14:00:29 <pdeore> #startmeeting glance
14:00:29 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Thu May 30 14:00:29 2024 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is pdeore. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:29 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:29 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'glance'
14:00:29 <pdeore> #topic roll call
14:00:29 <pdeore> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-team-meeting-agenda
14:00:36 <pdeore> o/
14:01:02 <dansmith> o/
14:01:45 <pdeore> Brian, Cyril & Mridula are not joining the meeting
14:02:11 <pdeore> abhishekk, you around ?
14:02:38 <abhishekk> o/ in another meeting though
14:02:56 <pdeore> ack, let's get started then
14:03:05 <pdeore> #topic release/periodic jobs updates
14:03:16 <pdeore> M2 is 5 weeks from now
14:03:42 <pdeore> periodic jobs: all tips jobs are still failing since this patch is not yet merged
14:03:45 <pdeore> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance/+/919817
14:04:17 <pdeore> it's depends on this glance-tempest-plugin patch #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance-tempest-plugin/+/916332
14:04:26 <abhishekk> will have a look later
14:04:28 <pdeore> kindly please have a look
14:04:31 <pdeore> ack, Thanks
14:04:37 <pdeore> moving ahead
14:04:47 <pdeore> #topic Important Specs to Review
14:05:06 <pdeore> deprecate metadata-encryption-key - #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance-specs/+/916178
14:05:07 <pdeore> Revised spec for Image Encryption - #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance-specs/+/915726
14:05:44 <pdeore> please have a look
14:06:12 <pdeore> moving to next
14:06:14 <pdeore> #topic swift store issue
14:06:26 <pdeore> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/2061947
14:06:43 <pdeore> So when swift store is enabled with swift_store_multi_tenant and swift_store_config_file together, glance stores-info api fails with 500
14:07:06 <pdeore> so here there are 2 issues and I submitted a fix as well
14:07:16 <pdeore> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance/+/920170
14:07:35 <pdeore> I have doubt about fix for the second issue
14:08:08 <pdeore> When swift multitenant enabled, container is not getting created during configuration but during image create it's getting created if it's not set during store configuration.
14:08:35 <pdeore> So is it ok to return container value None if it's not set while fetching the store details or this should be fixed at store side?
14:08:39 <abhishekk> what do you mean by during configuration?
14:09:09 <pdeore> during configuring swift store
14:09:29 <pdeore> incase of single tenant it gets set
14:09:31 <abhishekk> you mean at service start when store is initialized?
14:09:42 <pdeore> yeah
14:09:54 <abhishekk> I think that needs to be fixed at store side
14:10:35 <abhishekk> if it's set for single store then it should be same for multi tenant imo
14:10:40 <pdeore> yeah because the container value could be either None or glance_*
14:11:06 <abhishekk> ack
14:11:26 <pdeore> ack, Thanks
14:11:40 <pdeore> that's it from me
14:11:47 <pdeore> let's move to open discussions
14:12:07 <pdeore> ohh sry, one more thing
14:12:38 <pdeore> There is already a note added regarding the swift configuration for multitenant in the doc
14:12:48 <pdeore> #link https://docs.openstack.org/glance/latest/configuration/configuring.html#configuring-swift-configuration-file
14:13:25 <pdeore> so do we need some more details or this is enough?
14:13:51 <abhishekk> we need validation around that
14:14:18 <pdeore> ok
14:14:46 <pdeore> Thanks
14:14:57 <pdeore> moving to open discussions
14:15:04 <pdeore> #topic Open Discussions
14:15:27 <abhishekk> my NFS spec has two +2s so ideally you can approve that unless have any objection
14:16:11 <pdeore> yeah will do that
14:16:15 <abhishekk> also I have submitted patch in oslo_middleware, please have a look at that
14:16:55 <abhishekk> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/oslo.middleware/+/920055?usp=search
14:17:15 <pdeore> ack
14:17:45 <pdeore> Regarding hash calculation command line utility, there is suggestion from abhishekk to have a separate command line utility instead of adding the new command under glance-manage to avoid complexity
14:17:57 <pdeore> I would like to hear others opinion on the same
14:18:38 <pdeore> cyril is suggesting not to have the separate one
14:18:45 <pdeore> dansmith, what would you suggest?
14:19:10 <dansmith> why a separate command?
14:19:14 <abhishekk> So related to that, since we calculating hash for the snapshot, can we also set image size for the same?
14:19:58 <abhishekk> I was suggesting to have different command line tool same as glance-cache-prefetcher to keep it different
14:20:26 <dansmith> but why?
14:20:44 <abhishekk> glance-manage image calculate-hash doesn't suited well for me
14:21:02 <abhishekk> we have glance manage for db and metadef loading related work only
14:21:44 <dansmith> this is for re-calculating the hash on an existing image that doesn't have one right?
14:21:50 <abhishekk> yes
14:22:00 <abhishekk> i.e for legacy sanpshots
14:22:07 <dansmith> is there some reason that shouldn't actually be an api activity?
14:22:15 <dansmith> I mean, it's probably *too* high level even for glance-manage,
14:22:32 <abhishekk> yyou mean periodic job or at the start of the service?
14:22:40 <dansmith> because you might delegate that activity to some person in your org or a script with some limited credentials
14:22:58 <dansmith> no, I mean trigger it via the api and let it spawn a thread to do it just like when you're uploading
14:23:11 <abhishekk> or separate API altogether
14:23:28 <abhishekk> ack, this will be more easy approach
14:24:25 <abhishekk> pdeore: ^^
14:24:27 <dansmith> I dunno about easy to implement, but definitely easier for the operators I think, and avoids the need for another dedicated tool
14:24:37 <pdeore> so if we have a separate api then do we need a spec for this?
14:24:40 <dansmith> and matches api-based image prefetching like we have now
14:24:57 <abhishekk> agree
14:25:18 <pdeore> ok
14:25:35 <abhishekk> yes, you can submit a spec for this imo
14:26:20 <abhishekk> also coming back to my suggestion, since we calculating hash for the snapshot, should we also compute and set image size ?
14:26:20 <pdeore> ack
14:26:32 <dansmith> abhishekk: definitely
14:26:49 <abhishekk> this will also solve our zero size image case
14:27:36 <pdeore> sure, I will do that too
14:27:53 <abhishekk> sorry for late suggestion, but I think it's hust couple of lines addition to the code and test
14:28:16 <abhishekk> thank you! I am done!
14:28:23 <pdeore> :)
14:28:54 <pdeore> I think this should be separate out from the location import chain or may be would be btr on top of it
14:29:06 <pdeore> *separated
14:29:11 <abhishekk> size calculation?
14:29:21 <pdeore> no hash calculation
14:29:44 <abhishekk> new API, you can submit that as a separate work
14:30:05 <pdeore> ok
14:30:09 <pdeore> Thanks !
14:30:21 <pdeore> that's it from me
14:30:41 <pdeore> anyone has anything else to highlight? or we can wrap up early?
14:31:49 <pdeore> seems nothing, let's wrap up then
14:32:00 <abhishekk> thank you!
14:32:01 <pdeore> Thanks for joining !!
14:32:06 <pdeore> #endmeeting