15:00:24 <rhochmuth> #startmeeting monasca
15:00:25 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Sep  9 15:00:24 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is rhochmuth. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:26 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:30 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'monasca'
15:00:34 <fabiog> o/
15:00:37 <rhochmuth> o/
15:00:42 <rhochmuth> roll call
15:00:44 <mroderus> o/
15:00:46 <jimbaker> o/
15:00:50 <johnthetubaguy> ajo: oops, totally missed your ping, anyways sounds like progress is being made, thats all good, happy to review a spec when it arrives
15:00:55 <rbak> o/
15:01:01 <bklei> o/
15:01:27 <rhochmuth> hello all
15:01:39 <rhochmuth> so, no one posted any agenda items
15:01:47 <rhochmuth> we need to start getting better at that
15:01:52 <bklei> oops
15:02:09 <rhochmuth> we can discuss an agenda now
15:02:22 <rhochmuth> what would folks like to talk about
15:02:30 <fabiog> I can give an update on Ceilosca
15:02:39 <fabiog> if people are interested
15:02:40 <fabiog> :-)
15:02:43 <mroderus> +1
15:02:45 <bklei> sounds good
15:02:47 <rhochmuth> ok, that sounds great, i'm interested
15:02:54 <rhochmuth> i've added to the etherpad at
15:03:10 <bklei> i can give an update on TWC perf issues
15:03:16 <rhochmuth> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/monasca-team-meeting-agenda
15:03:40 <rhochmuth> ok, i've added those to the etherpad
15:03:44 <rhochmuth> i've also added governance
15:04:04 <ajo> johnthetubaguy: we will need some talk nova/neutron before a spec :)
15:04:12 <mroderus> I've got some question about Horizon on Angular. This has been discussed at the mid-cycle
15:04:13 <ajo> to start on the good direction
15:04:28 <ajo> I could write a very high level one as I don't know the low levels of nova
15:04:29 <rhochmuth> what is nova/neytron before a spec
15:04:31 <ajo> if that's enough... I could do
15:04:57 <bklei> ajo -- is this topic for monasca weekly meeting?
15:04:58 <rhochmuth> ok mroderus, hofizon andulga sounds good too
15:05:16 <rhochmuth> this is the weekly monasca meeting
15:05:29 <rhochmuth> ok, let's cover Ceilosca first
15:05:31 <fabiog> ajo: johnthetubaguy can you please move your conversation on #openstack-dev?
15:05:34 <rhochmuth> #agenda Ceilosca
15:05:42 <fabiog> ok
15:05:44 <rhochmuth> did i change topics correctly?
15:05:49 <rhochmuth> fabiog take it away
15:05:59 <fabiog> I think is #topic
15:06:05 <fabiog> but nevermind
15:06:09 <rhochmuth> #topic Ceilosca
15:06:17 <rhochmuth> ther u go
15:06:17 <fabiog> now is correct ;-)
15:06:21 <ajo> sorry bklei , fabiog , *, I didn't realize I was on the meeting channel :/
15:06:22 <fabiog> yes
15:06:32 <fabiog> ajo: np
15:06:42 <fabiog> so we have been working on the installer part
15:06:51 <fabiog> this is the location of the main repo
15:06:59 <fabiog> #link https://github.com/stackforge/monasca-ceilometer
15:06:59 <ddieterl_> o/
15:07:15 <fabiog> but if you go in the #link https://github.com/stackforge/monasca-ceilometer/tree/master/deployer
15:07:47 <fabiog> deployer folder you can find a ceilosca.sh script that installs devstack enabling Ceilosca and performs a full installation of Monasca on a single VM
15:08:04 <rhochmuth> ok
15:08:06 <fabiog> in this way you can run it in a VM on your local box or in an Instance in the cloud
15:08:15 <bklei> nice
15:08:21 <fabiog> it will take a while, but it is fully automated
15:08:44 <fabiog> so I would encourage people on the team to give it a go and provide feedback
15:08:55 <rhochmuth> so, this is installing devstack and monasca and deilosca?
15:09:03 <fabiog> yes
15:09:18 <fabiog> at the end you get a Ceilometer functionality but the data is stored in Monasca
15:09:22 <fabiog> in Influx DB
15:09:25 <rhochmuth> cool
15:09:32 <mroderus> is the entire Telemetry API covered?
15:09:43 <fabiog> I would say around 80%
15:09:48 <fabiog> that was my next request
15:10:09 <fabiog> if there are people interested in extend the API coverage please feel free to submit patches
15:10:23 <rhochmuth> so, the areas that are no covered
15:10:27 <rhochmuth> are?
15:10:36 <fabiog> in this file #link https://github.com/stackforge/monasca-ceilometer/blob/master/ceilosca/ceilometer/storage/impl_monasca.py
15:10:38 <rhochmuth> meta data, and alarms
15:10:43 <fabiog> there is the list of supported features
15:11:01 <fabiog> to clarify, Ceilosca only addresses Meters and Samples as today
15:11:06 <fabiog> so no Alarms or Events
15:11:28 <rhochmuth> is the meta data supported?
15:11:31 <fabiog> We could port events to Monasca now that there is an Event API
15:11:37 <fabiog> but that work has not been done yet
15:11:40 <fabiog> yes
15:11:48 <fabiog> you can perform queries on metadata
15:11:55 <fabiog> Pauline added support for that
15:12:00 <fabiog> in Resources and Samples
15:12:08 <rhochmuth> how do you describe the difference between what ceilosca.sh and monasca-vagrant
15:12:26 <rhochmuth> does?
15:12:47 <fabiog> ceilosca.sh is a bash script that requires at least to have Ubuntu and git installed
15:13:03 <fabiog> and then is a combination of shell commands and ansible
15:13:32 <rhochmuth> ok
15:13:32 <fabiog> the vagrant will do a similar thing but creating the instance
15:13:54 <fabiog> so if you have already a VM or Instance use Ceilosca.sh
15:13:59 <rhochmuth> i'm wondering how far we can leverage ceilosc.sh to integrate in with DevStack
15:14:24 <rhochmuth> some of the feedback from the TC geovernance review was that they would like to see Monasca in DevStack
15:14:38 <rhochmuth> do you think using ceilosca.sh would be a good start
15:14:57 <fabiog> actually you should look at #link https://github.com/stackforge/monasca-ceilometer/blob/master/deployer/devstack/ceilometer
15:15:10 <fabiog> that is the modified Devstack Ceilometer file
15:15:26 <fabiog> it will make all the changes to become Ceilosca during Devstack deployment
15:15:44 <fabiog> so instead of installing vanilla Ceilometer and then converting it into Ceilosca
15:15:52 <fabiog> it starts as Ceilosca
15:15:55 <fabiog> :-)
15:16:18 <fabiog> any questions from the team?
15:16:35 <fabiog> or you guys are cloning the repo :-) ?
15:16:36 <rhochmuth> i'll need to start digging in a little further into this
15:16:54 <bklei> me too, will play with it in a week or two hopefully
15:17:00 <rhochmuth> i haven't tried to install yet, but that will be one of the items next on my list
15:17:04 <fabiog> great
15:17:14 <rhochmuth> do you have any more performance updates
15:17:21 <fabiog> if any of you can do some performance comparison tests
15:17:22 <rhochmuth> on ceilosca?
15:17:26 <fabiog> would be great
15:17:34 <rhochmuth> are you planning any
15:17:39 <fabiog> I am going to work on that next, but more sources is perfect
15:17:42 <fabiog> yes
15:17:55 <fabiog> I want to do a Ceilosca vs. Ceilometer with MongoDB
15:18:09 <fabiog> load tests and then use Rally for query performance test
15:18:10 <rhochmuth> sounds good, that seems to be the most important area
15:18:13 <fabiog> we just started
15:18:21 <fabiog> so any help is really appreciated
15:18:32 <rhochmuth> did you see gordon's commends related to ceilosca?
15:18:40 <fabiog> I did
15:19:33 <rhochmuth> ok, do we want to communicate more with ceilometer on this?
15:19:42 <fabiog> what can I say ... There have been several attempts to work together with Ceilometer. In Vancouver I asked the same question again and the answer was that because Monasca has java it is not possible
15:20:08 <rhochmuth> yes, understand
15:20:20 <fabiog> yes, we can
15:20:28 <fabiog> there is a meeting tomorrow
15:20:37 <fabiog> I can add that to the agenda
15:20:47 <jimbaker> fabiog, so come back when there's no more required java dependency?
15:20:49 <rhochmuth> i wont' be able to attend in all day meetings
15:21:01 <fabiog> jimbaker: that was the kind of answer
15:21:33 <rhochmuth> well, i think we're doing an incredible amount of work to make Ceilometer viable by addressing the performance and scale issues
15:21:40 <fabiog> rhochmuth: we can add that to the following week
15:22:07 <fabiog> I spoke about Ceilosca when Ildiko and Gordon joined the meeting via Webex
15:22:19 <rhochmuth> as well as consolidate systems, so we don't have multiple services/components to support
15:22:35 <rhochmuth> yes, they are claiming that we didn't tell them anything
15:22:49 <rhochmuth> but this has been an area that has been communicated for a while
15:22:55 <rhochmuth> the Ceilosca name is new
15:23:09 <fabiog> rhochmuth: is all in the name :-)
15:23:09 <rhochmuth> but that was just a name that we came up with that was pretty cool
15:23:17 <rhochmuth> yeah
15:23:19 <jimbaker> just good shorthand name
15:23:36 <rhochmuth> anyway, more communication would be good
15:23:47 <fabiog> jimbaker: maybe Monometer would have been less catchy and less problematic :-)
15:23:53 <rhochmuth> does the ceilometer project have any new performance numbers to share
15:23:58 <jimbaker> :)
15:24:04 <rhochmuth> any deployments of significant size
15:24:11 <rhochmuth> for example, there is cern
15:24:15 <fabiog> rhochmuth: not that I am aware of
15:24:29 <rhochmuth> ok, that would be good information to have
15:24:31 <fabiog> rhochmuth: yes, I spoke with Cern, they basically have 2 Ceilometers
15:24:49 <fabiog> 1 for alarms where they store data for less than 1 day
15:24:56 <rhochmuth> that is useless
15:25:09 <fabiog> and one for real metering where they store bare minimum data for 30 days
15:25:18 <rhochmuth> well that is harsh, that doesnt' meet our needs
15:25:30 <fabiog> and they have the big advantage of not running any Swift that is the real Ceilometer killer
15:25:37 <jimbaker> fabiog, what's the ingest rate for CERN?
15:25:53 <fabiog> jimbaker: I don't have that number
15:26:07 <jimbaker> fabiog, no worries - just want to multiply out one day's worth, etc
15:26:28 <fabiog> but I know that they had to have a separate RabbitMQ because with the Ceilometer re-publishing where going over the 18Mil messages and killing the queue
15:26:38 <rhochmuth> well, i'm wondering if ceilometer shoudl be considering ceilosca more closely
15:26:46 <jimbaker> 18 million/day?
15:26:58 <fabiog> they where trying to do 60s with ceilometer compute agent
15:27:03 <rhochmuth> 18 M/day is not much
15:27:18 <fabiog> 18Mil concurrently on the queue
15:27:33 <fabiog> basically the production rate was too big compared to what Ceilo could consume
15:27:38 <jimbaker> ahh, got it
15:27:46 <fabiog> and the queue would fill fast and die after 18Mil messages
15:27:57 <fabiog> then is when they split the alarms from metering
15:28:11 <fabiog> because they needed the 60s interval for alarming and I guess autoscaling
15:28:28 <fabiog> but they use a once a day for the metering stuff (or something like that)
15:28:36 <fabiog> anyway .. enough of Ceilosca
15:28:50 <fabiog> any last question?
15:29:02 <rhochmuth> yes, so let's go connect with them on this and also get latest performance and deployment information on Ceilometer
15:29:11 <rhochmuth> seems like that data shoudl be readily available
15:29:15 <rhochmuth> at this point in time
15:29:47 <rhochmuth> #topic performance
15:30:02 <bklei> that's me, yes?
15:30:09 <rhochmuth> that is u
15:30:40 <bklei> ok -- quick overview for the group, TWC has a blocker issue from rolling out MaaS for our internal groups
15:30:57 <bklei> vanilla use case -- display stock libvirt metrics via grafana
15:31:26 <bklei> with less than 2 weeks worth of data, and a handful of instances in a project, takes up to a minute to render the page
15:32:01 <rhochmuth> you are about to say all the issues are solved, right?
15:32:12 <fabiog> bklei: is this a Vertical problem only or you think the same issue will appear using InfluxDB?
15:32:17 <bklei> we're using vertica currently, biggest time spend on a query to figure out which definition_dimension ids to use in the measurements table query
15:32:23 <bklei> not sure fabio
15:32:28 <bklei> probably vertica only
15:32:35 <bklei> so impacts HP Helion, TWC for now
15:32:51 <rhochmuth> so, we've got a list of potential solutions
15:32:53 <bklei> not solved yet rhochmuth -- but progress
15:33:00 <rhochmuth> i tried
15:33:13 <rhochmuth> should we post your notes in this meeting
15:33:22 <bklei> yes -- and further background, rbak and I were onsite at HP on Friday, thx for the meeting roland/deklan
15:33:26 <rhochmuth> from last Friday's face to face meeting
15:33:36 <bklei> sure -- one sec
15:33:51 <rhochmuth> yes, i also got feedback for the governance TC about the face to face
15:33:53 <bklei> my notes
15:33:59 <bklei> Next steps:
15:33:59 <bklei> 1. Test changing grafana to pass merge flag to the statistics query
15:33:59 <bklei> after the initial metrics:
15:34:01 <bklei> 1.1 Ryan to change grafana to pass merge flat
15:34:03 <bklei> 1.2 Brad to change the api to not do getdefids() with merge flag --
15:34:05 <bklei> might be harder than it seems, need thd defintion_dimension_id's
15:34:07 <bklei> 2. TWC to Fix current projections (Brad).
15:34:09 <bklei> 2.1 Change dimension projection to order by:
15:34:11 <bklei> name, value, dimension_set_id
15:34:13 <rhochmuth> so, in the future we might not be able to have face to face meetings or use video conferencing
15:34:13 <bklei> 2.2 Change measurement projection to order by:
15:34:15 <bklei> definition_dimension_id, time_stamp, value_meta
15:34:17 <bklei> 3. We're confused why the inner joins operate as poorly as they do
15:34:19 <bklei> * Brad to open vertica support ticket and get feedback.
15:34:21 <bklei> 4. Deklan to code up the idea of splitting the dimensions table into
15:34:24 <bklei> two,
15:34:25 <bklei> removing the multiple of inner joins.
15:34:27 <bklei> * TWC to come up with migration sql
15:34:29 <bklei> 5. Brad to experiment with adding constraints on each table to allow
15:34:31 <bklei> pre-join projections (possible code ordering change).
15:34:33 <bklei> (add PK=FK relationships)
15:34:35 <bklei> 6. FUTURE: Change to grafana to only do incremental statistics queries
15:34:37 <bklei> for the elapsed time and append graph.
15:34:39 <bklei> 7. FUTURE: Add an API cache layer in front of (or part of API
15:34:41 <bklei> to only query db once, and return from memory for subsequent
15:34:43 <bklei> queries)
15:34:45 <bklei> agreed
15:34:47 <bklei> anyhoo, update on above list
15:34:55 <bklei> #1 didn't pan out, still need to get ids for measurements lookup (bummer)
15:34:59 <rhochmuth> yes, please update
15:35:18 <bklei> I'm working on #2, but no smoking gun there
15:35:34 <ddieterl_> #4 is not necessary given the latest query that we discussed
15:35:35 <bklei> i opened vertica support ticket for #3 -- providing data over the past day
15:35:42 <rhochmuth> what about #5?
15:35:47 <bklei> agree deklan
15:36:21 <rhochmuth> #5?
15:36:25 <bklei> I'm working on #5 today, but using deklan's suggestion, can modestly improve stuff with https://review.openstack.org/#/c/221492/
15:36:41 <rhochmuth> ok.
15:36:42 <bklei> see what you think of that new query without multiple inner joins
15:36:51 <ddieterly> bklei: did you get the projections right?
15:36:53 <bklei> and -- I'll experiment with constraints today
15:37:09 <rhochmuth> i didn't get a chance to review
15:37:12 <rhochmuth> sorry
15:37:22 <bklei> i re-ran the offending query through the DBD -- it suggestion segmented projections which were much worse :)
15:37:23 <rhochmuth> ddieterly did you review
15:37:31 <ddieterly> have not had time
15:37:45 <rhochmuth> ok, so no feedback on your  review
15:37:52 <ddieterly> i would expect blazing peformance on that new query
15:37:52 <rhochmuth> i have another idea to add to the list
15:38:01 <rhochmuth> yes, i woudl too
15:38:05 <bklei> update from the vertica engineer, he thinks there may be a bug in my current vertica version, providing a full dump to him today
15:38:13 <bklei> sure, go for it
15:38:15 <rhochmuth> projections have to solve this
15:38:26 <rhochmuth> hmmm, that is interesting
15:38:58 <rhochmuth> anyway, the other idea was to cache to metric_defintion_dimension_ids
15:39:01 <bklei> agree that projections should solve rhochmuth -- i'm hopeful for pre-join projections
15:39:34 <rhochmuth> so, if you have a query for some metric, that have a bunch of dimensions specified, you would cache that, as well as the exact ID, in memory
15:39:47 <rhochmuth> this would avoid the joins altogether
15:40:00 <bklei> yeah -- that's a good idea too, completely skip going to the db for stuff
15:40:00 <rhochmuth> what do you think?
15:40:15 <bklei> and it shouldn't be a huge list
15:40:20 <rhochmuth> correct
15:40:54 <bklei> can give that more thought, but likely won't get to it this week, and am out next
15:40:56 <rhochmuth> a simple map of ((region, tenant id, metric name, dimensions), id) would work
15:41:10 <rhochmuth> yeah, that one woudl take more time to code
15:41:20 <rhochmuth> it isn't hard, but it isn't trivial either
15:41:35 <bklei> right, but lots of bang for that buck
15:41:37 <rhochmuth> i think you are on the right path though
15:41:47 <rhochmuth> with the projectsions and potential vertica problem
15:41:57 <bklei> yes, will keep pushing on that
15:42:03 <rhochmuth> so, best to continue with that, and then we can clook at caching it that doesnt' pan out
15:42:09 <bklei> bueno
15:42:24 <rhochmuth> but, i'll be amazed if this isn't a projection issue or Vertica session bug as you say
15:42:34 <bklei> i think that's my update -- any other questions
15:42:38 <bklei> ditto
15:42:49 <rhochmuth> no further questions your honor
15:42:58 <bklei> dismissed :)
15:43:04 <rhochmuth> #topic governance
15:43:25 <rhochmuth> MOnasca was not approved yesterday
15:43:37 <rhochmuth> the main issues appear to be
15:43:37 <bklei> :(
15:43:45 <rhochmuth> IRC meetings
15:43:49 <rhochmuth> DevStack
15:43:53 <rhochmuth> CI/CD
15:44:05 <rhochmuth> at least those are the tansibgle ones that I took away
15:44:35 <rhochmuth> ddieterly do you other insights
15:44:56 <rhochmuth> one of the issues appears to be the face to face that we had on Friday
15:45:12 <rhochmuth> and the fact that we conferenced in Fabio for this too
15:45:26 <ddieterly> no, you can read the summary in the patch
15:45:40 <fabiog> rhochmuth: hey .. you have to stop blaming me for everything :-)
15:45:53 <rhochmuth> lol
15:46:03 <rhochmuth> anyway, i'm trying to get further clarification on this
15:46:10 <bklei> what's the issue with the f2f?  everyone was invited to attend via webconf
15:46:23 <rhochmuth> that is what i thought
15:46:39 <mroderus> was this f2f critizised by anyone?
15:46:44 <fabiog> and I was the only one that was interested ...
15:46:59 <rhochmuth> no, everyone was invited that attended last weeks Monasca meeting in IRC
15:47:16 <rhochmuth> we were looking at Grafana, code, sql, …
15:47:21 <rhochmuth> does anyone know how to do that in IRC
15:47:30 <bklei> if that wasn't clear, apologies to anyone who wanted to attend remotely and didn't get that message
15:47:56 <bklei> but we bored fabiog within minutes :)
15:48:07 <rhochmuth> so, anyway, looks like we'll need to get further clarification
15:48:13 <fabiog> yes, that's true :-0
15:48:23 <rhochmuth> i thought it was just the weekly meetings that needs to be in IRC
15:48:39 <fabiog> rhochmuth: I think we can have other meetings
15:48:48 <fabiog> at least we did them in Ceilometer
15:48:53 <rhochmuth> That is what I thought too
15:49:03 <fabiog> my suggestion is to send an email in openstack-dev
15:49:04 <rhochmuth> but that wasn't the feedback
15:49:13 <fabiog> and post the link in this meeting
15:49:16 <rhochmuth> yeah, i was thinking about that too
15:49:16 <bklei> my take -- as long as we advertise one-off meetings and allow remote attendance, should be OK
15:49:18 <fabiog> so there is a trace
15:49:25 <fabiog> yes
15:49:31 <fabiog> bklei: I agree
15:49:44 <rhochmuth> so is anyone interested in adding MOnasca to DevStack?
15:49:53 <rhochmuth> that is tangible and somethign we can act on?
15:50:14 <rhochmuth> DevStack integration will be the first step for integration testign via Tempest tests
15:50:24 <rhochmuth> we have Tempest tests in a separate repo
15:50:29 <bklei> interested, but no BW
15:50:42 <rhochmuth> so getting those merged in with the Tempest repo would also be a good step
15:51:13 <fabiog> rhochmuth: so you will submit a patch of the existing one in the correct repo?
15:51:29 <rhochmuth> sorry, i dont' understand the question
15:51:40 <rhochmuth> fabiog
15:51:52 <fabiog> rhochmuth: you said that the tempest test for Monasca are available but in a separate repo
15:52:06 <fabiog> rhochmuth: does that mean simply to submit them all in the main tempest repo?
15:52:17 <rhochmuth> we forked in Github, just to get the development done
15:52:25 <rhochmuth> i believe you are correct
15:52:34 <rhochmuth> so, that should be the easy part
15:52:43 <fabiog> rhochmuth: right
15:53:01 <rhochmuth> ok, i'll try and get some resources on DevStack integration from HP
15:53:33 <rhochmuth> we are having overall planning meetings, so maybe there will be some availability
15:53:42 <rhochmuth> or, i can write some code...
15:54:03 <rhochmuth> new topic?
15:54:15 <rhochmuth> #topic horizon
15:54:27 <mroderus> I guess that's me
15:54:33 <rhochmuth> yes
15:54:48 <rhochmuth> i think we're going to run out of time
15:54:59 <mroderus> I remember that there were some discussions about Angular in Horizon and that our plugin may be affected
15:55:13 <mroderus> I was just curious if there are any links on more information on that
15:55:16 <rhochmuth> i'm not sure what the impact is
15:55:36 <rhochmuth> bklei do you know
15:55:43 <rhochmuth> can you check with Eric P.
15:55:52 <rhochmuth> if you don't know
15:56:01 <mroderus> is the move to Angular (or the plans for it) documented somewhere?
15:56:12 <mroderus> ok, thanks
15:56:14 <rhochmuth> this is a big topic in Horizon
15:56:24 <rhochmuth> so, it is discussed there
15:56:26 <bklei> he tells me i don't want to know the answer to the question :)
15:56:33 <rhochmuth> lol
15:56:45 <rhochmuth> ask him if our panel will continue to work
15:57:00 <rhochmuth> is the answer no?
15:57:13 <bklei> he doesn't think it'll break us
15:57:19 <rhochmuth> cool
15:57:32 <mroderus> ok, sounds good
15:57:39 <rhochmuth> we will need to test adn watch this
15:57:42 <bklei> i guess we've got some angular stuff in our test env, and monasca-ui still works
15:57:59 <rhochmuth> bklei are you guys tracking this
15:58:15 <rhochmuth> as in using the latest horizon and involved with moves to angular?
15:58:18 <mroderus> ok, so if I have any specific questions, I will ask Eric P.
15:58:24 <bklei> i guess indirectly by pulling in the latest horizon, we are
15:58:33 <bklei> yes mroderus
15:58:34 <rhochmuth> yeah, that is waht I meant
15:58:43 <rhochmuth> ok, time is almost up
15:58:51 <rhochmuth> please add agenda items for next week
15:58:59 <rhochmuth> we have one item that we didn't get too
15:59:04 <rhochmuth> Grafana
15:59:11 <rbak> In the last minute I just wanted to ask if anyone if working on grafana 2.0, and if so ping me.
15:59:15 <rhochmuth> so, we'll need to cover next week
15:59:30 <rhochmuth> not me
15:59:39 <bklei> is fujitsu?
15:59:42 <mroderus> we not yet, but we're planning to
16:00:06 <rbak> Alright, we're going to start looking at that in the next couple days at TWC
16:00:17 <bklei> (thumbsup)
16:00:22 <rhochmuth> i think we are done
16:00:42 <bklei> thx rhochmuth
16:00:51 <jimbaker> thanks everyone
16:00:54 <rhochmuth> by everyone
16:00:55 <mroderus> thank you all
16:01:33 <rhochmuth> #endmeeting