13:59:58 #startmeeting review_of_dublin_edge_notes 13:59:59 Meeting started Thu Aug 9 13:59:58 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is csatari. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:00:01 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:00:04 The meeting name has been set to 'review_of_dublin_edge_notes' 14:00:05 #topic Roll call 14:00:15 #info Gergely Csatari 14:01:44 #info Mark Beierl 14:02:04 Hellou 14:03:32 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_Edge_Discussions_Dublin_PTG 14:03:38 #info Wiki ^^ 14:03:51 #link AI-s: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Dublin-edge-notes-wiki 14:04:09 #link Previous notes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/review_of_dublin_edge_notes/2018/ 14:05:12 #topic Review of 5.3.2.15 Quotas receiver side 14:05:23 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_Edge_Discussions_Dublin_PTG#Quotas_receiver_side 14:05:50 Hah, the link is not okay. 14:06:10 #action csatari fix the links of the notes 14:07:05 Any comment to here? 14:07:47 #topic Review of 5.3.2.16 Progress monitoring 14:07:56 sorry - looks like I'm being pulled away 14:07:57 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_Edge_Discussions_Dublin_PTG#Progress_monitoring 14:08:03 Ah, okay. 14:11:48 I have an action item to remove new Kingbird, but I forgot to do it. 14:11:57 This is valid for th ewhole wiki. 14:14:37 mbeierl for how long are you pulled away? 14:14:55 #info 15 more minutes 14:15:01 Okay. 14:15:05 Ping me. 14:15:25 It looks like its only the two of us, so I will wait for you. 14:29:58 csatari: back now. Going to read the progress monitoring 14:30:27 okay 14:30:59 so, what do we mean by new Kingbird - saw that you said to remove it 14:31:24 and does StarlingX provide anything that can be used in this area? 14:31:31 Yes, in the Dublin discussions we planned to deveop Kingbird further. 14:31:49 https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Kingbird 14:32:57 ya, I remember Kingbird, and thought it might have been abandoned. So by "remove" is the decision to ignore it, or is the goal to revive it after all? 14:33:20 And started to use the synch service new Kingbird, but then it turned out that StarlingX have a synch service (which is an evolution of Kingbird), so "new Kingbird" become both ambigous and product specific. 14:33:29 aha 14:33:45 so StarlingX is the desired approach then? 14:34:05 The goal is not to make a decision on this in this wiki. Here we supposed cmopare the different alternatives. 14:34:35 ah ok. 14:34:45 And formulate "component independent" requirements. 14:35:20 It is an other discussion (and set of wiki pages) how to implement these. 14:35:21 I must admit, I am having a hard time getting to the heart of what StarlingX provides in their sync service. 14:35:51 There is a presentation what Greg showed us about this. 14:36:04 I can try to find it. 14:36:08 ok, thanks. 14:36:41 https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihczi2f5odccn6f/SynchFramework-DC-StarlingX.pptx?dl=0 14:37:15 Okay, back to the review. 14:37:17 so, do we need to split the progress monitoring into sending and receiving ends like the quota to help keep it clean. As an example, I don't think we would want each edge to receive data about other edge locations. 14:38:10 The idea there is that we can have a network of synch services. 14:38:40 More like a tree where there are edge cloud instances which are both receiving sync data and distributing it to others. 14:38:44 ok, and I realized now what is meant by services which are "under" it 14:38:58 so the direction and collection of data is directed 14:39:14 controlled, I mean. Ok, yes that is good then 14:39:22 okay 14:40:08 Moving forward. 14:40:28 #topic Review of 5.3.3.1 Operability data aggregation data provider part 14:40:38 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_Edge_Discussions_Dublin_PTG#Operability_data_aggregation_data_provider_part 14:41:12 list of active alarms is good, but should this section also include telemetry? 14:41:27 info about current usage, quotas, etc? 14:41:42 Yes, I will add them. 14:42:04 ok - this can feed into "something" than can help to make decisions about new service placement 14:42:28 #action csatari (5.3.3.1) add usage, quotas. 14:42:40 ie: the server with the GPU is getting full, we cannot place more GPU dependant services there 14:42:51 Orchestration. Yes. 14:44:27 But I will keep the "What else" there :0 14:44:30 :) 14:44:37 yes 14:45:17 I am wondering - does each edge get connected directly, or are we aggregating this and collecting 14:45:35 like the previous section where there are services or edges "under" another edge? 14:46:36 or do we always assume this is the case? 14:46:36 That is the aggregation part in the next chapter. 14:46:37 So 14:46:39 ok 14:46:54 ah 14:46:54 #topi Review of 5.3.4 Operability data aggregation data aggregator part 14:47:02 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_Edge_Discussions_Dublin_PTG#Operability_data_aggregation_data_aggregator_part 14:47:19 #action csatari ( 5.3.4) fix the heading. 14:47:42 that seems a little different as it suggests control rather than collection of information 14:48:22 Control is the next chapter. 14:48:34 This is "Operability data aggregation data aggregator part" 14:48:58 But here we do not have the capablity to forward the collected data, so I thikn we should add that also. 14:49:27 ok 14:49:43 I read it as part of the same due to the size of the titles 14:49:54 Yes, that is my mistake. 14:50:04 that makes more sense then, thanks 14:51:06 #action csatari (5.3.4) Add the capability to forward the collected data. 14:51:55 #topic Review of 5.3.4.1 Remote control controlling part 14:52:06 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_Edge_Discussions_Dublin_PTG#Remote_control_controlling_part 14:52:39 Here we still miss th eoperations we would like to issue. 14:52:54 it is vague for sure 14:53:26 is the idea that any edge can 'proxy' or forward instructions to edges that are 'under' it? 14:54:20 If so, does the list then expand to all nova, glance, cinder, etc, APIs? 14:54:42 I may be asking questions that were already discussed, my apologies if so 14:55:29 Here we did not think about cascading, just some kind of remote control capability. 14:55:32 No worries. 14:56:22 Let's just record these questions and ask on the mailing list. 14:56:36 remote control of what? I guess this is what the operations that we should list is 14:56:56 remote control of an other edge cloud instance. 14:57:58 sorry, I meant remote control what parts? 14:58:10 does it come down to all possible APIs? 14:58:15 Ah, that is not figured out. 14:58:54 yes, that would be the 'list of operations' 14:59:25 #action csatari (5.3.4.1) Send a mail to the edge DL and ask what operations should be available. 14:59:27 Yes 14:59:33 Let me ask it on the DL. 14:59:36 sounds good. 15:00:29 #action (5.3.4.1) Ask edge computing DL if the remote control capability is direct or follows a cascading structure. 15:01:13 #topic Review of 5.3.4.2 Remote control receiving part 15:01:23 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_Edge_Discussions_Dublin_PTG#Remote_control_receiving_part 15:01:40 This also depends on the questions you rased for the previous chapter. 15:02:13 yes, and depending on the actual operation, it might just be the OpenStack API that acts as its own receiving part. 15:02:31 For example, Nova for spawning a new VM... 15:02:40 Yes, this might be a null requirement for most of th ethings. 15:02:56 Maybe I add a note about this. 15:03:06 it is a requirement, just a null action as it might already be present :) 15:03:33 #action csatari (5.3.4.2) Add a note, that this requirement is already fullfilled for lots of operations. 15:03:59 it implies that there is a secure and authenticated connection from the control site to the receiving site 15:04:18 Yes 15:04:20 along with the associated firewall rules, etc, 15:05:08 Yes, this worh an other note :) 15:05:47 #action csatari (5.3.4.2) Add a note that this implies that there is a secure and authenticated connection from the control site to the receiving site along with the associated firewall rules, etc, 15:06:06 The listed questions I will ask on the Dl. 15:06:23 And we are done with the first round of review. 15:06:26 sounds good. 15:06:30 Congratulations! 15:06:31 6 minutes over. 15:06:41 Thanks for participating. 15:06:46 not bad, considering we had a 20 minute break there 15:06:50 thanks for hosting! 15:06:53 #topic Closing 15:07:14 #info We are finished with the first round of reiview. 15:07:46 I plan to have an hour to spend on this wiki in the PTG, but no more IRC meetings. 15:08:02 #info No more IRC meetings will be organised. 15:08:23 #info There will be an hour long commenting session on the Denver II PTG. 15:08:34 #endmeeting