13:00:26 #startmeeting senlin 13:00:27 Meeting started Tue Feb 28 13:00:26 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is yanyanhu. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:00:28 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 13:00:32 The meeting name has been set to 'senlin' 13:00:33 yanyanhu: Error: Can't start another meeting, one is in progress. Use #endmeeting first. 13:00:39 hi 13:00:51 hi 13:00:56 hi 13:01:01 hi, elynn_ Qiming 13:01:19 hi 13:01:23 all 13:01:27 hi, XueFengLiu 13:01:39 :) 13:02:03 sorry for late :) 13:02:04 hi, ruijie 13:02:09 hi yanyanhu 13:02:10 not at all :) 13:02:30 please review the agenda and add items you want to discuss 13:02:31 https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/SenlinAgenda#Agenda_.282017-02-28_1300_UTC.29 13:02:56 we are in pike now ? 13:03:03 same question, ;) 13:05:36 hi, sorry, just dropped... 13:05:40 network is very unstable 13:05:49 ruijie, yes, we are in pike now 13:06:49 created pike etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/senlin-pike-workitems 13:07:08 hi 13:07:16 thanks, Qiming 13:08:52 hi, sorry, dropped again... 13:09:06 yanyanhu, seems your network connection is very bad 13:09:16 yes... don't know why 13:09:20 it is ok usually 13:09:34 so where are we now? 13:09:48 looking at API section I guess 13:09:54 the 436288 is merged 13:10:06 ok 13:10:08 need more patches on request object and api layer 13:10:49 and also test I guess 13:11:33 ok, next one 13:11:36 "Feature Rich" Nova Server 13:11:42 hi, elynn_ 13:11:47 hi 13:11:50 so the first template works now? 13:11:54 saw your mail :) 13:12:11 could you please paste the link to etherpad as well so we can easily access it 13:12:17 yes, a simple template works now. 13:12:26 great 13:12:26 I will do it. 13:12:41 ok 13:12:43 nova server is never about a bare server resource itself 13:13:07 yes 13:13:19 so I'm wondering if we should merge it back to nova server profile 13:13:21 And still working on update operation 13:13:39 left some comments to both patches 13:13:47 too early to merge it back 13:13:53 yep 13:14:08 I saw them, will revise it. 13:14:19 how about we merge them in small patches? 13:14:59 Will it break the compatibility 13:15:01 ? 13:15:02 another option is one patch with a thousand lines of code, including unit tests and api/functional tests 13:15:20 it doesn't matter now because ocata is out 13:15:53 do you like the later option ?? 13:16:06 what do you think? 13:16:25 after it's stable, I will merge it back with small patches... 13:16:38 that's fine, though 13:16:56 I was suggesting we work these two threads in parallel 13:17:25 if that is possible 13:17:29 I guess that will break many things... 13:17:33 say, add port support 13:17:47 then add other properties one by one 13:18:31 How about using a new version for this profile? 13:18:38 like os.nova.server-2.0? 13:18:42 the implication for code in contrib is that we may throw it away 13:18:54 yes, we will bump versions along the way 13:18:55 could we do that? 13:19:19 and also leave the code of version 1.0 I guess? 13:19:25 the version support is very limited 13:19:27 if so, should we maintain os.nova.server-1.0 and os.nova.server-2.0 at the same time? 13:20:00 or we add deprecated warning for os.nova.server-1.0 profile once 2.0 is supported? 13:20:03 I'm more afraid of compatibility issues. 13:20:11 me too... 13:20:15 a valid concern 13:20:50 that's the reason I suggested we do it in small patches 13:21:18 we cannot add 500 lines of new code and ensure back compatibility 13:21:33 I think Qiming's suggestion is feasible 13:21:47 and ... once the POC is there, people usually hate to rewrite it again 13:21:48 we enhance the current nova server step by step 13:22:02 until we meet uncompatible issue 13:22:07 then we stop to figure it out 13:22:18 and them keep going go 13:22:21 right, we don't know how difficult it will be yet 13:22:38 s/them/then 13:23:03 that 13:23:19 that's right. 13:23:26 just one more question, does this template meet the requirement raised by xinhui at the beginning? 13:23:37 one lesson we learned in the past is about deploying container clusters 13:23:49 that has been done separately on github 13:23:56 This template is what xinhui found. 13:24:05 but code is kind of abandoned 13:24:11 When xinhui gets back, I will check with her. 13:24:25 alright, it's up to you, sir 13:24:35 elynn_, I see 13:24:50 great 13:25:09 if bran has been involved into this, I'm optimistic on that, yanyanhu 13:25:24 ok :) 13:26:03 so lets move on if there is no more question on this item? 13:26:27 Engine Improvement 13:26:41 hi,yanyan 13:26:44 hi, XueFengLiu 13:26:52 any new progress on cluster check 13:26:59 Two patches has been merged 13:27:18 the api for target delete 13:27:46 And delete actions when delete cluster. 13:28:02 nice 13:28:10 This is the a new one for cluster check actions 13:28:22 so action number will be reduced now 13:28:56 so, please keep working on it, thanks a lot :) 13:29:02 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/435822/ 13:29:07 Need review 13:29:16 and modify 13:29:30 great, that is what we want 13:29:44 will help to review it 13:29:52 Thanks:) 13:29:58 :) 13:30:02 ok, next one 13:30:07 - Add senlin to RDO 13:30:12 XueFengLiu, still your turn :) 13:30:22 Qiming said you have filed bug for it? 13:30:31 Yes 13:30:53 I report a bug to rdo project. 13:31:03 And next 13:31:15 We need write a spec for senlin 13:31:34 like the spec in openstack? 13:31:41 or it is a template for building package? 13:31:47 No , for rpm 13:31:52 ok 13:32:14 I generate a spec by python command automic 13:32:19 so the maintainer should be responsible for defining how to build the rpm 13:32:30 but it seems need do some change 13:32:39 Yes 13:32:58 better raise questions in the #rdo channel if helps needed 13:33:08 OK 13:33:12 XueFengLiu, may thanks for starting this job 13:33:16 many 13:33:37 My pleasure 13:33:39 :) 13:33:50 ok, lets move on? 13:33:54 OK 13:33:56 functional test for client 13:33:59 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/436338/ 13:34:05 it is ready for review now 13:34:22 wrt to rpm spec, I'm not sure if the fully fleged version is created manually 13:34:25 btw, we met some problems which failed our gate in last several days 13:35:27 and that problem has been fixed 13:35:44 partially 13:36:08 still not sure if we should move post-config stuff to project-config 13:36:08 so, I guess we still need some change on our test hooks? 13:36:16 QiMing, I tested to genereate by python setup.py bdist_rpm 13:36:17 need to keep an eye on it 13:36:25 Qiming, yes, looks sean suggested that in the mail 13:36:35 but there is still no concensus I guess 13:36:46 yep, both approaches have drawbacks 13:37:10 And the spec and rpm are generated. But not whole 13:37:12 moving things to gate will increase infra workload 13:37:25 yes, XueFengLiu, I know that 13:37:51 Qiming, yes, that means any change could need revision in project-config 13:38:03 I mean, for the generation of a FULL version, there may be other tools we don't know 13:38:05 that will significantly increase the overhead of infra team 13:38:47 keeping those settings in individual projects will be a pain for devstack tools 13:39:01 it may occasionally break this project or that 13:39:19 yes, there is no perfect solution currently I guess... 13:39:53 anyway, about the functional test for client, once the gate job is ready, we can start working on the base test in senlinclient side 13:40:10 yep, that is a great starting point 13:40:10 XueFengLiu, will work together with you to setup the basic one 13:40:23 OK 13:40:29 Thanks 13:40:36 just want to remind everyone, we are supposed to write functional tests for OSC plugin only 13:40:50 yes 13:40:56 that's what we need 13:41:22 so lets move on? 13:41:36 sure 13:41:39 Support CLUSTER_RECOVER action in LB policy 13:41:45 hi, ruijie 13:41:49 your turn :) 13:41:53 yes yanyanhu 13:42:03 I proposed 1st patch today 13:42:15 https://review.openstack.org/438889 13:42:16 this one 13:42:21 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/438889/ 13:42:38 yes, basicly will add logic to post_op() 13:42:51 to handle the data passed from do_recover(...) 13:42:55 this is important if we want lb policy works with cluster recovery action 13:43:29 maybe we will need some logic for CLUSTER_CHECK as well? 13:43:32 ruijie, also we may need to consider the situation that the IP doesn't change 13:43:37 after node is recovered 13:43:44 Qiming, yes 13:43:47 good idea 13:44:16 yanyanhu, you mean the server ip will changed during running? 13:44:20 but one question is we are not sure whether lbaas support to manually set the health status of a member 13:44:49 ruijie, I mean if the IP of node doesn't change during recovery progress, maybe we don't need to perform lb member update operation 13:45:22 yes, I noticed the cluster_recover is under revising to sync the status of server 13:45:44 will add logic to cluster_recover() too 13:45:51 ruijie, thanks :) 13:45:55 if a server is recreated, the IP may get changed 13:46:24 yes, if the server is just soft-reboot, will not remove it from lb 13:46:25 Qiming, yes, that is likely to happen 13:46:26 so no matter recovery is a success or not, we need to check it 13:46:40 sure, the check is necessary 13:47:23 I am thinking we still use "creation"/"deletion" to handle the data 13:47:39 ruijie, you mean? 13:48:09 creation data contains the node is that need to be added to lb, and deletion means need to be removed 13:48:17 in the action layer we check that 13:48:27 if they are not sufficient 13:48:51 feel free to dump the related node info into the 'outputs' field of the action 13:48:54 and then pass it to post_op 13:49:17 okay Qiming, will propose another tomorrow 13:49:22 patch 13:49:40 ruijie, great, and please ping me if you need any help on lb policy 13:49:42 thanks 13:49:49 sure yanyanhu:) 13:49:59 I believe you have a good understanding about how policy works 13:50:15 :) 13:50:24 :) 13:50:32 so lets all in the list I think 13:50:47 and we have some items in Wishlist or with Low Priority 13:51:02 but I guess no progress on them in this week 13:51:16 that's all, sorry misclicked... 13:51:39 any more items in progress? 13:51:59 ok, open discussion now 13:52:03 #topic Open discussions 13:52:12 any more topics from you guys? 13:52:30 Qiming, xinhui is still in travel? 13:52:37 not sure 13:52:43 one question ... 13:52:47 looking forward to the news about ptg from her :) 13:53:01 anyone is interested in trying deploy a kubernetes cluster using senlin? 13:53:27 I am working on deploy a cloud foundry cluster .. 13:53:40 wow ... 13:53:56 no very familiar with k8s 13:54:00 not 13:54:40 it would be great to learn any experiences / lessons from you 13:55:07 very happy to share it after I finish it :) 13:55:22 ruijie, thanks :) 13:55:35 good boy:) 13:55:44 :P 13:55:48 don't hesitate if there are things we can help from senlin side 13:55:51 lol .. 13:56:18 the role of node will be a big problem .. 13:56:28 ha 13:56:34 since the recover and scaling are both need to based on that 13:57:02 should we extend 'role' to be a list? 13:57:28 many other apis should be made role aware, I guess 13:57:52 enhancing role support is critical for many cases I believe 13:57:58 so may need more attention on it 13:58:18 agreed 13:58:50 so lets think more about it :) 13:58:55 ok, that's all for today I guess 13:59:21 thanks all you guys for joining, have a good night :) 13:59:36 bye 13:59:38 Hi,YanYan. About receiver will ask you tomorrow 13:59:39 bye 13:59:41 Bye 13:59:44 XueFengLiu, sure 13:59:45 have a good night 13:59:46 please ping me 13:59:52 OK 13:59:55 good night 14:00:03 goog night 14:00:08 oops... 14:00:10 good night :) 14:00:11 #endmeeting