14:07:52 <rafaelweingartner> #startmeeting cloudkitty
14:07:52 <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.
14:07:52 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:07:52 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'cloudkitty'
14:07:55 <rafaelweingartner> Hello guys
14:07:57 <rafaelweingartner> sorry the delay
14:08:05 <rafaelweingartner> Roll count
14:08:06 <rafaelweingartner> \0
14:09:41 <rafaelweingartner> =)
14:10:39 <mrunge_> o/
14:10:43 <mrunge_> hello
14:10:54 <rafaelweingartner> Awesome to see you again here :)
14:11:16 <mrunge_> my pleasure
14:11:17 <rafaelweingartner> mattcrees are you here as well?
14:14:00 <rafaelweingartner> I guess we can move on with the meeting. If the others appear, we can get them up to date then.
14:14:07 <rafaelweingartner> #topic vPTG
14:14:38 <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.
14:15:01 <mrunge_> great, thank you!
14:16:56 <rafaelweingartner> Moving on, we have the reviews
14:16:58 <rafaelweingartner> #topic Target reviews
14:17:23 <rafaelweingartner> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/950868, this one is ready to be merged by me.
14:17:33 <rafaelweingartner> I see that Pierre has reviewed it already and request some minor changes
14:18:00 <mrunge_> Juan followed up and provided the requested changes
14:18:15 <rafaelweingartner> Let's see his feedback after the patch was updated
14:18:18 <rafaelweingartner> yes, I saw
14:20:03 <rafaelweingartner> moving on, #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/953827
14:20:33 <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
14:20:50 <mrunge_> yes. agree
14:21:01 <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
14:21:03 <mrunge_> it's a bummer that it did not make it into flamingo
14:21:15 <rafaelweingartner> We manage to save a lot of work in Ceilometer since the Dynamic pollsters
14:21:43 <rafaelweingartner> no worries :), but we will get into the next one
14:21:56 <rafaelweingartner> For InfluxDB, it is a great plus to reduce the number of items being persisted
14:22:22 <rafaelweingartner> We managed to reduce almot 10kk elements being persisted, which were making InfluxDB quite slow.
14:22:58 <mrunge_> for us, influx is not an option
14:23:03 <rafaelweingartner> I see
14:23:54 <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
14:24:14 <mrunge_> wow.
14:24:19 <rafaelweingartner> off course, InfluxDB is standalone and not distributed, and we were distributing the queries in 12 different nodes og Gnocchi API
14:24:28 <mrunge_> sure
14:24:33 <rafaelweingartner> so, there is no magic
14:24:41 <rafaelweingartner> it is just a matter of changing the design
14:25:56 <rafaelweingartner> moving on, we have #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/953762
14:26:03 <rafaelweingartner> I have reviewed it, and it is fine by me
14:26:41 <rafaelweingartner> I guess we could move on and merge it.  I pinged Matt and Pierre
14:27:23 <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.
14:29:04 <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.
14:29:13 <rafaelweingartner> I agree
14:31:53 <rafaelweingartner> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/957436, it looks fine by me
14:33:22 <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
14:35:15 <tkajinam> for me it looks like it was added as part of initial import but it has never been used.
14:35:25 <tkajinam> as far as I could imagine from git log
14:35:30 <rafaelweingartner> I see
14:35:50 <rafaelweingartner> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/958374 is also fine by me
14:36:16 <rafaelweingartner> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/958255 is a great idea. I approve it already
14:37:22 <rafaelweingartner> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/957656, I would like to hear from Pierre and Matt about it
14:37:54 <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!!
14:38:28 <tkajinam> :-)
14:38:33 <rafaelweingartner> Do you guys have something else to add?
14:38:35 <tkajinam> I have one patch I want to discuss
14:38:56 <tkajinam> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-cloudkittyclient/+/958175
14:39:32 <tkajinam> cloudkittyclient-devstack-functional-v1-client has been failing since recent change in cloudkitty was merged
14:39:37 <tkajinam> and I see this change unblocks it
14:40:00 <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.
14:40:16 <tkajinam> I mean request an exception to get another 2025.2 release of python-cloudkittyclient
14:40:22 <rafaelweingartner> That would be perfect
14:40:30 <rafaelweingartner> do you guys think that we can get this exception?
14:41:07 <mrunge_> depending on the policy you're following
14:41:20 <mrunge_> ultimately, it is up to the release liaison
14:41:47 <tkajinam> the failure indicates incompatibility with 2025.2 cloudkitty and 2025.2 python-cloudkittyclient without this
14:41:56 <tkajinam> so I'm inclined to move it forward
14:42:14 <rafaelweingartner> I would agree with you tkajinam
14:42:23 <rafaelweingartner> I mean the CLi is no incompatible
14:42:31 <rafaelweingartner> it is only the test that is incompatible
14:43:01 <rafaelweingartner> Pedro add the other options to make a bit more easier for the users to use the feature
14:43:03 <tkajinam> ok
14:43:32 <rafaelweingartner> and then he changed the test to use the new behavior of the API
14:43:40 <tkajinam> so it fixes the tests and also extends client to support new features merged during this cycle.
14:43:49 <rafaelweingartner> exactly
14:44:12 <rafaelweingartner> we forgot about it, as we never use the CLI, we have other system on top of the API
14:44:24 <tkajinam> ok
14:45:14 <tkajinam> because I'm not aware of any other projects using cloudkittyclient within OpenStack projects, I believe merging this is low-risk
14:45:32 <tkajinam> (contrary to a few other "core" clients such as keystoneclient
14:45:46 <tkajinam> so I think we are fine with merging it for 2025.2
14:45:51 <rafaelweingartner> Ok
14:46:00 <mrunge_> +1
14:46:36 <rafaelweingartner> I pinged Matt and Pierre there
14:46:43 <rafaelweingartner> let's see their feedback an dmerge it
14:46:56 <tkajinam> ok
14:47:28 <rafaelweingartner> And that is it for today :)
14:47:32 <tkajinam> that's all from me.
14:47:34 <tkajinam> :-)
14:47:38 <rafaelweingartner> Do you guys have something else?
14:47:46 <mrunge_> nope
14:47:52 <tkajinam> no :-)
14:48:13 <rafaelweingartner> thank you all for participating. Have a nice week!
14:48:26 <rafaelweingartner> sorry the delay today :)
14:48:32 <rafaelweingartner> I was reading a document, and forgot the meeting
14:48:41 <rafaelweingartner> #endmeeting