14:00:59 #startmeeting nova 14:00:59 Meeting started Thu Jul 10 14:00:59 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is johnthetubaguy. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:01:00 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:01:02 The meeting name has been set to 'nova' 14:01:10 who is around for today's meeting? 14:01:20 \o 14:01:23 hi 14:01:27 o/ 14:02:00 did I just join the scheduler meeting? :) 14:02:06 o/ 14:02:13 o/ 14:02:19 hi 14:02:20 PaulMurray, nope, this is nova 14:02:24 #topic Juno-2 is 24th July 14:02:29 yep this is nova 14:02:41 same people though, lol 14:02:45 :) 14:02:50 anyways, on to Juno status 14:03:05 spec backlog is growing again, lots to review 14:03:19 Waiting on Reviewer: 40 14:03:20 o/ 14:03:32 Average wait time: 5 days, 3 hours, 16 minutes 14:03:48 #link http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/nova-openreviews.html 14:03:51 so, I kinda want to get this down before we call the specs for Juno closed, but lets see how things are looking later 14:03:58 I mean nova-specs reviews 14:04:04 oops, bad copy/paste 14:04:06 #link http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/nova-specs-openreviews.html 14:04:14 johnthetubaguy: i thought spec reviews were done after 7/3 or something? 14:04:22 anyways, today should be freeze day 14:04:26 mriedem, new proposals were 14:04:46 or there are spec reviews, but anything after 7/3 is -2 (spec freeze) unless it's an exceptional case 14:04:50 mriedem: yeah, that was no new proposals, although lots of people were thinking the opposite, so something went wrong there 14:05:07 * mriedem admits to not reading all of the process stuff in the ML 14:05:08 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/038475.html 14:05:18 Jul 3 (-9): Spec proposal freeze 14:05:18 Jul 10 (-8): Spec approval freeze 14:05:19 do we have an Exception process ? 14:05:31 haven't seen it 14:05:46 bauzas: its the same as normal, shout up on the ML, and in the nova-meeting 14:05:48 I mean a SpecFreezeException process 14:05:55 johnthetubaguy: ok 14:06:17 anyways, I think we will need to take a look at where we are at tomorrow 14:06:29 we just haven't kept up in the last week 14:06:46 and I suspect thats because everyone through the reviews were meant to have stopped already :( 14:07:13 anyways, it is what it is right now, probably thinking we might approve a few tomorrow, if there are stragglers 14:07:18 any more on blueprint? 14:08:17 #topic Bugs 14:08:20 #link http://54.201.139.117/nova-bugs.html 14:08:43 so we have some new tools cooking 14:08:55 I am sure tjones would appreciate some feedback 14:09:21 any more on bugs? 14:09:33 * johnthetubaguy wonders if his IRC is actually working... 14:09:37 no 14:09:55 #topic Gate Status 14:10:00 it's flaky 14:10:04 so hows we doing? not well I feel 14:10:04 getting things in batches 14:10:10 http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/ 14:10:15 #link http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/nova-openapproved.txt 14:10:17 the postgresql fix is going through the gate now 14:10:28 18 nova patches in the gate queue 14:10:30 if there are any postgresql experts out there, some questions in here: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-July/039800.html 14:10:33 ah, good news 14:10:48 jogo fixed another gate issue yesterday for quotas and fixed ips in nova-network 14:11:15 mriedem: got any top bugs that need urgent volunteers? 14:11:16 dansmith made some changes in the virt firewall driver that seems to have helped some on the ssh timeouts 14:11:19 but it's not gone 14:11:40 johnthetubaguy: the two big ones, fixed ips over quota and postgresql have fixes 14:11:43 so not really atm 14:11:53 i'm sure we'll eff that up in no time though... 14:12:00 awesome, it sounded that way, just double checking 14:12:07 yeah, true true... 14:12:35 so nothing else on gate stuff 14:12:38 there was talk about making sure certain changes are rechecked several times before approving, what types of changes were those again? 14:12:48 resize maybe? 14:13:43 OK, I guess we are not sure 14:14:00 #review status 14:14:01 can't remember 14:14:29 Average wait time: 15 days, 8 hours, 33 minutes 14:14:35 #link http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/nova-openreviews.html 14:14:38 hi. is there a gantt meeting here? or is it later? 14:14:46 lots of very long waiting reviews 14:14:53 haypo: next week on Tues 14:15:04 haypo, tues at 1500 UTC 14:15:04 haypo: this is the nova meeting, see IRC channel topic name 14:15:28 anyways, hoping that number gets better next time we check, that is all 14:15:44 #topic Sub team reports 14:15:48 ok, thanks ;) 14:15:53 OK, people with topics please raise your hands 14:16:04 * n0ano o/ 14:16:25 n0ano: go go scheduler update 14:16:25 o/ 14:16:41 o/ 14:16:54 * bauzas vs. n0ano 0-1 14:17:08 n0ano: up to you :) 14:17:08 * n0ano bloody keyboard froze 14:17:23 anyway, lots of activity on gantt (scheduler) this week... 14:17:36 o/ 14:17:51 that's worth saying that... :) 14:18:08 concensus seems to be that we want to have a fully functional scheduler after the split (not incremental work) so we have some more work we need to do... 14:18:29 n0ano: i wrote to you privately, tell me when you are able to talk 14:18:58 biggest addition is dealing with all aspectes of the resource tracker, big idea is to move the RT into the scheduler, so that will get interesting 14:19:02 n0ano: OK, so are there plans for a quick prototype to prove things? 14:19:22 johnthetubaguy: n0ano: I left a mail in the -dev list about that 14:19:24 johnthetubaguy, absolutely, bauzas and I are working on creating one 14:19:39 bauzas, do you want to add anything? 14:19:40 johnthetubaguy: https://review.openstack.org/105747 14:19:54 n0ano: yep 14:20:08 n0ano: lemme just find the link for the -dev thread 14:20:10 n0ano: bauzas: I meant a prototype gantt that fits the suggested client 14:20:45 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-July/039863.html 14:21:25 OK 14:21:26 so, I'm proposing an incremental work for the client 14:21:27 johnthetubaguy, we want to get 3 things done in nova first (client lib, db isolation, RT) and then we can split off a gantt POC 14:22:12 n0ano: my mail is about the last step (RT) which needs to be evaluated with regards to the timeline 14:22:12 hmm, OK 14:22:27 I think we could move the RT at a later date, but anyways, lets move on 14:22:34 adrian_otto: your turn 14:22:55 johnthetubaguy: feel free to leave a comment in the -dev thread then :) 14:23:01 tx 14:23:16 COntainers team is organizing to make spec proposals for where containers will fit in OpenStack 14:23:31 initial plans are to use the spec repo template format 14:23:43 should this proceed, even though specs are closed for Juno? 14:23:51 bauzas: yep, just need to work out what I want to say 14:23:58 when will they open for K release? 14:24:11 adrian_otto: not sure when K will open at this point 14:24:31 adrian_otto: but current template is a good place to start 14:24:33 that's going to be discussed at the mid-cycle 14:24:35 is there somewhere we can submit specs that are likely to need a lot of collaboration that will eventually belong in K? 14:24:44 alaski: +1 14:25:16 adrian_otto: your own fork of the spec repo might be best at this point, till we get it decided 14:25:25 adrian_otto: but other may have much better ideas 14:25:37 s/other/others/ 14:25:40 Eric Windisch took an action item to follow up with Mikal for futher guidance as well 14:25:52 adrian_otto: nothing prevents you from submitting a spec for K. it just won't get any attention from core/driver reviewers 14:26:00 adrian_otto: attend the mid cycle summit is a good bet 14:26:19 alaski: yeah, it might get a −2 put on it, but yeah, you can put it there 14:26:20 should I just make a specs subfolder named "K"? 14:26:38 next to the juno one? 14:26:42 adrian_otto: sure, if that works OK for you 14:26:54 ok, next subject... 14:27:01 on mid-cycle 14:27:04 there might be a new spec, etc in K, but yeah, lets just see what works 14:27:32 do you prefer that containers enthusiast join the Nova mid-cycle meetup in Chicago, or hold another event? 14:28:13 I have a preference for having containers people talk at the Nova session about nova integration issues 14:28:13 there is a group of about 5 who are committed to attend 14:28:32 I don't know about finding your own room, thats a question for intel folks 14:28:54 adrian_otto, I thought the mid-cycle meetup was in Oregon? 14:28:59 might it make sense for us to add one day just for Containers? Would Intel be open to that sort of a request? 14:29:09 oh, good point, we are in Oregon 14:29:13 that way people who are super interested could stay for that, and others could return home 14:29:43 which Chicago meet up are you thinking about, is that another group of projects? 14:29:48 like ops or something? 14:29:50 adrian_otto: most nova people probably already have their trips and flights booked 14:29:57 oh, Oregon 14:30:03 sorry to Confuse you with Chicago 14:30:04 adrian_otto, NP, we have 3 rooms right now (nova, ironic, breakout) containers people can take the break out room or I can reserve a 4th room 14:30:11 no worries 14:30:34 ok, n0ano I will follow up with you, and we can sort that out 14:30:38 cool, so n0ano and adrian_otto can sort that out, cools 14:30:43 any more? 14:30:48 maybe we should just stop doing design summits... 14:30:52 adrian_otto, NP 14:31:08 that's all for my update. Strong attendance in the Containers meetings, and lots of good discussion. 14:31:12 *end update* 14:31:37 mriedem: or do design summits every three months, once with the conference, once without, yeah, duno. 14:31:43 adrian_otto: awesome, thanks 14:31:52 johnthetubaguy: strong +2 here 14:31:55 I put my hand up, but nothing really exciting 14:32:24 XenAPI CI seems to be keeping up and running, some more improvements communing soon, with a little bit of luck 14:32:29 nothing more from me 14:32:35 #topic Open Discussion 14:32:42 johnthetubaguy: mostly joking 14:32:47 OK, so there is a note about a nova-client release 14:32:57 o/ 14:32:59 novaclient release 14:33:06 mikal hasn't said anything in a week on that 14:33:09 came up in IRC last week 14:33:27 mriedem: yeah, but its getting such a pain with these midcycles, maybe we should club together with the other integrated projects 14:33:30 i think if nobody objects we should just have russellb do it 14:33:39 russellb: I am good with you doing that 14:33:48 seems like we need that doing 14:33:52 have asked mikal a couple times, no response 14:33:53 * russellb shrugs 14:34:06 well anyone against russellb doing a release in here? 14:34:35 I think mikal is locked in a room writing an openstack book, or on a plane on the way to the room, so I duno 14:34:44 anyways, sounds like we are all for it here 14:34:55 if that helps at all 14:35:03 k, will do 14:35:12 awesomeness 14:35:23 so, good news, thats the end of the agenda 14:35:32 russellb: thanks 14:35:33 any thing people want to talk about? 14:35:56 there is a ML thread on nova virt driver requirements re: containers 14:36:06 comes back to the fact we don't have a 'core' virt driver API defined 14:36:17 were we going to talk about that at the meetup? 14:36:21 that was supposed to be a task for this cycle 14:36:30 dansmith: +1 14:36:34 johnthetubaguy, mikal isn't at the book sprint 14:36:34 we talked about doing it in ATL, but nothing has come of it, AFAIK 14:36:39 johnthetubaguy, could well be in transit tho 14:37:30 dansmith: that was defining the tempest tests every "good" driver should pass, among other things? 14:37:38 johnthetubaguy: no 14:37:48 johnthetubaguy: the functions that every supported virt driver must implement 14:37:49 dansmith: OK, you mean the virt driver itself? 14:38:04 right 14:38:05 johnthetubaguy: i.e. "it must support create, destroy, start, stop, resize, etc" 14:38:10 so i can add it to the meetup etherpad as a topic 14:38:19 yeah, I guess the attach volume is another 14:38:26 right, those sorts of things 14:38:26 mriedem: thanks, thats a good plan 14:38:31 i just don't want to see the meetup turn into several 45 min sessions like the design summits 14:38:48 right, and every big topic shouldn't have to wait for in person to make progress 14:38:49 especially with nova/ironic/containers all being there at the same time 14:39:01 yeah, that was my concern about having the co-located groups :( 14:39:11 hmm true 14:39:27 then again, I feel like we talked about a lot of things in ATL and nothing came of them, 14:39:36 so maybe we need design summit MK-II :/ 14:39:48 russellb: yeah, i guess we could always vote on a core virt driver api in ML and meetings 14:39:52 and then expand as needed 14:40:09 yeah i feel like summit design sessions were mostly unproductive 14:40:13 but it was my first rodeo 14:40:14 i mean, it will take some work, need to do some good digging around on what various platforms support etc 14:40:14 mriedem: well what is the core list today, (I should read the ML thread)? 14:40:16 40 min isn't much 14:40:25 something i'd expect the PTL to drive, honestly 14:40:27 johnthetubaguy: we don't have one 14:40:46 dansmith: sorry, I meant, what do all virt drivers do today 14:40:52 johnthetubaguy: the list of things supported by the divers varies widely 14:40:54 johnthetubaguy: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-July/039295.html 14:40:57 support matrix wii page is closes we have 14:40:59 closest* 14:41:03 yeah 14:41:14 yeah 14:41:51 I am thinking, we pick a very small set, we map to tempest tests, then we start expanding till people raise their hand, but thats just the first thing that comes into my head 14:41:58 see, 14:42:02 I think that's not the way to do it, 14:42:18 because we wanted to use this to *drive* some of the drivers to implement things they've been punting on 14:42:24 let's please be lighter weight than defcore, heh 14:42:32 so I'd rather look at what we want to get to, set that as the core and aim for getting there 14:42:37 like we did for the first round of CI requirements 14:42:39 dansmith: OK, thats a good point, so driver for a consistent API goal? 14:42:51 dansmith: needs to also be set as a reasonable line we think can be reached by what we want to be able to fit 14:42:52 (which is another thing we wanted to expand this cycle, which we discused, and which didn't happen) 14:43:04 dansmith: yes :( 14:43:05 russellb: surely, pause is clearly out of scope forever because: vmware :) 14:43:07 dansmith: +1 14:43:36 dansmith: right, pause, thats a good one to exclude, and thats probably cool 14:43:40 yep 14:43:45 it's the example we keep coming up with 14:43:54 * johnthetubaguy remembers the conversation now 14:44:10 volume attach is the container issue 14:44:13 yes 14:44:23 I guess whats ironic got, pause is bad there too I supose 14:44:32 and I really don't think we can exclude volumes, so we need some sort of tiered approach I guess, 14:44:45 to exclude volumes for containers, or require/allow them to host-mount them or something 14:44:46 johnthetubaguy: https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/master/cinder/tests/compute/test_nova.py 14:44:50 and ironic is a problem, yeah 14:44:54 to pass you just need to attach and snapshot 14:44:54 dansmith: yeah, I think we need a "relatively" consistent storage model 14:45:05 there has been good volume progress on the docker side btw 14:45:16 unless there is a func test somewhere that shells in to a guest do a mount 14:45:19 there has been work to get it supported in docker itself 14:45:31 russellb: yeah, but still requires the host to mount them, AFAIK 14:45:38 not my understanding 14:45:38 russellb: awesome, dansmith: that sure validates your approach 14:45:52 russellb: yes, but those efforts need to be balanced with security concerns that are rooted in Linux kernel implementation of CAP 14:45:54 thought they were looking at exposing block devices to the container *shrug* 14:46:03 adrian_otto: *nods* 14:46:09 hasn't been accepted into docker yet anyway 14:46:15 russellb: yeah, not sure that can be done, by my understanding 14:46:17 but anyway 14:46:25 johnthetubaguy: yes, this is why we shoot for what we want, not what we have :) 14:46:45 dansmith: yes, makes total sense now, agreed 14:47:11 but of course, these discussions are just wasted time unless someone takes it and runs with it 14:47:16 yar 14:47:21 and i don't have the time for stuff like this this cycle 14:47:26 I was just going to ask 14:47:34 anyone able to take this? 14:47:50 I wish I could, but its not happening right now 14:47:51 not like I have time either, but if nobody else will, 14:48:02 I guess I'll try to own the virt driver requirements thing 14:48:17 dansmith: I am happy to validate a list from a XenServer side 14:48:44 we'll see how far I get before I ignore it too long and we have to find another owner :P 14:49:12 but, I'll try to have a proposed list and/or discussion points for the mid-cycle 14:49:18 I'll do that on the plane 14:49:36 dansmith: awesome, we the meeting attendees, hand you the time bounded mutex of leadership on the virt driver interface 14:49:50 sounds like a good plan 14:49:54 johnthetubaguy: do I get a certificate or trophy for that? 14:50:05 I think we need to get people to own all the suggested topics 14:50:07 * dansmith imagines a trophy shaped like a steaming turd 14:50:30 on the plane, huh? 14:50:34 dansmith: sure some sort of beer like thing 14:51:00 I hear I can't use my laptop on the plane, else I can't get through security again, or something 14:51:05 anyways, that was a good topic 14:51:07 lol. 14:51:11 any more of those, or should we stop? 14:51:17 can't turn on? must be a bomb 14:51:37 i'm sure we could think of plenty of big things we've talked about but aren't making a lot of progress on :) 14:51:39 I need to run anyway 14:51:41 russellb: quite, one way to force people to repair the batteries 14:51:52 russellb: agreed 14:51:57 Exide cheers. 14:51:57 what to do with cells ... what we're doing with v3/v2.1 ... 14:52:17 what we're doing to improve CI ... 14:52:23 * johnthetubaguy general sigh noises 14:52:33 yup, heh 14:52:38 oye 14:52:43 yeah, I will start making a list in the meeting thing 14:52:46 bye all 14:52:50 o/ 14:53:00 thanks for comming 14:53:02 #endmeeting