15:00:06 <tbarron> #startmeeting manila
15:00:07 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Aug 15 15:00:06 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is tbarron. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:08 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:10 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'manila'
15:00:14 <carloss> hi :)
15:00:14 <vkmc> o/
15:00:15 <amito> o/
15:00:20 <jgrosso> hi :)
15:00:28 <dviroel> o/
15:00:37 <tbarron> courtesy ping: gouthamr xyang toabctl bswartz ganso erlon tpsilva vkmc amito jgrosso dviroel lseki carloss
15:00:46 <vkmc> \o)
15:00:52 <vkmc> (o/
15:00:55 <tbarron> vkmc: \o
15:00:58 <tbarron> vkmc: o/
15:01:03 <vkmc> lol
15:01:15 <gouthamr> o/
15:01:20 <tbarron> it's cold in buenos aires I guess
15:01:31 <vkmc> yeah
15:01:38 <vkmc> "cold", our winter for you must be a joke
15:01:43 <vkmc> but I'm seriously suffering
15:01:57 <tbarron> I see you doing jumping jacks
15:01:59 <vkmc> 53F
15:02:05 <vkmc> haha yes
15:02:14 <vkmc> keeps you warm and makes you fit, smart
15:02:38 <tbarron> Hi all!
15:02:55 <tbarron> Agenda: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila/Meetings#Next_meeting
15:03:15 <tbarron> #topic Announcements
15:03:39 <tbarron> First, just our weekly schedule reminder,
15:03:57 <tbarron> This wee is Feature Proposal Freeze
15:04:01 <tbarron> This week
15:04:15 <tbarron> I think we're OK on that front -- let me know if
15:04:31 <tbarron> you have something cooking that we need special consideration for --
15:04:39 <tbarron> but I need to clarify something.
15:05:00 <tbarron> Last week I said that this meant that doc for the feature was supposed to be ready.
15:05:03 <tbarron> But
15:05:30 <tbarron> it turns out that I had inadvertently copied that requirement into our schedule this release
15:05:37 <tbarron> We've never had it before
15:05:42 <tbarron> So mea culpa.
15:05:57 <tbarron> And we won't require that at this point.
15:06:34 <tbarron> Actual Feature Freeze is in threee weeks, 5 September.
15:06:53 <tbarron> "No featureful patch should be landed after this point."
15:07:00 <dviroel> tbarron: 5 september?
15:07:08 <tbarron> quoting from the release schedule
15:07:17 * tbarron looks again
15:07:22 <dviroel> =)
15:07:28 <dviroel> "Sep 09 - Sep 13"
15:07:29 <gouthamr> Sep 09 - Sep 13
15:07:40 <tbarron> yeah
15:07:47 <gouthamr> #link https://releases.openstack.org/train/schedule.html
15:07:48 <tbarron> i'm confused today, as usual
15:07:50 <tbarron> thanks
15:08:14 <tbarron> so that's four weeks, right?
15:08:31 <dviroel> yes
15:09:34 <tbarron> The only other announcement I have is that I was able to move the manila-csi talk in shanghai around
15:09:46 <tbarron> so that we don't have both manila talks at the same time
15:09:47 <carloss> \o/
15:10:02 <vkmc> tbarron++
15:10:03 <tbarron> I'm looking forward to attending the talk the NetApp folks are doing
15:10:05 <dviroel> thanks tbarron
15:10:14 <carloss> thanks tbarron
15:10:18 <tbarron> Any other announcments?
15:10:51 <tbarron> #topic Python 3 for Third Party CI
15:11:02 <tbarron> dviroel: I see you have an update
15:11:23 <tbarron> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/w/index.php?title=Manila/TrainCycle#Python3_Testing
15:12:19 <dviroel> tbarron: yes, not too much to add, we just follow the tips from cinder folks, and everything is running ok
15:12:37 <tbarron> So NetApp is running with 3.7, awesome
15:12:57 <tbarron> And there's a section there where vendors can report success.
15:13:28 <tbarron> Conversely, we'll move this section in the wiki to a quite public location at the end of Train or so :)
15:13:49 <tbarron> And list CI that is only testing with python2 still
15:13:55 <tbarron> Peer pressure :)
15:14:21 <tbarron> Dell-EMC is working on this stuff and thanks carloss for helping out
15:14:48 <tbarron> I'm not sure what's going on with https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/1833160
15:14:49 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1833160 in Manila "VNX: driver cannot start under py37 due to wrap_socket() got an unexpected keyword argument '_context'" [Undecided,New]
15:15:14 <carloss> tbarron:  yw
15:16:39 <tbarron> #topic Reviews
15:16:39 <carloss> I saw his last comment, will answer soon
15:16:52 <tbarron> carloss: thanks
15:17:06 <tbarron> Last week I said I'd make a review focus etherpad and dropped the ball.
15:17:17 <tbarron> So I just started one :)
15:17:29 <tbarron> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/manila-train-review-focus
15:17:36 <tbarron> Need to populate it
15:17:57 <tbarron> But let's distribute a bit of the work, the point of doing the etherpad rather
15:18:22 <tbarron> than just keeping track on our wiki is that people are more comfortable
15:18:32 <tbarron> just doodling into the etherpad
15:18:40 <tbarron> If you need a review, just list it there
15:19:12 <tbarron> I and/or others can do some formattting to make it look like our old review focus etherpads
15:19:46 <tbarron> We can update with people already reviewing and see gaps easier.
15:20:00 <dviroel> ack
15:20:15 <tbarron> Anything else on this ?
15:20:33 <tbarron> #topic bugs
15:20:41 <tbarron> jgrosso: what do you have for us today?
15:20:55 <jgrosso> tbarron one bug
15:20:58 <jgrosso> https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/1631314
15:20:59 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1631314 in Manila "Tempest tests "test_promote_out_of_sync_share_replica" and "test_resync_share_replica" are concurrency-prone" [Medium,Confirmed]
15:21:36 <jgrosso> nothing big today :)
15:21:48 <jgrosso> lowly ole temptest testsd
15:23:03 <tbarron> jgrosso: you asked whether we have a milestone when the issue will be addressed and
15:23:07 <gouthamr> hmmm, one thing we can do, rather than chop off the tests is to retry the status
15:23:52 <jgrosso> no chopping allowed gouthamr
15:23:54 <gouthamr> dviroel: are you folks touching any part of the share replication tempest tests? ^
15:24:08 <tbarron> the root cause analysis is https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/1631314/comments/4 so far as I can tell
15:24:09 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1631314 in Manila "Tempest tests "test_promote_out_of_sync_share_replica" and "test_resync_share_replica" are concurrency-prone" [Medium,Confirmed]
15:24:21 <dviroel> gouthamr: yes, at this moment.
15:24:28 <tbarron> I meant to point to comment #4
15:25:41 <gouthamr> jgrosso: i'm with you :) hate to lose coverage because of something that shouldn't happen in a real cloud
15:26:05 <dviroel> gouthamr: didn't face that issue because we were not using too much threads
15:26:33 <jgrosso> gouthamr agreed :)
15:27:11 <gouthamr> dviroel: it's not something you can control (besides the replication update interval)
15:28:01 <gouthamr> dviroel: it's been a recurring issue on the dummy driver job, and i've occasionally seen it with netapp and zfsonlinux jobs running those two tests..
15:29:07 <dviroel> gouthamr: oh, now I saw the problem.
15:29:12 <gouthamr> a maintenance thread in the share manager interferes with the test logic, so - the test should be more resilient to this imo
15:29:54 <tbarron> gouthamr: but how?
15:30:08 <gouthamr> ^ given that the test is trying to set a perfectly healthy replica to unhealthy so it can test the API
15:30:58 <tbarron> it won't ever see it go "out of sync" because it really isn't, so what should it do?  just assume that its reset state worked?
15:31:57 <gouthamr> tbarron: nope, reset state again, perhaps before issuing the next API call? although that isn't going to be enough if the replication update interval is too low (i think the gate sets it to 60 seconds)
15:32:27 <gouthamr> the real default is 300 seconds
15:32:29 <tbarron> gouthamr: oh I see
15:33:08 <tbarron> do we need to have the update interval that low for other tests?
15:33:28 <tbarron> "low" in quotes b/c normally I wouldn't call it that
15:33:51 <gouthamr> yes, because the generic build timeout is 180 seconds
15:34:06 <gouthamr> you wouldn't want to wait too long to create replicas of empty shares
15:34:08 <gouthamr> https://github.com/openstack/manila/blob/8d03a2a46e233b3628ffe59af67c1feb789e1669/contrib/ci/pre_test_hook.sh#L103
15:34:35 <gouthamr> #link https://github.com/openstack/manila/blob/8d03a2a46e233b3628ffe59af67c1feb789e1669/contrib/ci/pre_test_hook.sh#L162
15:35:02 <tbarron> so your suggestion is to have the test make several attempts to reset state since we're not testing resettign state, that's
15:35:08 <gouthamr> so, the replica update interval is 10 seconds in the gate by default, and 60 seconds for the ZFSOnLinux driver
15:35:09 <tbarron> just a means to testing promotion
15:35:28 <gouthamr> tbarron: yes, and "resync"
15:37:00 <gouthamr> dviroel: do you know what value of "replica_state_update_interval" the NetApp CI uses, and if it's reliable?
15:37:34 <tbarron> gouthamr: maybe you can update the bug with that suggestion?  it seems less work than your original idea in comment #2 to
15:37:49 <gouthamr> tbarron: sure can
15:37:49 <dviroel> http://13.56.159.105/logs/43/671043/9/upstream-check/manila-cDOT-no-ss/c972cbe/logs/local.conf.txt.gz
15:37:51 <tbarron> introduce an api to disable/enable the periodic update
15:38:16 <tbarron> that takes us back to jgrosso's original question
15:38:23 <gouthamr> dviroel: thanks, so you're not overriding the default 10 sec
15:38:26 <tbarron> jgrosso: no, we don't have a milestone target
15:38:28 <dviroel> yeah, 10
15:38:34 <gouthamr> dviroel: that the pre-test hook sets up for all drivers
15:38:49 <tbarron> jgrosso: need volunteer to sign up, we can't just assign all hard problems
15:38:51 <tbarron> to gouthamr
15:39:06 <jgrosso> why not ?
15:39:08 <jgrosso> :)
15:39:09 <gouthamr> or easy ones :)
15:39:21 <dviroel> tbarron: I can help with this one
15:39:26 <tbarron> dviroel: awesome
15:39:47 <jgrosso> thanks dviroel
15:39:49 <gouthamr> dviroel: ty!
15:39:59 <jgrosso> that is all I had for today
15:40:05 <tbarron> jgrosso: dviroel: why don't you guys get together to figure miilestone, etc.
15:40:17 <tbarron> it doesn't have to be immediate, but great to get an ownere
15:40:19 <tbarron> owner
15:40:32 <jgrosso> tbarron ack
15:40:41 <tbarron> thanks jgrosso
15:40:48 <tbarron> #topic open discussion
15:40:49 <dviroel> tbarron: ack
15:40:52 <jgrosso> tbarron: welcome
15:41:10 <gouthamr> I had something to check on
15:41:25 <gouthamr> dviroel/netapp folks: what's the status on:
15:41:26 <gouthamr> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/1699856
15:41:28 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1699856 in Manila "Tempest tests missing adding Security service to share-network" [Medium,Triaged] - Assigned to Douglas Viroel (dviroel)
15:42:19 <dviroel> gouthamr: we are not focusing on it right now, but shouldn't not be that hard.
15:43:18 <gouthamr> dviroel: ack, yep - please take it up whenever possible; since you guys have an AD already in your CI, this should be easy to get tested on your end
15:44:01 <gouthamr> dviroel: i can help sync up with other CIFS vendors to do a similar test when you have a fix
15:44:16 <gouthamr> dviroel: and buy you beer in Shanghai
15:44:31 <gouthamr> just because we're friends, i'm not bribing you
15:44:40 <dviroel> gouthamr: ok, I'll take a look on that after replication
15:44:44 <dviroel> beer++
15:45:13 <gouthamr> dviroel: nice, thanks!
15:45:26 <dviroel> gouthamr: ty
15:45:52 <tbarron> Anything else today?
15:46:36 <tbarron> OK, see y'all in #openstack-manila
15:46:41 <tbarron> Thanks everyone!!
15:46:45 <tbarron> #endmeeting