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