17:00:34 #startmeeting nova_cells 17:00:35 Meeting started Wed May 6 17:00:34 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is alaski. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:36 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:00:38 The meeting name has been set to 'nova_cells' 17:00:42 \o 17:00:47 hello hello 17:00:48 o/ 17:00:50 o/ 17:01:09 #topic Cellsv1 testing 17:01:22 o/ 17:01:22 http://goo.gl/lZRucu 17:01:50 a fix went in late yesterday for cellsv1 17:01:53 o/ 17:02:05 failures are low right now, but there's not much data yet 17:02:27 there have been three failures, two of which were on stable branches 17:02:37 sounds nicer 17:03:01 which does raise the question: can we vote on master only? or should we backport to stable? 17:03:09 well, probably not an or 17:03:10 I think we can vote only on master 17:03:26 okay, good 17:03:46 alaski: you mean having the job set to voting for master only ? 17:03:52 yes 17:04:21 mmm, AFAIK the job is set to vote or not, and then we call it for any project 17:04:45 I know that jenkins wasn't happy recently, so I don't know how good the data we have is. but we should watch it closely now 17:05:37 bauzas: okay. I guess we need to look into it to see what we can do 17:05:52 alaski: https://github.com/openstack-infra/project-config/blob/master/zuul/layout.yaml#L652-L653 17:06:10 alaski: we can add a branch 17:06:28 alaski: so the answer to your question is yes 17:06:35 okay 17:06:50 who actions that ? 17:07:16 I will propose some backports for stable, but in the meantime we should separate failures by branch 17:07:31 and see how close we are to being good on master 17:07:57 bauzas: it's not needed yet, was just a question 17:08:28 build_name:"check-tempest-dsvm-cells" AND message:"Worker Balance" AND build_status:"FAILURE" AND build_branch:"master" gives us only 2 failures since your patch merged AFAICS 17:08:58 but sure we can leave it running for another round, sure 17:09:12 it's been less than a day at this point 17:09:30 agreed 17:09:34 #topic Specs 17:10:00 the requestspec changes merged 17:10:18 yup 17:10:30 I'm working on the implem now 17:10:36 so https://review.openstack.org/#/c/176078/ is next up for that series 17:10:51 bauzas: great 17:11:09 alaski: should provide a WIP patch soon 17:11:18 when that gets to a good point I'll start working on perisistence, if the spec is merged 17:11:36 alaski: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/76234 is a dependency tho 17:11:45 I've completely changed the scope of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/141486/ 17:11:54 scheduler interactions with cells 17:12:22 bauzas: ok 17:12:52 while writing that last spec I found that we're missing a table to map hosts to cells, so I'll put something up for that 17:13:17 cool 17:13:59 and I don't have a fleshed out spec for storing enough data to return an instance for a list/show 17:14:14 so I need that as well 17:14:19 alaski: Mapping hosts to cells seems counter-intuitive 17:14:29 dheeraj-gupta-4: why ? 17:14:47 A compute node can be added to a child cell any-time 17:14:59 API cell shouldn't know or care how/when that is done 17:15:33 dheeraj-gupta-4: it needs to know where to send messages for it 17:15:43 it only needs to know child cell 17:16:06 right, but it needs to get that info from somewhere 17:16:07 maybe the child cell should handle the internals 17:16:26 but that's just over top of my head 17:16:30 there are two cases here where we need to know how to route 17:16:39 dheeraj-gupta-4: how do you route calls ? 17:16:39 the scheduler returns a host, which cell is it in? 17:16:40 maybe the spec will answer those questions 17:16:53 the host api needs to update/query a host, where is it? 17:17:22 hmm... cellsv1 style naming maybe 17:17:31 *shudders* 17:17:37 yeah :) 17:18:06 I think that for the most part a cell doesn't need to know it's a cell, or which cell it is 17:18:20 that's a label the api cares about 17:18:26 dheeraj-gupta-4: any reservations against cell-host mapping? 17:18:29 though that's muddled with scheduling slightly? 17:18:35 woops, didn't mean a ? there 17:18:56 vineetmenon: No it just seemed odd for a moment 17:19:37 dheeraj-gupta-4: I understand the hesitation. I'm open to alternatives that aren't named based. 17:19:57 yes.... I see the motivation now 17:20:05 wasn't clear when you first mentioned it 17:20:12 okay 17:20:19 dheeraj-gupta-4: I think you need to forget cells v1 :) 17:20:26 bauzas: :) 17:20:57 there should be no longer child and parent cells, just cells and api 17:21:06 cool 17:21:20 so outside of the specs I mentioned, and one for multiple rpc endpoints, I think that's about what's on our plate this cycle 17:21:41 and also the scheduling stuff that's not really cell specific but affects us 17:22:20 anything else on specs? 17:22:38 #topic Open Discussion 17:22:43 if so it can go here 17:22:55 anyone have something to bring up? 17:23:21 alaski: During Kilo closure one patch about talking to multiple DBs got held up 17:23:22 just one question, could we maybe ask again people if they are happy with moving this alternate time one hour before ? 17:23:54 on a personal note, that's just conflicting my w/l balance :) 17:23:55 bauzas: the 2200 one? 17:23:57 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/161906/ 17:24:13 nah, I'm fine with this one, the 1700 one 17:24:21 this time 17:24:24 dheeraj-gupta-4: oh, thanks for bring that up 17:24:36 that will be necessary as well 17:24:52 I'm not sure where it falls spec wise at this point 17:25:07 moving the 1700UTC one an hour earlier will have conflicts for me 17:25:14 dheeraj-gupta-4: it might be something we can just open a bp for 17:25:19 alaski: okay 17:25:20 dansmith: no worries, just asking the question :) 17:25:44 alaski: need resubmitting the spec ? 17:25:57 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack/?searchtext=cells-v2-mapping gives 404 ;( 17:26:02 bauzas: the spec was close as implemented afaik 17:26:22 alaski: so it was partial because it misses that change, right ? 17:26:27 missed even 17:26:28 bauzas: I think we should go for a bp, it's not a big change 17:27:30 alaski: agreed 17:27:42 also, sounds like we should keep this time for the meeting. but if it interferes you can leave me comments before the meeting and follow up with the logs 17:28:27 alaski: so the alternate timing aren't applicable anymore? 17:28:33 alaski: ack 17:28:50 vineetmenon: it still is. 1700 and 2100 17:28:59 it's just all about family time for dinner :) 17:29:03 but that's fine 17:29:07 bauzas: 1700 UTC or 1600 UTC both work for me 17:29:09 I'll handle that 17:29:30 dheeraj-gupta-4: dansmith has conflicts for 1600, let's stick with the current time 17:29:31 bauzas: totally understood. hard to get everyone with so many timezones 17:29:40 alaski: ack 17:29:49 bauzas: ok 17:30:46 bauzas: lets revisit later, perhaps at the next dst shift 17:31:00 anything else for today? 17:31:02 alaski: again, no worries 17:32:00 bauzas: okay 17:32:08 crickets ? 17:32:12 yep 17:32:16 thanks everyone! 17:32:20 #endmeeting