03:00:17 <hongbin> #startmeeting zun
03:00:18 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jan  3 03:00:17 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is hongbin. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
03:00:19 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
03:00:21 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'zun'
03:00:26 <pksingh> pksingh
03:00:29 <hongbin> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Zun#Agenda_for_2017-01-03_0300_UTC Today's agenda
03:00:34 <hongbin> #topic Roll Call
03:00:35 <Namrata> Namrata
03:00:40 <Wenzhi> Wenzhi
03:00:45 <pksingh> Happy New Year to all
03:00:45 <mkrai> Madhuri Kumari
03:00:49 <kevinz> kevinz
03:01:31 <hongbin> Thanks for joining the meeting pksingh Namrata Wenzhi mkrai kevinz
03:01:38 <hongbin> all, happy new year
03:01:40 <mkrai> Happy New Year all :)
03:01:45 <Wenzhi> happy new year!
03:01:51 <hongbin> #topic Announcements
03:01:59 <hongbin> i have no announcement
03:02:06 <hongbin> anyone else has announcement?
03:02:22 <hongbin> #topic Review Action Items
03:02:27 <hongbin> 1. hongbin start a ML to osc team to discus the name collision issue (DONE)
03:02:33 <hongbin> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-December/109259.html
03:03:03 <hongbin> after discussing with the osc team, we agreed to use the keyword 'appcontainer' to represent a zun container resource
03:03:19 <hongbin> e.g. openestack appcontainer create/delete/....
03:03:37 <hongbin> any comment on this renaming?
03:03:46 <Namrata> thanks hongbin
03:03:54 <Wenzhi> not beautiful, but acceptable :)
03:03:55 <hongbin> p.s. it is renamed on osc only
03:04:09 <mkrai> LGTM
03:04:13 <hongbin> Namrata: np at all
03:04:31 <hongbin> ok, sounds good
03:04:41 <hongbin> #topic Set etcd as the default DB backend (Wenzhi)
03:04:47 <hongbin> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/412756/
03:04:55 <hongbin> Wenzhi: you want to drive this one?
03:05:04 <Wenzhi> sure
03:05:41 <Wenzhi> the code for etcd data model (zun_service, container, image) and etcd db api has already been landed
03:05:51 <Wenzhi> thanks all for help on code review
03:06:14 <Wenzhi> and I already submitted a patch to add a new pipeline to test etcd db backend
03:06:20 <Wenzhi> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/415391/
03:07:15 <Wenzhi> I did some manual tests, and found some bugs in etcd api, I have a WIP patch in hand to fix the bugs
03:07:28 <Wenzhi> will upload for review after the pipeline patch been merged
03:07:32 <mkrai> Wenzhi: What are the rationale to make etcd to default DB?
03:08:16 <mkrai> It will be better to write this in commit message so that reviewers understands the need for it
03:08:17 <Wenzhi> mkrai: we've discussed that in project plan at the very beginning of Zun project
03:08:33 <Wenzhi> the main benefit is that etcd is more fast and flexible
03:08:49 <Wenzhi> mkrai: will do that
03:09:05 <mkrai> I know few of them but it is worth writing in commit message to let others know
03:09:05 <hongbin> Wenzhi: do you have a pointer about the project plan discussion?
03:09:11 <mkrai> Wenzhi: Thanks
03:09:24 <Wenzhi> containers are different from VMs, the states of them changes a lot
03:10:03 <Wenzhi> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/zun-container-state-management
03:10:13 <Wenzhi> hongbin: the link ^^
03:10:19 <hongbin> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/zun-container-state-management
03:11:39 <hongbin> Wenzhi: thx
03:11:53 <Wenzhi> np
03:11:57 <Namrata> I can try to test this feature when Hongbin's multihost patch is landed
03:12:49 <mkrai> that would be great Namrata
03:13:12 <hongbin> Wenzhi: ok, it looks the rational of setting etcd as default is: the container state are changing faster than vm
03:13:23 <Wenzhi> honbin: yes
03:13:47 <hongbin> Wenzhi: this rational seems valid, but not written down in the etherpad though
03:14:12 <Wenzhi> will update the etherpad
03:14:18 <hongbin> then, i wanted to get opinions from others
03:14:29 <mkrai> IMO we can take decision on making it default only when we have tested it well
03:14:38 <mkrai> hongbin: Wenzhi What do you think?
03:14:40 <hongbin> all, what do you think about changing the default db to etcd? good idea? bad idea?
03:14:52 <pksingh> mkrai: +1, i need to think about it
03:14:54 <Wenzhi> mkrai: agreed
03:15:10 <mkrai> Rational seems valid but difficult to say yes now
03:15:18 <hongbin> ok, then we can defer the decision until the etcd backend is well tested
03:15:30 <mkrai> Yes
03:15:35 <pksingh> agree
03:15:38 <Wenzhi> +1
03:15:44 <hongbin> ok, sound good
03:16:03 <hongbin> next topic
03:16:12 <hongbin> #topic Support multi-host deployment (hongbin)
03:16:18 <hongbin> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/zun/+spec/support-multiple-hosts The BP
03:16:23 <hongbin> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/415554/ The patch
03:16:38 <hongbin> i have submitted several patches for this bp
03:17:10 <hongbin> the idea is to implement a simple scheduler, and specify the server in rpc
03:17:33 <hongbin> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/415554/ the wip patch
03:18:11 <hongbin> in before, the zun-api call zun-compute without picking a server
03:18:37 <hongbin> then, the rpc request was sent to the first zun-compute that picked up the message
03:18:59 <hongbin> after the patch, the zun-api will pick a server to send the request
03:19:24 <hongbin> the goal is to make sure the rpc request will send the right host that runs the container
03:19:27 <mkrai> hongbin: What's the filter we are using with this patch?
03:19:28 <hongbin> that is the general idea
03:19:47 <hongbin> mkrai: for scheduling? we didn't use any filter right now
03:19:53 <mkrai> Yes
03:20:04 <hongbin> mkrai: we used a random scheduler, that basically randomly picking a host
03:20:06 <mkrai> So on what basis the compute is choosen?
03:20:23 <hongbin> mkrai: randomly chosen :)
03:20:27 <mkrai> Ok for initial implementation it is fine
03:20:38 <hongbin> yes
03:20:39 <pksingh> we need to extend the scheduler when scheduler bp is implemented , i guess
03:20:48 <Wenzhi> sure thing ^^
03:21:05 <hongbin> yes, that could be a future work
03:21:19 <Wenzhi> agreed
03:21:30 <kevinz> +1
03:21:33 <hongbin> another possibility is to switch to the placement service once it is splitted out from nova
03:22:00 <pksingh> i need to look about placement service
03:22:03 <hongbin> p.s. nova is splitting their scheduler out as a independent placement api
03:22:23 <hongbin> ok
03:22:26 <hongbin> just fyi
03:22:34 <mkrai> that will be best for us
03:22:48 <hongbin> yes, if the placement service is there, we could leverage it
03:22:56 <mkrai> hongbin: is there any link for the discussion?
03:23:32 <hongbin> mkrai: there are several session in hte nova design summit in barcelona
03:23:52 <mkrai> Ok I will look at them
03:23:55 <hongbin> mkrai: i attent some sessions, possibly, there are some etherpads there
03:24:13 <pksingh> hongbin: can we use nova docker driver and our scheduler together, i think no , right?
03:24:57 <hongbin> pksingh: my initial thought is to use force-host option when nova driver is enabled
03:25:34 <hongbin> pksingh: e.g. zun picked a host -> call nova with force-host -> nova creates sandbox in the specified host
03:25:34 <pksingh> hongbin: will it disbale nova scheduler?
03:25:43 <hongbin> pksingh: yes
03:25:52 <pksingh> hongbin: ok seems ok
03:26:06 <hongbin> pksingh: there might be other options to enable nova scheduler, which could be discuss further
03:26:28 <pksingh> ok
03:26:49 <hongbin> any other comment about the multi-host support?
03:27:13 <hongbin> #topic Introduce pod (hongbin)
03:27:19 <hongbin> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/zun/+spec/introduce-pod The BP
03:27:33 <hongbin> i will work on this bp after the multi-host bp is done
03:27:50 <hongbin> however, i am happy to offload the work if you interest to implement this feature
03:27:55 <hongbin> just let me know if you do
03:28:04 <hongbin> comments?
03:28:08 <pksingh> hongbin: i can help
03:28:18 <hongbin> pksingh: ack
03:29:03 <hongbin> pksingh: thx, will work with you later on this one
03:29:12 <hongbin> #topic Support interactive mode (kevinz)
03:29:12 <pksingh> hongbin: sure
03:29:18 <hongbin> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/zun/+spec/support-interactive-mode The BP
03:29:23 <hongbin> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/396841/ The design spec
03:29:28 <hongbin> kevinz: ^^
03:29:42 <kevinz> I'v finished the tty resize function and escape code decode
03:29:43 <kevinz> https://github.com/kevin-zhaoshuai/container-interactive-client
03:30:14 <kevinz> Now working on integration with zun ,
03:30:15 <kevinz> patch will ready this week
03:30:24 <hongbin> awesome!
03:30:46 <pksingh> kevinz: great :)
03:30:50 <hongbin> looking forward to the patch
03:31:19 <kevinz> hongbin: pksingh: OK thanks~ :-)
03:31:32 <hongbin> kevinz: just 2 cents, the first patch doesn't need to be perfect, it could be just a prototype.
03:31:44 <pksingh> agree with hongbin
03:32:06 <kevinz> Yeah, I think so
03:32:11 <hongbin> kevinz: it could help because reviewers could give you earlier feedback based on that
03:32:17 <hongbin> kevinz: ok
03:32:43 <hongbin> kevinz: thanks for your hard work on this one
03:32:57 <kevinz> Good ~ I will firsh implement "zun attach" and then "run" and exec
03:33:14 <hongbin> sound like a good plan
03:33:17 <kevinz> hongbin: My pleasure~ Thanks for your help
03:33:28 <hongbin> np
03:33:40 <hongbin> any other remark on this one?
03:34:01 <kevinz> No more comments now :-)
03:34:23 <hongbin> thanks kevinz
03:34:25 <hongbin> #topic Make Zunclient an OpenStackClient plugin (Namrata)
03:34:30 <hongbin> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/zun/+spec/zun-osc-plugin
03:34:34 <hongbin> Namrata: ^^
03:34:54 <Namrata> I have submitted 4 osc command plugins
03:35:19 <Namrata> and simultaneously working on spec as suggested by stevemar
03:36:08 <hongbin> i see
03:36:17 <Namrata> I will submit the spec this week
03:36:52 <hongbin> Namrata: i think just a simple spec would be enough
03:37:34 <Namrata> okay great.
03:37:48 <hongbin> Namrata: i mean the design of the osc plugin is already clear, no need to spend too much time on the spec
03:37:59 <Namrata> okay
03:38:14 <hongbin> btw, the 4 patches look good
03:38:27 <Namrata> Thanks hongbin
03:38:33 <hongbin> Namrata: thanks for working on this feature
03:38:47 <hongbin> comments from others?
03:39:00 <Namrata> My pleasure.thanks for reviewing
03:39:41 <hongbin> #topic Open Discussion
03:40:07 <hongbin> anyone has additional topic to bring up?
03:40:34 <pksingh> i agree with sudipta view on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/415704/
03:40:44 <pksingh> can we abandon this patch
03:41:10 <mkrai> I think we all have the same thought on this
03:41:17 <hongbin> pksingh: we can ask the contributor to abandon the patch
03:41:29 <pksingh> yes, i agree
03:41:34 <hongbin> +1
03:42:33 <hongbin> any other topic
03:43:02 <hongbin> ok, all, thanks for joining the meeting
03:43:09 <hongbin> #endmeeting