22:00:17 #startmeeting containers 22:00:17 Meeting started Tue Dec 2 22:00:17 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is adrian_otto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 22:00:18 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 22:00:21 The meeting name has been set to 'containers' 22:00:56 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Containers Our Agenda 22:01:03 #topic Roll Call 22:01:07 Adrian Otto 22:02:06 Yuanying Otsuka 22:02:15 Dmitry Guryanov 22:03:55 welcome 22:04:59 based on attendance, it seems this meeting time is less popular than 1600 UTC 22:05:00 yo 22:05:19 hi sdake. Thanks for leading us last week. 22:05:24 adrian_otto no problem 22:05:32 adiran_otto ya this is so late in the day for the east and some west coasters 22:05:39 hey 22:06:11 adrian_otto not sure if you had a chance to read the logs from last week, but we set a deadline of the19th for milestone #1 22:06:15 whatever that may be ;-) 22:06:31 how many of us are joining from India, or East Asia, or Australia? 22:07:01 sdake: excllent 22:07:11 I'm Japanease 22:07:54 So, good morning. 22:07:56 yuanying_: so this is like 7am your time 22:08:21 ok, let's get going 22:08:32 * dims made it back 22:08:44 were there action items to cover from last week? 22:08:51 no 22:09:07 ok, I see that 22:09:25 so I carried forward our previous agenda 22:09:31 there we had : 22:09:34 #topic Open discussion on initial architecture 22:09:43 do we need more discussion on this? 22:09:53 I think we covered that pretty well last meeting 22:10:00 #topic Blueprints 22:10:03 although I have started on versioned objects support 22:10:13 which we hadn't originally thought of using 22:10:13 are there blueprints to review / update as a group? 22:10:31 sdake: why did we think we might not need it? 22:10:44 asalklked told me about it last night 22:10:49 so I ported our code to it 22:10:55 ok, sweet 22:11:00 (its from nova/ironic, going to oslo-incubator) 22:11:00 hopefully that was not a hard port. 22:11:06 15 patches 22:11:11 not passing gate yet 22:11:14 sounds like a lot ;-) 22:11:16 but works in local environment 22:11:57 ok, so let's have a look in LP for milestones and associated BPs 22:12:30 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum Blueprint List 22:12:49 is Slower here today? 22:13:22 it looks like all the milestone 1 BP's are assigned to owners 22:13:31 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/milestone-1 22:13:39 I think we need to move https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/implement-magnum-bays into milestone 1 22:13:41 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/milestone-1 Milestone 1 Blueprints 22:13:44 since that is the first feature i'll be working on 22:13:46 and i'll own it 22:13:55 ok, proceed 22:14:26 should we look for status on the Essential ones? 22:14:59 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/magnum-api-service-containers 22:15:04 that is marked as not started 22:15:41 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/magnum-api-service 22:15:52 seem to overlap? 22:15:59 same blueprint i think 22:16:08 a bunch of people are working on it at once 22:16:21 it doesn't have one owner 22:16:22 ok, so any need to merge these? 22:16:31 yup makes sense 22:16:57 oh wait 22:17:06 service-containers is a breakout of the top level container 22:17:09 so should be a dpeendency 22:17:15 we also have another pretty important one that is also marked as not started: 22:17:17 #Link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/magnum-backend-docker-api 22:17:28 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/magnum-backend-docker-api 22:17:38 adrian_otto to do any of the backends, we have been blocked on RPC 22:17:39 adrian_otto: waiting for the current series from sdake to merge 22:17:44 that was unblocked Monday 22:17:58 then I reblocked it with the versioned objects patch stream 22:18:09 ok, fair enough. 22:18:38 so sdake, when that's working, you'll ping any devs who are queued behind that work? 22:18:51 well I guess they can ping me if they need 22:18:57 what we need are reviews on the open patch stream 22:19:00 for the patches that are passing 22:19:04 all the patches are "done" 22:19:10 they just have minor nitpicks with the gate 22:19:16 so a full review by a couple folks would be helpful 22:19:27 ok, I'll plan to chip in and help with that 22:19:32 cool 22:20:11 sdake: you ok with say me fixing some of the gate stuff? 22:20:14 any trouble with things outside our code, such as help needed from members of other projects? 22:20:21 dims i'm going as fast as the gate can go ;-) 22:20:29 sdake: ack :) 22:20:41 unfortunately my pep8 produces different results then the gate 22:20:56 i could use help on the test cases in the last few patches 22:21:06 I am likley going to comment them out just to unblock us 22:21:06 sdake: aha. i can help with that 22:21:08 and then fix later 22:21:21 #topic Open Discussion 22:21:55 after the versioned objects patch is in 22:22:02 we need the backend rpc server written 22:22:05 anyone interested in tackling that? 22:22:15 should probably be a new blueprint 22:22:20 +1 22:22:35 i'll file a blueprint after the meeting 22:22:45 tx sdake 22:24:02 cool four more patches passing the gate 22:24:11 I think atm our ciritcal need is to get versioned objects merged 22:24:38 please submit a pass of reviews today if possible, and I'll address comments when I return from dinner 22:24:49 since version objects is blocking everything 22:24:58 ack 22:25:24 how have our reviewers been working together? 22:25:38 are the -1 votes producing meaningful improvements in the code? 22:25:51 -1 seems to be improving the code 22:25:58 seems like folks aren't requireing test cases yet 22:26:00 which is good and bad 22:26:06 I'd suggest we start enforcing test cases sshortly 22:26:11 probably once we get the rpc backend w ritten 22:26:16 ok, so I'm happy with allowing that at this early stage under one condition 22:26:23 that we file a bug marked as tech debt 22:26:41 so that we have a full accounting of where to come back and solve it later 22:27:07 wfm 22:27:26 ok, everyone here knows how to file bugs in LP, right? If not, see me, I will help. 22:28:30 ok, sounds like our remaining time would be best spent reviewing: 22:28:36 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+magnum,n,z Magnum Reviews 22:29:44 anything else to cover today? If not let's close early and focus on reviewing. 22:30:38 thanks all for attending. 22:30:50 I had a q 22:30:52 about the spec 22:30:55 ok 22:31:25 #link https://review.openstack.org/136103 22:31:38 last time about 10 folks voted to make magnum a wrapper ove rdocker+k8s 22:31:50 but that spec isn't in alignment 22:32:05 since this is a different group, wanted to make sure folks were aware of that 22:32:35 #link https://github.com/stackforge/magnum/blob/master/README.rst 22:33:20 ok 22:34:10 one consideration is if this project wants to become integrated, will there be any bias against k8s as a dependency 22:34:27 ya unclear to me - nova depends on libvirt, neutron depends on openvwitch 22:34:37 seems like big major dependencies are ok 22:34:48 good point 22:35:16 one cool thing is we can automate the launching of k8s in bays 22:35:19 via virt or bare metal 22:35:21 What about docker backend? 22:35:30 If someone wants to use only docker 22:35:32 so the part of the spec that conflicts with the k8s approach would be the intent to use gantt as a scheduler? 22:35:46 I'm not sure there is conflict 22:35:52 Just that it may need to be updated 22:36:12 duryanov|2 then yo uwouldn't be able to use the services/pods abstraction 22:36:14 ok, we can revise the spec to confirm with the adjusted intent 22:36:56 I thought pods will be implemented in magnum 22:37:05 sdake: there are new features coming in Docker that we should be aware of… getting you a few links to PRs… 22:37:12 Are there any documents, describing architecture? 22:37:23 docker may implement pods natively 22:37:38 then there is rocket to deal with as well ;-) 22:38:06 yes, which might actually be a better fit for Magnum 22:38:14 Is it possible to implement pods in magnum-backend-docker? 22:38:26 #link https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/8681 (Docker) Proposal: Host management #8681 22:38:34 dgur possible but difficult 22:38:42 essentially you would have to reimplement k8s 22:38:45 #link https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/8859 Docker Clustering: Design proposal. #8859 22:39:34 #link https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/8637 (Docker) Proposal: Container groups #8637 22:39:50 ok, those are the three that I wanted to point out that may be informative for us 22:40:05 Thanks! 22:40:20 the Host Management feature could be paired with an openstack driver to interact with Nova 22:40:34 which would give API/CLI access to add instances 22:41:06 the Clustering Design is a partial re-implementation of k8s, with existing POC code that (although requested) I don't think has been released 22:42:53 How will magnum interact with other openstack services, glance, cinder, neutron, heat? 22:43:43 but there is a video of it… 22:43:57 #link https://docker.com/community/globalhackday October 31st video of demos from Docker Global Hackday 22:44:12 it's the last demo in a set of three I think 22:45:19 humm that link is not the same as when I first saved it 22:46:41 cluster demo? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtnSL79rZ6o 22:47:14 #link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZGmvGw-mWc&feature=youtu.be Host Management Demo Video (edited) from Oct 31st Docker Global Hackday 22:47:28 dims, bingo. 22:47:49 #link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtnSL79rZ6o Docker Cluster demo from Oct 31st 22:48:03 ok, so that's some food for thought 22:48:57 so should I take an action to revise the spec, sdake? 22:49:16 or should we consider additional alternatives first? 22:49:39 not sure 22:49:47 pretty early days, I hate to make it permanent 22:49:48 ;-) 22:50:02 my gut says let's experiment with k8s now 22:50:16 agree 22:50:17 and let's iterate from there 22:50:34 and keep an eye on the other options as they progress 22:51:11 the composable nature of Rocket is really attractive 22:51:45 so I'm interested in having a much closer look at that too 22:54:49 ok, let's wrap up 22:55:00 thanks for attending everyone. 22:55:05 #endmeeting