20:00:29 <xgerman> #startmeeting octavia
20:00:30 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Aug 19 20:00:29 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is xgerman. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:00:31 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:00:33 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'octavia'
20:00:41 <xgerman> #chair johnsom blogan
20:00:41 <openstack> Current chairs: blogan johnsom xgerman
20:00:47 <bharath> o/
20:00:49 <madhu_ak> hi
20:00:49 <minwang2> o/
20:00:50 <sbalukoff> Howdy folks!
20:00:51 <abdelwas> o/
20:00:51 <xgerman> hi
20:00:59 <johnsom> o/
20:01:02 <bana_k> hi
20:01:13 <xgerman> I am plagued by plumbing problems so might need to step out and talk to the plumbers
20:01:44 <xgerman> #topic Announcements
20:02:11 <blogan_> hi
20:02:13 <johnsom> You need Donkey Kong to throw barrels at them...
20:02:22 <xgerman> lol
20:02:34 <sbalukoff> Heh!
20:02:39 <xgerman> with Neutron proliferating into so many projects we put a huge load on infra so
20:02:52 <xgerman> so dougwig proposed https://review.openstack.org/#/c/212622/6/doc/source/devref/infra.rst
20:03:00 <rm_work> o/
20:03:05 <blogan_> sounds like infra's got a plumbing problem too
20:03:14 <TrevorV> o/   sorry is late
20:03:17 <xgerman> yep
20:03:29 <johnsom> lol
20:03:33 <rm_work> surround your house with more carnivorous plants
20:03:35 <xgerman> so for us we need to get dougwig’s +1 before infa looks at it
20:04:03 <xgerman> if dougwig is here he can elaboaret
20:04:06 <blogan_> dougwig's approval is hard to come by
20:04:18 <xgerman> yep, he will be even more a bottleneck
20:04:37 <blogan_> i think he's at the ops meetup so probably not paying attention
20:05:00 <johnsom> Yeah, and ask dougwig the infra questions before bothering the folks in the infra channel
20:05:03 <xgerman> yeah, anyhow don’t ask in the infra channel for +2 until you have dougwig’s +!
20:05:14 <xgerman> johnsom +!
20:05:23 <blogan_> noted
20:05:24 <sbalukoff> Heh!
20:05:38 <xgerman> johnsom anything from GSLB worth mentioning/
20:05:40 <xgerman> ?
20:06:00 <johnsom> They are working on some architecture diagrams
20:06:12 <sbalukoff> Did y'all pick a new name yet? ;)
20:06:27 <xgerman> we celebrated Cosmos last week :-)
20:06:32 <xgerman> Kosmos
20:06:36 <johnsom> They(we I should say) are also looking at some contributed code called "polaris" as a start to health monitoring for GSLB
20:07:12 <sbalukoff> xgerman: Yes, I know, and pointed out how you're definitely going to run into trademark issues with that. But eh...  whatever. Not my project, eh.
20:07:39 <xgerman> yeah
20:07:39 * blogan_ votes sbalukoff official openstack trademark validater
20:07:45 <sbalukoff> Haha!
20:07:59 <xgerman> sbalukoff is discovering his lawyer side by working for IBM
20:08:10 <sbalukoff> xgerman: If only you knew. I
20:08:11 <minwang2> hahaha
20:08:24 <madhu_ak> heh
20:08:24 <xgerman> more announcements?
20:08:42 <sbalukoff> 've spent a good portion of the last week finally going through new employee orientation stuff (couldn't put it off any longer) and otherwise navigating the internal vagaries of the company.
20:08:52 <sbalukoff> Not from me!
20:08:58 <xgerman> #topic Brief progress reports
20:09:06 <dougwig> Fyi, there are three infra liasions, not just me.  :)
20:09:21 <blogan_> dougwig you're ours
20:09:23 <sbalukoff> Not anything substantial from me this week. I hope to correct that by next week. :P
20:09:32 <xgerman> L7?
20:09:33 <johnsom> Oh, but we want to give you the love dougwig
20:09:46 * dougwig blushes
20:09:47 <johnsom> Something about all of those "octavia bug" comments....
20:09:56 <sbalukoff> xgerman: I should have a new patch for that later this week / early next week. Sorry!
20:10:06 <xgerman> nice!
20:10:08 <TrevorV> Progress:  With some help from johnsom and blogan_ I've got a near complete Failover.
20:10:12 <sbalukoff> Yeah, bana_k has been submitting a lot of those. That's great!
20:10:13 <blogan_> i'm working on addressing xgerman's comments on this review: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/209210
20:10:34 <sbalukoff> TrevorV: Rad!
20:10:34 <bana_k> unit tests done ,
20:10:34 <johnsom> I have been working on getting the health manager setup with an oslo config file and wiring it up to startup, etc
20:10:42 <bharath> I finished including DB Cleanup, in addition to Spare Amphora, under HouseKeeping.. Tested it on devstack and works fine...
20:10:42 <bana_k> testing the application
20:10:49 <minwang2> i got a +1 from dougwig for my octavia gate setting, but still need another +2 from infra team https://review.openstack.org/#/c/211319/
20:10:53 <bana_k> need to do more
20:10:56 <blogan_> xgerman: but i think doing another review with only test to get the full coverage you want would be ideal instead of putting it in this one bc that makes sense as a separate review to shore up test coverage
20:11:11 <johnsom> Mostly a lot of testing for health manager now.  Next up is aligning the status messages on both sides
20:11:22 <xgerman> blogan_ I am ok with that
20:11:32 <xgerman> but I like the spec fixed before I give +2
20:11:45 <blogan_> xgerman: was going to do that too in this review
20:11:48 <madhu_ak> poking around lbaas scenario tests, all of the patches got merged. Thanks to reviewers
20:11:55 <xgerman> awesome!!
20:12:02 <blogan_> madhu_ak: thanks for getting that done adn your patience
20:12:09 <blogan_> and everyone else who worked on it
20:12:12 <johnsom> FYI, housekeeping is ready to merge in my opinion: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202829/
20:12:23 <blogan_> ready to merge eh?
20:12:25 <xgerman> blogan_ +!
20:12:27 <blogan_> bold statement sir
20:12:28 <sbalukoff> Nice!
20:12:38 <xgerman> we are bold here
20:12:47 <blogan_> johnsom: some pedantic people might see that as a challenge
20:12:58 * blogan_ looks at TrevorV
20:12:59 <johnsom> It's not my code, so go for it
20:13:03 <sbalukoff> XD
20:13:07 * blogan_ maybe himself
20:13:07 <madhu_ak> dougwig: I just submitted a patch: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/214767/ and need +1 from you before infra folks gives me +2.
20:13:29 <madhu_ak> ^^ the above patch is making scenario test api job as voting
20:13:35 <xgerman> also with L3 coming up on 8/31 we need to keep up the velocity
20:13:45 <sbalukoff> Yep.
20:13:57 <blogan_> madhu_ak: i have noticed it is much more stable, i haven't seen it fail in a while, have you?
20:14:19 <madhu_ak> blogan_ yep, it is much more stable now :)
20:14:25 <blogan_> madhu_ak: for random reasons
20:14:31 <blogan_> beyond our control
20:14:33 * TrevorV pedantic senses are tingling
20:14:53 <madhu_ak> things will be stable and from ym experience I dont see it any failures
20:15:00 <madhu_ak> *my
20:15:03 <abdelwas> Very close to a functional and stable active/standby code
20:15:11 <xgerman> +1
20:15:12 <blogan_> awesome
20:16:12 <xgerman> ok, moving on
20:16:17 <xgerman> #topic Octavia reference implementation in Liberty
20:16:31 <xgerman> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-neutron-octavia
20:16:42 <xgerman> let’s see where we are at
20:16:54 <blogan_> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/213597/
20:17:20 <xgerman> yeah, ajmiller?
20:17:22 <blogan_> neutron-lbaas cores (ptoohill, ajmiller) need a +2 (or a -1 if so needed)
20:18:01 <blogan_> or -1 from anyone, but that's gets the octavia driver to a good state as far as reporting accurate provisioning statuses
20:18:05 <ajmiller> xgerman here, looking at it
20:18:11 <xgerman> thanks
20:18:18 <ajmiller> Had looked through it yesterday, but before the latest patchset.
20:18:19 <xgerman> TLS?
20:18:29 <TrevorV> If I could draw some attention here in a second... I've noticed, through random testings in the flows, that we have a lot of un-implemented reverts in the tasks.  Would anyone have a problem with me spending some significant time updating individual tasks accordingly, and then optimizing flows to utilize subflows much more effectively when duplication is necessary?
20:18:29 <blogan_> pothole was working on that
20:18:53 <blogan_> TrevorV: you're asking if anyone woul dhave a problem with making the code better?
20:19:11 <xgerman> yeah, we all love that - thanks for volunteering :-)
20:19:13 <TrevorV> I'm asking if someone is currently interested in doing that or has progress on it, or if I should prioritize something else
20:19:41 <TrevorV> Obviously someone making the code better isn't a problem, but it could be currently back-burnered, make sense?
20:19:43 <sbalukoff> Dooo eeet!
20:19:48 <ajmiller> +a
20:19:50 <ajmiller> +A
20:20:07 <xgerman> well, I think we need to get through our list first and then we can work on optimzing
20:20:08 <johnsom> It needs to be done.
20:20:12 <TrevorV> Alright, then that's what I'll focus on after fixing the failover flow
20:20:21 <blogan_> TrevorV: plus some tasks dont need a revert, tasks that just retrieve values usually wouldn't
20:20:22 <xgerman> TrevorV +1
20:20:39 <blogan_> grr
20:20:41 <blogan_> grr
20:20:42 <TrevorV> Yeah, blogan_ I'm more talking about the example in failover... It leaves ports and stuff floating around.
20:20:43 <johnsom> Yeah, I would prioritize failover flow over the reverts.  It's dependency chain is getting long
20:20:43 <blogan_> double grrs
20:21:00 <blogan_> yeah agree with johnsom
20:21:04 <xgerman> +!
20:21:06 <xgerman> +1
20:21:11 <xgerman> finally
20:21:17 <blogan_> but i think TrevorV already had that planned
20:21:18 <TrevorV> I just thought it'd be nice to have it all reverting appropriately in Liberty, and then optimization of flows will clean it up nice-like.
20:21:28 <johnsom> Yep, what TrevorV said....
20:21:29 <xgerman> yep, agreed
20:21:32 <blogan_> it will be, but separate review unless necessary for the failover flows
20:21:38 <TrevorV> Yeah, for sure
20:21:39 <xgerman> YES
20:21:45 <TrevorV> I'm going to finish failover, and then make new review on master
20:21:49 <TrevorV> off master***
20:21:50 <TrevorV> my b
20:21:51 <blogan_> excellente
20:21:52 <xgerman> sound sgood
20:21:56 <xgerman> so pothole?
20:22:03 <xgerman> any TLS news?
20:22:04 <blogan_> ptoohill?
20:22:12 <blogan_> i think he fell in a pothole
20:22:20 <madhu_ak> heh
20:22:25 <xgerman> lol
20:22:58 <xgerman> mwang2’s gate job is waiting infra +@
20:23:10 <xgerman> blogan Deletes?
20:23:22 <blogan_> xgerman: in the driver?
20:23:26 <xgerman> yep
20:23:35 <blogan_> xgerman: TrevorV fixed that last week I believe
20:23:45 <blogan_> xgerman: its in
20:23:57 <blogan_> other than the issues about json.decode someone brought up earlier ir ead about
20:24:01 <blogan_> dont know much about it though
20:24:03 <xgerman> bana_k said he ran into trouble yesterday
20:24:17 <blogan_> bana_k: can you give more details on it?
20:24:49 <bana_k> I was just trying to create n delete the listener n pool
20:24:50 <TrevorV> Wait, deletes are still failing?
20:24:58 <TrevorV> I tested all the pieces I thought... May have missed something.
20:25:11 <bana_k> first time listener delete failed
20:25:27 <bana_k> but used to succeed in second time
20:25:41 <bana_k> took a short break n tested that again n it started working fine
20:25:53 <bana_k> but delete pool started failing
20:25:53 <blogan_> bana_k: hmm one of those wonderful hard to reproduce bugs
20:25:54 <johnsom> I haven't reloaded neutron-lbaas in my devstack in a while, so can't tell you if it's fixed.  Will do that next restack
20:26:12 <TrevorV> blogan_, I'm not sure the delete fix is merged yet, is it?
20:26:18 <blogan_> TrevorV: yes
20:26:21 <TrevorV> If not, then bana_k are you sure you have the fix in code?
20:26:23 <bana_k> but delete pool was stuck in that state for all the time
20:26:38 <blogan_> TrevorV: i combined yours and the tls one and bana_k into the same review last week or this weekend and it merged
20:26:42 <johnsom> First time fail, second complete is mis-match between neutron db and octavia db.  It's probably a false success
20:27:17 <blogan_> have yall updated your localrcs to not pull from that review's patchse?
20:27:18 <TrevorV> Okay blogan_
20:27:21 <blogan_> patchset?
20:27:24 <blogan_> just need to pull master now
20:27:27 <bana_k> No I need to take a look at the code
20:27:35 <blogan_> and if you want good status management, pull down https://review.openstack.org/#/c/213597/
20:28:24 <TrevorV> bana_k, let me know if you ARE up-to-date with my delete fix, because if there is still a bug there then I'll jump on it as quick as I can
20:28:31 <xgerman> \me stepping away for a bit
20:28:54 <TrevorV> I have to step away, sorry
20:28:55 <TrevorV> brb
20:28:57 <blogan_> bana_k: verify your localrc settings first, that neutron-lbaas isn't pulling down an old review
20:29:31 <bana_k> it was pointing to master last time I checked
20:29:36 <blogan_> bana_k: damn
20:30:26 <bana_k> so ll see if those changes are there in the code n let u know
20:30:52 <blogan_> bana_k: you able to do a git log right now and tell me the hash you have?
20:31:13 <johnsom> bana_k remove /opt/stack/neutron-lbaas as well, just to make sure it re-clones
20:31:18 <blogan_> yeah
20:31:29 <blogan_> or just git pull
20:31:42 <bana_k> ok
20:31:56 <TrevorV> back sorry
20:31:57 <blogan_> anyway sounds like thats everything
20:32:18 <sbalukoff> Short meeting today, eh?
20:32:20 <blogan_> xgerman will have to come back to an empty room
20:32:26 <bana_k> git log shows the latest checkins
20:32:34 <bana_k> fec0535a85945ed43471fd0007487864d4d7e775
20:32:41 <bana_k> commit id
20:32:41 <johnsom> What about the stats stuff?
20:32:56 <TrevorV> does this count as "open discussion"?
20:33:30 <blogan_> TrevorV: yes
20:33:32 <bana_k> so basically it has master code base
20:33:38 <blogan_> i dont have chair under this alias so i cant change topic
20:33:51 <blogan_> bana_k: i dont see that commit! i'm going crazy
20:34:05 <blogan_> bana_k: octavia or neutron-lbaas?
20:34:11 <johnsom> #chair blogan_
20:34:12 <bana_k> neutron-lbaas
20:34:12 <openstack> Current chairs: blogan blogan_ johnsom xgerman
20:34:20 <blogan_> #topic Open Discussion
20:34:27 <johnsom> German added me as chair in case he had to go
20:34:28 <blogan_> johnsom: thanks
20:34:40 <crc32> hello.
20:34:59 <ajmiller> So I saw a remark at the top of the meeting about infra plumbing problems, and see in zuul that no new instances are building.  Gate is way backed up
20:35:10 <ajmiller> Anybody know what's up?
20:35:36 <blogan_> ajmiller: i do not but i suppose our infra liasion dougwig would know
20:35:41 <johnsom> It's getting close to the end of liberty 3 is my guess
20:35:53 <xgerman> sorry about that
20:36:30 <blogan_> bana_k: whats the title of that commit?
20:37:17 <blogan_> xgerman: bana_k and i can take this discussion to the main channel
20:37:28 <blogan_> xgerman: not really something to do in a meeting
20:37:30 <ajmiller> blogan_ with the gate in this state, even if it started building jobs now, we'll probaby be lucky if that patch merges this evening sometime.
20:37:37 <xgerman> k
20:37:45 <blogan_> ajmiller: yeah i know unfortunately
20:38:56 <abdelwas> We need to raise the importance of https://bugs.launchpad.net/taskflow/+bug/1479466
20:38:56 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1479466 in taskflow "The needs to treat subflows as standalone entity" [Undecided,New]
20:39:45 <abdelwas> There is a review in progress to handle subflows as a single entity in taskflow : https://review.openstack.org/#/c/136171/
20:40:43 <xgerman> mmh, wonder if harlow can comment?
20:40:48 <xgerman> jharlow
20:41:04 <johnsom> He has a bunch of comments on the bug
20:42:01 <xgerman> ok, abdelwas make sure to reach put to the other Min
20:42:09 <abdelwas> Sure
20:42:45 <xgerman> also #topic Open Discussion
20:42:53 <abdelwas> As long as I am not writing a spec, and implement it myself as the comment suggested :)
20:43:00 <xgerman> #topic Open Discussion
20:43:08 <xgerman> tep
20:43:09 <xgerman> yep
20:43:29 <blogan_> abdelwas: you want it you implement it!
20:43:40 <blogan_> abdelwas: you want a teleportation device? you invent it!
20:43:53 <abdelwas> :)
20:44:02 <xgerman> :-)
20:45:32 <xgerman> anything else?
20:45:48 <sbalukoff> Nope!
20:45:50 <xgerman> #endmeeting