16:00:07 #startmeeting Fuel 16:00:07 Meeting started Thu Oct 9 16:00:07 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is kozhukalov. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:08 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:00:10 The meeting name has been set to 'fuel' 16:00:15 #chair kozhukalov 16:00:17 Current chairs: kozhukalov 16:00:40 agenda as usual 16:00:49 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fuel-weekly-meeting-agenda 16:01:08 who is here? 16:01:15 hi 16:01:17 are we ready to start? 16:01:21 , out of agenda, reminder on schedule 16:01:24 #link , out of agenda, reminder 16:01:28 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Fuel/6.0_Release_Schedule 16:01:34 this link is better, sorry ) 16:01:39 hi 16:01:45 hi 16:01:48 o/ 16:01:49 hi 16:01:50 so we are in an active development phase of 6.0 16:02:11 mihgen: thanx for the link 16:02:15 hi 16:02:41 hi 16:02:47 ok, let's start first topic 16:02:59 #topic New DocImpact process for documentation (holser, bogdando) 16:03:33 holser: bogdando around? 16:03:36 Yes 16:03:37 yes 16:03:46 okey 16:03:56 we aligned our process to OpenStack 16:04:02 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Fuel/How_to_contribute#Documentation 16:04:26 so every reviewer should control the patchset 16:04:27 hi to all 16:04:47 irina_pov: hi 16:04:48 holser: that's great, thanks for pushing this forward and leading this effort until it finally succeeded 16:04:52 and ask commiter to add DocImpact to Commit Message if the patchset requires the documentation update 16:05:12 that’s improtant especially for Core reviewers 16:05:38 Our Documetation team will help to prepare good User or Development documentation 16:05:40 yeah - let's put -1 if there is no DocImpact while changeset has to go with docs piece 16:05:52 and if DocImpact has been added, to ask commiter to provide explicit and clear description for the scope of changes he propose in his patch 16:05:55 if you have any questuons, ask me on #fuel-dev I’ll help 16:06:25 irina_pov ^^^ 16:06:26 most importantly, reviewers should make sure commit message is descriptive 16:06:38 yes, so now the quolity controll of documentation is up to reviewers ;) 16:06:50 commit message or bug comments ? 16:06:58 commit message 16:07:00 Commit message 16:07:12 ok 16:07:13 comments won’t be merged 16:07:18 s/quolity/quality 16:07:19 bug comments describe the process of fixing a bug, commit message describes the outcome 16:07:31 agree, good 16:07:37 +1 angdraug 16:08:03 thanks. Let's move to the next topic? 16:08:09 ok 16:08:22 #topic Fuel buid system documentation (irina_pov) 16:09:22 afaiu, there is a PR 16:09:22 so, I'd like guys to help me with describing fuel build system. I've used mailing list but it made little success 16:09:27 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125928/ 16:09:45 and i had no time last week to take a look at it 16:10:12 irina_pov: i'll take a look till the end of this week 16:10:17 irina_pov: i promise 16:10:26 i see, but anyway I need guys to comment on modules for instance 16:10:56 kozhukalov okay, thanks! I appreciate receiving any feedback 16:11:15 irina_pov: what modules? 16:11:15 yes, everyone who is aware about how our build system works please help to improve this doc 16:11:15 guys, this is extremely important, as we have some customers watinig for this 16:11:40 mihgen like docker for instance 16:11:41 mihgen: modules in terms of build system 16:11:59 mihgen: mirror, bootstrap, packages etc 16:12:09 ok let's move on then 16:12:14 thanks! 16:12:28 kozhukalov: so will you help? 16:12:34 irina_pov: looks like we need to talk more about it 16:12:36 or should we find someone else to help too 16:12:41 mihgen: yes 16:13:03 #topic authx improvements (prmtl) 16:13:08 dpyzhov yup, any information on modules structure is strongly required 16:13:19 good progress, “must have” items from bp are on review 16:13:19 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open++topic:bp/access-control-master-node-improvments,n,z) 16:13:19 what is done: removed admin_token usage, ostf and nailgun have dedicated service users, support for token in cookie, asking for password during upgrade, generating new credentials for service users during upgrade 16:13:21 next step: add services with endpoints to keystone (keystone itself, nailgun, ostf) for service discovery purpose 16:15:48 prmtl: thanx, any questions? 16:15:52 on this topic 16:16:06 prmtl: I was poking around with authx the other day, I'd like to talk to you about it later 16:16:15 xarses: sure 16:16:36 ok, moving on then 16:16:56 #topic Pacemaker improvements: pcs service provder for puppet and openstack-services as well (bogdando) 16:17:17 good progress, some patches on review, some already merged 16:17:20 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/pacemaker-improvements 16:17:48 monit for compute nodes implemented, and could be enabled once monit package included in ISO 16:18:13 OCF scripts for heat and ceilometer improved by amqp connection status tracking 16:18:44 on the road - make the same (OCF control plane) for openstack-api services 16:19:07 I am merging them 16:19:08 of cause we should have to contribute this to puppet-openstack upstream modules 16:19:43 and that activity requires some additional efforts for puppet upstream contribution for service provider type for pacemaker 16:19:56 I created an improvement in puppet JIRA 16:20:14 so we have to port our custom Fuel 'hax' there as well :) 16:20:22 #link https://tickets.puppetlabs.com/browse/PUP-3427 16:21:08 is it mandatory to contribute those patches into upstream? 16:21:10 that would allow us to put all stateless openstack services under this new pacemaker provider, and bring it to Fuel from upstream 16:21:32 it is really nice to have, otherwise we will just increase diverge significantly 16:21:40 this is something that community was also talking about for some time 16:21:45 We should contribute it back 16:21:46 and neglate the efforts done with syncing our manifests 16:21:58 it is mandatory to contribute back to upstream any changes we make to modules we take from upstream 16:22:02 so, I believe we really should 16:22:12 +1 bogdando 16:22:16 My status: 16:22:27 +1. Also it will make our lifes easier 16:22:33 I am in process ofadding Openstack OCF resources 16:23:05 by our plan we’ll have all openstack related resources in Pacemaker (on controller) and monit on computes 16:23:19 Tomorrow, I’ll play with Corosync 2.0 16:23:32 Thanks to rvyalov for Corosync 2.0 packages 16:23:56 btw holser I'm seeing some issues with new corosync/pacemaker in an iso I just built 16:24:02 dependency issues, actually 16:24:05 Blueprint also requires some efforts in services providers ... 16:24:21 what about monit packages, any problems expected there? 16:24:35 mattymo, our crm puppet provider is not compatible with corosync 2.0 16:24:46 monit is already merged, 16:24:57 requires documenttion for Operation and Uers 16:25:01 andreaf_, I have it working at my PoC lab, so there shouldn't be much... 16:25:02 Users* 16:25:07 so fuel-library is broken. do you have a patch for it ready yet holser ? 16:25:19 angdraug, I have it working at my PoC lab, so there shouldn't be much... 16:25:22 I do mattymo 16:25:31 We can work together tomorrow 16:26:14 guys, great. 16:26:39 looks like there is no any other q here 16:26:43 moving on 16:26:57 #topic Juno deployment status (mattymo) 16:27:11 hi! 16:27:28 A number of unfortuante changes in our build system led to more and more delays of Juno 16:27:31 unfortunate* 16:28:06 switching between base mirrors, package updates, etc. We encountered breakage in OSTF, bootstrap, HA, haproxy, and numerous surprise dependency issues in the past week 16:28:23 mattymo: do you confirm that now all changes in build system are settled? 16:28:36 mihgen, all except pacemaker which holser mentioned 16:29:24 I can't confirm our fixes to sahara or murano (which were merged 3 days ago) because I still can't get a deployment 16:29:31 but maybe tomorrow the story will change 16:30:20 we're very very close to working Juno that passes all tests 16:30:32 and that's it from me 16:30:35 mattymo: thanx, great 16:31:03 but today i had some problems with broken ruby json in juno mirror 16:31:13 me too! It's fixed now 16:31:22 great 16:31:27 moving on? 16:31:46 #topic 6.0 Juno builds on https://fuel-jenkins.mirantis.com/view/ISO/  (mihgen) 16:33:10 mihgen: do you have something on this topic? 16:33:27 yeah, sorry 16:33:47 teran has to give update actually, but I'll pass from his words 16:34:01 builds are ok for 6.0 there, with Juno packages 16:34:17 though they are red because as mattymo says not everything fixed yet 16:34:27 so they should become green once fixes are merged 16:34:33 that's it. 16:34:41 we need to hold off on merging features until we can get it green 16:34:48 if we don't, we'll never actually get there 16:35:13 and I saw a letter from rvyalov, his suggestion is to disable bvt for a while for juno 16:35:26 just to be able to merge new packages if we need 16:35:39 for example we need mdadm for ubuntu 16:35:56 what's the bvt status for 6.0_icehouse? 16:36:08 they work 16:36:16 and green 16:36:33 how come feature merges break juno but not icehouse? 16:36:35 kozhukalov: latest one failed 16:37:18 angdraug: rvyalov for details 16:37:23 bookwar: latest what? 16:37:28 angdraug: ya, how come? 16:37:30 icehouse bvt? 16:37:44 icehouse ubuntu bvt just failed 16:37:54 staging bvt_2 with Ubuntu ha on 6.0-icehouse 16:38:12 angdraug: ok, then let's use standard process - go ahead and find a bug, revert commit which broke it 16:39:04 and then propose a proper fix.. 16:39:13 anything else to discuss on this topic? 16:39:13 ok, looks like we are done on this topic 16:39:30 moving on? 16:39:38 kozhukalov: yep 16:39:41 #topic 100 nodes (salmon_) 16:40:35 looks like salmon is not here 16:41:17 ok, switching to the next topic 16:41:33 #topic reduce upgrade tarball size (ikalnitsky) 16:41:38 hi 16:41:47 This week we had an active discussion about changes in infrastructure, so please welcome to review the spec: 16:41:49 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/121591/ 16:41:57 angdraug, aglarendil - please take a look 16:42:07 Also, in last meeting I mentioned about the issue with OBS - so OBS rebuilds all packages (that are depends on some changed one) without version incrementation: 16:42:08 #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1376694 16:42:09 Launchpad bug 1376694 in fuel "OBS rebuilds a package, but don't increase its version number" [Critical,Confirmed] 16:42:17 We have turned off this OBS feature (as experiment), so I hope the tarball will get smaller in size. 16:42:26 What is done: We have "make mirror_diff" patch on review, and we're going to integrate it with Jenkins tomorrow. 16:42:35 Also, I almost done with changes to nailgun/fuel_upgrade and I'm going to test it tomorrow. 16:42:46 Next steps: implement "make openstack_bundle" goal in make system and create a jenkins job for it. When it's done we'll be able to build upgrade tarballs with diff-based repos and test them on CI. 16:42:56 that's it. questions ? 16:43:16 is 1376694 now fixed? 16:43:25 ikalnitsky: but there is still no artifact related stuff in that patch 16:43:43 angdraug: I'm not sure it's fixed. we're going to test in practice. 16:43:50 ikalnitsky: sounds like good progress, thanks. when do you expect the whole feature to be done and fully tested? 16:44:13 kozhukalov: sorry, what do you mean? 16:44:19 1376694 unlikely fixed as far as I know, looks like serious issue 16:44:29 ikalnitsky: it is mentioned in spec that diff mirror should be published as an artifact so as to make it possible to use this artifact for other targets and builds 16:44:47 mihgen: i think we need 1.5-2 weeks. 16:45:02 I think fixing that bug should be a requirement for this feature 16:45:17 right now, the spec mentions it as a fact, should be a work item 16:45:46 ikalnitsky: thanks, sounds great 16:45:58 kozhukalov: oh, got it. the artifact will be provided by jenkins. don't you think so? 16:45:58 #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1376694 16:45:59 Launchpad bug 1376694 in fuel "OBS rebuilds a package, but don't increase its version number" [Critical,Confirmed] 16:46:04 angdraug: I hope packaging team will find time any soon for that bug 16:46:07 angdraug: i'll add it to work item 16:46:18 they really overloaded now 16:46:24 guys, please post urls instead of just bug id 16:46:56 kozhukalov: there's a link above 16:47:25 ikalnitsky: artifact related stuff should be implemeted in make file and then jenkins is supposed to launch those targets if necessary 16:47:47 kozhukalov: where are we with artifact based build system? 16:47:54 angdraug: yes, sorry, didn't see ) 16:48:32 angdraug: i don't know, my view on this stuff was slightly different 16:49:11 we all agree that we need to have a good doc on this stuff first 16:49:18 yup 16:49:30 kozhukalov: should we change build system only for these goals? 16:49:55 kozhukalov: i mean, should we change goals that are not related to this bp? they still don't care about artifacts 16:50:00 i believe dpyzhov is the right person to ask about where we are about artifact based build system 16:50:36 ikalnitsky: let's discuss this stuff tomorrow 16:50:43 I'm just confused why are we discussing artifacts in context of ikalnitsky's work if abbs isn't even in progress yet 16:50:44 kozhukalov: ok 16:50:50 afaiu, we have a meeting scheduled 16:51:27 ok, moving on? 16:51:33 ok 16:51:45 #topic image based provisioning (demo results) (kozhukalov) 16:51:54 ok, today we had a demo 16:52:23 it was a little bit broken due to broken ruby json in juno mirror 16:52:55 we still have one little topic to discuss on that feature 16:53:39 the topic is where we should put image/not image check mark 16:54:05 should it be a separate release or maybe just a little cluster attribute 16:54:24 kozhukalov: from UX perspective, I would say checkbox on settings tab is better 16:54:47 as getting 4 releases instead of 2 in very first wizard is not that beautiful to me 16:54:52 after short discussion with evgeniyl__ I think having just a check mark on the settings tab is ok 16:55:31 so when you want your env to be provisioned with image-based, you just go to settings tab and enable checkbox 16:55:33 yes, if nobody has other opinion on that stuff 16:55:47 let's implement this on settings tab 16:56:01 hi 16:56:13 kozhukalov: the whole feature looks pretty solid 16:56:20 ok, that is it from me 16:56:30 I'm wondering how many unmerged code we have on review still for it? 16:56:36 let's go back to the topic 100 nodes (salmon_) 16:56:48 can I start? 16:56:56 mihgen: not so much 16:57:06 salmon_: let's start 16:57:07 #topic 100 nodes (salmon_) 16:57:13 we can finish in parallel with kozhukalov ) 16:57:16 salmon_: 2 minutes 16:57:25 ok, so we have some bugs for fuel https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1376686 https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1376426 https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1378000 https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1376680 and https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1379306 16:57:26 Launchpad bug 1376686 in fuel "HA nova cluster in error state with 504 error from keystone" [High,Triaged] 16:57:40 and for openstack 16:58:01 for nailgun everything looks good. We have stats what's slow and now we are fixing it 16:58:25 that's nice 16:58:26 for astute we didn't start yet because of debugging bugs 16:58:34 what about that dup-IPs issue? 16:58:44 looks like dnsmasq issue 16:59:01 is there a known fix? 16:59:21 see last comment https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1376680 16:59:22 Launchpad bug 1376680 in fuel "Deploy cluster with 57 nodes failed" [High,In progress] 16:59:24 mihgen: 5 PR, will try to split them into clear independent pieces 16:59:25 Alexander Shapshnikov suggested longer leases and switching the hashing algorithm for storing leases 16:59:26 what our strategy on provisioning, do we do 100 in parallel? Or we plan to do it in batches ? 16:59:41 kozhukalov: thanks 16:59:44 ok, guys 20 seconds 16:59:45 We need to check what will happen when IP is changed for node 16:59:51 salmon_, got the link. I'll keep quiet) 16:59:53 in bootstrap mode 17:00:08 let's close our meeting 17:00:14 salmon_: ok, thanks 17:00:15 thanx everyone 17:00:24 #endmeeting