19:02:39 #startmeeting swift 19:02:40 Meeting started Wed Oct 30 19:02:39 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is notreallymyname. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:02:41 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 19:02:43 The meeting name has been set to 'swift' 19:03:00 welcome to the swift team meeting today 19:03:03 who's here? 19:03:05 yo 19:03:07 howdy 19:03:08 o/ 19:03:09 o/ 19:03:29 * clayg isn't really here 19:03:36 * notreallymyname isn't either 19:03:50 agenda items https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Swift 19:03:58 not much for me to bring up this week 19:03:59 here 19:04:05 next week is the HK summit 19:04:13 should be fun 19:04:15 Hi, Lincoln Thomas, HP, 1st time here, leading design session on Metadata Search in HK 19:04:30 lincolnt: great. looking forward to hearing from you next week 19:04:40 thx 19:04:47 as for day-to-day stuff, I wanted to bring up the swift-bench separation 19:04:57 notreallymyname is usually known as notmyname, which is not his name 19:05:01 o/ 19:05:02 ah yes 19:05:21 I'm notmyname, but my bouncer is not working (or the guest wifi I'm on...) 19:05:22 here 19:05:34 #topic swift-bench separation 19:05:40 it's pretty much ready to go 19:05:58 the goals here are (among other things) to remore the dependency of swift on python-swiftclient 19:06:13 remore is a thing 19:06:14 so we need to make sure the rest of swift-bench is good to go and then extract it from swift itself 19:06:51 so the copy has been done, no other changes made to the swift-bench code on the swift repo 19:07:13 so the next thing to do is git rm the tree and change the requirements.txt file/ 19:07:14 ? 19:07:21 notreallymyname: last I checked (@ hackathon), the swift-bench repo needed a bit of work: setup.py, (pbr ANYONE?!), Changelog, etc, etc 19:07:23 right (sorry, had someone ask aquestion) 19:07:45 ya, swift-bench needs basic stuff like the testrunner, a readme, etc 19:07:54 setup.py 19:07:57 homefully not pbr ;-) 19:08:24 so we need someone to do it 19:08:34 * zaitcev hides 19:08:38 should take a day or two, mostly boilerplate stuff 19:08:47 sounds so exciting 19:08:53 I won't be able to do it until after hong kong at the earliest 19:09:15 I guess we don't need a volunteer right now, but it's a thing that needs doing 19:09:18 moving on 19:09:29 #topic EC/policy status 19:09:38 torgomatic: peluse: keving1: any updates? 19:09:48 so I've got one slide at the "Intel and OpenStack" session in HK covering EC - just FYI for everyone 19:10:01 cool 19:10:02 ..and on the code front just waiting on you torgotmatic to review a few things :) 19:10:13 sorry, I've been busy :| 19:10:24 notmyname - do we want to do an impromptu polciies demo of any kind? 19:10:27 too many things going on at once, and I don't multitask particularly well 19:10:28 I've got a tech session on it, and I'd like to do a high-level demo (ie two policies in one cluster, http only, no replication etc) 19:10:34 peluse: yes 19:10:39 nice cross typing 19:10:42 @togomatic nothing major… pyeclib is up on pypi 19:10:45 shall we jsut coordinate there? 19:10:58 peluse: or online before then :-) 19:11:07 OK, lets sync up today or tomorrow then on the demo 19:11:17 peluse: tomorrow for me. I'm at a workshop all day 19:11:29 torgomatic - back to your comment. no huge hurry but I am holding off an onay more work expanding on the poolcieis until you take a quick look at the two patches I ahve up there 19:11:40 ok 19:11:42 policies that is 19:12:11 #topic 410 response 19:12:17 torgomatic: tag 19:12:37 so the question here is regarding a patch that would make some account GET/HEAD requests respond w/410 19:12:56 right now, there's a bug where a deleted-but-not-reclaimed account yields 204 responses on GET/HEAD requests 19:13:03 but you can't PUT/POST to it 19:13:06 torgomatic: can you see what the old behavior was and leave that as a comment in gerrit? 19:13:24 meaning, the account is marked as being created 19:13:30 but that created account can't be used 19:13:32 notreallymyname: yes, I can do a little code archaeology 19:13:36 does it get reclaimed too? 19:13:37 portante: 204 -- no content 19:13:48 torgomatic: thanks 19:13:52 oh, also this only happens when account autocreate is on 19:14:01 is this a reported bug? 19:14:02 but does it change the account so that it is actually created again? 19:14:27 portante: I don't think so 19:14:44 it seems that autocreate on should create the account and not return a 410 19:14:52 seems counter to the notion of auto-create, no? 19:14:56 why did we add the autocreate magic responses? ;-) 19:15:08 or am I missing something else about the nature of the API? 19:15:10 there's an interval after an account is deleted in which it cannot be recreated 19:15:15 that's to let the reaper do its job 19:15:37 and you are saying that is true today before this change 19:15:39 accounts are weird in that you can delete them when nonempty 19:15:48 oh 19:15:48 portante: that's always been true AFAIK 19:15:57 "you" being a cluster operator (ie reseller admin) 19:16:44 anyway, I can investigate and see what the behavior was before the fake-account-listing stuff happened 19:16:56 so by adding the 410 response behavior, we are acknowledging what is actually happening on the backend 19:17:04 portante: ya 19:17:14 I just want to give people a heads-up that this might be happening, so if you have any insight or opinions, go add yourself as a watcher on that review 19:17:31 because we don't currently emit 410 responses, but we might be about to start 19:17:58 but clients will properly respond to classes of responses like they should, right? ;-) 19:18:10 and that's worth bringing up at a meeting so interested parties can go look, and uninterested parties can ignore it :) 19:18:34 indeed. thanks for doing so 19:18:41 can you post the review id here? 19:18:45 anything else on that for today (ie until we know the history) 19:18:45 notreallymyname: well, existing behavior is 204 on HEAD plus 401 (403?) on PUT/POST, so that's clearly wrong and has to be fixed 19:18:54 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/54449/ 19:18:54 * torgomatic has nothing else 19:18:55 yes 19:18:58 done 19:19:11 portante: and the author is otherjon in #openstack-swift 19:19:20 #topic open discussion 19:19:26 * notreallymyname wants to get to lunch 19:19:31 what else is going on? 19:19:47 anything needing discussion or about HK next week? 19:20:12 when is the next target for a swift release? 19:20:16 dec or jan? 19:20:18 FWIW, there were about 60 new swift "clusters" deployed this morning at the workshop 19:20:27 nice 19:20:49 and what are we targetting for that release? 19:21:01 portante: we don't do time-based releases. it would make sense to me to release after swift-bench is separated and to check with the other features under dev 19:21:34 portante: since 1.10 I haven't had a chance to look, but I'd like to see the diskfile stuff cleaned up before a release (in an ideal world) 19:21:42 redhat would like to see the account and container server API refactoring land so that we can complete the gluster layering on supported APIs 19:21:42 portante: that would be grounds for a release IMO 19:22:01 kk 19:22:14 zaitcev is working through those changes, so we'd like to get eyes on them 19:22:34 notreallymyname: okay, thanks 19:22:42 anything else? 19:22:51 not from my end 19:22:59 nothing here 19:23:03 nope 19:23:20 ok, have a good rest of the day. thanks for coming 19:23:22 #endmeeting