15:01:12 #startmeeting monasca 15:01:13 Meeting started Wed May 18 15:01:12 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is rhochmuth. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:01:14 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:01:17 The meeting name has been set to 'monasca' 15:01:26 o/ 15:01:28 o/ 15:01:29 o/ 15:01:30 hi everyone 15:01:32 o/ 15:01:33 o/ 15:01:33 o/ 15:01:35 o/ 15:01:38 o/ 15:01:39 o/ 15:01:41 agenda is at, https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/monasca-team-meeting-agenda 15:01:42 o/ 15:01:51 Agenda for Wednesday May 18, 2016 (15:00 UTC) 15:01:53 1. Using Severity#CRITICAL for so called "latched" alarms instead of extending data model 15:01:53 2. Mid-cycle meetup 15:01:53 3. Vitrage update (Syd) 15:01:53 4. monasca-transform update 15:01:53 5. monasca-analytics update 15:01:54 6. State of the gate? 15:01:54 7. Update on dimensions resource? 15:01:55 8. Update on api caching? 15:01:58 is FlintHPE the Flint I know? 15:02:09 before we get started, is there anything left over from last weeek 15:02:17 fabiog, yep! 15:02:18 hi 15:02:20 the last i recall i frantically ended the meeting 15:02:55 ok, then let's work through the agenda 15:03:05 and maybe we'll have time left over this week 15:03:18 #topic 1. Using Severity#CRITICAL for so called "latched" alarms instead of extending data model 15:03:39 tomasz: is that from you? 15:04:19 yes, it's mine 15:04:43 I've been thinking how to implement that and such suggestion came up - instead of extending alarm definition model 15:05:04 hmmm, can't say i'm in favor of it 15:05:17 seems like we are overriding a parameter 15:05:43 why ? it's more like add some meaning to CRITICAL alarms 15:06:12 the main idea is to have alarms that require operator attention to leave ALARM state 15:06:41 attention is likely needed if something so bad happened that it'd be best to check and double check 15:07:14 thus CRITICAL severity 15:07:36 there are two things, the severity of an alarm, and whether it should stay in the ALARM state, after it has transitioned to it 15:07:37 anyway that's a suggestion that would follow severity quite nice 15:07:47 seems like two different things that shouldn't be connected 15:08:27 and break compatibilty, unless we added a CRITICLA_AND_LATCHED severity 15:09:33 does anyone else want to comment? 15:09:49 or have any quesions? 15:11:13 guess not, ok I will think on this a bit more - anyway idea of using severity here seems a nice one, thanks to recent schema changes it'd be easy to add new severity 15:11:34 if that one is rejected, we will go with extending model directly 15:12:17 for me, i would like have severity of an alarm as it is. IMHO, to decide it should be latched to get more attention up to operators to decide. it is not directly related to the severity. we have different process to do that outside of monasca. 15:12:18 tomasz: i think we should extend the alarm definition with the "latched" field 15:12:32 a bit late.. sorry. i just joined. got some time to follow-up 15:12:50 jayahn: i agree 15:12:53 np, thx for comment 15:13:18 although, i'm not sure "latched" is a great name, but it is certainly better than existentialist 15:13:26 ok, so I guess that is settled - I am still learning what particular pieces means so this is nice comment about correct usage of specific properties 15:13:34 yes, latched isn't that great 15:13:39 I will come up with better one :) 15:13:52 get "right name" is always the most difficult thing. :) 15:14:07 tomasz: i'm still trying to get used to deterministic 15:14:32 just check with us before making all the code changes, it is a bit easier that way 15:14:46 kk, I will discuss that 15:14:54 thanks 15:15:08 #agenda Mid-cycle meetup 15:15:21 i haven't heard back yet 15:15:32 i'll need to ping my mgmt again on travel approval 15:15:41 http://doodle.com/poll/x6bf8ev6wvenfkdy 15:15:57 thank you doodle master 15:16:00 right now we have 5 people good to attend SJC and 5 good to attend Munich 15:16:03 so we are in deadlockj 15:16:06 :) we need tie braker. 15:16:07 :( 15:16:09 nice 15:16:26 my manager said I can travel as long as I can get there by bicycle 15:16:41 lol 15:16:44 so slogan SJC is your only option :-) 15:16:56 I could do that 15:17:06 you can always hold to a truck on Interstate 5 :-) 15:17:17 that's a long bike ride from san diego 15:17:43 https://www.strava.com/athletes/878949 15:17:59 slogan: I'll give you a yellow shirt if you do it :-) 15:18:04 ha 15:18:53 very difficult to plan the mid-cycles 15:18:59 we don't have a huge eco-system 15:19:26 so if we can't all get there, it becomes a relatively small meetup without enoguh representation 15:19:26 * claudiub sneaks in and waves 15:19:35 i don't think that we (fujitsu) will get an approval to travel to SJC 15:19:57 rhochmuth: the other option is to do virtual again 15:20:09 with something like webex? 15:20:14 yes 15:20:17 I can host it 15:20:19 yes, i would lean towards that as i think inclusion is more important 15:20:20 I have to find three reasons to travel to SJC. I managed to find two till now. :) 15:20:51 the beer is better in munich 15:21:15 and bigger 15:21:44 and reasonable 15:21:47 let's give a deadline 15:21:52 so, after teh barcelona summit we won't have to plan on mid-cycles 15:21:54 end of month to cast your preferences 15:21:58 it will all be planned 15:22:10 fabiog: sounds good 15:22:16 and then we decide where to happen. SJC, Munich or virtual 15:22:29 another two weeks to figure out, but it is looking like virtual at this point 15:23:02 #agenda 3. Vitrage update (Syd) 15:23:06 what about we do it in SJC and we have morning sessions that are virtual 15:23:07 ? 15:23:15 I can get a Telepresence room 15:23:16 had an information exchange meeting with nokia/vitrage yesterday morning 15:23:22 +1 on that 15:23:29 what they seem to be about is graphically rendering actual topologies of the network (down to the port level) 15:23:29 sorry, changed topic too soon 15:23:41 fabiog: that might be a good option too 15:23:42 ok 15:24:04 rhochmuth: let's plan for that if Munich does not materialize 15:24:08 :-) 15:24:15 ok, thanks fabiog 15:24:19 will change topic now 15:24:20 rhochmuth: np 15:24:28 back to you slogan 15:24:36 sorry for interrupt 15:24:38 had an information exchange meeting with nokia/vitrage yesterday morning 15:24:45 what they seem to be about is graphically rendering actual topologies of the network (down to the port level) 15:24:53 and showing state (up, down, critical, etc) using colors 15:24:59 there is a yaml language for defining rules/policy that leads to these state changes 15:25:06 they have an API that is of yet undocumented for pushing data into vitrage 15:25:12 my idea - broadview-collector pushes raw data to monasca, and a second broadview-collector plugin pushes to vitrage 15:25:21 vitrage yaml logic is used to define policy that is based on specific network deployments (hyper-converged, data storage network, tenant network) as needed to get a "color" 15:25:28 vitrage user sees a network switch go "yellow" and then refers to monasca-based grafana UI to get more details 15:25:38 that's it 15:25:40 comments? 15:25:55 so, you don't end up pushing metrics to vitrage, just alarms, correct? 15:26:25 possibly I do some pre-preocessing in broadview-collector and just send an alarm, yes 15:26:37 or, the yaml logic is used to determine that alarm 15:26:39 not sure yet 15:26:50 i don't see a problem with broadview sending metrics to monasca 15:26:56 monasca evaluating an alarm 15:27:02 and then notifying vitrage 15:27:07 and then that goes to vitrage? 15:27:12 I see, yes 15:27:17 then vitrage evaluates rules 15:27:24 that would work too 15:27:49 what's interesting is their docuemntation page features networking, they are clearly interested in that ascpect ofg things 15:27:59 so, i think it all would work well 15:28:23 I'm waiting for the documentation 15:28:29 they are pending on that 15:28:34 how do you specify to vitrage that this VM is somehow associated with a switch 15:28:53 they have a way to specify graphs and relate things 15:28:53 physical switch that is 15:29:15 yeah, there is a topology language, yaml I think for doing that 15:29:32 you define nodes/vertices and then dependencies/edges 15:29:40 I've only just glanced at it all 15:30:35 it sounds like an interesting use case 15:30:50 but getting all the data into vitrage i'm wondering about 15:30:59 so, I think next step is for me to look deeper, but let's continue to feature monasca in my work, if monasca has the raw data, and an alarm to trigger a push to vitrage, I'm great with that 15:31:28 I'll take the lead to lean more about all of it 15:31:41 help them understand monasca as needed 15:31:52 i'll try and start taking a closer look, as soon as i complete some reviews 15:31:56 they're smart people, hopefully this isn't a big deal 15:32:12 I mentioned it would be nice to have something for barcelona 15:32:17 if they are smart, i don't want to work with them 15:32:28 :-) 15:32:43 sorry, i don't think that is what you meant 15:32:47 I like very much the idea of a three-headed presentation that shows end to end what can be done 15:33:04 what they are not about is doing any actions 15:33:12 it's just rendering the state 15:33:32 maybe there is a fourth project like congress that plays a further role 15:33:41 we had talked about vitrage creatign alarms back in monasca 15:33:54 how did they receive it? 15:34:08 it seems like a general capability that we want/should have in monasca 15:34:16 they were pushing for the change 15:34:26 the thing that seemed interesting about their yaml code was it might be a way to express various use cases for networking 15:34:54 so, besides slogan and me, is anyone else interested in this topic? 15:34:57 like, I could have yaml that is tuned to a specific networking use case like storage in a leaf spine CLOS network 15:35:16 zzzzzzzz :-) 15:35:30 just checking 15:35:37 okay, enough I suppose for now 15:35:38 ok, probably should wrap-up 15:35:48 probably 15:35:54 probably us. we are developing an anlaytics platform to gether all the network related data (packet, flow, etc). we have a plan to push that data into monsca. 15:35:55 thanks slogan 15:36:07 it sounds very similar to what virtage does. 15:36:31 hi. I also have a request / set of questions. 15:36:32 jayahn: what is this platform, and where are you from? 15:36:42 hi, i am from sk telecom. 15:36:43 hi :-) 15:36:50 platform is in-house development 15:37:43 cladiub: just trying to get through some topics first 15:37:45 search broadview in github if you want a background in what we are pushing off switch about our switching silicon 15:38:06 all the network data - alnaytics platform - (push data) - monasca - (consum data) - visual app to show network statues in 3D. 15:38:25 nice 15:38:25 i know. we are looking into broadview in github. :) 15:38:42 rhochmuth: sure, i thought that you were going to end the meeting. :) 15:38:56 jayahn: slogan is the developer on broadview 15:39:36 i'm going to switch topics if that is ok? 15:39:41 yep 15:39:41 okay. that is great. I will contact you if we have any question on broadview-collector, or anyting related to that :) 15:39:44 yeap 15:39:50 #topic monasca-transform 15:39:56 jayahn: why you push analyzed data to monasca? 15:39:57 thx jayahn 15:40:43 has anyone looked at monasca-transform 15:40:48 i'm jsut getting started 15:41:06 hi all, Ashwin couldn't make the meeting today. We have a Monasca-Transform review up, but it's currently set to "work in progress" while we wrap up a few things. 15:41:32 thanks FlintHPE 15:41:53 i will hopeflly get this reviewed and running over today, tomorrow, friday 15:42:48 if there are no questions and/or comments, then we should move on 15:43:14 note, review is at, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/315245/ 15:43:28 #topic monasca-analytics 15:43:39 monasca-analytics is in a similar state 15:43:52 i don't think any of the hpe labs folks are here 15:44:07 thanks for reviewing hosanai 15:44:24 it sounds like in general you are positive about the initial commit 15:44:36 yep. 15:44:42 have you tried running it 15:45:04 unittest worked but 15:45:27 spark didn't start in my env now. 15:45:43 that sounds like fun to debuf 15:45:51 I wrote a question on the comment to you. 15:46:03 you might be able to use the devstack plugin that monasca-transform has created as that install spark 15:46:38 FlintHPE: does that sound correct 15:46:52 seems like that might work 15:46:55 i don't have a problem for installing spark 15:47:10 it seems to be setting of port... 15:48:15 i would like to know conditions for merging initial code. 15:49:23 not sure i've discussed, but i would like to see if few logitical issues addressed 15:49:33 also, i would like to have run it to see what it does 15:49:39 and if it works 15:49:39 i asked it in gerrit please check it. 15:49:53 hosanai: ok 15:50:02 thnaks! 15:50:22 hosanai, are you in favor of mergingin now then? 15:50:53 or are you interested in seeing other areas addressed? 15:51:05 rhochmuth: if possible, but i think some comments need to fix before merging. 15:51:30 ok, thanks, i'll look at your comments today 15:51:46 thanks in advance :-) 15:51:48 going to move on now 15:51:54 #topic State of the gate? 15:52:03 Does anyone know the state of the gate 15:52:15 we had several issues impact us over the last few days 15:52:35 global requirements moved the kafka-python and falcon libraries 15:52:51 also, we had an issue in DevStack with installing Kafka 15:53:01 so, upstream gate was down 15:53:08 i'm not sure if it is up yet 15:53:11 my idea for fixing falcon was taken by Ryan I guess 15:53:16 so that one is fixed 15:53:46 tomasz: i think joe, but he had to combine two reviews together to get gate to pass 15:54:01 he was able to get the combined review in 15:54:16 yes, Joe :), anyway good thing that it passed 15:54:32 however, it looked like there were still issues 15:54:51 anyway, hoping it all gets fixed this morning 15:55:13 hoping so 15:55:13 #topic Update on dimensions resource? 15:55:39 i'm not aware of anyone woriing on the dimensions resource yet 15:55:41 that's me -- curious if anyone has started that? 15:55:47 not yet 15:56:08 #topic Update on api caching? 15:56:10 still plans for that? 15:56:30 there are plans for dimensions resource, but no commitments yet 15:56:39 ok 15:56:45 have you tried multipel metrics 15:57:18 yes -- but holding off on calling it for the concurrent exception fix 15:57:26 (gate) 15:57:32 i was hoping to get multiple metrics done and tested before looking at anythign like api caching 15:57:39 ahh yes, gate 15:57:42 :) 15:57:52 we can't get that bug resolved unless gate is fixed 15:58:06 yup 15:58:31 claudiub: you still there? 15:58:36 we're going to run out of time 15:58:39 yep 15:58:59 we might need to move to openstack-monasca 15:59:03 but please proceed 15:59:09 we've talked brifly during the Summit about adding WIndows support for monasca-agent. I've submitted a blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/monasca/+spec/add-windows-support 15:59:16 thanks 15:59:47 basically, it's about solving differences between WIndows and Linux, e.g. using stuff that doesn't exist on Windows that causes the services to die. 15:59:53 i'll review and also get several more from hpe to take a look that work on the agent a lot 15:59:57 e.g. signal.SIGUSR1 16:00:05 sure 16:00:12 but I do have a couple of questions 16:00:21 on a few things 16:00:25 so, i', going to have to end the meeting 16:00:29 only one hour 16:00:30 but we can talk about them in the #openstack-monasca chanel 16:00:39 but i'll move to #openstack-monasca 16:00:52 ok everyone, have to shut it down 16:00:55 bye 16:00:56 thx 16:00:57 bye! 16:01:04 thanks bye! 16:01:05 #endmeeting