15:00:10 <BobBall> #startmeeting XenAPI
15:00:11 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Feb  4 15:00:10 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is BobBall. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:12 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:12 <BobBall> Better.
15:00:14 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'xenapi'
15:00:30 <BobBall> Howdy
15:00:42 <BobBall> Ping for johnthetubaguy and yamamoto
15:00:44 <yamamoto> hi
15:00:52 <johnthetubaguy> hello
15:01:04 <BobBall> Morning / evening guys!
15:01:16 <BobBall> So yamamoto did the right thing and actually added some items to the agent
15:01:19 <BobBall> agenda*
15:01:24 <BobBall> so we'll follow the agenda properly today
15:01:36 <johnthetubaguy> quick introductions first?
15:01:44 <BobBall> No actions, blueprints or docs that I'm aware of - any dissent on skipping those items?
15:02:02 <johnthetubaguy> heads up on blueprints, we are closed until L now
15:02:13 <johnthetubaguy> feature freeze is tomorrow for non priority things
15:02:14 <BobBall> yamamoto: Would you mind doing a quick intro?  Not sure that John has seen the emails so where your focus is
15:02:32 <yamamoto> ok
15:02:43 <yamamoto> i'm a developer of ryu and ofagent
15:03:12 <yamamoto> and currently working on ovs agent to make it use ryu ofproto library
15:03:16 <yamamoto> instead of ovs-ofctl command
15:03:41 <yamamoto> any questions?
15:03:49 <BobBall> so the link to XenAPI is that we've currently got the rootwrap to proxy ovs-ofctl commands through to dom0
15:03:53 <BobBall> But we'll get on to that later :)
15:04:13 <johnthetubaguy> yamamoto: sounds cool, thanks for the intro
15:04:15 <BobBall> #topic Bugs / QA
15:04:32 <BobBall> The CI hit the swift configuration bug this week so suffered a 4-day outage
15:04:35 <BobBall> but that's all fixed now
15:04:50 <BobBall> Still seeing the lower-than-usual pass rate for the shelving tests
15:04:56 <BobBall> I don't suppose you've heard any more on that johnthetubaguy?
15:04:57 <johnthetubaguy> yamamoto: I am a principle engineer working on Rackspace's public cloud, good to meet you :)
15:05:14 <BobBall> Yes... I should have introduced myself too... Sorry!
15:05:16 <johnthetubaguy> BobBall: nothing obvious, we don't use the feature though
15:05:39 <BobBall> I'm with Citrix in the XenServer team and I manage our OpenStack efforts
15:05:52 <BobBall> Ah yes, I'd forgotten you don't use shelve
15:05:54 <johnthetubaguy> yamamoto: oh, and Rackspace Public Cloud is mostly using XenServer for the servers, hence I am here
15:05:57 <BobBall> which is why it's not a priority for you :)
15:06:10 <johnthetubaguy> BobBall: ironically we added it, but thats a long story
15:06:20 <BobBall> Understood.
15:06:25 <yamamoto> nice to meet you johnthetubaguy and BobBall!
15:06:40 <BobBall> Anyway - that reminded me of a (side) question johnthetubaguy - is there a way to live migrate a VM between RAX regions?
15:07:07 <johnthetubaguy> nope, you can't migrate between cells in the same region, live or not, due to IP constraints
15:07:18 <BobBall> Ah ok
15:07:25 <johnthetubaguy> you can snapshot, export, then import though, I think
15:07:45 <BobBall> It's a good reason not to allow it
15:07:47 <BobBall> Anyway - moving on.
15:07:54 <BobBall> libvirt+xen CI is making good progress
15:08:04 <BobBall> You may have seen that today a couple of nova fixes went in
15:08:24 <BobBall> With those fixes, and a latest libvirt (compiled from source currently) then all tempest tests pass
15:08:24 <johnthetubaguy> Is it still mostly suse folks working on that?
15:08:31 <BobBall> No - Citrix is working on it too
15:08:50 <johnthetubaguy> cool, do you plan a test framework for that?
15:09:06 <BobBall> I'm in the process of trying to set up a zuul+jenkins+etc for it
15:09:28 <BobBall> then hopefully my efforts will meet in the middle with the xen.org folk who are working on the tests + libvirt support from the ground up
15:09:55 <BobBall> I'm expecting that by the next meeting (fortnight from today) we'll have the infrastructure set up
15:10:04 <BobBall> probably won't be running the jobs but it'll be running a no-op
15:10:45 <johnthetubaguy> cool, glad to see a ray of light there
15:10:47 <BobBall> Aim is to have a voting CI in a couple of months (trying to be realistic here - might arrive before that)
15:11:05 <johnthetubaguy> end of kilo sounds like a good goal post, but understood
15:11:08 <BobBall> OK, not sure there is anything else on that unless there are questions?
15:11:18 <johnthetubaguy> I am good
15:11:28 <BobBall> #topic Xen-rootwrap
15:11:38 <BobBall> yamamoto: Since you added this to the agenda, do you want to lead?
15:11:42 <BobBall> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/XenAPI
15:11:49 <yamamoto> sure
15:11:59 <BobBall> (yamamoto did add some items to the page above - hence the link johnthetubaguy)
15:12:21 <yamamoto> there are a couple of neutron blueprints which likely involve xen-rootwrap
15:13:14 <yamamoto> i want to ask opinions from you folks familiar with xenapi
15:13:30 <BobBall> So this is https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/ovs-ofctl-to-python
15:13:36 <BobBall> Still due to hit in K-3?
15:14:03 <yamamoto> i'm not sure if it can as it's low-priority bp
15:14:15 <yamamoto> but i'm actively working on it currently
15:14:45 <BobBall> OK - so is your current view is that code will be ready but reviewers may not have bandwidth to give feedback / approve
15:14:55 <yamamoto> exactly
15:15:10 <yamamoto> except xenapi part which i'm still not sure how to deal with
15:15:29 <BobBall> Will there be any remoting capabilities?
15:15:34 <johnthetubaguy> right, you say "proxies OpenFlow channel between domains"
15:15:40 <johnthetubaguy> what does that mean?
15:15:47 <yamamoto> let me confirm my understanding of the current mechansim first
15:15:56 <BobBall> For XenServer the OVS is in domain 0 but Neutron is running in a vitual machine
15:16:02 <yamamoto> neutron/plugins/openvswitch/agent/xenapi is dom0 side
15:16:07 <yamamoto> and xen-rootwrap is domu side
15:16:10 <BobBall> yes
15:16:19 <yamamoto> and they communicate via xenapi "transport"
15:16:27 <BobBall> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/matelakat/shared/xs-q-v1/xenserver-quantum/deployment.png might be useful
15:16:49 <BobBall> Lines from q-agt to xapiY and xapiX bridges are just using dom0-rootwrap script to modify the OVS in dom0
15:16:58 <BobBall> Lines around q-domua are actual connections made by XAPI and the OVS
15:17:07 <yamamoto> good figure.  thank you
15:17:42 <BobBall> That figure is mostly relevant in the devstack case as both neutron and compute are in the same VM
15:18:17 <johnthetubaguy> well you need a neutron agent on every compute host right, so that bit stays
15:18:18 <yamamoto> my bp is incompatible with the current mechanism because it stops using ovs-ofctl command and thus xen-rootrwap
15:18:31 <BobBall> § If we were to deploy in two VMs the q-agt is needed in the Compute node but q-domua is needed in the Network node.
15:18:39 <johnthetubaguy> yeah, your python bindings, do they talk to a C lib?
15:18:54 <BobBall> or directly to the OVS?
15:19:18 <yamamoto> the python binding (ryu ofproto lib) is pure python library speaking openflow protocol
15:19:34 <yamamoto> over pure tcp socket (or tls)
15:19:37 <BobBall> So we could (in theory?) open the openflow port on the xenserver hsot
15:19:42 <johnthetubaguy> ah, so it talks over the network interface? thats not so bad
15:19:43 <BobBall> and get your library to talk directly to it?
15:20:18 <yamamoto> the plan is make ovs connect to my controller embedded in ovs-agent
15:20:32 <johnthetubaguy> BobBall: or use an internal host local network?
15:20:51 <BobBall> HIMN is an option, but it caused issues for quite a few things...
15:21:07 <yamamoto> HIMN?
15:21:10 <BobBall> hmmmm - hang on - do we have a single neutron node for every host?
15:21:21 <johnthetubaguy> a single agent for every node
15:21:24 <BobBall> himn = host internal management network.  One that allows TCP traffic between VMs and the host
15:21:41 <BobBall> OK - but you can have multiple agents in one neutron VM?
15:21:43 <yamamoto> ovs-agent runs on every compute/network nodes
15:21:50 <johnthetubaguy> right
15:21:59 <johnthetubaguy> its 1 agent per OVS instance
15:22:05 <yamamoto> yes
15:22:17 <BobBall> So we can't use HIMN as the neutron VM may not be located on the hypervisor
15:22:25 <yamamoto> my bp makes OVS-agent have an openflow controller embedded
15:22:58 <yamamoto> and make ovs connect to the controller via
15:23:32 <BobBall> The whole point of the xen-rootwrap script is to proxy the commands from the Neutron node to the XenServer host - if we're using a controller we can easily set up the xenserver host to connect to that over TCP rather than the commands being proxied
15:23:39 <yamamoto> so for xen integration, i need a way to make dom0's ovs connect to domu's openflow controller
15:23:48 <BobBall> So I think that this BP makes life a _lot_ easier?
15:23:49 <BobBall> Yes
15:24:08 <yamamoto> is dom0 and domu ip-reachable?
15:24:19 <johnthetubaguy> right, its just a case of getting the networking configured correctly, which is a bit tricky in the general case
15:24:25 <BobBall> They will need to be for this to work, yes.  Just a restriction on the deployment architecture
15:24:37 <BobBall> Currently they have to be anyway
15:24:41 <BobBall> because the XAPI commands go over IP
15:25:01 <yamamoto> ah i didn't know that
15:25:01 <johnthetubaguy> right, its the same interface, I forgot that, its just a pain to configure
15:25:22 <BobBall> So we need a plugin for XAPI that will set the OVS controller for a given bridge
15:25:43 <yamamoto> so can i assume ip reachability?
15:25:47 <BobBall> and we need Neutron to call that plugin when it sets up the agent?
15:25:50 <BobBall> yes yamamoto
15:25:56 <yamamoto> it can be done with the current mechanism using ovs-vsctl
15:26:07 <johnthetubaguy> right, makes sense
15:26:25 <BobBall> perhaps yamamoto - but I'd much rather the "rootwrap" were more restrictive.  We don't need to run much as root, just setting the bridge.
15:26:43 <BobBall> But you're right, first pass, keep the current mechanism and just set the controller
15:26:55 <BobBall> then we can deprecate the rootwrap script and put in something more restrictive
15:27:18 <johnthetubaguy> ah, I see where you are going, but you can do that second
15:27:32 <yamamoto> can we assume domu -> dom0 connectivity too
15:27:35 <johnthetubaguy> yes
15:27:37 <yamamoto> can we assume domu -> dom0 connectivity too?
15:27:48 <BobBall> Call it neutron-node -> dom0
15:27:57 <yamamoto> it will likely be necessary for terry's bp
15:28:04 <johnthetubaguy> its required for the xenapi <-> nova, but BobBall is right, call it neutron-node, so it can be off box
15:28:07 <BobBall> domU is "any domain on this host" and the neutron-node doesn't have to be on the host.
15:28:29 <yamamoto> ok
15:29:07 <BobBall> But yes - I think that's an absolute requirement for Neutron
15:29:15 <johnthetubaguy> distraction, but do you plan on making nova-compute work better when its on a different host to the hypervisor (I am thinking about the disk formatting code)?
15:29:27 <BobBall> surely that has to tbe the case with any hypervisor that neutron is setting up the network for?
15:30:10 <johnthetubaguy> BobBall: the usual case is being on the same linux box, with access to unix sockets and localhost right, so its a slightly different trade off
15:30:13 <BobBall> Long term plan, yes john - but no changes expected very short term
15:30:23 <johnthetubaguy> well, not trade off, more definition
15:30:26 <BobBall> But that's running a neutron-node on every host
15:30:31 <johnthetubaguy> BobBall: ack
15:30:36 <BobBall> not just an agent for each host
15:30:38 <johnthetubaguy> (same here)
15:31:03 <BobBall> OOI does RAX run the neutron node on each hypervisor?
15:31:05 <johnthetubaguy> oh wait, I see where you are heading, I thought this was the agent that had the controller on it?
15:31:24 <BobBall> oh yes - I think that's what yamamoto said - I was getting confused.
15:31:49 <yamamoto> which ip address is appropriate to use for my openflow controller?  is it currently known to ovs-agent?
15:31:50 <johnthetubaguy> rackspace uses udev rules in the hypervisor to configure OVS, to avoid needing an agent, currently using xenstore as a backchannel to send the config, working on replacing that with Redis
15:32:07 <BobBall> ok
15:32:24 <BobBall> I'm not certain yamamoto but I think it must be
15:32:41 <BobBall> I don't know how else xen-rootwrap would contact the hypervisor
15:32:45 <johnthetubaguy> yamamoto: I think its a new config, or its a config the same config we already use for the rootwrap thing, if thats possible
15:32:45 <BobBall> yes - it must be
15:33:16 <yamamoto> introducing a new config for ovs-agent is appropriate?
15:33:36 <johnthetubaguy> it can be a setting thats specific to your plugin, I think thats quite normal
15:33:45 <johnthetubaguy> but the neutron experts might shoot me down
15:33:46 <yamamoto> the rootwrap thing has neutron-node side ip address config?
15:34:19 <yamamoto> (xenapi transport is a magic to me)
15:34:27 <BobBall> just checking
15:34:43 <BobBall> iniset $Q_RR_CONF_FILE xenapi xenapi_connection_url "$XENAPI_CONNECTION_URL"
15:34:46 <BobBall> yes
15:34:56 <johnthetubaguy> xenapi is just a http web service that runs in dom0 that the nova-compute VM talks to
15:35:18 <yamamoto> BobBall: it is dom0 address right?
15:35:23 <BobBall> yes yamamoto
15:35:43 <yamamoto> what i need is a neutron node address to listen for openflow connection
15:36:09 <BobBall> doesn't the agent have to run _on_ the neutron-node itself?
15:36:28 <yamamoto> yes
15:36:39 <BobBall> So the neutron-node address is just localhost's ip?
15:37:00 <yamamoto> but it might have multiple addresses etc
15:37:07 <BobBall> True
15:37:28 <yamamoto> i can introduce a new config but if there's an existing one i want to know
15:37:36 <BobBall> Personally I think that you should have a generic config for the controller IP which just happens to default to
15:37:46 <BobBall> Ah - I don't know if there is one *not a Neutron expert*
15:38:12 <yamamoto> but you are xenapi expert
15:38:21 <BobBall> yes :)
15:38:43 <BobBall> So the neutron node runs in a VM - but which IP you want to listen on for the controller in the neutron-node isn't a XenAPI question
15:39:31 <yamamoto> which ip to use to connect to dom0 is a xenapi question isn't it?
15:39:50 <BobBall> Connecting to dom0 goes through the above $XENAPI_CONNECTION_URL
15:40:06 <BobBall> but connecting back _from_ dom0 to the neutron-node's OVS controller is a different question
15:40:42 <BobBall> So we're currently saying you use the connecfrom from neutron-node --> dom0 once only to set up the controller in dom0?
15:40:45 <yamamoto> ok then no explicit "src ip" config exists?
15:41:12 <johnthetubaguy> yeah, no traffic is going that way right now, as far as I remember
15:41:38 <yamamoto> got it thank you
15:41:41 <BobBall> But I think that you'll need that for the generic case too (unless you only care about neutron-node on-hypervisor)
15:42:16 <yamamoto> your ci mentioned earlier will cover neutron?
15:43:14 <BobBall> So... This is an interesting point...
15:43:20 <BobBall> With a very long answer
15:43:39 <BobBall> Currently we have a XenAPI CI that uses nova-network that votes on jobs
15:43:53 <BobBall> We also have an experimental internal XenAPI CI that's trying to run against Neutron jobs
15:44:06 <BobBall> but we're experiencing a non-trivial number of failures at the moment which we're trying to debug
15:44:19 <BobBall> we think there is a race condition somewhere and we've not been able to track it down yet
15:44:32 <BobBall> Until that's sorted it's clearly of very limited use to expose that.
15:44:59 <BobBall> The libvirt+xen CI discussed earlier will hopefully be running on Neutron from the start, but it will not be using the rootwrap method as that is specific to XenAPI
15:45:59 <BobBall> Frustratingly my team has also been hit by some high turnover recently so there will be a period of time to get new team members up to speed
15:46:01 <johnthetubaguy> BobBall: I think I can tell you what that race condition might be, but lets leave that till open discussion
15:46:49 <yamamoto> xenapi ~= xcp/xenserver ?
15:46:50 <BobBall> As far as I've seen the efforts to improve the Neutron (OVS) + XenAPI integration are limited to citrix and while many people want it it's something that we have to resource to fix it etc
15:46:55 <BobBall> yes yamamoto
15:47:34 <johnthetubaguy> BobBall: we hope to get quark upstream soon, at least I hope to get it more upstream, given the new neutron model
15:47:52 <BobBall> fantabulous
15:48:13 <yamamoto> what's quark?
15:48:15 <BobBall> Perhaps we can talk about defaulting to quark rather than OVS - but currently we have to focus on something that's upstream
15:48:50 <BobBall> As I understand it, Quark makes use of XenAPI to push the rules down into dom0 rather than OVS with the rootwrap
15:50:15 <johnthetubaguy> yep, basically
15:50:28 <johnthetubaguy> quark uses OVS, but yes, thats miles down the line
15:50:29 <yamamoto> https://github.com/rackerlabs/quark  this one?
15:50:49 <johnthetubaguy> yamamoto: possibly, its probably out of date
15:50:52 <BobBall> As far as neutron is concerned OVS isn't involved though, correct?
15:51:07 <johnthetubaguy> yamamoto: I take that back, thats quite up to date
15:51:33 <johnthetubaguy> BobBall: erm, neutron uses a non ML2 plugin, put it that way
15:52:24 <BobBall> OK
15:54:00 <BobBall> But for now I think that quark is a different question
15:55:05 <BobBall> Have we covered the xen-rootwrap topic sufficiently yamamoto or are ther emore questions?
15:55:13 <johnthetubaguy> yep, it should be
15:55:14 <yamamoto> thank you for having a discussion.  it seems easier than i thought.
15:55:21 <yamamoto> let's move on
15:55:25 <BobBall> fingers crossed it makes all our lives easier!
15:55:34 <johnthetubaguy> looks really promising, good stuff
15:55:41 <BobBall> #topic Open Discussion
15:55:54 <johnthetubaguy> so you have some races in the neutron CI
15:56:00 <BobBall> We do indeed
15:56:01 <johnthetubaguy> have you seen the code libvirt has to avoid those?
15:56:09 <BobBall> probably not
15:56:19 * johnthetubaguy goes to find the link
15:56:30 * BobBall crosses his fingers
15:57:24 <johnthetubaguy> https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py#L4251
15:57:38 <johnthetubaguy> you start the domain paused, then you wait for neutron to get everything wired up
15:57:45 <johnthetubaguy> then you start the domain
15:58:04 <johnthetubaguy> otherwise, its very… race-ey
15:58:10 <BobBall> Ah I see
15:58:38 * BobBall makes a note of that
15:58:42 <BobBall> I'll look into that approach
15:59:00 <BobBall> Is that not racy for nova-network too?
15:59:12 <johnthetubaguy> given how the udev scripts work, we kinda side step that issue, at least 90% of it
15:59:45 <johnthetubaguy> nova-network doesn't do that stuff right, it just creates a VIF on a VLAN or not, there is no async agent doing configuration stuff
16:00:08 <BobBall> *nod*
16:00:18 <BobBall> I've not seen this before...
16:00:20 <BobBall> My head hurts
16:00:23 <BobBall> What does it mean?
16:00:25 <BobBall> launch_flags = events and libvirt.VIR_DOMAIN_START_PAUSED or 0
16:00:34 <BobBall> int1 and intb or 0
16:00:43 <BobBall> surely the or 0 is useless?
16:01:20 <johnthetubaguy> duno
16:01:26 <johnthetubaguy> not read through that
16:01:26 <BobBall> ah - events is a list not an int
16:01:31 <johnthetubaguy> but we are out of time
16:01:31 <BobBall> wow - I wonder what that does
16:01:32 <flip214> I guess that a "False" gets translated to a 0
16:01:45 <BobBall> We are
16:01:48 <johnthetubaguy> BobBall: it basically is waiting for a REST call from neutron to say its done
16:01:58 <BobBall> I see
16:02:13 <BobBall> yes flip214 - but it seems that events is a list
16:02:14 <yamamoto> and-or is a confusing way to write if-else
16:02:55 <BobBall> ah ok - so it's saying "events if VIR_DOMAIN_START_PAUSED is set, otherwise launch_flags will be 0"
16:03:15 <BobBall> *confused*
16:03:16 <BobBall> anyway
16:03:17 <BobBall> johnthetubaguy: is right
16:03:19 <BobBall> we're out of time
16:03:24 <BobBall> So thanks all
16:03:28 <BobBall> Next meeting is in a fortnight
16:03:38 <BobBall> #nextmeeting 18th Februar
16:03:40 <BobBall> +t
16:03:41 <BobBall> +y
16:03:45 <BobBall> is #nextmeeting not a thing?
16:03:54 <BobBall> Anyway - see everyone on the 18th!
16:03:58 <johnthetubaguy> thanks
16:03:59 <BobBall> #endmeeting