03:00:05 <hongbin> #startmeeting zun
03:00:06 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jul 18 03:00:05 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is hongbin. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
03:00:07 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
03:00:09 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'zun'
03:00:10 <hongbin> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Zun#Agenda_for_2017-07-18_0300_UTC Today's agenda
03:00:15 <hongbin> #topic Roll Call
03:00:26 <Namrata> Namrata
03:00:42 <mkrai> Madhuri
03:00:54 <kevinz> kevinz
03:01:28 <hongbin> thanks for joining the meeting Namrata mkrai kevinz
03:02:03 <hongbin> ok, let's get started, potentially a short meeting
03:02:07 <hongbin> #topic Announcements
03:02:14 <hongbin> 1. No meeting at 2017-07-25 due to OpenStack Days China.
03:02:20 <hongbin> #link http://openstackdaychina.org/
03:02:29 <hongbin> 2. New BPs created
03:02:35 <hongbin> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/zun/+spec/show-container-engine-info Introduce an API to show container engine info
03:02:51 <hongbin> that is all the announcement from my side
03:03:17 <hongbin> any comment?
03:03:41 <hongbin> seems no
03:03:43 <mkrai> hongbin: I wanted to know what this BP about
03:03:50 <hongbin> mkrai: sure
03:03:55 <mkrai> I think we can take it in open discussion
03:04:01 <mkrai> Need time to read it
03:04:15 <hongbin> i remembered i created this bp based on a question from ML
03:04:27 <mkrai> yes I also read that email
03:04:37 <hongbin> ok
03:04:54 <hongbin> any other comment?
03:05:13 <hongbin> ok, next topic
03:05:15 <hongbin> #topic Cinder integration
03:05:42 <hongbin> i didn't have time to work on this one recently, due to openstack day china preparation
03:05:55 <hongbin> i will get back to this after the event
03:06:14 <hongbin> i am planning to move to the new cinder attachment workflow
03:06:46 <hongbin> which is hte new attachment workflow that nova is switching to it
03:07:07 <mkrai> What is it?
03:07:13 <mkrai> Is there any spec for it in Nova?
03:07:27 <hongbin> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/330285/
03:07:48 <hongbin> the implementation will be something like above patch
03:08:14 <hongbin> i believe there is a spec, but couldn't find it at the monent
03:08:17 <mkrai> I am not sure what the change is about but its always good to go with the latest changes
03:08:31 <hongbin> ack
03:09:00 <hongbin> any other comment before going to the next topic?
03:09:08 <mkrai> no
03:09:14 <hongbin> #topic Introduce container composition (kevinz)
03:09:22 <kevinz> hi all
03:09:22 <hongbin> kevinz: ^^
03:09:44 <kevinz> I've split the patch of zun capsule to several patch
03:10:00 <kevinz> support capsule create, list ,describe and delete
03:10:32 <hongbin> cool
03:10:39 <kevinz> I find that the image searching and image load will cost a little long time
03:11:23 <hongbin> how long?
03:12:19 <kevinz> It feels like half of time will be cost by image load and search
03:12:54 <hongbin> image searching is for validation only
03:13:12 <kevinz> The time of capsule creation will cost 10s I find
03:13:14 <hongbin> if performance is suboptimal, we could figure out a way to disable it
03:13:23 <hongbin> i see
03:13:32 <mkrai> 10s is long time
03:13:46 <mkrai> Yes we can disable the image validation
03:14:12 <kevinz> OK that's good news
03:14:52 <kevinz> where to disable it? by configuration?
03:14:54 <hongbin> for image loading, i think it might be possible to check if an image is already loaded, before loading hte new image
03:15:24 <hongbin> however, it will miss if there is a new image available at docker hub
03:15:26 <mkrai> no there is no such config now kevinz
03:16:09 <mkrai> hongbin:  i think we are talking about the image validation at the api layer
03:16:18 <mkrai> isn't it?
03:16:44 <hongbin> mkrai: yes, sorry, i commented on the loading , which is too fast
03:16:53 <hongbin> ok, back to the api validation
03:17:05 <mkrai> hongbin: np :)
03:17:23 <hongbin> yes, a config will work
03:17:46 <mkrai> hongbin: I am think how about removing it?
03:17:53 <hongbin> an alternative approach is introducing a option like: zun run --no-validation nginx
03:18:22 <mkrai> let it fail after returning the call, if image is not foung
03:19:02 <hongbin> mkrai: then, users have to do another api call to check if hte container was failing
03:19:32 <mkrai> hongbin: yes the same way it is done for another failures
03:19:40 <mkrai> #link https://github.com/openstack/zun/blob/master/zun/api/controllers/v1/containers.py#L239
03:20:11 <mkrai> Because the image searching is a heavy operation and it blocks the api server
03:20:37 <mkrai> Irony is I added this support if I remember correctly ;)
03:21:07 <hongbin> from user experience point of view, this validation is good for fail earlier
03:21:22 <hongbin> however, if it is too heavy, i am ok to remove it
03:21:36 <mkrai> Yes I agree to that part but we can't underestimate the time consumption
03:21:54 <mkrai> I think its better to add a config. WDYT?
03:22:07 <hongbin> yes, that will work as well
03:22:48 <mkrai> kevinz: hongbin I can post a patch for that if you want
03:23:22 <hongbin> mkrai: sure, np from me
03:23:33 <kevinz> mkrai: Thanks
03:23:44 <mkrai> hongbin: Ok what should be the default value?
03:23:54 <mkrai> validation or no validation?
03:24:10 <hongbin> mkrai: i voted for validation by default
03:24:34 <kevinz> +1
03:24:34 <mkrai> Ok agree
03:24:36 <mkrai> hongbin: Can you note a AI for this?
03:24:49 <hongbin> sure
03:25:09 <mkrai> hongbin: Thanks
03:25:29 <hongbin> #action mkrai works on a patch to make image validation configurable
03:25:50 <hongbin> ok, then let's talk about image loading
03:25:58 <kevinz> OK
03:26:18 <hongbin> i think a solution is to load the image only if it is not loaded
03:26:46 <mkrai> We might miss the latest image
03:27:06 <hongbin> yes, that is the drawback
03:27:06 <mkrai> I think this can also be made configurable
03:27:19 <mkrai> whether user wants to use the existing image or the latest image always
03:28:03 <hongbin> yes, i believe a config will work
03:28:36 <hongbin> i was thinking to extend the --image-pull-policy to determine if the image should be loaded
03:28:43 <hongbin> which is another option
03:28:52 <mkrai> yeah that is also an option
03:29:01 <mkrai> in that case we might not need the new config
03:29:17 <mkrai> I actually forgot the image_pull_policy
03:29:58 <hongbin> for loading, this would be image_load_policy, or combine these two option, would be image_policy
03:31:10 <kevinz> I think it is a good solution
03:31:38 <hongbin> ok
03:32:06 <mkrai> Wouldn't the image_pull_policy be enough? I can't think of the use case of both in broader term now
03:32:33 <hongbin> i see
03:32:54 <hongbin> then, load the image only if the image is pulled?
03:33:05 <mkrai> yes
03:33:11 <mkrai> exactly
03:33:13 <hongbin> sound reasonable
03:33:17 <kiennt_> mkrai: +1, the image_pull_policy is good enough (sorry if i interrupted)
03:33:32 <kevinz> good
03:34:02 <hongbin> is anything change we need to make?
03:34:13 <mkrai> I think no
03:34:45 <hongbin> kiennt_: hey, thanks for joining hte meeting
03:35:05 <hongbin> mkrai: ack, wait for kevinz to confirm
03:35:19 <kiennt_> hongbin: hi, my pleasure.
03:35:45 <kevinz> Actually  I 'm not very clear about the image policy. I will check code to see the procedure
03:36:02 <hongbin> kevinz: ack
03:37:36 <kevinz> for capsule, that's all from me
03:37:51 <hongbin> kevinz: thanks
03:38:14 <kevinz> hongbin: my pleasure
03:38:21 <hongbin> kevinz: i remembered we loaded the image only  if it is pulled from glance
03:38:23 <mkrai> kevinz: thanks
03:38:50 <kevinz> mkrai:my pleasure
03:38:56 <hongbin> kevinz: for docker hub, it is not loaded
03:39:07 <hongbin> kevinz: ok, you could check that after
03:39:14 <kevinz> hongbin: OK, I will try this after the meeing
03:39:41 <hongbin> #topic Open Discussion
03:39:43 <kevinz> thanks hongbin mkrai
03:40:11 <kevinz> hongbin: when will arrive at Beijing?
03:40:23 <hongbin> kevinz: sunday afternoon
03:40:48 <kevinz> hongbin: OK I'm the same
03:41:10 <hongbin> kevinz: i heard beijing is very hot right now
03:41:12 <hongbin> :)
03:41:39 <hongbin> ok, any other topic to discuss?
03:41:57 <kevinz> hongbin: haha, a little, this weekend will be cool
03:42:02 <mkrai> Yes
03:42:16 <mkrai> about the api to show container engine info
03:42:23 <hongbin> mkrai: go ahead
03:42:56 <mkrai> I think we can use the docker info api for each compute node?
03:43:19 <hongbin> mkrai: i think that is possible
03:44:04 <mkrai> Actually I am thinking of how it will be implemented
03:44:10 <mkrai> I will wait for the patch and see
03:44:26 <hongbin> i think it will be similar as nova hypervisor-show
03:44:55 <mkrai> Yes it should be
03:45:12 <hongbin> i saw shunli is taking the bp
03:45:34 <mkrai> Yes ok let's discuss when Shunli is present
03:45:40 <kiennt_> hongbin: I just noticed Shunli's patch set for add volumes_from suppport was abandoned by himself. Why he did that?
03:46:20 <hongbin> kiennt_: he mentioned in the review that this option won't work for mult-host senario
03:46:43 <hongbin> multi-host scenario
03:47:25 <hongbin> for example, if a container in host A, --volume-from container in host B
03:48:19 <hongbin> which is the case that it won't work well
03:49:08 <hongbin> any other topic?
03:49:13 <kiennt_> hongbin: I got it, thank you. I didn't read all comments carefully, my bad.
03:49:28 <hongbin> kiennt_: np
03:49:53 <hongbin> ok, it looks no more question
03:50:20 <hongbin> all, thanks for joining the meeting, remember there is no meeting next week
03:50:26 <hongbin> see you next time
03:50:30 <hongbin> #endmeeting