15:00:31 #startmeeting cinder 15:00:31 Meeting started Wed Nov 6 15:00:31 2024 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is jbernard. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:31 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:00:31 The meeting name has been set to 'cinder' 15:00:35 #topic roll call 15:00:37 o/ 15:00:39 o/ 15:01:00 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-epoxy-meetings 15:01:06 Hi 15:01:17 o/ 15:01:49 o/ 15:02:00 o/ 15:02:51 o/ 15:03:36 hi 15:03:58 welcome everyone, just a couple more minutes to collect everyone 15:04:10 (sorry for the time mistake) 15:07:48 ok 15:07:54 #topic announcements 15:08:09 first, i appologize for the time issue 15:08:29 im curious if anyone objects to moving it to 15UTC 15:08:36 hi 15:08:54 if there is a conflict, i can try to make a few changes on my side 15:09:04 no worries jbernard! so that would be +1 from what we have right now in the calendar? 15:09:13 exactly 15:09:47 my time moved back 1 hour last weekend and i failed to realize the rest of the world isn't on my schedule ;) 15:10:11 moving it is unfortunate for us from europe 15:10:21 Luzi: ack 15:10:32 ok, let me try to make some adjustments here 15:10:46 Hi All, I had requested for comments on this bug# https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/2084117 and had added it in cinder_bs agenda link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-bug-squad-meeting [on Oct 16th] Guess that etherpad is no more actively used. Request you to please take it on priority and share your comments, Thanks 15:10:48 it's certainly easier for me to do that and to impose a time change on everyone else 15:11:04 manudinesh: hold onto that until the open discussion section 15:11:10 manudinesh: we're in the annoucments at the moment 15:11:28 sorry... 15:11:33 manudinesh: no worries 15:11:49 so, for clarity, we're keeping the 14:00 UTC meeting time on wednesdays 15:12:03 continuing next week 15:12:13 time issue resolved 15:12:58 moving one 15:13:03 s/one/on 15:13:16 i posted a summary of our ptg content to the list 15:13:19 #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/G4DMPLHQFCI4K2HMYAIMCL7DF3TMX7B6/ 15:13:36 i think that captures most of it, without details, just an overview 15:14:01 i need to fix the wiki version, if you think i've missed something let me know 15:14:15 next, we have a release update 15:14:20 rosmaita: do you want to take this one? 15:14:31 sure 15:14:48 jbernard: Do you have videos for me to post? 15:14:56 jungleboyj: yes! 15:15:01 not much to say ... we're releasing a final cinder and os-brick from Antelope (probably tomorrow) 15:15:10 #action jbernard to get videos to jay for posting 15:15:38 and Antelope will go to Unmaintained and stable/2023.1 will be deleted shortly after 15:16:20 last thing: i'm willing to continue as release person for epoxy, but will be happy to teach anyone else who's interested how to do it and take ove 15:16:27 *over 15:16:38 that's all from me 15:16:39 jbernard: ++ 15:16:41 would anyone like to volunteer to be release liason? 15:17:33 there is virtually zero prestige or recognition, however you /will/ have my eternal gratitude :) 15:18:02 *crickets* 15:18:06 :) 15:18:28 :-) 15:18:40 rosmaita: looks like you're our release liason! 15:18:45 rosmaita: congrats! 15:18:56 Can't even offer beers at the next event as we don't get together anymore. 15:18:56 :D 15:19:15 one day... 15:19:15 rosmaita: Thank you for your compliance. ;-) 15:19:37 i will celebrate with a virtual beer 15:19:41 lol 15:19:55 just make sure you get the hashes right first ;) 15:19:56 lol 15:20:42 id like to quickly hijack topics and ask a related question: 15:20:58 do we want to consider merging the unmaintained cores with cinder cores, as I belive Ironic has done? 15:21:46 i would still be very reluctant to make use of that power, as I don't want to make a mistake, but it's not fun redirecting folks the way we do 15:22:02 does anyone have a opinion on this? 15:22:46 does anyone have any, even mild, objections? 15:23:06 well, the point of unmaintained was that the project has no responsibility 15:23:07 I think we already have a notable about of overlap there. 15:23:22 Oh, unmaintained, not stable. 15:23:24 Nevermind. 15:24:36 my objection was that i don't know that we want to be responsible for reviewing victoria through antelope, in addition to the stuff we're actually supposed to be reviewing 15:25:14 but any cinder core could volunteer to be an unmaintained core, if they would like to 15:25:19 that's a very fair point, especially considering our current review bandwidth 15:25:34 and any cinder community member could volunteer as well 15:26:03 i think the requirements to be an unmaintained core are still being developed 15:26:32 ok, lets leave it then, we can always revisit if the situation changes 15:26:57 #topic volume backup bug 15:27:05 mhen, Luzi: that's you 15:27:15 #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/2086683 15:27:43 yeah mhen found this bug 15:27:55 oy, that's not awesome :/ 15:28:11 when there is no volume backup service configured, it is still possible to create a volume backup 15:28:20 that will end up in error state of course 15:28:33 and non-admin users are not able to delete this resource 15:29:12 we wanted to make you aware of this. 15:29:18 thanks 15:29:47 unfortunately i cannot tell any more than that - mhen should be there soon, but he has a conflicting meeting 15:30:05 it would be nice to catch this on API level 15:30:25 whoami-rajat: ^ i would think the api should fail if the necessary service is non-existant 15:30:52 looks like we don't do any kind of testing of backups when the service is disabled or absent 15:31:52 our voting jobs have it enabled, i guess it makes some sense that we haven't seen this 15:32:33 mhen is now here, and i need to go - if there are any questions 15:32:47 o/ 15:32:53 mhen: heya 15:33:12 we need a sanity check in the api logic 15:35:17 i think the report is clear, so everything needed to work on this one is present 15:35:44 #topic multi-transport protocol volume driver support 15:35:47 sp-bmilanov: 15:35:57 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/847536 15:35:59 I think checks like these need to be used in more places: https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/75b478b7819168a301ec8927a4a4113b000587de/cinder/backup/api.py#L155-L167 15:36:44 ah, hi, was just going to say that I have to go soon, but the short version is that there are cases where we would like to handle both iSCSI and the StorPool block protocol with one driver 15:37:02 mhen: i made a note in the etherpad 15:37:08 mhen: agree 15:37:31 in setups where there are hypervisors connect by different protocols, but they'd want the same volume 15:38:31 there might be a way to do this currently, but I couldn't figure it out, and I suspect that would be a change in the core to allow drivers to do this properly 15:39:49 sp-bmilanov: in the call to attach(), is the metadata needed to determine which of possible protocols to use present? 15:40:44 I need to double check, but it should 15:41:23 (for reference, the proposed change currently does this in cinder, not os-brick: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/847536) 15:41:40 sorry, I have to go, can I add this topic for next week as well? 15:41:50 sure 15:42:07 thanks! 15:43:07 #topic review requests 15:43:22 Luzi has a cople for volume type metadata 15:43:29 this is important for epoxy: 15:43:38 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/918316 15:43:40 and 15:43:45 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/928794 15:44:38 btw, epoxy milestone 1 is next week 15:44:57 good grief 15:45:33 hitachi has one 15:45:41 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/892616 15:45:48 we agreed at the ptg to pin mypy 15:45:54 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/932636 15:46:05 and there's a netapp bug 15:46:12 #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/2084117 15:46:28 which isn't a code review, but rather a bug comment request 15:46:45 manudinesh: ^ do you have more to add for that one? 15:48:44 #topic open discussion 15:48:44 We downloaded it from official site and tested and faced this error...wanted to know from NetApp Cinder team if there is fix coming on these lines 15:50:13 im not sure if anyone is watching from netapp, but im reasonably certain they will see and respond to this one 15:50:24 VM deployment fails if it is vSCSI based connectivity group but VM deploys are successful for NPIV based connection ... 15:50:46 sure jbernard, Thank you .. 15:51:21 manudinesh: ill add it to next week's agenda too 15:51:31 Thank you 15:52:35 anything else? 15:53:11 looks like the requirements-check job is suddenly failing on all patches 15:53:17 fun 15:53:24 not our fault ... looks like an issue with ubuntu-noble 15:54:00 ok 15:54:20 thanks everyone, see you next week at the normal 14:00 time 15:54:24 #endmeeting