13:59:43 <n0ano> #startmeeting nova-scheduler
13:59:44 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Jan 18 13:59:43 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is n0ano. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:59:45 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
13:59:47 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'nova_scheduler'
13:59:48 <cdent> o/
13:59:57 <n0ano> anyone here to talk abou the scheduler?
14:00:10 <edleafe> \o
14:00:14 <cdent> i'm here but happy to pass if there's nothing going (other than pointing at some reviews that need some eyes)
14:00:16 * n0ano cdent is too quick too early in the morning
14:00:35 <n0ano> cdent, that's was kind of my idea
14:00:53 <n0ano> let's see who all joins
14:00:55 <cdent> It's 2 in the afternoon for me, but that's still early for me
14:01:14 <n0ano> edleafe, isn't it a holiday for you, take a break :-)
14:01:33 <edleafe> n0ano: not a work holiday, unfortunately
14:02:06 <n0ano> how odd, I thought MLK was pretty universal these days, oh well
14:03:14 <bauzas> oh méan
14:03:26 <bauzas> I was waiting in #openstack-meeting :)
14:03:35 <bauzas> sooo
14:03:38 * bauzas waves
14:03:56 <edleafe> it's holiday, yeah, but not a paid day off
14:04:02 <n0ano> bauzas, NP, I've tried to kick people off #openstack-meeting in the past :-)
14:04:14 <bauzas> is there an US holiday those days ?
14:04:23 <bauzas> I can see some folks out
14:04:39 <n0ano> bauzas, yep, Martin Luther King day, it's an official holiday for me, not for edleafe
14:05:01 <bauzas> ok
14:05:06 <n0ano> anyway, let's get started
14:05:23 <n0ano> I like cdent idea, let's just have some quick opens and go, so
14:05:27 <n0ano> #topic opens
14:06:10 <cdent> gerrit ill?
14:06:47 <n0ano> cdent, reall? I got emails yesterday, if you think it is broke you should bring it up on #openstack-nova
14:07:04 <cdent> No, just now it was giving me 502s
14:07:10 <cdent> several times
14:07:13 <cdent> but I guess it was a blip
14:07:31 <cdent> I wanted to point at this: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/262561/ a documentation tuneup that's been sitting idle for a while
14:08:28 <bauzas> gerrit wfm
14:08:39 <edleafe> cdent: I got blipped, too, but then it started working again
14:08:51 <n0ano> working now, hopefully OK
14:09:05 * cdent shrugs, c'est le gerrit
14:09:18 <n0ano> cdent, looks like you need a couple of +2's on that
14:09:35 <bauzas> cdent: cosmetic change only, right?
14:09:57 <cdent> pretty much
14:10:04 <cdent> tried to tune some grammar
14:10:05 <bauzas> okay, I'll look at
14:10:13 <cdent> and added links
14:10:25 <bauzas> okay, because me is a French guy, so you know about my grammar
14:11:52 <n0ano> bauzas, s/me is/I am/ :-)  I see your point
14:11:52 <cdent> Is jaypipes around or is he properly holidaying? It appears holidaying (no tab complete).
14:12:24 <cdent> I'm wondering what the situation is on the resource-* specs. I've got https://review.openstack.org/#/c/263496/ this (and its relations) pending, but the spec is still out for review
14:13:49 <n0ano> cdent, jay is always iffy, looks like he's not here today
14:14:37 <n0ano> cdent, you might want to send him an email to see where he is on the spec
14:14:53 <bauzas> cdent: since the universe exploded with many specs, I reiterate my will to get the specs + patches in https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mitaka-nova-priorities-tracking
14:15:08 <cdent> I poked him late last week he said that he'd have something at least by today
14:15:30 <cdent> he also said he'd put stuff on there but I guess that didn't happen. I'll do it.
14:15:53 <n0ano> cdent, then a polite reminder to him seems appropriate
14:16:12 * cdent nods
14:16:37 <n0ano> AOB (Any Other Business)?
14:17:16 <bauzas> not really
14:17:35 <cdent> Is 'grep -i schedule tempest' a good way to find scheduler related tests in tempest?
14:18:23 <bauzas> not really IMJO
14:18:39 <cdent> is there a good way?
14:18:44 <bauzas> cdent: you could look at the scenarios rather
14:18:58 <bauzas> cdent: what do you want to know actually
14:18:59 <bauzas> ?
14:19:55 <cdent> I'm trying to do a simple analysis of the extent of scheduler coverage in tempest. I already know that it is pretty weak, but I'm just digging around for a bit more data. And given that tempest is generally inscrutable, I just wondered if there was a way to improve my filtering (so I don't have to read everything).
14:21:49 <bauzas> cdent: so, you should rather see which filters are checked
14:22:03 <bauzas> cdent: by seeing which tests are modifying the CONF opts
14:22:51 <bauzas> cdent: since by default a very small portion of filters are enabled, it means that if no tempest tests are modifying that flag, you could guess that it's mostly because they don't use them
14:23:21 * cdent nods
14:23:48 <bauzas> cdent: then, once you admit that 99% of tests (I leave my opinion to be accepting something I dunno) are using the default filters, you could just look at whether the boot requests use hints
14:23:56 <bauzas> or flavor metadata
14:24:00 <bauzas> or image extra specs
14:24:20 <bauzas> by grepping over 'hints' or the other terms
14:24:44 <cdent> The implication of all that, though, is there's not much in the way of explicit scheduler testing, rather a lot of implicit stuff as a result of various instance boots
14:24:51 <bauzas> and then, you'll see that 99% of the time, tempest doesn't care about providing more than just 'eh, scheduler, boot me a request'
14:24:56 <cdent> yes
14:25:09 <bauzas> cdent: exactly
14:25:22 <cdent> speak of the devil
14:25:24 <bauzas> cdent: that's my main worries here, all of the scheduler implications are implicit
14:25:32 <bauzas> so, lemme now tell you a story
14:25:51 <bauzas> of someone modifying the scheduler and not having some explicit tempest tests
14:26:01 <bauzas> you know how that guy can functionnally test that ?
14:26:18 <bauzas> he runs the caching scheduler unittests + he runs the cinder functional tests
14:26:34 <bauzas> that's the only coverage we have
14:26:45 <cdent> :(
14:26:57 <bauzas> to be clear, just play locally and crash the scheduler
14:27:12 <bauzas> you'll see that only the caching scheduler should notice that
14:27:30 <bauzas> not speaking of a full crash
14:27:36 <bauzas> just something bad in the filters
14:28:35 <cdent> Well, my hope here is to gain some understanding of existing stuff so I can make it better (and be prepared for the summit session on the topic next week)
14:29:25 <bauzas> cdent: sure, and that's a very valid point
14:30:11 <bauzas> cdent: I'm just telling you that we have 3 levels of coverage : 2 in-tree (unit + functional) and one in Tempest and all of them are not veryfying the scheduler but implicitly
14:30:20 <cdent> yes
14:30:23 <cdent> I've figured that out
14:30:39 <bauzas> by saying "implicitly", I mean "run the default filters with a default query and hope that the scheduler will return you a tuple"
14:31:02 <bauzas> s/hope/assert
14:31:25 * cdent nods
14:31:39 <n0ano> one hessitates to say that at least that's something and testing can always be made better
14:31:50 * cdent nods at that too
14:32:12 <n0ano> anyway, anything else?
14:32:21 <cdent> not from me
14:33:29 <bauzas> crickets from me
14:33:33 <n0ano> note that, barring arguements from anyone, I'll cancel next week's meeting, it should be a travel day for the mid-cycle for most
14:33:40 <bauzas> ++
14:33:41 <cdent> +1
14:34:13 <n0ano> OK, tnx everyone, some will talk in person next week, the rest of us will be here in two weeks.
14:34:19 <n0ano> #endmeeting