19:00:58 <notmyname> #startmeeting swift
19:01:00 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Nov 19 19:00:58 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is notmyname. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:01:01 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
19:01:03 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'swift'
19:01:04 <notmyname> who's here for the swift meeting?
19:01:08 <swifterdarrell> o/
19:01:11 <zaitcev> o7
19:01:14 <tsg_> \o
19:01:14 <lpabon> hi
19:01:16 <mahatic> o/
19:01:19 <acoles> here
19:01:41 <peluse> yo
19:01:50 <notmyname> welcome :-)
19:01:52 <notmyname> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Swift
19:02:14 <notmyname> several general things to go over this week and a few bigger ones
19:02:40 <notmyname> first up, meeting time. note (for those of us in the US) the meeting time is based on UTC, so it's an hour earlier now
19:02:53 <notmyname> still 1900UTC
19:03:16 <notmyname> #topic paris feedback
19:03:18 <zaitcev> I was able to enter the meeting into Zimbra in UTC, so I'm good with reminders
19:03:38 <notmyname> what did you think of the paris summit? what was good, what was bad?
19:03:52 <peluse> so maybe just me but I think the design session have gotten to big to be run as design sessions
19:04:04 <acoles> peluse: agree
19:04:14 <peluse> maybe 'tech talks' would be better, have fewer of them and more time alotted for open discussion/hackathon style work like Fri morning was
19:04:29 <notmyname> peluse: that's an interesting idea. I like it
19:04:59 <lpabon> peluse: i like that also
19:06:10 * notmyname is taking notes
19:06:12 <notmyname> what else?
19:06:32 <notmyname> scheduling? location? topics? content? conference part?
19:07:05 <peluse> I think it felt a lot like the last summit wrt logistics, worked OK for me.  Conf floor was a bit crowded but I suppose thats a good thing :)
19:07:47 <lpabon> i thought all in all it went well
19:07:53 <tdasilva> I kinda expected more from the dev ops session, not sure if it was a timing thing where we left it for the last session of the day
19:08:00 <notmyname> I liked the venue better than atlanta (and many of the previous) since the summit sessions were in the same hotel and not blocks away
19:08:01 <swifterdarrell> notmyname: i was kinda sad the wide-open Fri. morning thing was at the very end (also having so many different groups in one large room sucked)
19:08:26 <lpabon> swifterdarrell: yes, Cinder + Swift in the same room sucked
19:08:27 <notmyname> swifterdarrell: +1
19:08:33 <tdasilva> swifterdarrell: aggree
19:09:00 <notmyname> tdasilva: so maybe getting more involved n the official ops tracks? my struggle there is that those have a lot of emphasis on nova/neutron
19:09:24 <tdasilva> yeah...not sure...i think we basically only heard from briancline
19:09:34 <notmyname> I went to the "user survey feedback" session, and it was just "make nova and neutron not break"
19:09:57 <notmyname> tdasilva: yeah, I think we had a better ops session in the past
19:10:00 <tdasilva> :/
19:10:20 <notmyname> any ideas on how to make that better (the ops session)?
19:11:08 <notmyname> a structured set of questions to ask? commitments to get people in the room?
19:11:18 <swifterdarrell> notmyname: create and maintain a list of swift operators and badger them to be there and participate?
19:11:20 <tdasilva> humm...i was wondering if it was a timing issue where we only had developers left
19:11:23 <notmyname> it it even needed?
19:11:37 <swifterdarrell> tdasilva: (seems quite possible)
19:11:48 <tdasilva> maybe it needs to be earlier in the week
19:12:06 <tdasilva> but that's a good question: is it even needed? helpful? can we learn anything from them?
19:12:44 <zaitcev> I do think that ops session is needed and at least those I attended (didn't go to Paris) were useful for me as a guidance. I was this close to trying and making a whole new logger direct to files and ops told me to can it. That was guidance.
19:12:49 <swifterdarrell> tdasilva: notmyname: if there aren't operators with feedback they want to give back to the devs, then it's not needed... but I find it hard to believe that's the case
19:13:30 <swifterdarrell> zaitcev: +1
19:13:50 <notmyname> yeah, I totally think ops feedback is crucial. and I've liked in the past to have a forum. but there are other forums now (with arguable benefit).
19:14:19 <notmyname> IMO we should keep scheduling a swift-specific one, even if not specifically in the "swift track". and we attend and get others there
19:14:48 <swifterdarrell> notmyname: +1
19:14:50 <tdasilva> +1
19:14:56 <notmyname> what other feedback from the summit/conference?
19:15:06 <tdasilva> food was great! :-)
19:15:12 <tdasilva> not the conf. food btw
19:15:40 <notmyname> heh
19:16:06 <notmyname> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIr7I80Leee7CSbRGL7q_3ftFD8a4i4dI <-- conference videos about swift. I think there might have been a few others that I need to add
19:16:16 <notmyname> s/think/know/
19:16:30 <notmyname> tdasilva: ya, parisian food was very nice
19:16:49 <notmyname> next summit is in vancouver and the one after is in tokyo
19:17:00 <notmyname> anything else before we move on?
19:17:03 <gvernik> notmyname: you can add there my Spark thing, it also about Swift
19:17:20 <notmyname> gvernik: ya, there are at least 3 more that need to be added
19:17:36 <tdasilva> notmyname: I also had a vbrownbag tech talk about swift + swiftonfile in case you want to add
19:17:56 <notmyname> https://gist.github.com/notmyname/d710d3775ad0d585c851
19:18:06 <notmyname> ^ raw list of youtube links
19:18:17 <lpabon> notmyname: some feedback on the openstack food.  I was told that the Vegeterian selection was extremly lacking, again.  Seems that OpenStack summit needs to put more effort around this.. I am not sure if you can talk to the "powers that be" about this
19:18:26 <notmyname> lpabon: ack
19:18:29 <notmyname> and noted
19:20:03 <notmyname> there have been some conversations (mailing list and meetings) about the summit. I'll try to jump in with your feedback. thanks!
19:20:28 <notmyname> please feel free to email me or say something in IRC if you have other comments
19:20:37 <notmyname> me@not.mn
19:20:45 <notmyname> moving on then
19:20:52 <notmyname> #topic OPW project
19:21:06 <notmyname> so there's this thing called the "Gnome Outreach Program for Women"
19:21:20 <notmyname> it's an internship style thing
19:21:32 <notmyname> where people work on a project in an open-source project
19:21:50 <notmyname> mahatic applied and was accepted to work on swift for the December-March OPW term
19:22:04 <peluse> cool
19:22:07 <notmyname> mahatic: welcome and congrats!
19:22:11 <mahatic> and from this round its only "outreach program", everyone other than men are welcome to apply :)
19:22:21 <mattoliverau> o/
19:22:22 <notmyname> mahatic: ah. thansk :-)
19:22:42 <acoles> mahatic: congrats
19:22:42 <mahatic> thank you! a big one, for taking time out for the whole process!
19:23:07 <notmyname> mahatic will be initially working on a checker tool that a few of us have talked about. to probe the cluster to verify that things are good (eg read the ring and to OPTIONS requests to the servers)
19:23:14 <mahatic> thanks acoles!
19:23:57 <mahatic> mattoliverau, hello! have fun at your vacation
19:24:27 <notmyname> mahatic: any questions or other things that need to be brought up?
19:25:08 <mahatic> not really. I'll be hanging around quite a bit and will try to ask only sensible questions :) Please do correct me
19:25:19 <mahatic> me in any case*
19:25:35 <mattoliverau> mahatic: still on holidays, so not quite so good at timezones :p
19:25:56 <notmyname> #topic new specs guidelines
19:26:10 <mahatic> mattoliverau, yeah, got that :D
19:26:40 <notmyname> the swift-specs repo has been an experiment, and we put together some guidelines (actually written down now) at the summit
19:26:51 <notmyname> I hope you've seen them, but if not here's the summary
19:27:16 <notmyname> merge specs early and often. when you and a reviewer agree on something merge that part of it
19:27:51 <notmyname> if you +1/+2 a spec, you're giving a promise to review the patch when it comes around (or at least we can all bug you about it)
19:28:27 <notmyname> and, importantly, specs aren't to be the final docs for a feature. specs are a place to collaborate on design and are living documents
19:29:01 <notmyname> related to that, we wrote down that docs must land before or with a patch. you can't land a big patch with a promise to write the docs later (thanks swifterdarrell)
19:29:17 <zaitcev> heh
19:29:39 <notmyname> that's the summary, and there is one small change to the organization of the specs repo
19:29:47 <notmyname> now there are 2 high-level folders
19:29:49 <peluse> all sounds great
19:29:55 <notmyname> in-progress and done
19:30:28 <notmyname> "done" is for stuff that has had the related patch merged. think of it as a way to "archive" (pejoratively, trash) the document to get it out of the way for in progress stuff
19:30:53 <notmyname> so eg once EC lands (with its docs!) then the spec can move to the done folder
19:31:05 <notmyname> make sense to everyone?
19:31:14 <tdasilva> yep
19:31:27 <mattoliverau> Yup, sounds great
19:31:53 <acoles> thats what i remember we said in paris
19:32:00 <notmyname> importantly, keep in mind that the tool is to help us be better. don't worry about how other people are doing it, other than to learn what works and doesn't
19:32:16 <notmyname> so if something works, let's do more of it. if it doesn't work, let's change
19:32:20 <peluse> very goodpoint
19:32:36 <swifterdarrell> sounds great to me!
19:32:48 <notmyname> any questions about any of that?
19:32:52 <zaitcev> Okay, I avoided specs until now, but I'll give it a try by putting the Account/Object-in-Kinetic into a spec.
19:33:17 <notmyname> zaitcev: cool. that'd be great
19:33:29 * notmyname didn't know you were working on that
19:33:43 <tdasilva> what is that?
19:33:52 <notmyname> tdasilva: read the spec ;-)
19:33:55 <tdasilva> curious to see the spec now
19:33:58 <tdasilva> lol
19:33:59 <notmyname> (when zaitcev writes it)
19:34:08 <zaitcev> uh-oh
19:34:22 <notmyname> lol
19:34:27 <acoles> :)
19:34:45 <notmyname> ok, next up
19:34:52 <notmyname> #topic docs change
19:34:56 <notmyname> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/135102/
19:35:27 <notmyname> the docs team (ping annegentle) has made some changes in how docs are organized in order to deal with the scale of the number of projects
19:35:51 <notmyname> summary is that some of the api docs are moving into project repos instead of being in the docs repos
19:36:11 <notmyname> that patch above is a copy/paste of the existing stuff into our swift repo
19:36:46 <notmyname> which means that (1) we'll be responsible for it and (2) it will be available from swift.openstack.org along with all the other dev docs we have
19:36:50 <peluse> looking for a rubber stamp or want one of to double check the copy n paste?
19:37:27 <notmyname> peluse: mostly rubber stamp to get it moved. it does need to be reviewed for accuracy
19:37:35 <zaitcev> rgr
19:38:04 <notmyname> ie if we're directly responsible for maintaining it now, we need to ensure it reflects what we believe to be true
19:38:24 <peluse> thunk... (done).  I'll read it while driving home later today
19:38:36 <acoles> peluse: !
19:38:44 <notmyname> hopefully not while behind the wheel!
19:39:00 <peluse> :)  Seriously though, I will buid and read and post anything that looks off as a new patch
19:39:05 <notmyname> thanks
19:39:18 * tdasilva was wondering if peluse has a chauffeur
19:39:31 <notmyname> ...swanky intel jobs...
19:39:41 <notmyname> #topic EC status update
19:39:44 <peluse> :)  free beer in the back of my limo
19:39:54 <notmyname> a flurry of activity around EC lately (yay!)
19:39:55 <acoles> notmyname: did/does annegentle's team have tech writers that generate/maintain these docs or do we now get to write our best prose
19:40:20 <notmyname> peluse: can you give an update on current EC status and key patches to review?
19:40:34 <zaitcev> I'm going to focus on not letting any lies in, the prose is for someone else
19:40:47 <peluse> sure... trello is up to date https://trello.com/b/LlvIFIQs/swift-erasure-codes for those interested
19:40:51 <notmyname> acoles: I don't think they did. and we always get to do our best with the prose
19:40:55 <notmyname> zaitcev: ;-)
19:40:55 <peluse> and the priority review page is also up to date
19:41:01 <notmyname> peluse: good
19:41:02 <notmyname> thanks
19:41:42 <peluse> I'm in the middle of implementing some proto work for the portions of the reconstructor that we didn't anticpate being so complex - basically rebalance
19:41:55 <notmyname> clayg and torgomatic are both now working on it here (swiftstack) as a top priority
19:42:00 <peluse> sounds like clayg is getting a jumpstart on GET which is awesome
19:42:24 <notmyname> ok
19:42:32 <peluse> timing should be good because the reconstructor will depend on the GET patch for the next phase (actual reconstruction)
19:43:37 <notmyname> we've been doing EC a little differently that we did storage policies. SP had a "demoable" version pretty quickly and we had a tough slog at the end. EC is doing a lot of the very hard groundwork up front, but it feels slower because we don't even have read/write done yet
19:43:50 <peluse> I hear ya
19:44:07 <notmyname> I'm not sure if that's better or worse, and I'm not looking for an answer right here right now, but it's somehting to think about
19:44:42 <peluse> there's a shitload of behind the scenes stuff for sure.  The big win right now is the dependency, pyeclib , the guys did a great job having that ready in time for us to start putting meat behind PUT/GET and the reconstructor
19:44:58 <notmyname> peluse: beyond "review EC patches", what's the current blocker?
19:44:58 <tsg_> notmyname: I posted an EC policy patch for review yesterday and have the .durable + HEAD stuff coming up (WIP posted yesterday)
19:45:06 <notmyname> tsg_: nice!
19:45:30 <peluse> ah yes, tsg, I spaced that but that is also critical as the PUT path really isn't done w/o it
19:46:16 <peluse> i hate "big bang" stuff like this but honestly the real functionality is going to happen in sorta that fashion....
19:46:22 <notmyname> ok
19:46:25 <peluse> unlike SP by its nature
19:46:54 <notmyname> I think the important thing is to properly set expectations. a big bang isn't bad if people know that
19:47:17 <notmyname> peluse: anything else on EC for today?
19:47:28 <peluse> don't think so, no.  any questions from anyone?
19:48:10 <peluse> notmyname, just saw your question wrt current blocker... just reviews and coding right now...
19:48:14 <notmyname> ok
19:48:23 <peluse> churn and burn baby
19:48:28 <notmyname> #topic priority reviews
19:48:31 <notmyname> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/PriorityReviews
19:48:42 <acoles> peluse: i will try to carve out some EC review time over next few days
19:48:58 <notmyname> I updated this yesterday (monday?) with some of the active things that have been proposed since the summit
19:49:02 <zaitcev> Kota and Gil are still on huh
19:49:12 <notmyname> the fsync() on dirs and the splice one are interesting
19:49:20 <notmyname> ya, kota's has one +2
19:49:22 <peluse> acoles, thanks!  concurrent GET would be a good/fairly quick one (on the prioirty review page)
19:49:35 <acoles> peluse: k
19:50:00 <notmyname> and the migration middleware ( gvernik) tends to cause passions to rise
19:50:07 <gvernik> i am working to implement changes we discussed with Clay in Paris. Will submit another patch very soon
19:50:14 <notmyname> ok
19:50:42 <notmyname> so that being said, take a look at stuff on that page :-)
19:50:47 <notmyname> #topic open discussions
19:50:58 <notmyname> anything else to bring up and discuss here in the meeting this week?
19:51:00 <mattoliverau> peluse: thanks for working on the concurrent reads while I've been away
19:51:14 <peluse> mattoliverau, no prob, I didn't do much :)
19:52:05 <notmyname> if there's nothing else, let's adjourn.
19:52:13 <peluse> rock n roll... later
19:52:15 <clayg> got here just in time
19:52:18 <notmyname> thanks everyone for coming. and thanks for working on Swift!
19:52:20 <peluse> heh
19:52:26 <notmyname> #endmeeting