15:03:05 <v1k0d3n> #startmeeting openstack-helm
15:03:05 <openstack> Meeting started Tue May 16 15:03:05 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is v1k0d3n. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:03:06 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:03:09 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_helm'
15:03:14 <korzen> o/
15:03:14 <alraddarla_> o/
15:03:16 <jaugustine> \o/
15:03:17 <dougbtv> o/
15:03:17 <v1k0d3n> alraddarla_:  ;)
15:03:21 <dulek> :)
15:03:24 <alraddarla_> :)
15:03:25 * alanmeadows waves.
15:03:28 <mburnett> o/
15:03:38 <lrensing> o/
15:03:41 <gagehugo> o/
15:03:52 <jayahn> o/
15:04:02 <korzen> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-helm-meeting-2017-05-16 Agenda
15:04:11 <v1k0d3n> nice full house, light agenda.
15:04:19 <leifmadsen> o/
15:04:31 <v1k0d3n> let's start with some of the outstanding issues we know about.
15:04:36 <mattmceuen> o/
15:04:59 <v1k0d3n> portdirect: what is the current status on kubernetes v1.6.3 issues? any updates?
15:05:29 <mburnett> His computer is hung, he's still trying to join the meeting.
15:05:36 <srwilkers> o/
15:06:00 * mburnett being portdirect
15:06:02 <v1k0d3n> let's move onto another one then for now. we'll see him join.
15:06:11 <mburnett> they seem to be mostly resolved
15:06:23 <mburnett> the reamining issues that I am seing are to do with cni
15:06:42 <mburnett> so for now i would recommend staying with 1.6.2
15:06:50 <v1k0d3n> mburnett (portdirect), is there any outstanding issues we need on our side or is there any PS you want the larger team to look at and prioritize?
15:07:10 <lrensing> +1, 1.6.2 is still what i'm going with
15:07:23 <mburnett> not yet, but during the day this may change
15:07:29 <bryan_att> #info Bryan Sullivan
15:07:46 <mburnett> I think we need to decide on a couple of CNI's to recommend using
15:07:56 <v1k0d3n> yup. the bug filed recommends that users stay on kube v1.6.2, so we have something to point them at.
15:08:18 <mburnett> as it appears that we flip flop between flannel/calico as being the most stable
15:08:22 <v1k0d3n> a couple of CNI's? you mean SDN's?
15:08:31 <mburnett> (I'm lumping flannel and canal together)
15:08:48 <mburnett> potato/potato :) but yeah
15:09:20 <alanmeadows> Ideally, it would be whatever CNIs the gate is going to validate
15:09:32 <mburnett> we could validate both
15:09:38 <v1k0d3n> yeah, i don't deploy flannel without policy anymore personally...it would probably be wise for us to categorize as "use whatever, we can recommend L2 or L3, canal+flannel/calico", and keep our docs in line with that.
15:09:48 <v1k0d3n> thoughts, agreement/disgreement....?
15:09:50 <mburnett> but for now 1.6.2 with calico is the path i'd recommend for least pain
15:10:22 <v1k0d3n> yeah +1 to alanmeadows comment. easier to catch issues and recommend that way.
15:10:49 <v1k0d3n> ok, so action item really is to update docs with relevant versions.
15:11:38 <v1k0d3n> next onto helm 2.4 vs 2.3. we do need to make some changes here. is anyone interested in working on resolving this?
15:12:21 <v1k0d3n> we could probably outline the issue a bit better here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-helm/+bug/1690863
15:12:22 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1690863 in openstack-helm "Helm 2.4.0 Issues with Openstack-Helm" [High,New]
15:12:49 * mburnett being me again :)
15:13:08 <mburnett> Did someone offer to work on that yesterday?
15:13:32 <v1k0d3n> mburnett: i didn't see anyone in IRC bring that up as an item they were working on.
15:13:59 <mburnett> i think chriss was gonna look at it (pete)?
15:14:34 <v1k0d3n> either is fine with me, as long as it gets assigned in launchpad.
15:14:54 <v1k0d3n> it's still unassigned.
15:16:07 <v1k0d3n> i can try to reach out to chris offline.
15:16:24 <v1k0d3n> next thing is dns issues, which a few people have mentioned.
15:16:35 <v1k0d3n> portdirect: is this somethiing you're actually looking into as well?
15:16:54 <mburnett> yeah - its related to the CNI issues
15:17:11 <mburnett> they are all part and parcel of the same thing really i think
15:17:27 <mburnett> so the same advice applies - 1.6.2 and calico for now :)
15:17:28 <v1k0d3n> all just part of v1.6.3?
15:17:50 <mburnett> it looks that way - but I'm hesitant to point the finger
15:17:51 <v1k0d3n> ok. i've seen other dns issues on 1.6.2 is why i ask.
15:18:03 <mburnett> as I've not seen the same stuff with other backends
15:18:17 <alanmeadows> Chris was going to look at the ceph chart
15:18:26 <alanmeadows> bringing that inline
15:18:34 <alanmeadows> not helm 2.4 to my knowledge
15:18:48 <alanmeadows> but we can verify offline
15:18:56 <v1k0d3n> that's true. i'll action to reach out.
15:19:03 <mburnett> just looks like calico and 1.6.3 for some reason dont like combing up together - if you poke them its seems to resole a lot - but via kubeadm its not so plain sailing
15:19:38 <v1k0d3n> if he's not working  on helm 2.4 i will ping in our IRC openstack-helm channel for volunteers.
15:20:05 <mburnett> alanmeadows, i think as part of that he was gonna adress the secret gen, which is whats causing the issues with 2.4 now that it correctly fails :)
15:20:20 <v1k0d3n> mburnett: just fwiw...i am seeing dns related issues in general, even with other SDN's
15:20:24 <mburnett> but if not I'd be happy to port the stuff i did for upstream docker-ceph back here
15:21:16 <alanmeadows> mburnett: correct, it plays into 2.4 in that way
15:22:06 <alanmeadows> We need to stop spinning on k8s+calico configurations--riding releases 48 hours old is killing lots of time.  We need to find one that works, that the community can easily select and are not blocked from installing (e.g. 1.5)--the only thing we should be rolling with tightly is helm in my opinion
15:22:19 <srwilkers> alanmeadows, agreed
15:23:07 <mburnett> +1
15:23:31 <jayahn> +1
15:23:37 <mburnett> the kubeadm-aio container is now pinned resonably tightly
15:23:46 <mburnett> and I'm pushing known good images to dockerhub
15:24:16 <alanmeadows> That may be 1.6.3, if we wait for calico to catchup to resolve the remaining issues being seen?
15:24:30 <mburnett> yup
15:25:00 <mburnett> my experienc is saying that it takes about 7 days for things to return to smooth waters after a k8s release
15:26:54 <alanmeadows> aio is nicely pinned at the moment, I agree, and can easily be adjusted to what we land on.  To close on this topic I think once we find that stack, we should provide all assets in our documentation -- not just versions, today mostly we recommend versions, and tell you to (for example) head off to calico and find the right manifest as an example
15:27:26 <alanmeadows> This means direct links and cut and paste manifests for every aspect because our users will spend too much time spinning
15:28:06 <mburnett> that sounds good - I'll hit that today (pete)
15:28:12 <jayahn> we can probably help on that to add flannel option since we use flannel for k8s.
15:28:13 <mburnett> unless there are any other takers?
15:28:23 <mburnett> oh nice - cheers jayahn
15:28:41 <mburnett> we could get a gate using that as well really easily if it helps
15:29:11 <alanmeadows> and I think having two options for CNIs at least demonstrates other options exist, its just whatever is there needs to be validated
15:29:27 <v1k0d3n> jayahn: flannel + canal just so we have policy when needed. that work?
15:29:41 <v1k0d3n> L2 and L3...that's pretty awesome.
15:30:21 <jayahn> we are simply using flannel, that said, having canal would be awesome. i agree. I will check with our network guys.
15:30:32 <v1k0d3n> ok, so i think that solves that at least.
15:30:41 <v1k0d3n> any other known issues that the team is fighting with?
15:31:06 <dulek> RBAC auth?
15:31:34 <dulek> I have a review posted that I think enables RBAC support: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/464630/
15:31:41 <v1k0d3n> ah, yes...i saw that.
15:31:56 <v1k0d3n> can cores provide feedback?
15:32:15 <dulek> I would be grateful! :)
15:32:31 <mburnett> will do (pete)
15:32:53 <lrensing> will do
15:32:58 <srwilkers> yep
15:33:01 <v1k0d3n> same here dulek
15:33:05 <mburnett> sorry I've not got round to it - but I think we should probably have a etherpad re rbac before jumping in with code?
15:33:07 <v1k0d3n> thanks for that PS!
15:33:40 <v1k0d3n> i'm sorry mburnett can you explain a bit better?
15:33:42 <dulek> mburnett: There's a blueprint at least: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-helm/+spec/rbac-support
15:33:56 <dulek> (although not many details there…)
15:33:57 <mburnett> as we need to consider namespace / service seperation and isolation as part of this
15:34:00 <v1k0d3n> the blueprint and PS should be good discussion points.
15:34:13 <mburnett> nice - I'd missed that thanks dulek
15:34:18 <mburnett> I'll get on that asap
15:34:20 <v1k0d3n> optional namespace / service separation.
15:35:54 <v1k0d3n> so moving on, i'm opening the floor for people to call out important submitted PS.
15:36:33 <v1k0d3n> dulek started this already, we can expand. is there anything else that the team needs to lay eyes on as a priority?
15:36:45 <alanmeadows> re: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-helm/+spec/support-linux-bridge-on-neutron
15:36:53 <alanmeadows> is artur looking at this already?
15:37:01 <alanmeadows> or not yet - trying to keep from overlap
15:37:07 <dulek> v1k0d3n: Cinder config overrides are blocking at least one patch.
15:37:11 <jayahn> mburnett just confirming that we will merge "https://review.openstack.org/#/c/464104/" and work on "https://review.openstack.org/#/c/464669/1" together for long term?
15:37:28 <korzen> alanmeadows, yes I'm starting on it
15:37:51 <v1k0d3n> ok, let's break this up a little bit.
15:37:53 <mburnett> jayahn, I think that's what I prefer -- I'm not sure what others think (me)
15:37:56 <jayahn> for https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-helm/+spec/support-linux-bridge-on-neutron, let me know whom to connect.
15:38:45 <mburnett> we should loop artur into that - but we can hash out the deatils in that launchpad (pete)
15:38:48 <v1k0d3n> jayahn: please get with korzen on this.
15:39:06 <jayahn> alanmeadows: v1k0d3n: we really want to collaborate on "creating pattern" for multi backend.
15:39:24 <mburnett> yeah this follows on from what we were discussing at the summit
15:39:24 <v1k0d3n> and we can talk openly in the openstack-helm channel about the pattern you're talking about jayahn
15:39:26 <v1k0d3n> i agree.
15:39:30 <lrensing> that'd be awesome jayahn :)
15:39:35 <jayahn> yeap.
15:39:45 <alanmeadows> jayahn/korzen: how about a simple etherpad
15:39:53 <alanmeadows> to capture the approach
15:40:04 <v1k0d3n> yes, etherpad. we can capture in the blueprint as well?
15:40:12 <jayahn> that would be good start, then, i can point etherpad to my guys working on this
15:40:15 <alanmeadows> and get alignment and of course all can participate in the review of the first submission, and then the door is open to others
15:40:17 <v1k0d3n> or would that be an entirely wrong place to have some directional points?
15:40:26 <srwilkers> yeah, we can link the etherpad on the blueprint in launchpad
15:40:27 <v1k0d3n> +1 to alanmeadows
15:40:51 <v1k0d3n> perfect. jayahn i will let you create and then paste in this meetings etherpad.
15:41:04 <alanmeadows> korzen can you create an etherpad, jot your approach as an outline and let Jayahn and team dogpile on?
15:41:16 <alanmeadows> Keeps from rewriting patches at the outset
15:41:29 <korzen> alanmeadows, sure
15:41:42 <jayahn> +1
15:41:42 <v1k0d3n> alanmeadows: you'll definitely want to provide a lot of feedback on these as well as portdirect
15:41:56 <v1k0d3n> ok, cool...that works.
15:43:15 <v1k0d3n> another  big item i want to hit is the work that is being done with other tools and oslo.
15:43:19 <alanmeadows> v1k0d3n: the cinder topic was a good one... it would be great to  complete that one, is it only waiting for reviews dulek?
15:43:26 <v1k0d3n> alanmeadows: are you aware of the current outstanding ps?
15:43:36 <alanmeadows> I got halfway through yesterday before getting distracted
15:43:48 <dulek> alanmeadows: I think so - I've addressed all of the comments so far.
15:43:48 <v1k0d3n> yeah i was going to hit cinder as well.
15:43:52 <v1k0d3n> glad you brought up.
15:44:09 <v1k0d3n> so the oslo thing is big, because once that is set...it's set,and will be very hard to change in the future.
15:44:25 <v1k0d3n> the tripelo team is very interested in having us at the table, and collaborating on this.
15:44:32 <v1k0d3n> openstack-ansible as well.
15:44:48 <v1k0d3n> do you happen to have that link in front of you so we can paste in etherpad?
15:44:59 <v1k0d3n> alanmeadows: ^^
15:45:17 <alanmeadows> not sure which link
15:45:35 <v1k0d3n> ps submitted to oslo. one sec let me grab it.
15:46:07 <v1k0d3n> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/454897/
15:46:21 <v1k0d3n> EmilienM: asked that we provide feedback, and has been really patient.
15:46:35 <v1k0d3n> portdirect: would be really great to have you looking at this as well.
15:46:35 <EmilienM> o/
15:46:48 <v1k0d3n> hey man, bringing up the oslo stuff we talked about at the summimt.
15:46:51 <EmilienM> and also look https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/BOS-forum-future-of-configuration-management if you missed the session
15:46:59 <v1k0d3n> i really want our team to keep this close and provide feedback.
15:47:20 <EmilienM> v1k0d3n: thanks, really cool if you could provide feedback about the etherpad && spec
15:48:08 <v1k0d3n> absolutely. thanks for being patient with us EmilienM and keeping up on me about it.
15:48:15 <EmilienM> no problemo
15:48:53 <v1k0d3n> ok, so next thing is what you brought up alanmeadows about cinder backends. dulek you're up.
15:49:13 <v1k0d3n> want to talk a bit about it. i know you're looking for feedback.
15:49:23 <v1k0d3n> would be nice to have folks looking at this one as well...
15:49:30 <v1k0d3n> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/455682/
15:50:01 <dulek> v1k0d3n: I think we've covered that it requires reviews. I guess discussion should continue on the review itself.
15:50:34 <v1k0d3n> yes, that works.
15:50:51 <v1k0d3n> ok. any others team
15:50:52 <v1k0d3n> ?
15:51:00 <jayahn> we will try to add feeback.
15:51:19 <v1k0d3n> thank jayahn that would be great
15:51:48 <mburnett> It would be good to get some feedback on the mariadb changes in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/464262/
15:52:15 <v1k0d3n> and lastly...low hanging fruit review here as well: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/460896/
15:52:28 <jayahn> okay, bring it on :)
15:52:38 <v1k0d3n> mburnett: noted and included in our review and bp seection.
15:52:43 <mburnett> Thanks
15:53:08 <v1k0d3n> anything else before i end the meeting?
15:53:50 <v1k0d3n> sorry there was more to cover than expected, but it was great to pass these by everyone. i'd like to keep up with these for the week and close them out as quickly as possible.
15:54:43 <v1k0d3n> alright ending the meeting team.
15:54:50 <v1k0d3n> thanks everyone for joining
15:54:53 <jayahn> cheers
15:55:03 <v1k0d3n> #endmeeting"