14:59:19 <n0ano> #startmeeting gantt
14:59:20 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Mar 25 14:59:19 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is n0ano. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:59:21 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:59:23 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'gantt'
14:59:39 <n0ano> anyone here to talk about the scheduler?
15:01:26 <bauzas> o/
15:02:09 <bauzas> not a lot of people around :)
15:02:19 <n0ano> bauzas, might be just you & me, looks like you wore them out last week :-)
15:02:43 <bauzas> :-)
15:03:02 <bauzas> n0ano: have you read the minutes ?
15:03:29 <bauzas> I promise I haven't scared them :D
15:03:47 <n0ano> yeah, last week, I've forgotten (incipient Alzheimer's) were there any open questions?
15:04:44 <n0ano> one question I had, looks like you abandoned the client patch just to restart it again, any particular reason for not just updating the original patch?
15:04:55 <bauzas> no no no
15:05:12 <bauzas> I'm still continuing to work on the client
15:05:28 <bauzas> but after discussing with -infra guys, seems like drafts don't like rebases
15:05:40 <bauzas> hence I created another patch
15:05:49 <bauzas> WIP this time
15:06:11 <n0ano> well, if that's just a process thing that's fine
15:06:18 <bauzas> because I was unable to amend the existing one (gerrit was refusing to update master)
15:06:33 <bauzas> the bp whiteboard is modified accordingly
15:06:55 <bauzas> I removed all mentions of the previous patch
15:07:04 <n0ano> Aah, gerrit, it's caused me pain in the past, I understand completely (I had a linked set of patches and gerrit lost the links, I was not happy :-(
15:07:14 <bauzas> yey
15:07:20 <bauzas> was pretty weird
15:07:50 <bauzas> well, to be honest, anteaya told me to stop submitting drafts
15:08:02 <bauzas> that works, but that doesn't like rebases
15:08:12 <bauzas> anyway
15:08:25 <bauzas> maybe we can officially start ? :)
15:08:32 <bauzas> and discuss about the topics ?
15:08:36 <n0ano> the other thing you can do is create private update and send links out to interested parties, that would avoid some of those issues
15:08:52 <n0ano> for sure but with just the two of us it's pretty easy...
15:09:07 <anteaya> n0ano: outside the meeting if you continue to have difficulty with gerrit, talk to me in -infra
15:09:14 <bauzas> just a matter of reading minutes without looking at the detailed logs :)
15:09:15 <anteaya> gerrit should be losing links
15:09:19 <anteaya> shouldn't
15:09:51 <n0ano> anteaya, tnx, I'll remember that in future, I worked around the problem and hope not to run into it again
15:10:13 <anteaya> n0ano: it might be a workflow issue
15:10:53 <n0ano> anteaya, I always suspect cockpit error, I have a slightly strange setup so I blame me on first look
15:10:55 <digambar> Hey guys, one question, if need to sask omething on the node so which node we follow for daily issues ??
15:11:19 <bauzas> digambar: I don't understand the question :)
15:11:27 <n0ano> bauzas, +1
15:11:37 <digambar> if need to ask osmething on the node so which node we follow for daily issues ??
15:11:38 <bauzas> n0ano: so, about scheduler forklift
15:11:47 <digambar> something**
15:11:52 <bauzas> digambar: still unclear to me, the question is :)
15:12:05 <n0ano> digambar, what do you mean by node and what do you mean by daily issues?
15:12:07 <bauzas> digambar: what do you mean about node ?
15:12:14 <anteaya> n0ano: this is our recommended workflow: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Gerrit_Workflow
15:12:14 <bauzas> ^^
15:12:44 <bauzas> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/82778/
15:12:47 <n0ano> anteaya, I tried to follow that but I'm guessing I messed up (I had a linked set of patches so that's a little odd)
15:12:51 <bauzas> scheduler client patch
15:13:08 <bauzas> still chasing some bugs
15:13:20 <anteaya> n0ano: find me in -infra later and we can walk through it together
15:13:20 <digambar> If I want to ask to something about the patches & bugs, so where I can connect you guys
15:14:01 <bauzas> digambar: you can reach us in #openstack-nova just by prefixing your question with our IRC nicknames :)
15:14:08 <n0ano> digambar, I think you mean `contact you guys' and the first option is the dev mailing list, that should be your first choice
15:14:18 <digambar> yes
15:14:19 <bauzas> digambar: I don't promise to be 24x7 up there thou
15:14:34 <digambar> Yeah, I understand
15:14:52 <n0ano> I'm always on #openstack-dev but I'll add #openstack-nova also
15:15:14 <bauzas> I also proposed a bp in nova-specs :
15:15:17 <digambar> cool, Thank you :)
15:15:18 <n0ano> the not there 24x7 is why I always suggest the mailing list first
15:15:19 <bauzas> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/82133/
15:15:28 <n0ano> anyway
15:15:34 <n0ano> #topic code forklist
15:15:43 <bauzas> yey  !
15:15:48 <bauzas> so, I was saying
15:15:54 <bauzas> good progress on it, still chasing bugs
15:16:21 <n0ano> I was going to ask, do you want a review or do you want to wait until after the bug hunt?
15:16:41 <bauzas> n0ano: I think it's worth waiting for the new patchset
15:16:54 <bauzas> n0ano: not that hard to fix
15:16:56 <n0ano> NP, procrastination is my middle name
15:17:00 <bauzas> :-)
15:17:41 <n0ano> given this is still a WIP I assume that, even after the bug hunt, this won't be ready to merge in yet, right?
15:17:46 <bauzas> so, again, please note that https://review.openstack.org/#/c/82778/ is the new review for the sched client
15:17:53 <bauzas> n0ano: we can't
15:17:58 <bauzas> until Juno
15:18:20 <bauzas> we're currently in FF
15:18:39 <bauzas> the idea is to quickly raise the bar on the client for discussing it at the summit
15:18:41 <n0ano> that's a given but after FF will this be ready, you still need some unit tests right?
15:18:49 <bauzas> n0ano: yup
15:19:24 <bauzas> we also need to have the bp validated
15:19:29 <bauzas> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/82133
15:19:36 <bauzas> you can review that one now
15:19:55 <n0ano> sure, I'll add that to my todo right now
15:20:00 <bauzas> it's flagged as WIP too because of the the current nova-specs template under change
15:20:38 <bauzas> I have to check status of it, and either promote it or produce a new patchset
15:21:23 <bauzas> btw, I spoke last week about http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/80
15:21:36 <toan_tran> bauzas: just one quick question
15:21:38 <bauzas> this is the placeholder for discussing the BP
15:21:53 <bauzas> toan_tran: sure
15:22:09 <digambar> Hey bauzas
15:22:11 <toan_tran> what relation does this sch python lib have  with nova?
15:22:42 <digambar> for the scheduler lib, can help you on that ?
15:22:42 <bauzas> toan_tran: that's the necessary step before forking code to gantt
15:23:03 <bauzas> digambar: I need some reviews on it yes
15:23:09 <digambar> yes
15:23:17 <bauzas> digambar: but I don't think it requires another contributor
15:23:25 <digambar> ok
15:23:35 <n0ano> bauzas, we should probably propose a session to talk about gantt APIs also, I think that's another area people need to address
15:23:36 <bauzas> that's quite straightforward
15:23:54 <digambar> any other work for gantt,  I can look at ?
15:24:08 <digambar> 1. I'll review it
15:24:22 <digambar> 2. I am looking for ??
15:24:32 <bauzas> n0ano: which APIs are you talking about ?
15:24:41 <bauzas> REST or RPC ?
15:24:43 <toan_tran> digambar: try https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-external-scheduler
15:24:50 <digambar> ok
15:25:14 <toan_tran> digambar: a little messy, but look at the end
15:25:23 <bauzas> but indeed, we need to speak about step #3
15:25:32 <digambar> okay
15:25:33 <n0ano> bauzas, both, the RPC should just be a continuation of the current Nova ones but, for generalizing to support cinder & neutron & ... we should see if we need something more
15:25:50 <bauzas> n0ano: that's something we need to tackle at the summit yes
15:26:00 <bauzas> n0ano: I can propose a session
15:26:13 <n0ano> bauzas, if you want, go ahead
15:26:17 <bauzas> ok will do
15:26:36 <bauzas> that's because we need to make sure what will be the interfaces in the next future
15:26:37 <n0ano> I don't think we need a session on forklift per se, it's pretty obvious what needs to be done there, it's more mechanical
15:27:09 <toan_tran> n0ano: can we organise some section with cinder & neutron folks?
15:27:11 <bauzas> n0ano: well, the client lib is quite straightforward, I agree
15:27:27 <bauzas> toan_tran: I don't think that's mature for Juno
15:27:35 <bauzas> but we can get feedback
15:27:53 <toan_tran> bauzas: well, it's better if we have some initial though on that
15:28:01 <n0ano> toan_tran, I would hope that some of the the cinder & neutron people would come to the gantt session
15:28:11 <bauzas> toan_tran: I still persist that's a bit early :)
15:28:25 <toan_tran> I don't want we follow it to the end and others'd say that it's too complicated for them
15:28:33 <bauzas> Juno will be focused on having the scheduler isolated from Nova
15:28:51 <bauzas> that's K where we should focus on integrating other projects
15:28:53 <n0ano> bauzas, a bit but getting other ideas early would be good, especially when talking about APIs
15:29:04 <toan_tran> bauzas: of'course but to tackle RPC
15:29:38 <toan_tran> I'm afraid that we focus too much into nova
15:29:39 <bauzas> so that means the discussion is about the interfaces
15:29:50 <toan_tran> at some point we forget the generalization of gantt
15:29:54 <bauzas> hence what we discussed previously :)
15:30:13 <bauzas> I will propose a session wide enough to get cinder and neutron folks joining in
15:30:20 <toan_tran> bauzas: +1
15:30:25 <n0ano> bauzas, +1
15:30:32 <bauzas> ok
15:30:37 <n0ano> we seem to be in violent agreement :-)
15:30:53 <bauzas> about the forklift by itself, there are some concerns about the service table and other pure technical aspects
15:31:30 <bauzas> that's only related to nova
15:31:35 <n0ano> I think those will resolve themselves, once we get the interfaces clean enough that we can split out the current code
15:31:46 <bauzas> that's why I think the forklift is not that trivial to miss a summit session
15:32:27 <n0ano> not sure what concensus we need on it though, it's more a `just do it' problem.
15:33:06 <bauzas> n0ano: we need to decouple DB tables that are not related to scheduler
15:33:07 <n0ano> but why argue over this, let's just propose a forklist session and see if it's accepted and who comes
15:33:15 <bauzas> n0ano: +1 :)
15:33:30 <bauzas> ok, I'm done with that topic
15:33:39 <n0ano> since you've signed up for 2 sessions, I'll propose a forklift one
15:34:09 <bauzas> there is already one ;)
15:34:17 <bauzas> http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/80
15:34:40 <n0ano> I'm constantly out of the loop (Alzheimers again), that's fine
15:34:46 <bauzas> the one missing is the one about future Gantt interfaces
15:35:02 <n0ano> bauzas, BTW the Juno summit is in Atlanta, will you be able to come?
15:35:09 <bauzas> n0ano: yup
15:35:18 <n0ano> excellent
15:35:46 <bauzas> n0ano: I'm moving from one company to another
15:36:00 <bauzas> n0ano: and the move will be done at summit time
15:36:22 <bauzas> anyway
15:36:30 <n0ano> anyway
15:36:34 <bauzas> :-)
15:36:43 <n0ano> I think we've beaten this particular dead horse
15:36:45 <n0ano> #opens
15:36:48 <bauzas> nah
15:36:49 <bauzas> nah
15:36:54 <bauzas> no-db :)
15:37:00 <bauzas> I have something to say :D
15:37:08 <n0ano> #topic no-db
15:37:11 <n0ano> bauzas, go for it
15:37:32 <bauzas> so, about no-db, I spoke with boris-42
15:37:43 <bauzas> this morning
15:37:54 <bauzas> (well, this EU TZ morning :-) )
15:38:18 <bauzas> so, he will propose a session on no-db scheduler
15:38:30 <bauzas> we discussed on that thread last week
15:38:49 <bauzas> about the interest of having memcached or tooz
15:39:23 <bauzas> so, there will be opportunity for discussing about the implementation
15:39:35 <n0ano> never heard of tooz, I would have thought we just do memcached to start and then think about alternatives if needed
15:39:52 <toan_tran> n0ano: +1
15:40:12 <bauzas> at the moment, there is no progress on the BP, as the resource was defocused from that BP
15:40:27 <bauzas> n0ano: that's what we agreed last week :-)
15:41:12 <n0ano> I just wanted to see progress, with patches up for review I hate to see them just get ignored
15:41:17 <bauzas> but that's worth discussing with tooz contributors
15:42:02 <n0ano> so, bottom line, don't expect any progress on no-db until after the summit
15:42:12 <bauzas> n0ano: I don't think there will be progress until Juno
15:42:19 <bauzas> +1
15:42:42 <toan_tran> bauzas: last time I heard
15:42:52 <toan_tran> there was a prob with no-db implementation
15:43:01 <toan_tran> did he said what it was?
15:43:25 <bauzas> toan_tran: the only problem I heard of from boris-42 is resource :)
15:43:26 <toan_tran> it's the design problem or just implementation's technical detail ?
15:43:41 <n0ano> toan_tran, scalability issue, they were working on debugging it, looks like they don't have to resources to fix it right nwo
15:43:42 <bauzas> toan_tran: there is no people working on atm
15:43:55 <bauzas> n0ano: +1
15:44:03 <toan_tran> ok
15:44:08 <bauzas> hence the discussion is about the memcached use
15:44:24 <bauzas> we should have a flexible backend
15:44:41 <bauzas> with use of stevedore's plugins for implementation
15:45:02 <bauzas> so that we could either use a memcached driver or any other
15:45:06 <bauzas> hence the discussion around tooz
15:45:11 <n0ano> bauzas, no argument, which is why I'd implement memcached first and then look into other backends
15:45:24 <bauzas> https://github.com/stackforge/tooz
15:45:39 <bauzas> n0ano: that would be worth having a stevedore namespace for this
15:45:49 <bauzas> with proper interfaces
15:46:03 <bauzas> the few I saw from the bp was ok with that
15:46:25 <bauzas> but we just need to make sure it will still be the case in the next implementations
15:46:43 <n0ano> well, there'll be a session at Juno, should be a lively one
15:47:07 <bauzas> :D
15:47:19 <n0ano> anything else on no-db
15:47:21 <bauzas> nope
15:47:32 <n0ano> OK, once more
15:47:38 <n0ano> #topic opens
15:47:41 <bauzas> :-)
15:47:43 <toan_tran> I have some question :)
15:47:45 <n0ano> anything new?
15:47:48 <n0ano> toan_tran, go for it
15:47:59 <toan_tran> has anyone ever measured the scheduling performance?
15:47:59 <bauzas> yeah, I have a remark about the current gantt repo
15:48:16 <bauzas> toan_tran: ask boris-42
15:48:32 <bauzas> toan_tran: they made some benchs using Rally
15:48:48 <toan_tran> well, they promised to have data published  :)
15:48:56 <toan_tran> but I haven't seen one :)
15:49:08 <bauzas> open a thread in -dev ML then :)
15:49:18 <toan_tran> bauzas: +1
15:49:37 <n0ano> toan_tran, check out https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_DRv7it_mwalEZzLy5WO92TJcummpmWL4NWsWf0UWiQ/edit?pli=1#heading=h.6ixj0ctv4rwu
15:50:03 <toan_tran> it does not have data
15:50:15 <bauzas> n0ano: great document, missed it, thanks
15:50:40 <n0ano> toan_tran, what about fig. 1?
15:51:02 <toan_tran> n0ano: only on compute_get_all()
15:51:20 <bauzas> could we tackle that on -dev ?
15:51:29 <toan_tran> bauzas: OK
15:51:31 <bauzas> I have something to discuss about gantt repo
15:51:37 <n0ano> then, as bauzas said, raise it on -dev (be sure to CC boris)
15:51:44 <n0ano> bauzas, go for it
15:52:01 <bauzas> ok, at the moment, the gantt repo is a bit confusing people
15:52:13 <bauzas> as it was generated a while ago
15:52:23 <bauzas> and as the efforts are now going to nova first
15:53:02 <bauzas> I'm just saying that I think we should update the README file in gantt stating that this is currently not an official repo, much likely related to a sandbox
15:53:17 <bauzas> I can propose a patch on it
15:53:25 <bauzas> and we also need to review the reviewers :D
15:53:31 <n0ano> bauzas, sure, that's a good idea
15:53:46 <bauzas> russellb raised that concern earlier in the day
15:54:11 <n0ano> current reviewers are the nova core team, it's easy enough to create our own team, we should probably discuss that at Juno
15:54:50 <bauzas> (11:06:52) russellb: i'm not sure if it can actually be removed, but at a minimum, we can push a commit that removes all code and leaves a README
15:54:59 <russellb> o/
15:55:09 <bauzas> russellb: o/
15:55:19 <russellb> basically just wondering what you guys want to do with the repo
15:55:24 <n0ano> I'm not sure we want to go that far, just changing the README would be my suggestiuon
15:55:25 <bauzas> russellb: we're quickly discussing on the gantt repo state
15:55:37 <russellb> is there active work on the code?
15:55:55 <n0ano> I'm still working on it
15:55:58 <bauzas> btw, should we move it to stackforge ?
15:56:12 <russellb> i asked about the stackforge move, -infra folks generally against it if there's any chance we'll move it back later
15:56:26 <bauzas> russellb: ok thanks for the heads-up
15:56:40 <russellb> i don't think nova-core is looking at it
15:56:54 <n0ano> we'd definitely move it back so I'm good with leaving it
15:57:06 <bauzas> n0ano: russellb: so I will propose a patch for updating README and stating this is not active code
15:57:08 <russellb> so if it stays we should just change the review team
15:57:16 <bauzas> russellb: +1
15:57:20 <russellb> otherwise nothing will ever get approved
15:57:21 <russellb> heh
15:57:46 <n0ano> then we should change the review team `before` we change the README
15:57:54 <bauzas> n0ano: agreed
15:58:15 <russellb> not sure the order matters
15:58:17 <russellb> but sure
15:58:19 <bauzas> we're running out of time
15:58:36 <n0ano> We need to identify the review team, I'll start a ML thread
15:58:50 <n0ano> for today, yes, we'll have to continue on the ML
15:58:54 <bauzas> ok
15:58:57 <n0ano> tnx everyone
15:59:01 <n0ano> #endmeeting