IRC19:12
*** tsg has joined #openstack-swift19:17
*** mahatic has quit IRC19:40
cschwedetdasilva: clayg: this seems to work: http://paste.openstack.org/raw/196729/19:41
*** annegentle has quit IRC19:43
*** joeljwright1 has joined #openstack-swift19:52
*** joeljwright has quit IRC19:55
notmynamego go go19:55
notmyname(to lunch)19:56
cschwedepeluse: enjoy your long weekend!19:56
claygcschwede: awesome!19:56
kota_(to sleep)19:56
mattoliverau(to find some breakfast)19:56
jrichli:-)19:56
peluse(to get a beer)19:56
mattoliveraulol19:57
tdasilvajrichli: I guess we'll be here working19:57
jrichliyup19:57
pelusecarry on :)19:57
tdasilvajrichli: are you on the east coast?19:57
jrichlicentral time19:57
mattoliverautdasilva, jrichli: typey typey then :P19:57
jrichlilol19:57
tdasilvahaha19:57
*** kota_ has quit IRC20:01
tdasilvacschwede: thanks for that patch20:01
cschwedetdasilva: you’re welcome! hope it helps and is fine with you20:01
claygok i need to merge some stuff into multi-fi suffix hashes20:02
tdasilvayeah, it looks good, I'll try to apply now20:02
claygtdasilva: thanks!20:02
jrichlicschwede: thanks!  I am glad to learn about the kosher way to deal with these things20:02
tdasilvacschwede: just realized that policy_specified should be initialized as None instead of False, but I think everything else looks good20:02
cschwedejrichli: you’re welcome - i don’t say this idea is kosher ;) it just avoids that cyclic import20:03
cschwedetdasilva: oh, yes, you’re right, should be None by default20:03
*** lcurtis has joined #openstack-swift20:04
cschwedetdasilva: i can apply the patch if you want20:05
tdasilvaif you have it ready, please do20:06
*** Bsony has quit IRC20:06
tdasilvai know it is late for you and don't want to keep you20:06
*** geaaru has quit IRC20:06
openstackgerritClay Gerrard proposed openstack/swift: Multiple Fragment Archive support for suffix hashes  https://review.openstack.org/15963720:07
claygpeluse: ok ^ i'm going to work up the chain from there and stop at recon20:07
openstackgerritChristian Schwede proposed openstack/swift: Select policy when running functional test  https://review.openstack.org/16759520:07
*** silor1 has quit IRC20:07
tdasilvaclayg: thanks for fix my py27, pep mess from the proxy refactor patch20:07
tdasilvacschwede: thanks!20:08
claygtdasilva: oh man it was nothing - really need to give that a review - even the commit sorta rambles on about how I was just trying it out to see if it was a good iea20:08
clayg*idea20:08
claygwait - so peluse is gone already?20:09
cschwedetdasilva: no worries, just had to do a „git add -p“20:09
claygtsg: what's wrong with eventlet 0.17!?20:09
cschwedeok, i’m out for today, have fun everyone!20:10
claygcschwede: thanks!20:10
*** lpabon has joined #openstack-swift20:10
peluseno I'm here20:10
claygphew20:10
peluseflight is tomorrow am but today is our actual anniversary so I will have to bail at 6ish though20:10
claygpeluse: so i'm just running tox on the ssync-fi-support change - it seemed to rebase cleanly on my acoles fixups to multi-fi-suffix-hashes20:11
*** annegentle has joined #openstack-swift20:12
claygtdasilva: so where do you think we are on patch 16495020:12
patchbotclayg: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164950/20:12
peluseclayg, sweet20:12
claygtdasilva: did you by chance get to notice what I did with the Diskfile tests with the Minxins?  I was thinking about trying something similar with test.unit.proxy.controller.test_obj20:12
claygtdasilva: also sounds like cschwede got the functest stuff squared - that's all done and good now?20:13
tdasilvaclayg: On the replication side, we were able to keep it almost identical to master, which is good.20:13
tdasilvayeah, i'm reviewing cschwede code now, I think I have question for him ,but need another minute20:14
tdasilvaclayg: did not look at the Diskfile tests, but that's already merged ,right...I can take a look there too20:14
claygpeluse: ok my laptops fan just kicked on - so we must getting close to the end of the tox run :P20:14
claygtdasilva: don't bother - i'll see what I come up with on the ec put extraction and maybe you can look at that20:15
claygdid you guys see https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-cross-region-replication-for-amazon-s3/20:16
tdasilvaclayg: ok, I was going to do another pass on the ObjectControllers to see if there was any other refactoring that could be done, but that can wait if you are going to work on it20:16
claygi love it when s3 releases new features and it's obvious to me how we could compose the same functionality in swift using stuff we already have or are working on - makes me feel validated that we're working on the right stuff20:17
claygtdasilva: yeah i'm checking it out after I type git review - I am *not* currently tracking the functet changes - or the stuff that mattoliverau said he'd review20:18
openstackgerritClay Gerrard proposed openstack/swift: Add Fragment Index filter support to ssync  https://review.openstack.org/16518820:18
claygpeluse: ^ ok rebase away - let me know if you need any help!20:18
tdasilvaclayg: yeah, almost make it looks like s3 is playing catch up with swift20:19
werSwift has been performing well for us... fwiw20:19
claygwer: THAT'S GREAT NEWS!20:19
werWe've been using it for a about a year now I think.  about ~500tb raw20:21
wer200MB writes and simlar reads on pretty large files.20:21
tdasilvaclayg: it's weird that they say it relies on object versioning, I wonder if it's only "one way" replication, like the other bucket is for read-only?20:22
*** Tahmina has joined #openstack-swift20:23
pelusegreat20:23
claygtdasilva: no i don't think it's one way20:23
claygtdasilva: I think the reliance on versioning is the most telling part of the implemenation20:23
claygtdasilva: I looked at versioning more and it's pretty clear to me their doing something like we talkd about for the shadow copy versioning scheme where you just write pointers into the bucket and store the real object somewhere else20:24
claygif that somewhere else was a storage policy that's doing cross regoin replication - and you container sync the manifests - you've got yourself a feature!20:24
*** jrichli has quit IRC20:25
claygtheir version of "sync these manifests to the remote bucket" probably uses sqs - but the idea is the same - you still write the manifest in the other location, but the object - it's just in a cross region replicatied backend20:25
*** jrichli has joined #openstack-swift20:26
tdasilvaclayg: so you can write to the "manifest" in both buckets and that wil lresult in writing to this backend object?20:27
claygtdasilva: i'm guessing - but we do have some pople using storage policies to set up specific geo-distributions in a multi-site swift cluster20:27
claygtdasilva: I think that's how versioning writes - when a container with versingin gets a PUT the real object is stored "somewhere else" and then it writes the manifest20:28
tdasilvaclayg: i see20:28
claygthe target bucket in the remote regoin (according to the blog post) won't see the object (the manifest) until async (so that's the container sync part)20:28
claygbut the trick is they don't have to do the object replication in nearly that real time - they only container sync manifests20:28
claygthen it's all about how efficient they can make the backend replication between regions20:29
tdasilvahmm...interesting20:29
claygi'm really curious on the initial latency of the first get to the manifest in the target bucket vs the second get - i'm guessing there's an on-demand replication of sorts where it will go ahead and store it locally in the rmeote region if it ends up pulling it over the wan on a GET20:29
claygi have my theories!20:30
openstackgerritpaul luse proposed openstack/swift: Erasure Code Reconstructor  https://review.openstack.org/13187220:30
claygpeluse: NICE!20:30
*** gyee has quit IRC20:30
pelusecleanup for ya somewhat20:30
peluse:)20:30
claygtdasilva: so at first glance I think I can do some stuff with the ec put extraction to clean it up - so i'll be on that patch for the rest of the day i'd guess20:31
claygbbiab20:31
tdasilvaclayg: ok! i will finish my testing of the functest and then jump on the GET reviews20:31
openstackgerritpaul luse proposed openstack/swift: wip: ec reconstructor probe test  https://review.openstack.org/16429120:33
*** lpabon has quit IRC20:37
*** annegentle has quit IRC20:40
*** Tahmina has quit IRC20:44
*** annegentle has joined #openstack-swift20:50
tdasilvacschwede: still around?20:54
*** jogriffin has joined #openstack-swift20:55
cschwedetdasilva: kind of, semi-awake ;)20:55
jogriffinhey guys, I need some help setting up the django swift broswer to work with an in house swift configuration20:56
jogriffinany one have any experience with that?20:56
cschwedejogriffin: i’m the author of django-swiftbrowser20:56
tdasilvacschwede: lol, no worrries..just noticed that you put the container assigment inside a in-process function, so it won't get picked up from not in-process20:56
jogriffincschwede: oh great, i just noticed you were here :)20:57
jogriffincschwede: mind lending me your ear?20:57
cschwedetdasilva: hmm, so it needs a fix or is not working at all? i wrote a quick sample (outside swift) to verify my idea, and it worked20:57
jogriffinfirst question, my containers have global read set to false. can I still access them with swift browser?20:58
*** kota_ has joined #openstack-swift20:58
cschwedejogriffin: i’m online for a few more minutes, how can i help?20:58
cschwedejogriffin: as long as the user is the account owner - yes20:58
cschwedetdasilva: i’ll have another look at the patch tomorrow morning and re-verify this21:00
*** Cipher45 has quit IRC21:00
jogriffincschwede: ok, makes sense. After changing the swift_auth, I used my swift_user and swift_key vars for login credentials. Unfortunately this still failed21:00
tdasilvacschwede: sorry, didn't want to worry you, i'm looking now21:00
tdasilvait was more of a heads up21:00
jogriffincschwede: what else should I take a look at modifying? is it possible to hit single container?21:01
cschwedejogriffin: hmm, i might need to add some kidn of logging to swiftbrowser21:01
cschwedejogriffin: for a user that is not an account owner? difficult, because the user is not allowed to list the containers21:02
*** kota_ has quit IRC21:02
jogriffinno for a user that is an account owner21:02
*** Cipher45 has joined #openstack-swift21:02
*** Cipher45 has joined #openstack-swift21:02
cschwedetdasilva: if you find an issue with it, could you add it to the review? i will have a closer look tomorrow morning21:03
*** Bsony has joined #openstack-swift21:03
cschwedejogriffin: does it work with the same credentials with python-swiftclient („swift“ CLI)?21:03
cschwedejogriffin: i mean outside of swiftbrowser?21:04
jogriffincschwed: with my limited knowledge of swift, I believe our containers have single users tied to them, where the user is considered the admin and the only one with r/w.21:04
jogriffincschwede: yeah I am able to write to my container with python-swift-client and list the objects from within the swift cli21:04
cschwedejogriffin: are you able to list the containers?21:05
jogriffinjust the objects from within the container21:05
*** jrichli has quit IRC21:06
jogriffincshwede: will you be on tomorrow? I can ping you in the am21:09
cschwedejogriffin: that sounds like the problem. i created an issue with a possible idea, will have a closer look at it: https://github.com/cschwede/django-swiftbrowser/issues/1021:10
cschwedejogriffin: yes, i’ll be online tomorrow (daytime UTC)21:10
cschwedetdasilva: actually, i forgot to update a few places in the code with my patchset  :\21:14
jogriffincschwede: wonderful, thanks. Ill look for you tomorrow, have a good evening21:16
cschwedejogriffin: thanks, you too!21:17
*** jogriffin has quit IRC21:18
*** joeljwright1 has quit IRC21:43
*** doxavore has quit IRC21:43
*** doxavore has joined #openstack-swift21:44
*** annegentle has quit IRC21:48
*** mmcardle has joined #openstack-swift21:56
*** tsg_ has joined #openstack-swift22:04
*** tsg has quit IRC22:04
pelusenotmyname, patch to bump eventlet req is ready https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164108/22:07
*** jamielennox|away is now known as jamielennox22:08
*** mmcardle has quit IRC22:09
*** doxavore has quit IRC22:10
*** annegentle has joined #openstack-swift22:12
*** stack_ has quit IRC22:12
*** Bsony has quit IRC22:17
*** cutforth has quit IRC22:21
notmynamepeluse: done22:35
*** annegentle has quit IRC22:48
*** gyee has joined #openstack-swift22:54
openstackgerritSamuel Merritt proposed openstack/swift: Add functional test for multi-range GET requests.  https://review.openstack.org/16782822:55
*** tsg_ has quit IRC22:57
*** foexle has quit IRC23:00
*** chlong has joined #openstack-swift23:10
*** Tyger has quit IRC23:14
openstackgerritMerged openstack/swift: Bump eventlet version to 0.16.1  https://review.openstack.org/16410823:16
*** Bsony has joined #openstack-swift23:23
*** Bsony has quit IRC23:28
*** lcurtis has quit IRC23:35
*** welldannit has joined #openstack-swift23:37
*** chlong has quit IRC23:37
*** chlong has joined #openstack-swift23:37
*** tsg has joined #openstack-swift23:42
tsgclayg: back here - saw your eventlet 0.17.0 question .. that version has a dns reverse lookup code screwed up .. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/158287/23:42
notmynametsg: thansk23:43
*** annegentle has joined #openstack-swift23:57

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!