15:00:08 <eglynn> #startmeeting ceilometer
15:00:09 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Oct  9 15:00:08 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is eglynn. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:10 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:11 <sileht> o/
15:00:14 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'ceilometer'
15:00:19 <sileht> o/
15:00:22 <nealph_> o/
15:00:34 <DinaBelova> o/
15:00:36 <llu-laptop> o/
15:01:02 <eglynn> hey y'all
15:01:10 <eglynn> #topic juno close-out
15:01:22 <eglynn> as discussed last week we ended up needing an RC2
15:01:31 <eglynn> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+milestone/juno-rc2
15:01:47 <eglynn> also a python-ceiloclient 1.0.12 release to pick up the fix for that token-expiry issue in the alarm evaluator
15:02:05 <eglynn> ... so getting down to the wire now for juno final
15:02:22 <DinaBelova> eglynn, cool, that'll solve lots of possible problems with alarm evaluator :)
15:02:32 <fabiog> o/
15:02:40 <eglynn> so does anyone got any remaining concerns?
15:02:54 <eglynn> in the sense of stuff that might warrent an RC3?
15:03:18 <eglynn> ... the window for that is rapidly closing
15:03:57 <eglynn> ... so if there is anything we need to fix in juno, we'd need to be raising it by EoW, or early next week latest
15:04:34 * eglynn hopes that no news is good new on that score :)
15:05:49 <eglynn> slightly related to Juno, the TC didn't meet this week ... so I don't know if the gap analysis coverage outcome will be formally reviewed
15:06:07 <eglynn> or whether the wiki summary will suffice
15:06:13 <DinaBelova> eglynn, ok, do you know when it'll be done?
15:06:15 <DinaBelova> a-ha
15:06:15 <DinaBelova> ok
15:06:30 <eglynn> #topic TSDaaS/gnocchi status
15:06:49 <eglynn> jd__: the floor is yours
15:08:27 <DinaBelova> eglynn, it looks like jd__ does not want to communicate with us :)
15:08:30 <nealph_> *crickets*
15:08:38 <eglynn> TL;DR: patches in-flight for exposing human-friendly timespans in the archive_policy API
15:09:03 <eglynn> also sileht continues hacking on the long-running dispatcher review
15:09:16 <DinaBelova> also some news: ityaptin is working on gnocchi performance testing (lab fighting in progress)
15:09:17 <eglynn> cross-entity aggregation support also in progress
15:09:28 <sileht> that one is a bit bloked
15:09:34 <sileht> due to a bug in webob
15:09:42 <cdent> "lab fighting"; it's a shame that's a thing
15:09:43 <eglynn> DinaBelova: is Ilya using the WIP dispatcher from https://review.openstack.org/98798 ?
15:09:49 <DinaBelova> eglynn, yeah
15:09:55 <ityaptin> eglynn: yeah
15:10:01 <DinaBelova> to have kind of realistic env :)
15:10:38 <DinaBelova> eglynn, we hope to grab some results next week
15:10:41 <eglynn> a-ha, are we waiting on a fix from the webob folks?
15:10:57 <sileht> https://github.com/Pylons/webob/issues/164
15:11:07 <DinaBelova> eglynn, for both Swift and some TSD (my WIP change or your ones)
15:11:25 <eglynn> cool
15:11:26 <DinaBelova> eglynn, probalby my AND yours :)
15:11:34 <eglynn> cooler :)
15:11:36 <DinaBelova> :D
15:12:28 <eglynn> sileht: could we work around that webob issue by making the py3 tests non-voting?
15:12:42 <DinaBelova> eglynn, also we've started rc2 testing by vrovachev
15:12:45 <eglynn> (temporarily, pending a webob fix)
15:12:56 <eglynn> DinaBelova: performance profiling again?
15:12:59 <sileht> eglynn, I'm think to change ^ by + for testing only
15:13:03 <DinaBelova> that's not the gnocchi thing, but forgot to say this on previous topic
15:13:11 <DinaBelova> nope, just full features testing
15:13:14 <eglynn> cool
15:13:21 <DinaBelova> all meters for all services
15:13:29 <DinaBelova> currently it seems to look nice
15:13:36 <eglynn> excellent
15:13:39 <DinaBelova> :)
15:13:51 <eglynn> sileht: yeah that could be pragmatic
15:14:52 <eglynn> DinaBelova, jd_: we also have some gnocchi slides to write for the conference track in Paris
15:15:03 <eglynn> maybe chat about that next week?
15:15:10 <DinaBelova> eglynn, that's why ityaptin is working so hard now :D
15:15:14 <DinaBelova> eglynn, +1
15:15:19 <sileht> eglynn, also I'm writting some explaination of the limitation of the current dispatcher implementation
15:15:30 <eglynn> coolness :)
15:15:40 <DinaBelova> eglynn, we'll get first performance results by this time as well - will be easier to decide what to talk
15:15:51 <eglynn> yeap, that makes sense
15:15:56 <DinaBelova> and what not to talk about :)
15:15:58 <DinaBelova> ;)
15:16:41 <eglynn> anything else on gnocchi, or shall we move on to our other favourite weekly topic?
15:17:13 <eglynn> #topic Tempest status
15:17:36 <DinaBelova> +2s in progress :)
15:17:41 <DinaBelova> for unskipping :)
15:17:50 <DinaBelova> eglynn, thanks for adding more reviewers there
15:17:51 <DinaBelova> :)
15:18:20 <llu-laptop> tempest, most temptation :)
15:18:29 <DinaBelova> llu-laptop, for sure
15:18:30 <DinaBelova> :)
15:18:49 <DinaBelova> (c) you're my dark temptation (c)
15:18:51 <DinaBelova> sorry
15:18:53 <eglynn> yeap good news on the nova notification test unskip, thx to cdent for busting out his gentle thumb-screw ;)
15:19:03 <DinaBelova> cdent, /me bowing
15:19:23 <cdent> If Sean wasn't away it would probably already be through the gate :)
15:19:35 <DinaBelova> if so, my dream about all Vadim's changes being merged may come true
15:19:46 <DinaBelova> cdent, :)
15:19:48 <mtreinish> if you guys are that anxious for it, I'll just fast approve it :)
15:20:00 <eglynn> mtreinish: well that would be nice, thank you sir!
15:20:09 <DinaBelova> mtreinish, you can't believe my wish :)
15:20:13 <DinaBelova> to see that :)
15:20:14 <cdent> mtreinish: it's almost (but not really) more fun to speculate on the magic sauce
15:20:38 <DinaBelova> mtreinish, thanks!
15:20:45 <cdent> \o/
15:21:28 * cdent notes: "whatever we just did, more of that"
15:21:36 <eglynn> LOL :)
15:21:43 <mtreinish> no worries, I just hope it doesn't go flakey again...
15:21:55 <DinaBelova> mtreinish, me as well :)
15:22:21 <cdent> if it does, please point me at it, I'm getting pretty aware of untangling these things
15:22:39 <eglynn> cdent: excellent :)
15:23:06 <eglynn> ok, I guess that's the main new news on tempest
15:23:12 <eglynn> #topic Win The Enterprise monitoring WG update
15:23:22 <eglynn> just a quick note that I've in on the weekly WTE calls
15:23:33 <eglynn> ... I've *been in ...
15:23:41 <eglynn> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/WTE_Monitoring_Team
15:23:57 <eglynn> TL;DR: based on operator feedback, they want to surface compute/blockstore capacity headroom
15:24:21 <eglynn> I've looking into how this might be emitted as notifications from the nova & cinder schedulers
15:24:28 <eglynn> (for ceilo to consume)
15:24:50 <eglynn> I've proposed a couple design session topic on their tracks
15:25:19 <eglynn> (... so we'll see what comes of that, if anything, given that all the tracks are constrained this time round)
15:25:20 <DinaBelova> eglynn, cool, it'll be interesting
15:25:43 <eglynn> TBH I don't know yet if this "headroom" concept makes any sense for neutron
15:26:07 <DinaBelova> probably we need some neutron expert here :-\
15:26:25 <eglynn> yeah /me needs to dig a bit more into the neutron plugin contract, and the upward reporting (if any)
15:26:49 <eglynn> see if there's any analogue to the nova resource tracker for example
15:27:11 <fabiog> eglynn: is this for capacity planning or more alarming in case of reaching the limit of resources?
15:27:14 <eglynn> anyhoo that's research WIP, just wanted to give a heads-up on where it's headed
15:28:03 <eglynn> fabiog: the idea is more to provide an answer to the question "how much space do I have left in my datacenter to fit new resources?"
15:28:35 <fabiog> eglynn: got it, thanks
15:28:42 <eglynn> fabiog: e.g. how many new instances of various flavors, how many gigs of block storage etc.
15:28:43 * DinaBelova is crying remembering blazar activity...
15:29:42 <eglynn> DinaBelova: interesting, I hadn't thought of that angle
15:29:46 * eglynn peeks at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blazar
15:30:10 <DinaBelova> eglynn, heh, Blazar (ex. Climate) was my little child before Ceilo :)
15:30:30 <eglynn> so that's all about pre-claiming resources in advance?
15:30:50 <DinaBelova> eglynn, yes
15:30:56 <DinaBelova> but it's dead project now...
15:31:02 <llu-laptop> DinaBelova: blazar == previous known as climate?
15:31:07 <DinaBelova> llu-laptop yep
15:31:27 <eglynn> DinaBelova: still, interesting to have that perspective, I'll re-read the wiki ... thanks!
15:31:32 <DinaBelova> eglynn, np :)
15:31:46 <fabiog> DinaBelova: yes that is capacity planning in the traditional sense, I guess they really want a dynamic evaluation to decide when allocate new workloads
15:32:07 <DinaBelova> fabiog, probably yeah
15:32:10 <DinaBelova> that's the difference
15:32:38 <eglynn> fabiog: yeah, when the capacity topic was first brought up I thought they'd be more interested in extrapolating/forecasting future usage trends
15:33:12 <nealph_> so this is workload mgmt vs. capacity planning? interesting...
15:33:37 <fabiog> eglynn: I think is a matter of speed, In the old days they had months to decide, now they have hrs :-)
15:33:46 <DinaBelova> nealph_, last time we had lots of questinable moments, about how to integrate all this thing into the OS ecosystem
15:34:01 <fabiog> eglynn: so they need a snapshot of the datacenter so they can make an informed decision
15:34:11 <eglynn> fabiog: yep, exactly
15:34:19 <DinaBelova> fabiog, yeah
15:34:23 * nealph_ gets it.
15:34:26 <fabiog> eglynn: is a really interesting topic
15:34:42 <DinaBelova> fabiog, yeah, still :)
15:34:46 <DinaBelova> hot one
15:35:07 <eglynn> fabiog: yeap, though unfortunately the required info isn't direct surfaced by many of the services as yet
15:35:20 <eglynn> ... isn't *directly surfaced
15:35:52 <DinaBelova> well, anyway, I'd love to see this thing developing :)
15:35:52 <fabiog> eglynn: actually I am not so sure the services really knows how much they chewed already
15:36:02 <DinaBelova> it means that my feeling it's interesting was not wrong
15:36:04 <cdent> This is one of those areas where I think the services should be the ones thinking hard about what they surface; ceilomter should just "hear" well.
15:36:40 <nealph_> eglynn: I see a reference to "admin read only" in that etherpad as well...anticipate ceilo impacts there?
15:36:51 <nealph_> or is that another topic entirely...
15:36:53 <eglynn> fabiog: the nova scheduler knows from the resource tracker reports
15:37:01 <eglynn> fabiog: ... though apparently the info provided to the cinder scheduler by some drivers is very questionable
15:37:23 <eglynn> fabiog: ... e.g a continual report of infinite capacity available
15:37:26 <fabiog> nealph: I think we can solve that using the RBAC approach
15:37:50 <fabiog> eglynn: right
15:39:02 <eglynn> nealph_: I'm not directly involved in that read-only notion
15:39:32 <nealph_> eglynn: fair enough. :)
15:39:33 <eglynn> nealph_: ... but the proposal was to add such an out-of-the-box read-only-admin role to keystone, and extend the RBAC config for the services to include a read-only rule
15:40:19 <eglynn> nealph_: proposed to cross-project track
15:40:26 <eglynn> nealph_: ... line 71 here: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-crossproject-summit-topics
15:40:40 <eglynn> (not much detail there TBH)
15:40:44 <nealph_> eglynn: cool, will chase it down offline.
15:40:56 <fabiog> eglynn, nealph_: the current roles in Openstack are too coarse, you either have admin and do everything or you are confined in the project as regular user
15:41:21 <fabiog> I mean the one available out of the box
15:41:50 <eglynn> fabiog: yeah, either king-of-all-you-survey, or a mere peasant
15:42:43 <eglynn> ok, guess we can move on
15:42:50 <eglynn> #topic open discussion
15:43:02 <DinaBelova> may I start here? :)
15:43:22 <DinaBelova> I wanted to point one topic you guys might be interested in
15:43:23 <DinaBelova> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+branch:master+topic:merge-compute-and-central-agents,n,z
15:43:38 <DinaBelova> here are some things to be done to merge out central and compute agents
15:43:43 <DinaBelova> our*
15:43:56 <DinaBelova> so I'd love to collect your feedback on this POC
15:44:22 <eglynn> DinaBelova: cool, I'll add that to my review list, thanks!
15:44:31 <DinaBelova> eglynn, thank you sir!
15:44:42 <DinaBelova> of course, I'd like to have some preapproval
15:44:45 <DinaBelova> to create BP
15:44:48 <fabiog> DinaBelova: I will have a look.
15:44:52 <DinaBelova> fabiog, thanks!
15:45:08 <DinaBelova> then I'll create BP and add it everywhere
15:45:13 <DinaBelova> to all these commits
15:45:25 <fabiog> Dinabelova, I would like in general to move away from polling from Nova
15:45:47 <DinaBelova> fabiog, that'll be kind of next step I believe
15:45:59 <DinaBelova> I don't like this polling as well..
15:46:00 <fabiog> Dinabelova, because they already complained that we are significantly impacting their performance when we do that
15:46:10 <DinaBelova> fabiog, I can imagine
15:46:46 <cdent> it should be the responsibility of the service to create their own notifier or poller, not ceilometers...
15:46:48 * cdent is a broken record
15:46:49 <fabiog> Dinabelova, so this seems to me to consolidate the polling strategy but it doesn't remove the problem at the rott
15:46:51 <fabiog> root
15:47:03 <DinaBelova> fabiog, for now - yep
15:47:22 <DinaBelova> but currently even compute agent code seems to have no sence
15:47:28 <DinaBelova> after nsaje's commits
15:47:44 <DinaBelova> that make agents code more unified
15:48:02 <llu-laptop> DinaBelova: my first thought of merging central/compute agent is that may require we introduce some disable-self'
15:48:18 <fabiog> Dinabelova, I think you will be able to run a Central Agent with only a pipeline for Nova in the nova nodes, is this the way you are achieving a similar result to the current behaviour?
15:48:37 <DinaBelova> fabiog, yeah, I'm operating just pipelines
15:48:38 <llu-laptop> mechanism in the pollster, in case we have compute only pollsters enabled on a non hypervisor machine
15:48:41 <DinaBelova> to define waht to poll
15:48:50 <DinaBelova> by this ceilometer-polling-agent
15:48:56 <eglynn> yep, seems to be two orthogonal issues here ...
15:49:02 <eglynn> 1. remove needless duplication/specialization between agents
15:49:05 <eglynn> 2. rationalize polling load on the nova-api etc.
15:49:10 <DinaBelova> eglynn, yes, and that's why I'm asking your help here :)
15:49:28 <DinaBelova> not only eglynn, but all of you
15:49:29 <DinaBelova> :)
15:49:35 <eglynn> DinaBelova: so you're currently concentrating exclusively on issue #1 amiright?
15:49:41 <DinaBelova> yes
15:49:44 <cdent> #1 is a great idea
15:50:04 <DinaBelova> I'll propose to solve #2 in next changes
15:50:21 <DinaBelova> to make these steps simpler
15:50:35 <DinaBelova> they are refactoring.... mostly... lots of refactoring
15:50:41 <DinaBelova> :)
15:50:43 <eglynn> cool, sounds like we should all put our 2 cents in on gerrit
15:50:49 <DinaBelova> ;)
15:50:52 <DinaBelova> thanks!
15:51:08 <eglynn> we could also possibly discuss f2f at the contributor meeting in Paris?
15:51:19 <eglynn> speaking of which ...
15:51:28 <DinaBelova> eglynn, yeah, it'll be cool, but I'd love to start this activity now
15:51:37 <eglynn> cool enough
15:51:41 <DinaBelova> as some first steps seem to be simple
15:51:46 <fabiog> eglynn: we have a fix for the Dispatcher to re-try db connection once is lost or late, can you guys please have a look at: https://review.openstack.org/127128
15:52:05 <eglynn> BTW last week we said we'd punt deciding the design summit topics to next week's meeting
15:52:24 <eglynn> everyone still good with that?
15:52:41 <DinaBelova> eglynn, works for me
15:52:51 <prad> neutron
15:52:52 <fabiog> eglynn, I am good with that
15:53:42 <fabiog> eglynn, are you going to have every proposant to discuss the proposal in IRC?
15:54:00 <fabiog> or do you need some prep work
15:54:21 <DinaBelova> fabiog, eglynn - probably sum small meeting needed?
15:54:25 <DinaBelova> if it'll be quesitons
15:54:29 <DinaBelova> some*
15:54:45 <eglynn> fabiog: yep, I was thinking that each proposer would give a short pitch, handle quick Q&A if necessary
15:54:58 <DinaBelova> or yeah, something like that ^^
15:55:33 <fabiog> eglynn: elevator pitch is good
15:55:43 <eglynn> then folks could go away and digest what they've heard
15:55:54 <eglynn> ... before registering their preferences later on the spreadsheet
15:56:06 <eglynn> ... so that we can gauge interest in the various topics
15:56:15 <eglynn> sound like a reasonable approach?
15:56:47 <fabiog> eglynn: it does. But I believe we may need 2 meetings considering the amount of proposals
15:56:55 <DinaBelova> eglynn, +1
15:57:11 <nealph_> fabiog: or a time limit. :)
15:57:27 <eglynn> fabiog: yeah, you could be right
15:57:34 <fabiog> eglynn, or leave the Q&A for the second meeting
15:57:35 <eglynn> fabiog: ... the schedule needs to be finalized at least a week before summit
15:57:57 <eglynn> fabiog: ... so maybe we'll need to organize an extra meeting some after if we overrun
15:58:07 <eglynn> meeting *soon after
15:58:18 <eglynn> e.g. the Friday or the following Monday
15:58:32 <fabiog> eglynn, cool but we have the 16 and 23
15:58:38 <llu-laptop> could we just extend the next week's meeting's extra time to ceilometer channel?
15:58:56 <eglynn> llu-laptop: yeah, that would work for me
15:59:02 <cdent> +1
15:59:09 <DinaBelova> +1
15:59:52 <eglynn> as per usual, we're up against the shotclock
16:00:00 <cdent> time
16:00:06 <DinaBelova> yeah, see you folks!
16:00:23 <fabiog> bye
16:00:23 <eglynn> yep, let's call it a wrap ... thanks folks for your time!
16:00:31 <eglynn> #endmeeting ceilometer