15:00:14 <bswartz> #startmeeting manila
15:00:16 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Oct 16 15:00:14 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is bswartz. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:17 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:19 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'manila'
15:00:26 <bswartz> hello all
15:00:27 <cknight> Hi
15:00:28 <tbarron> hi
15:00:29 <rushil1> \o
15:00:30 <scottda> hi
15:00:32 <vponomaryov> hi
15:00:33 <jasonsb> hi
15:00:37 <csaba> hi
15:00:54 <Shamail-Alt> hi
15:01:01 <bswartz> #agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila/Meetings
15:01:34 <bswartz> #topic dev status
15:01:41 <bswartz> we'll start with dev status again this week
15:01:45 <vponomaryov> Dev status for last week:
15:02:01 <vponomaryov> 1) Manila shares list API
15:02:07 <deepakcs> hi
15:02:08 <vponomaryov> Filtering using share list API was greatly improved
15:02:08 <vponomaryov> server: #link https://github.com/openstack/manila/commit/8f0d0dc6
15:02:08 <vponomaryov> client: #link https://github.com/openstack/python-manilaclient/commit/c7456c67
15:02:10 <vponomaryov> status: merged
15:02:19 <vponomaryov> 2) Manila security-services list API
15:02:28 <vponomaryov> server: #link https://review.openstack.org/125569
15:02:28 <vponomaryov> client: #link https://review.openstack.org/126240
15:02:30 <vponomaryov> status: ready for review
15:02:36 <vponomaryov> 3) Manila snapshots list API
15:02:40 <vponomaryov> server: #link https://review.openstack.org/128740
15:02:41 <vponomaryov> client: #link https://review.openstack.org/127622
15:02:44 <vponomaryov> status: work in progress
15:02:55 <vponomaryov> 4) Horizon with Manila
15:02:55 <vponomaryov> Recently was updated Horizon: #link https://github.com/NetApp/horizon/tree/manila_juno
15:02:55 <vponomaryov> Now it has "share-servers" tab in admin panel.
15:03:15 <vponomaryov> that's the main
15:03:34 <bswartz> cool
15:03:48 <bswartz> anything that's been sitting in review too long?
15:03:58 * bswartz has been slow on reviews this week
15:04:13 <vponomaryov> little commit: https://review.openstack.org/125294
15:04:18 <vponomaryov> wanted more opinions
15:04:57 <bswartz> okay I'll review
15:05:15 <bswartz> anything else/questions?
15:05:37 <bswartz> okay
15:05:47 <bswartz> #topic design summit
15:05:55 <bswartz> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-manila-summit-topics
15:06:11 <bswartz> I've been working on the etherpad, mostly down at the bottom
15:06:48 <bswartz> I've tried to separate the topics into topics that would be good for the design summit, and topics that would be good to discuss during the team meetup
15:06:59 <bswartz> does everyone understand the format for the summit this year?
15:07:41 <bswartz> I'll assume yes
15:08:13 <bswartz> I've proposed 6 session so far
15:08:27 <bswartz> some of them are a bit iffy, but I wanted feedback
15:09:28 <deepakcs> bswartz, can u brief quickly about the summit format if its changed from last time ?
15:10:07 <bswartz> so in addition to the "conference sessions" there will be "design summit sessions" for ATCs only just like before
15:10:13 <xyang1> bswartz: we only have 3 session slots, right?
15:10:21 <bswartz> however there will be spots for us to meetup on Friday
15:10:41 <bswartz> and discuss things in a smaller group
15:10:52 <bswartz> we have 3 design summit sessions
15:11:10 <bswartz> and those will likely be attended by all kinds of people who just want to learn about what we're doing
15:11:30 <bswartz> the team meetup will be much smaller I'm sure, with no published agenda
15:11:59 <deepakcs> bswartz, thanks
15:12:15 <vponomaryov> bswartz: about topic "Potential Session: Manila Scheduler"
15:12:23 <bswartz> so the 6 sessions I've proposed have topics which may appeal outside our team
15:12:29 <vponomaryov> what exactly is planned to be disscussed?
15:13:24 <bswartz> vponomaryov: I'm thinking the discussion would be about specific capabilities we should report and general good practice for setting up a multibackend manila installation
15:14:03 <jasonsb> i would be interested in attending the team meetup (for the image project)
15:14:23 <bswartz> well if anyone feels that a topic (from the etherpad) is in the wrong place we can move it
15:14:38 <bswartz> we could do a design summit session on the image project
15:14:51 <vponomaryov> bswartz: so, main idea - extend existing functionality with manila specific stuff and define what exactly should be addded, correct?
15:15:14 <xyang1> bswartz: each session is 40 minutes.  So it's unlikely we can fit all 6 sessions in the 3 session slots
15:15:40 <bswartz> yes I wanted to propose more sessions than we have time for do you all can downvote the ones that you don't like
15:15:50 <bswartz> we can still discuss those topics in the meetup
15:16:02 <xyang1> sure
15:16:16 <bswartz> In a few minutes I'll ask about each one and see if we can collect the votes
15:16:22 <bswartz> but first I had some questions
15:16:43 <bswartz> to answer vponomaryov: yes
15:17:14 <bswartz> we can spend some more time sketching out specifics if it's a topic people are interested in -- I have a lot of ideas
15:17:33 <bswartz> so vponomaryov, you put a few things on the etherpad I didn't understand
15:17:45 <bswartz> * share groups as server groups in Nova
15:17:45 <bswartz> * proper calculation of snapshot size?
15:18:13 <bswartz> can you briefly explain those
15:18:13 <vponomaryov> * share groups as server groups in Nova - create several shares at a time and group them somehow
15:18:56 <vponomaryov> * proper calculation of snapshot size? - snapshot takes quota of share equal to its size and does not allow to spawn share from it with less size than snapshot has defined in manila
15:19:48 <bswartz> okay
15:19:50 <vponomaryov> first one is useful when we know that we want create N shares
15:20:02 <vponomaryov> and we will use them for some specific case
15:20:11 <bswartz> I can see pros/cons for the first one
15:20:16 <rushil1> vponomaryov: Is there a way you have thought about grouping the shares?
15:20:27 <bswartz> it seems worth of discussion -- but do you think it would make a good design summit session?
15:20:49 <vponomaryov> bswartz: need collect desires of end users
15:21:05 <vponomaryov> bswartz: this idea pop up from WFA project
15:21:10 <bswartz> okay
15:22:23 <bswartz> and on the second topic, I feel like we discussed it before and reached a conclusion we were okay with
15:23:01 <bswartz> since we can't know whether backends will store snapshots efficiently or not, we charge them the full quota just in case
15:23:25 <vponomaryov> bswartz: we can allow force usage in cases we know it for sure
15:23:37 <bswartz> asking backends to report how much space a snapshot consumes requires a lot more implementation in the drivers
15:23:55 <bswartz> and worse, it could change over time
15:24:44 <bswartz> I suppose there could be an upper bound we could report that's less than the total share size
15:24:52 <bswartz> is that what you're going for?
15:25:04 <vponomaryov> bswartz: yes
15:25:20 <vponomaryov> for example we can have size of 100Gb for share and snapshot will take additional 100Gb
15:25:30 <vponomaryov> this huge leak of quota
15:25:46 <vponomaryov> and use some couple of Gb indeed
15:25:55 <bswartz> but some backends may literally require 100GB for the snapshot
15:26:38 <bswartz> maybe we should look at doing this in an extension, or with some way for the administrator to turn it off
15:27:14 <bswartz> I like the idea, but it creates some cracks in the abstraction we're trying to create
15:27:29 <vponomaryov> so, we can conclude that this topic does not have strict borders, though I added it
15:27:48 <bswartz> yes -- do you think it makes sense for a design summit talk?
15:28:26 <vponomaryov> Not sure, there are important topic too
15:28:33 <bswartz> okay
15:28:34 <vponomaryov> s/topic/topics/
15:28:46 <csaba> bswartz: is it still possible to add topics to the pad?
15:28:47 <vponomaryov> we can "live" with it
15:28:55 <vponomaryov> but can not, for example, without image
15:29:02 <bswartz> csaba: if you have an idea mention it here
15:29:50 <vponomaryov> so, topic with image should be in top of priority, I think
15:30:05 <xyang1> bswartz: do you need to choose 3 topics and put them down here?  http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/
15:30:11 <bswartz> manila image project? you think it should be a design summit session rather than a meetup topic?
15:30:18 <bswartz> xyang1: yes
15:30:24 <vponomaryov> bswartz: any
15:30:34 <bswartz> xyang1: although we can put 2 topics in one session if we wish
15:30:47 <csaba> bswartz: I have some gripes with how execution works in manila, but I can't articulate them properly ATM, I need a bit time to think it over
15:30:49 <xyang1> ok
15:31:49 <bswartz> csaba: were you thinking of having a session to review your gripes? or did you just want to bring them to the team meetup?
15:31:49 <vponomaryov> csaba: if it would not provide gripes we would not have topics =)
15:32:19 <bswartz> we could just have a whole session where everyone stands up and gripes about what they don't like -- it might be cathartic
15:32:24 <csaba> vponomaryov: the point is to soothe the gripes ;_
15:33:18 <bswartz> csaba: I'd like to get the design summit schedule nailed down in the next few days, so if you want to propose a session then we need to know urgently
15:33:28 <csaba> ATM I would not propose this for a whole session
15:33:29 <bswartz> other topics, for the meetup, can wait
15:33:48 <csaba> bswartz: I can let you know by tomorrow
15:34:06 <bswartz> okay so now I'd like to just go through the list and hear from you +1 or -1 on design summit worthiness
15:34:20 <bswartz> the first one is: Manila Networking
15:34:30 <bswartz> this one gets a +1 from me
15:34:38 <vponomaryov> +1
15:34:39 <xyang1> +1
15:34:59 <jasonsb> +1
15:35:25 <bswartz> sorry the details in the etherpad are sparse -- there's more detail above
15:35:26 <bswartz> okay
15:35:31 <bswartz> next topic: Integration with other projects
15:36:03 <bswartz> Personally I feel like -1 on this, even though it may have broad interest
15:36:13 <xyang1> This topic seems open ended
15:36:29 <bswartz> we would discuss specific integration with * Tempest* Horizon* Devstack* Heat
15:36:42 <bswartz> the discussion could be short though
15:36:58 <bswartz> we could handle this one during the meetup
15:37:12 <jasonsb> expose snapshot usage to other project?
15:37:13 <bswartz> but then we won't get members of those other projects
15:37:14 <vponomaryov> bswartz: I am Ok to leave for meetup
15:37:23 <bswartz> +1/-1?
15:37:23 <vponomaryov> /leave/leave it/
15:37:26 <jasonsb> (accounting/chargeback purposes)
15:37:26 <rushil1> -1
15:37:50 <vponomaryov> +1 push it to meetup
15:38:21 <bswartz> jasonsb: that would just be a new feature for our API, assuming we implement a way to query backends for snapshot actual space consumption
15:38:23 <xyang1> good topic, but won't be productive for a session
15:38:23 <xyang1> meetup sounds good
15:38:34 <bswartz> integration refers to when we actually add code to other projects to make them work better with manila
15:38:58 <bswartz> okay we can move on
15:38:59 <jasonsb> ah, ok
15:39:07 <bswartz> Next topic: Mount Automation
15:39:50 <bswartz> +1 from me
15:40:04 <xyang1> if you already have concrete ideas, then this should be a good one
15:40:09 <vponomaryov> bswartz: We definitely need get nailed what exactly do we want to get with this feature
15:40:15 <bswartz> we've never discussed this topic if deep detail, and people keep asking for it
15:40:25 <bswartz> now feels like the time to finally do it
15:40:25 <vponomaryov> so +1
15:40:47 <bswartz> I do have concrete ideas
15:41:01 <bswartz> and I can easily see this one going the full 40 minutes
15:41:03 <xyang1> +1
15:41:31 <bswartz> ok
15:41:35 <jasonsb> +1
15:41:43 <bswartz> next topic: Review features to steal from Cinder
15:42:10 <bswartz> so the exact list of features we cover in this session could be revised, but the idea is to have a multi-topic session on various cinder features
15:42:22 <bswartz> and talk about the specifics of adapting them to manila
15:42:40 <bswartz> stuff like private volume_type/share_type should be pretty trivial I think
15:42:50 <bswartz> whereas manage/unmanage might be quite complicated given the differences
15:43:20 <bswartz> I'm on the fence about this one
15:43:22 <vponomaryov> +1
15:43:59 <rushil1> -1
15:44:10 <bswartz> rushil what would you prefer?
15:44:21 <xyang1> This seems to be more than we can cover, not focused
15:44:30 <rushil1> bswartz: Don't think this needs to go for a full session when this has already been covered in cinder
15:44:38 <bswartz> xyang: well we could focus it
15:44:42 <deepakcs> bswartz, ability to manage existing share would be good to have, as that would help manila takeover a existing implementation
15:44:54 <bswartz> we could pick 2 or 3 high priority ones and make the session about those
15:45:02 <rushil1> bswartz: We could cover it, but don't need to dedicate a whole session to it
15:45:21 <deepakcs> bswartz, vponomaryov I see you said share_type is available, does that mean Manila supports the multi-backend as Cinder does (1 m-shr process per backend) ?
15:45:26 <bswartz> rushil1: actually we could take a single one of those and turn it into a whole session if we wanted
15:45:34 <bswartz> stuff like backup and replication are HUGE topics
15:45:51 <bswartz> deepakcs: yes
15:46:11 <bswartz> deepakcs: although currently we use the term "volume_type" not share_type
15:46:14 <rushil1> bswartz: I get that. But I feel the audience would be cinder aware and should be aware of the concepts being covered.
15:46:34 <xyang1> yes, those topics are huge, each one will be one session.  we definitely need to nail down
15:46:50 <bswartz> okay so this one needs reworking if we're going to include it
15:46:51 <vponomaryov> rushil1: the goal to get know what we can adapt and why we should do it
15:47:57 <bswartz> we have to do the activity of reviewing all these and scoping/prioritizing them
15:48:07 <bswartz> but maybe that's not appropriate to do in paris
15:48:28 <bswartz> maybe once we have concrete proposals for each one we should consider presenting them
15:49:00 <bswartz> I'll propose that we do that reviewing/scoping/prioritizing in a future meeting
15:49:24 <bswartz> okay since we're running out of time let's move on
15:49:29 <bswartz> next topic: Access Groups
15:49:31 <jasonsb> i would be interested in hearing about thoughts on DR at the pod
15:49:31 <xyang1> straight forward ones don't need a session
15:49:40 <jasonsb> if anybody is interested
15:49:53 <bswartz> jasonsb: sure
15:50:22 <bswartz> access groups is something that's very concrete and could merge during kilo-1
15:50:33 <bswartz> I think it deserves a session
15:50:39 <vponomaryov> bswartz: but this is related to v2
15:50:43 <bswartz> is it interesting enough though?
15:51:13 <bswartz> vponomaryov: it could be done in v1 -- all the APIs are new and don't break anything
15:51:21 <rushil1> +1, I think access groups deserves a session.
15:51:39 <vponomaryov> bswartz: it contradicts to current share access approach, is not it?
15:51:48 <bswartz> it extends the current approach
15:52:09 <bswartz> just makes it possible to apply access rules to multiple shares at a time
15:52:27 <vponomaryov> bswartz: ok, I just did not see implementation you are talking about
15:52:55 <bswartz> and makes it possible for access rules to change in response to events rather than explicit API calls
15:53:32 <bswartz> the driver interface would have to change but there would be no API breakage
15:53:51 <bswartz> if this becomes a session we will post the details in advance
15:54:18 <bswartz> any last opinions?
15:54:19 <vponomaryov> is there issues for it?
15:54:20 <bswartz> we have 1 more
15:54:27 <xyang1> +1 for access groups
15:54:41 <bswartz> vponomaryov: hopefully no, but the session would allow people to raise them if they had issues
15:55:13 <vponomaryov> Ok, I don't mind
15:55:16 <bswartz> cknight worked on this during juno and I think he got most of the design decisions right
15:55:28 <bswartz> ameade too if he's here
15:55:35 <bswartz> okay last one
15:55:41 <bswartz> topic: Manila Scheduler
15:56:06 <bswartz> we sort of discussed this one already
15:56:14 <bswartz> I'm on the fence about this one
15:56:15 <vponomaryov> low priority
15:56:23 <bswartz> you say -1?
15:56:56 <vponomaryov> -1 because there are should be more prioritized thing, I guess
15:56:57 <bswartz> anyone else thing we *should* make a session about scheduler enhancements?
15:57:08 <bswartz> s/thing/think/
15:57:12 <xyang1> I think if we have time we can go over it, otherwise it is fine to skip
15:57:16 <rushil1> This can be discussed, but not a whole session. -1
15:57:29 <xyang1> or discuss about it later in meetup
15:57:32 <bswartz> okay I think that one is clear
15:57:55 <bswartz> so just to review, the 3 highest vote getters (by my count) are:
15:57:56 <xyang1> actually the pool one is a scheduler change as well
15:58:01 <bswartz> Manila Networking
15:58:06 <bswartz> Mount Automation
15:58:12 <bswartz> Access Groups
15:58:23 <rushil1> bswartz: +1
15:58:32 <ameade> i'm fine with that
15:58:36 <xyang1> sounds good
15:58:51 <bswartz> integration and scheduler we will discuss privately, and the cinder feature list needs more work before we'd have anything to present
15:59:25 <bswartz> okay so I'll watch the ML and IRC for any amazing new ideas
15:59:52 <bswartz> but baring something new that everyone wants those 3 will be the proposal
16:00:02 <bswartz> sorry we ran out of time for open discussion
16:00:15 <bswartz> thanks all
16:00:19 <vponomaryov> thanks
16:00:22 <rushil1> thanks
16:00:23 <xyang1> thanks
16:00:26 <jasonsb> thank all
16:00:28 <deepakcs> bye
16:00:30 <bswartz> #endmeeting