14:03:31 #startmeeting neutron lbaas 14:03:32 Meeting started Thu Dec 12 14:03:31 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is enikanorov__. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:03:33 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:03:35 The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_lbaas' 14:03:59 #topic announcements 14:04:21 yesterday agent unification patch was merged 14:05:01 which means that any vendor plugin driver that want's to use agent should do it with our framework 14:05:40 HAProxy driver is the one and only plugin driver at the moment, which utilizes that 14:05:58 Hi All 14:06:09 but it should be fairly easy now to ad drivers for similar solutions like nginx 14:06:13 hi evgenyf 14:07:03 any questions on unified agent? 14:08:07 ok, lets move on to the next topic 14:08:26 #topic third party testing 14:08:52 Would the agent be doing appliance VM instantiation in future? 14:09:09 songole: it is possible 14:09:47 ok, so back to the testing, we have 2 tempest scenarios on review that we hope will land soon 14:10:07 they already could be used to perform end-to-end testing of the service 14:10:26 and actually helper us to identify the issues with our patches 14:10:53 does anyone want to update on integration with jenkins? evgenyf? 14:11:21 I have Eugene 14:11:34 One question regardin Testing infra setup. We were able to subscribe to events inspect the files on the patch submitted. 14:11:37 the deadline for this was I-2, but i don't see much activity on vendor side 14:11:41 We are working on OpenStack testing env. establishment 14:11:56 Will update about the Jen. integration in a minute 14:12:49 Vijay_: so what's the question? 14:13:07 Will just refreshing fetching latest Neutron code and re-starting neutron service will do to refresh the code 14:13:40 or is it advisable to run "stack.sh" and do the setup again? 14:14:10 Vijay_: yeah, stack.sh should be run. fetaching and restarting the service is not sufficient 14:14:38 We are halfway through, next week we will have more progress. 14:14:44 good 14:14:47 BTW are you guys aware of today's meeting on third party testing at 17 UTC? 14:14:54 enikanorov__, What you mean by integration with Jenkins? 14:15:01 I believe similar questions will be discussed there 14:15:22 evgenyf: your system should post back the testing result, as far as i understand the requirement 14:15:23 ok. will try to join. Thanks obondarev. 14:16:08 We are not there yet, Working on environment and running tests 14:16:43 ok, good 14:17:42 did you try those tempest scenarios in your lab yet? 14:18:13 We will try it next week and update. 14:18:19 ok 14:18:54 enikanorov__, Not yet. BTW, as far as I know, we should push results back to gerrit, right? not Jenkins. 14:18:54 any queestions on testing? 14:19:17 evgenyf: oh right, mistyped my thought :) 14:19:33 enikanorov__, ok , good 14:20:15 No we can move on 14:20:21 ok 14:20:36 #topic L7 rules 14:20:52 evgenyf: any update? 14:21:01 i saw avishay has pushed some patch on gerrit, but have not yet looked at it 14:21:28 enikanorov__, Avishay will not join today. He asked me to update that he pushed first patch, inluding data layer modifications 14:22:14 i see. in order to add this feature we'll need consistent patches: API change+ model change+ migration+ ut's 14:22:25 so it seems like lot of work yet to be done 14:22:40 OK. Will tell him 14:23:07 also there should be cli for that and tempest API tests (at least) 14:23:50 so any major feature require lots of work... 14:23:55 ok, lets moe to the next one then 14:23:58 loadbalancer instance 14:24:24 #topic loadbalancer instance 14:24:56 the initial implemetation is on review. the patch is not fully ready, but it passes gate tests including tempest API tests 14:25:19 which means that new API is fully backwards compatible 14:25:27 cool! 14:25:28 cli-side is also on the gerrit 14:25:48 now i'm working on tempest API tests for the new resource 14:26:11 that's all on loadbalancer instance at the moment 14:26:15 any questions? 14:27:23 ok 14:27:42 lets move to SSL 14:27:42 enikanorov: this is the reivew, right? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/60207/ 14:27:55 #topic SSL termination 14:28:14 s3wong: right 14:28:54 Vijay commented my WIKI updates 14:29:20 Modified it accordingly. Waiting for you review guys 14:29:28 ok 14:30:00 Will try to catch Mark just to be sure the direction is good 14:30:19 All these new entities etc.. 14:30:32 ok, good 14:31:02 would be good to see any implementation proposal in I-2 14:31:05 Hi Evg, default policy is not a UI only feature right? 14:31:14 or most certainly it will not land in icehouse 14:31:47 Vijay, No 14:31:52 ok thanks! 14:31:55 I mean, right:) 14:32:09 ?? :-( 14:32:28 I'm working on it. Will push initial work soon. 14:32:46 ok, cool 14:32:48 Just want to be sure Mark is aware of the design 14:33:00 yeah, that is a good approach 14:33:24 Vijay, It's not onlu UI feature 14:33:46 ok, another topic i would like to discuss is a various HA proposals we had 14:33:51 obondarev: could you update? 14:33:55 sure 14:34:03 HA for agents is on review 14:34:12 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59743/ 14:34:29 still struggling with random unit test failures 14:34:41 there is a race I guess 14:35:06 need to add some more unit tests and fix the race 14:35:26 Evg: In that case, lets add the default policy description in the "Resources change" title in the place where we are describing "SSL policy " 14:35:35 this patch only works for plugins that are not host specific 14:35:38 i still think the design could be different for the case when agent manages the device and not the process 14:36:23 enikanorov__: can you please clarify? 14:36:54 as we discussed, it could be solved with a common queue instead of scheduling 14:36:56 Vijay, will do 14:37:19 enikanorov__: yeah, I put some thoughts on it to the bp description 14:37:21 I'd sent an email to oos-dev wtih those two options 14:37:30 and ask for opinions 14:37:50 there is a common problem with common queue 14:37:59 which one? 14:38:02 not specific for lbaas even 14:38:25 that some action should be processed consequntly 14:38:34 actions* 14:38:43 can you give an example? 14:39:03 with many agents listening to one queue there might be races 14:39:24 not really 14:39:24 not sure I'm ready with an example now 14:39:37 it is not different as with 1 agent 14:39:43 we discussed it with sgran 14:39:54 which processes messages in multithreading fashion 14:40:41 ok, lets discuss it offline 14:41:01 ok , I agree second approach is possible, need to collect pros and cons 14:41:35 ok, another topic is ha for haproxy 14:41:39 yeah 14:41:48 not started yet thiugh 14:42:05 do you have a design in mind? 14:42:08 I look toward haproxy + keepalived approach 14:42:22 I can look into HA for haproxy, since it should be done via haproxy + keepalived 14:42:53 that is what I was plannin to start tomorrow or next week 14:43:05 ok, no hurry i think 14:43:36 but anyway, keepalived approach seems to me quite complex, considering os environment 14:44:06 whoever takes care of that, don't forget to write a wiki page with the design 14:44:20 sure 14:45:07 any other items to discuss? 14:45:16 i have one quick quesetion regarding testing. 14:45:29 You said that I-2 is the deadline 14:45:32 this is for what? 14:46:06 this is to provide a system for testing vendor plugins 14:46:12 that is integrated with gerrit 14:46:29 if your plugin is not yet in the tree, than you don't need to hurry 14:47:26 ok 14:48:07 anything else? 14:48:20 not from my side 14:48:35 i think we can end the meeting 14:48:46 ok. Bye Everyone! 14:48:53 Thanks! Bye! 14:48:55 thanks for joining 14:48:59 #endmeeting