15:00:36 <n0ano> #startmeeting gantt
15:00:36 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Apr 14 15:00:36 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is n0ano. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:37 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:39 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'gantt'
15:00:44 <n0ano> anyone here to talk about the scheduler?
15:00:53 <bauzas> \o
15:01:18 <lxsli> o/
15:02:34 <n0ano> not much to talk about today, mostly reviews for the release, but...
15:02:44 <n0ano> #topic Vancouver sessions
15:03:01 <alaski> o/
15:03:07 <n0ano> I know we're on the list for a scheduler session, do we have any more details we want to put up?
15:03:57 <bauzas> n0ano: I updated the etherpad
15:04:04 <bauzas> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/liberty-nova-summit-ideas
15:04:08 <bauzas> L50
15:04:17 <n0ano> I saw that, it looks good for getting a discussion going
15:04:18 <bauzas> oops L60
15:04:30 <n0ano> bauzas, yeah, others updated the pad
15:05:10 <bauzas> n0ano: yeah johnthetubaguy added a very good question about the opportunity to split out the sched
15:05:40 <n0ano> the one about external API?
15:05:51 <bauzas> n0ano: technically, everything can be done within Nova without splitting the sched
15:06:01 <bauzas> n0ano: even the cross-project stats
15:06:18 <bauzas> n0ano: but we should raise the point about it not being only a tech thing
15:06:28 <n0ano> bauzas, +1
15:06:36 <bauzas> n0ano: but also a scaling out development team
15:06:44 <n0ano> bauzas, all good ideas that are appropriate for the summit session
15:07:29 <bauzas> n0ano: that said, that's still an excellent question - ie. I don't care if we don't split the scheduler, I'm just concerned about making sure we can fix our problems quickly
15:07:36 <n0ano> from a session perspective, I think what's on the pad is good enough so I think we're set
15:07:50 <bauzas> so we can focus on a cross-project thing soon
15:08:41 <bauzas> n0ano: I'm also in the cells V2 effort and those guys desesperatly need a scalable scheduler
15:08:58 <alaski> bauzas: +1
15:09:09 <n0ano> cells, nova, cinder, ironic - there are lots of people that need a scheduler
15:09:31 <bauzas> n0ano: so I'm beginning to draft a few things in my mind to see how we can achieve a shared-state scheduler
15:09:50 <alaski> n0ano: cells primarily needs the current scheduler to scale, not for it to split
15:09:56 <bauzas> n0ano: technically cells is just a nova thing
15:09:59 <n0ano> bauzas, beyond what we were supposed to get with the resource tracker?
15:10:03 <bauzas> n0ano: it doesn't it to be split
15:10:08 <bauzas> ergh alaski burned me
15:10:52 <bauzas> n0ano: the resource tracker is just an ugly thing for providing food for thoughts to the scheduler
15:11:19 <bauzas> n0ano: I raised an old BP led by jay about allocation ratios which need to move on to the RT
15:11:29 <n0ano> I
15:11:35 <bauzas> n0ano: we also need to consider how we can put claims to the scheduler
15:11:49 <jaypipes> hi guys.
15:11:57 <bauzas> but I don't think those two tasks are necessary for scaling out the sched
15:11:59 <bauzas> jaypipes: \o/
15:12:10 <jaypipes> sorry, been on vacation until about 2 hours ago.
15:12:12 <bauzas> jaypipes: you were under radar :)
15:12:18 <bauzas> jaypipes: np
15:12:20 <jaypipes> yes, deliberately :)
15:12:24 <n0ano> I'm a little worried that the scheduler was ugly so we create the RT and now the RT is ugly so we create something else, a lot of spinning going on
15:12:56 <bauzas> n0ano: we reduced the tech debt by a good level in Kilo
15:13:47 <bauzas> jaypipes: so, we could discuss further on but I was basically saying that I provided a list of things to do for Liberrty
15:13:54 <n0ano> bauzas, for the priority tasks, there's still a lot of other tech debt to deal with
15:14:09 <bauzas> jaypipes: do you think you will have time to look at bp/resource-usage ?
15:14:14 <bauzas> ergh
15:14:18 <bauzas> bp/resource-objects
15:14:49 <bauzas> jaypipes: I also hijacked bp/allocation-ratios-to-RT because we need it soon :)
15:15:01 <bauzas> n0ano: which are ?
15:15:13 <jaypipes> bauzas: I will tackle resource-usage this week.
15:15:19 <bauzas> jaypipes: \o/
15:15:21 <n0ano> bauzas, just in general, a lot of overload on the core team
15:15:38 <jaypipes> bauzas: cool on allocation-ratio one.
15:15:42 <bauzas> n0ano: so we need to get a priority for Liberty
15:15:58 <bauzas> n0ano: because it damned worked good
15:16:10 <bauzas> worked *well
15:16:22 <bauzas> fat fingers and a f* English
15:16:22 <n0ano> bauzas, well, it'll be interesting to see what other items want to be a priority
15:16:29 <bauzas> n0ano: sure
15:16:53 <bauzas> n0ano: but wrt cells, scheduling is just a necessary for them too
15:16:54 <n0ano> the process works great if you're a priority, not so much if not
15:17:05 <bauzas> n0ano: so let's us become a priority thing
15:17:10 * PaulMurray o/ - sorry I'm late
15:17:27 <n0ano> PaulMurray, NP
15:17:47 <bauzas> n0ano: honestly, we're one of the priorities which kinda succeeded on the last cycle
15:18:20 <bauzas> n0ano: but sure, we can't bet on that - at least I wouldn't
15:18:32 <n0ano> bauzas, +1
15:19:03 <n0ano> well, I think we're actually ready for Vancouver, what a surprise
15:19:16 <bauzas> soooo, I would just say that we need to continue focusing on improving the scheduler while considering why a split would be important at the same time
15:19:39 <bauzas> n0ano: well, we need some housekeeping stuff
15:20:00 <bauzas> jaypipes: would you mind resubmit bp/resource-objects for Liberty as a Previously-approved spec ?
15:20:05 <n0ano> what housekeeping are you thinking of, other than re-submitting specs for liberty
15:20:16 <bauzas> n0ano: exactly that one :D
15:20:27 <n0ano> good seque...
15:20:35 <n0ano> #topic Specs for Liberty
15:20:47 <bauzas> so I made a few uploads
15:20:54 <bauzas> https://review.openstack.org/173252
15:21:01 <n0ano> now that L is open we shoul re-submit all our open specs again, this is mainly to bauzas and PaulMurray
15:21:09 <bauzas> https://review.openstack.org/173316
15:21:12 <jaypipes> bauzas: yes, I will do that.
15:21:24 <bauzas> n0ano: and jaypipes's bp/resource-objects
15:21:32 <bauzas> jaypipes: excellent, ty
15:21:49 <bauzas> and PaulMurray's make-rt-use-objects
15:22:10 <bauzas> then, I'll sort it out with johnthetubaguy for the ones who are consensual
15:22:12 <PaulMurray> n0ano, johnthetubaguy approved the rt-objects as a trivial-not-needing spec
15:22:17 <johnthetubaguy> do ping me if you need help getting stuff approved
15:22:33 <n0ano> PaulMurray, reall?  cool, that makes your life simpler
15:22:33 <PaulMurray> johnthetubaguy, will I need to bother with the spec ^^^
15:22:37 <bauzas> PaulMurray: cool, then let's resume your work on that bp
15:22:57 <bauzas> johnthetubaguy: I made a few updates for the L specs
15:23:04 <johnthetubaguy> PaulMurray: treating it as an objects tidy up / bug fix, given we discussed that spec enough before now
15:23:21 <johnthetubaguy> PaulMurray: lets see if everyone agrees, but I would ignore the spec thing for now
15:23:24 <bauzas> johnthetubaguy: I wouldn't bet it could be fast-approved as I needed to make some adjustements
15:23:45 <n0ano> bauzas, adjustments to the spec or the patches?
15:23:51 <bauzas> n0ano: on the specs
15:23:59 <johnthetubaguy> bauzas: good heads up
15:24:27 <bauzas> n0ano: some content was outdated because we merged a few things and some content was wrong because the implementation draft showed it was an error
15:24:40 <n0ano> unless the bauzas adjustments are major we should still be able to fast track the spec
15:24:58 <bauzas> n0ano: I leave that to the nova-drivers
15:25:16 <bauzas> n0ano: that doesn't block me to work on the implementation
15:26:09 <n0ano> so, bottom line, PaulMurray doesn't need to re-submit, hopefully we can fast track bauzas & jaypipes specs
15:26:32 <bauzas> that leaves others think about other things they want to shape for L
15:26:41 <n0ano> bauzas, that
15:26:48 * n0ano fat fingers also
15:26:49 <bauzas> n0ano: on my side, I'm pretty staffed for Liberty
15:27:01 <n0ano> bauzas, that's always the case of other developtment
15:27:30 <bauzas> agreed
15:27:43 <n0ano> OK, moving on...
15:27:47 <n0ano> #topic opens
15:27:51 <n0ano> anything new for today?
15:28:33 <n0ano> hearing crickets
15:28:48 * n0ano is afraid he will have to go back to re-wiring his house (long story)
15:29:09 <bauzas> re-wiring ?
15:29:26 <bauzas> is it what I understand ?
15:29:44 <n0ano> 100Mbit needs 4 wires from a Cat-5 cable, 1G needs all 8 leaving nothing for the phone line
15:29:47 <bauzas> n0ano: invest on IoT
15:30:23 <n0ano> getting 1G ethernet & phone is `challenging`
15:30:42 <bauzas> ?
15:31:16 <bauzas> anyway, that's off-topic but I can help you, I have a personal home wired network that can do both
15:31:17 <n0ano> bauzas, my house only sent 1 single Cat5 cable to each room, I want 1G
15:31:42 <bauzas> n0ano: got it, move to Cat6 but that shouldn't impact your phone line
15:31:52 <n0ano> I have the solution, just requires re-wiring
15:32:01 <n0ano> we can compare notes at Vancouver
15:32:04 <bauzas> or buy a SIP hone
15:32:08 <bauzas> phone
15:32:19 <n0ano> OK, I think we're done on the scheduler
15:32:21 <bauzas> lolo
15:32:22 <n0ano> tnx everyone
15:32:26 <bauzas> \o
15:32:28 <n0ano> #endmeeting