20:02:50 <Rockyg> #startmeeting log_wg
20:02:51 <openstack> Meeting started Wed May 27 20:02:50 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is Rockyg. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:02:52 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:02:54 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'log_wg'
20:03:28 <Rockyg> jokke_: bknudson dhellmann who am I forgetting?
20:03:37 <bknudson> hi
20:04:08 <Rockyg> Hey, there!
20:04:42 <dhellmann> o/
20:05:06 <Rockyg> First off, I want to thank dhellmann for the new release of oslo.log
20:05:26 <Rockyg> Thanks, dhellmann!
20:05:44 <Rockyg> Next, a recap of discussions at the summit
20:06:01 <Rockyg> #topic Thanks for new oslo.log!
20:06:09 <bknudson> what did dhellmann do?
20:06:33 <bknudson> it's got versionutils, so we should be able to use that in keystone
20:06:45 <dims_> bknudson: yep it's in there
20:07:01 <dhellmann> oh, dims_ did that yesterday
20:08:23 <Rockyg> also, got a deprecation message in, global requirement updates
20:08:35 <Rockyg> fixed a TRACE/ERROR issue
20:08:47 <Rockyg> fixed pep8 errors.
20:09:01 <Rockyg> Improved docs around versionutils
20:09:24 <Rockyg> fixed syslog  stuff
20:09:24 <jokke_> cool
20:09:55 <Rockyg> 741 insertions, 711 deletions.
20:10:21 <Rockyg> onwards.
20:10:31 <Rockyg> #topic Summit Rehash
20:12:02 <Rockyg> we now have three competing specs for requester ID.  The second and third are cool because there are changes only in oslo.log and in the  related project, I think.
20:12:51 <Rockyg> trying to find the links.  But, I have a question/concern for dhellmann, bknudson and other developers.
20:13:21 <jokke_> hmm-m ... I was reading that e-mail today and I think I'm bit confused around those
20:13:31 <Rockyg> second review uses auth_token from Keystone.  I get that one.
20:13:48 <bknudson> auth_token middleware
20:14:01 <Rockyg> Third review (don't know if it's there yet) uses ID from os_profiler
20:14:11 <dhellmann> https://review.openstack.org/134839
20:14:19 <Rockyg> Thanks!
20:14:23 <bknudson> os_profiler kind of covered this already so it makes sense to use whatever they did.
20:14:40 <bknudson> rather than invent something new
20:14:53 <bknudson> maybe the request ID part could be split out of os_profiler
20:15:22 <bknudson> oh, os profiler isn't accepted anyways
20:15:26 <Rockyg> Well, if os_profiler can't be turned off, I can see where this would be ok.
20:15:37 <dhellmann> bknudson: the spec isn't approved, but some projects have started adding os-profiler
20:15:53 <Rockyg> But, I could see ops guys not wanting the extra bits of a profiler running during production
20:15:56 <bknudson> actually it's os-profiler that should be able to use whatever request ID scheme that's actually accepted
20:16:00 <dhellmann> we can make it possible to turn off the profiler data collection part, but keep the request id stuff always on
20:16:17 <dhellmann> yeah, I don't really care what we use as long as we pick one that works for all of our current use cases
20:16:33 <Rockyg> dhellmann: that would make me happier.  It just seems a wierd way to architect for request ids
20:16:53 <jokke_> bknudson: I do agree, the req-id should be consumed by os-profiler, not other way around
20:17:32 <Rockyg> Should we discuss this in the spec reviews, or take it to the mailing list?
20:18:35 <Rockyg> I mean, it's nice that it's being taken on by the os-profiler, but I'm pretty sure that Keystone is a better fit for identity/security/architecture reasons
20:18:57 <dhellmann> there was a mailing list thread, we should probably follow up there
20:19:12 <jokke_> ++
20:19:15 <Rockyg> Great.
20:19:23 <Rockyg> Thanks.
20:19:28 <dhellmann> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-May/064842.html
20:20:12 <jokke_> and related to those 3 Solutions, the message from ops was really loud and clear in the summit, they want the option 3 where a sindle ID follows all the way
20:20:16 <Rockyg> Yeah.  We never did get to circle back to Abhishek
20:20:34 <dhellmann> jokke_: yeah, that's unlikely to be accepted by devs though
20:21:07 <Rockyg> jokke_: for logs, yes, with a hop count.  so the first one always has to be passed, but others could come and go?
20:21:24 <jokke_> dhellmann: I think we should look into mirror on that and think to whom these things are developed for
20:21:35 <dhellmann> some requests fork, and you wouldn't be able to keep track of the separate threads if you only have one id
20:21:55 <dhellmann> jokke_: that solution just doesn't work technically, it's not a preference situation
20:22:58 <jokke_> dhellmann: what does not work on it ... if we create id when it's not in request and pass it forward for any request created by the service, I don't see what technically would block it
20:23:00 <dhellmann> the os-profiler model takes care of the threading, so we should look closely at what they do
20:23:04 <Rockyg> dhellmann: jokke_ I think that's why we need to specify what gets passed in the log message, vs what is getting passed around.  We should always pass the initiating requestID around, and sometimes others.
20:23:24 <Rockyg> But, we should only pass the initiating request ID to log messages?
20:24:03 <dhellmann> jokke_: (a) we can't trust the incoming request id as being unique (b) if nova makes several calls to another backend service like neutron, those each need a separate request id because they might happen in parallel
20:24:17 <Rockyg> I think we do need to look at the threading design in os-profiler
20:25:45 <Rockyg> can we take this as an action item to investigate further through code review and circle back next week?  Does that make sense?
20:26:12 <jokke_> dhellmann: the (a) is irrelevant and (b) has good point ... I think way bigger problem is how big ID field we need if we start generating new IDs for every interraction ... good couple of dozen of them for one request and we're pretty quickly out of the uniqueness in big deployment anyways
20:26:20 <dhellmann> Rockyg: it would be good to have someone get all of the folks with proposals together to try to unify them
20:26:29 <Rockyg> I would want to know how deep/often the forking happens
20:26:30 <jokke_> dhellmann: ++
20:26:35 <Rockyg> ++
20:26:52 <Rockyg> #action contact review authors and set an IRC meet
20:27:18 <dhellmann> jokke_: if you let me pass "jokke_" as my request id with every client call, you'll very quickly find that your logs are useless
20:27:47 <jokke_> dhellmann: only regarding your requests and you're just shooting yourself into foot with that
20:29:13 <jokke_> dhellmann: and that was pretty loose quote from the ops during the session when we were talking about that
20:29:25 <Rockyg> I think it would be good if we could get an example log flow and walk through it to see what happens.  In parallel to getting the three devs together
20:30:40 <Rockyg> I'll ping the three devs, and the large system ops who was in the session to see what I can arrange.
20:31:01 <jokke_> Rockyg: thanks
20:31:13 <Rockyg> Will set up an etherpad for discussion and post it to the ML thread
20:31:21 <dhellmann> sounds good
20:31:32 <jokke_> Rockyg: I'll get a contact from our ops side for you as well as I think I didn't see any of our guys there
20:32:10 <Rockyg> Anything else we should bring up from the summit?  Lots of oslo.log stuff, but I don't remember anything controversial about it :-)
20:32:25 <dhellmann> no, not really
20:33:12 <dims_> etherpad of the oslo.log session - https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-oslo-log-plans
20:33:12 <dhellmann> the spec to clean up the default handling has already been approved for oslo, so I'll start working on that in a few weeks when some of the other work I'm doing is wrapped up
20:33:36 <jokke_> dhellmann: anything I can help with there?
20:33:42 <Rockyg> Oh, shoot.  Just remembered.  I likely won't be on next week.  Need someone else to run the meeting just in case.  I'll be in Boston for my college reunion
20:34:28 <Rockyg> thanks for the link, dims_
20:35:00 <jokke_> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-oslo-log-plans
20:35:03 <dhellmann> jokke_: I have a pretty good idea of what's needed, but I'll want reviews
20:35:30 <Rockyg> And also a heads up.  The primary backers of the os-profiler review are both very *strong* personalities.
20:35:53 <jokke_> dhellmann: drop me a line here or e-mail if there's something you want a hand with ...
20:36:02 <dhellmann> jokke_: sounds good, thanks
20:36:16 <jokke_> dhellmann: I'll try to find the time for it in reasonable notice
20:37:00 <Rockyg> bknudson: any chance I can get you to discuss this discussion with jamie lennox?  He's the author of the second.
20:37:25 <Rockyg> And, jokke_, how about abhishek?
20:37:33 <bknudson> we talked to jamielennox at the summit
20:38:05 <Rockyg> bknudson: yeah.  Just an update , or make sure he's following the ML thread
20:38:18 <Rockyg> I'll also ping.  And thanks for the IRC handle
20:38:21 <jokke_> Rockyg: I'm sure Abhishek is up for it ... I certainly am
20:39:26 <Rockyg> Cool.  We need to make sure we have some serious devops also in the mix.  Get the design down well, first, before end results start appearing.
20:39:41 <Rockyg> OK.  next topic
20:39:50 <Rockyg> #topic open discussion
20:39:58 <Rockyg> anything to talk about?
20:40:09 <Rockyg> that is anything else?
20:40:27 <bknudson> dhellmann: you can add me to the reviews for the logging changes.
20:40:29 <Rockyg> I'll get on ops docs when I get back from Boston.  Back on 6/8
20:41:17 <Rockyg> And I'll try to actually summarize the sessions and results within a week or two this time.
20:41:20 <dhellmann> bknudson: will do; I'm going to try to finish the namespace work before I start those
20:41:31 <jokke_> Rockyg: drop me e-mail before next weeks meeting if you have some updtates ... I can chair it if we have something that needs attention
20:41:48 <Rockyg> jokke_: ok, thanks
20:42:37 <Rockyg> Anything else we need to put on the table, or should we call this a wrap?
20:43:28 <jokke_> I don't have anything at least ... still trying to sort all my mental notes from the summit
20:43:33 * dhellmann has nothing to raise
20:43:46 <jokke_> and survive from the jetlag ... this time around seems to be nasty one
20:44:44 <Rockyg> dhellmann, dims_: Also, I wanted to make sure you know that nkrinner is interested in working on oslo stuff
20:45:04 <dhellmann> Rockyg: great!
20:45:09 <dims_> Rockyg: nkrinner: welcome!
20:45:24 <Rockyg> I got that right, nkrinner?
20:45:27 <nkrinner> yeah, but i still have not started yet...
20:45:51 <Rockyg> These guys can point you at something you can wrap your brain around to start you.
20:45:55 <nkrinner> i have some other things to finish first, but i expect to start actively looking at oslo from next week on
20:46:28 <Rockyg> Cool.  then, it's a wrap
20:46:31 <dims_> nkrinner: just hop onto #openstack-oslo
20:46:40 <nkrinner> dims_: thanks!
20:46:51 <Rockyg> #endmeeting