23:01:38 #startmeeting neutron/servicevm 23:01:38 Meeting started Tue Mar 18 23:01:38 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is yamahata. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 23:01:39 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 23:01:41 The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_servicevm' 23:01:56 #topic logistics 23:02:24 This timeslot is temporal. and there are another proposal. 23:02:34 So we'd like to agree on better timeslot. 23:02:57 So far related timezone is 23:03:02 the current timeslot is OK for us PDT/PST people :-) 23:03:45 Some is uncomfortable with it. 23:03:51 I don't have any special needs. Yes, it is fine in the US, but is fairly undoable for a lot of time zones. 23:04:38 agreed 23:05:01 JST(UTC+9), PST(UTC-8), PDT(UTC-7), EST(UTC-5) and IST(UTC+5.3) 23:05:37 so what is the new proposal(s) 23:05:58 for meeting time 23:06:59 what are the requests for? earlier or later? 23:07:58 I'm thinking of some hours later. 23:08:07 now is 23:00 UTC, one would imagine it should be earlier (in the day) 23:08:19 wondering it also works for EST and IST 23:09:14 yes, I mean 2:00UTC, 3:00UTC 23:09:29 yamahata: probably not working for Europe time 23:10:11 s3wong: right. Unfortunately there is no timezome that works for all asia, europe and us. 23:10:33 where is the majority of the interest right now? 23:11:19 I am in US (Pacific timezone) 23:11:36 PST/EST, JST, IST. I'm not aware of europe time. 23:12:32 Okay, I'll propose on ML and we'll see it. 23:12:45 so utc-5 looks like the best to me 23:13:34 5:00 UTC works for me 23:14:12 ok, I'd say let's give it a week or two on ML for people to respond, then change it. 23:14:29 OK 23:14:50 #action propose new timeslot 5:00 UTC on the ml 23:15:51 #action yamahata propose new timeslot 5:00 utc on the ml 23:16:17 next topic is f2f meeting. 23:16:22 meetbot must have left ... 23:16:53 @23:00, meetbot is sleeping :-) 23:16:58 It is possible for me to organize f2f meeting in Santa Clara on April 17 or 18. 23:17:07 hehe, meetbot needs rest too 23:17:27 yamahata: f2f meeting in Santa Clara is fine with me 23:17:31 Do we want to have it? given it's only 1 month before the summit. 23:18:05 the last one generated a good deal of interest ... I guess it depends on what would be discussed. 23:18:06 Maybe it can be done at the summit. 23:18:58 yamahata: this is not Icehouse feature, so having discussion at J-Summit would still be OK 23:19:36 s3wong: I've proposed the topic for J summit. 23:20:00 I agree. no reason to get everyone together if we're just all going to see each other in a month 23:20:10 +1 23:20:34 Then let's skip this time. 23:21:27 next thing is frequency. 23:22:08 I think the meeting will be held weekly at first. then we can switch to bi-weekly. 23:22:24 yamahata: OK 23:23:14 any other topic related to logistics? 23:23:24 I don't have anyting 23:23:28 anything 23:23:33 all good 23:23:49 #topic current-status 23:24:41 As agreed at I-summit, I'm working on servicevm for lbaas. 23:25:30 I've implemented API/DB model part, lbaas-driver(plugin-part), neutron-command, devstack. 23:25:51 and oslo.messaging 23:26:06 I'm working on lbaas-agent and VM image. 23:27:04 My estimation is 1 week or two to have working service VM that runs haproxy inside vm. 23:27:47 The blueprint for horizon GUI is proposed. 23:28:34 okay ... is there anything that you need that anyone can help with, at this point? 23:28:49 yamahata: if I instantiate LBaaS, how can I specify if I am using the current container model vs VM based? 23:29:25 sweston: patch review and API review. 23:29:55 s3wong: Right now it is chosen by config file. 23:30:32 s3wong: In future, it could be chosen dynamically by service provider extension when lbaas supports it. 23:30:49 okay, I can help with that ... do you have a list of reviews I can start on? 23:31:09 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56892/ 23:31:15 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/72068/ 23:31:22 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/77862/ 23:31:28 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/77863/ 23:31:35 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/72070/ 23:32:06 yamahata: could be part of the flavor framework in the future 23:32:56 okay, I have them on my reading list now 23:32:58 s3wong: maybe yes when lbaas supports it. 23:34:50 the discussion for GUI has been started. There is mock image. would be interesting 23:35:39 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/neutron-adv-svc-vm 23:36:05 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Horizon-NFV-configuration#NFV_instances 23:36:08 yamahata: yeah, there is a nova context in there too. Does the tenant get charged for one vm? 23:37:35 s3wong: it's open question for now. The current implementation doesn't, though. 23:38:30 It needs consideration. Do you have any idea? 23:39:24 yamahata: it is interesting, because now you are introducing "service VM" in nova also (thus it would know not to charge tenant) 23:39:42 well, it's an api right? so if there's expressed interest, we can add a multiplier .. but that might open up a can of worms 23:40:59 s3wong: VM is created with a dedicated user for now. not by the original user. 23:41:54 s3wong: there isurely s a requirement that tenants want to create its own servicevm and manage them themselves. 23:42:07 yamahata: OK. Good start 23:43:10 any other questions? 23:43:41 not right now, not from me at least 23:43:53 good, will take a look at your code 23:44:31 s3wong: agree 23:45:23 high level review of API will also help 23:45:55 yamahata: OK 23:46:05 #link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZWDDTjwhIUedyipkDztM0_nBYgfCEP9Q77hhn1ZduCA/edit# 23:46:07 yamahata okay 23:46:19 # open topic 23:46:28 #topic open 23:46:38 Any open topic to discuss? 23:46:57 I don't have anything ... s3wong? 23:47:11 Not for now 23:47:30 okay, thanks. 23:47:41 bye 23:47:44 #endmeeting