21:00:00 #startmeeting swift 21:00:01 Meeting started Wed Nov 2 21:00:00 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is notmyname. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:00:02 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 21:00:04 The meeting name has been set to 'swift' 21:00:08 who's here for the swift team meeting? 21:00:11 o/ 21:00:12 here 21:00:14 Hi 21:00:17 hi 21:00:18 o/ 21:00:19 hello 21:00:19 o/ 21:00:20 o/ 21:00:20 o/ 21:00:21 hi 21:00:21 hi 21:00:22 o/ 21:00:31 o/ 21:00:33 hi 21:00:41 hi 21:00:46 . 21:01:04 welcome everyone 21:01:34 I hope those who were in Barca got home ok, and for those not there, you were missed 21:01:56 agenda fro this week is at 21:01:57 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Swift 21:02:05 #topic Note the time change 21:02:27 we're in that fun part of the year where various governments tell us to change our clocks 21:02:38 :) 21:02:39 I think the EU changed last weekend. the US changes this coming weekend 21:02:48 is clayg using that as an excuse? 21:03:04 remember that our meeting is at 2100UTC (which doesn't change) 21:03:42 please note your current timezone and adjust your calendar as needed 21:04:09 for me, next week's meeting will be 1 hour earlier (1pm pacific) 21:04:47 also, something that has helped me is to know that Iceland's timezone is GMT+0 and they don't change throughout the year. so repeating events scheduled at UTC can be set to Iceland time 21:05:00 (eg google calendar doesn't support setting something to UTC) 21:05:05 ^i do that thing too 21:05:06 I think Ghana does the same thing 21:05:39 IIRC, the northern winter / souther summer will actually make meeting times slightly easier for most people 21:05:50 ok, that's enough about that :-) 21:06:05 #summit retrospective 21:06:14 let's talk about last week's summit! 21:06:50 I want to cover good things, bad things, things to improve, summary of topics for people who weren't there (each in turn) 21:07:00 so first up... 21:07:09 how was it? what did you like about last week's summit? 21:07:47 I liked having a design summit :-) 21:08:31 the rooms were a good size 21:08:32 I liked the solid two days we had for the design summit. I thought it flowed pretty well (and they had to kick us out at the end) 21:08:38 sorry I'm late (just remembered clock change) 21:08:47 acoles: glad you made it :-) 21:08:56 acoles: just talking about the summit. first question: what did you like? 21:09:04 it was great to see so many devops engaged in the discussion and providing their feedback 21:09:11 that ^^ 21:09:41 really good to have a design discussion and be able to turn to an op and ask their opinion 21:09:52 +1 21:09:57 +1 21:09:57 yeah, having two ops sessions were good 21:10:03 e.g. on replication/golang and on keymaster v2 21:10:08 +1 21:11:07 TBH I think one of my favorite parts of the week was simply exploring barcelona with other swift people :-) 21:11:38 +1 21:11:40 yeah, barça was pretty cool, food was great 21:11:57 I don't remember much exploring… lots of eating and drinking… not much exploring 21:12:03 my body has not yet forgiven me for the late nights! 21:12:04 lol 21:12:37 for the conference parts, we had a lot of user stories and swift-related talks on tuesday 21:12:39 i took some photos of the monday before the summit, which includes many swift folk: https://www.flickr.com/photos/146035486@N03/albums/72157674298108501 21:13:00 wednesday there were cross-project sessions. thursday and friday were design sessions 21:13:27 ah yes. I think acoles remembers that spiral staircase :-) 21:13:49 notmyname: are we on to the what was bad topic already? ;) 21:13:53 lol 21:13:56 :) 21:14:02 ok, what could we have improved this week? 21:14:03 I liked that Alexis came to the swift room and engaged in conversation with us over oslo things. 21:14:12 acoles: yes, that was great! 21:14:14 oh, i missed that 21:14:47 Alexis is an HPE colleague who I discovered has worked on oslo config and other things 21:14:56 cool! 21:15:06 so some of us were able to explore exactly how that might ever work out for us 21:15:18 Yeah he was cool 21:15:26 He also sits about 20 yards from me in Bristol 21:15:43 but I had never made the connection with oslo 21:16:23 I hope some of those conversations bear fruit. I learned of some outdated misconceptions I had 21:16:53 I was in opensack-meeting 21:17:05 lol 21:17:14 heh 21:17:49 so what are things you think we could work on? 21:18:05 or things you wish had gone better 21:18:25 I thought we could have moved the tables sooner and gotten into the room-ful of discussion just a little sooner 21:18:42 that ^ 21:19:04 we had the fishbowl saying the first thing to do was always to split the room in half, but then we didn't do it ourselves :p 21:19:10 heh 21:19:13 notmyname: we did ok, mid morning on the first day 21:19:36 yeah, I'm not sad about missed opportunity. just that we could have done it maybe 30 min earlier :-) 21:20:01 bkeller`: pics are great 21:20:16 and I had higher hopes for some of the cross-project sessions. someone suggested to me that we (swift team) could facilitate a cross-project session at the PTG around something that we've learned and are still learning 21:20:17 next time when we say first thing we mean first thing! 21:20:25 review times or prioritization or feature branches or somehting 21:20:35 i missed not having a summary at the end of the discussion that took place, I feel we should write it down somewhere 21:20:37 maybe we could have had 30 mins at end of Friday to recap everything that was covered and the take aways/actions. 21:20:50 tdasilva: acoles: did you two plan that? 21:20:51 but, people were leaving so would have been incomplete 21:20:58 clayg: actually, we did ;) 21:21:06 i wish we could have had kota_ on Friday! 21:21:30 lol 21:21:49 ok, so here's the basic question: what do you want to do differently in atlanta at the PTG? so far I'm hearing "move tables sooner" and "make sure kota_ is there the whole time" 21:21:51 clayg: that's what I was thinking I had mistaken :/ 21:22:22 notmyname: thanks man 21:23:34 ok, so for those who weren't there last week, what would you like a brief summary on? 21:23:50 since PTG takes place of hackathon, maybe we should do the dot method for picking topics for the week? will we have more than 2 days? 21:23:51 * notmyname will also be adding those to his notes 21:24:14 jrichli: I think we'll have 3 days. in that case, dots will work well 21:24:18 i did like the dot method, although it took half the day just to get our dots in order 21:25:02 maybe at the PTG we could square the dots during the corss project meetings or so 21:25:21 I think the part that takes a while is "what did we forget to put on the etherpad that people acctually here want to talk about?" 21:25:47 putting stickers up is 15-20 mins once you know what all the papers/topics are acctually about 21:26:33 So we just need to do a better job of finalising the etherpad before day 1 of swift sessions 21:27:03 but i'm sure the papers and lists do make it easier for notmyname to track down summary's and statuses of the weeks discussion 21:27:43 mattoliverau: I think we're pretty good with that for summits. for hackathons, we're generally more in-the-moment for scheduling. different tactics for different events 21:27:45 mattoliverau: i think that would mostly solve it - I think when you have a whole week and people are still jetlagged it's no bigs to spend the first morning on a more social activity - but we don't want to blow the first half of 3 days at the PTG 21:27:46 so no summaries requested from anyone? 21:28:09 so... on Monday/Tuesday - we're 100% cross project - except for the little bit of planning 21:28:11 we could do dot-like voting on etherpad before summit, but I like having physical reminders of topics and progress, like paper or post-its, when we are in a physical meeting 21:28:23 clayg: true, but I'm always jetlagged.. even if it was in Oz :P 21:28:30 lol 21:28:37 TBH I'm not too worried about scheduling topics for the PTG. we did ok in Barca, and we'll do fine with the PTG. and we'll figure it out in the months between now and then 21:28:48 any updates from using encryption and EC out in the wild? 21:29:03 acoles: i agree, the physicallity is to good to pass up - I don't think it needs to happen before we have actual boots on the ground at the event - anything before that is premature 21:29:03 IOW, we don't have to keep talking about the right way to to do dots on papers 4 months from now ;-) 21:29:24 pdardeau: encryption everything is awesome and fast - EC everything is broken and slow 21:29:31 pdardeau: timburke shares some results in his talk with acoles. basically, if you use AES-NI, there's zero impact 21:29:38 but yeah. what clayg said :-) 21:30:01 much of the "EC is slow" was punted to "things will be better after we do golang repcon" 21:30:03 :-/ 21:30:07 OVH gave a talk about migrating and using EC in their 25PB cluster 21:30:31 jrichli: +1, that was great. 21:30:49 and aside from "we had to stop migrating to EC because rebalance was slow/inefficient" it was basically "EC is great!" 21:30:58 :-) 21:32:11 any big a-ha! moments? 21:32:27 wrt to saying encryption is awesome and fast, I am not sure that we have heard from anyone who is using it in prod yet 21:32:46 cschwede had one but he said he would share once he figured out if it was working or not 21:32:54 OVH raised the "isolated re-incarnated fragment" problem - is there a launchpad bug for that? I would have liked to have found more time to discuss a solution for that. 21:33:12 acoles: oh shit your right 21:33:12 jrichli: we've got people using it in prod. at least one now, and a few evaluating or about to use it 21:33:22 oh, ok - great 21:34:13 jrichli: looks a little scared now :P 21:34:26 FWIW, etherpads are at 21:34:28 lol. no ... 21:34:28 how was the discussion about barbican? 21:34:28 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Design_Summit/Ocata/Etherpads#Swift 21:34:30 git says to blame jrichli for encryption :P 21:34:50 tdasilva: it was good! 21:34:55 git sometimes lies ;-) 21:34:58 lol 21:35:40 tdasilva: we had a good discussion of how we might achieve key rotation one day, and identified an incremental roadmap for exploring that 21:36:00 ugh, is a roadmap ever incremental? sorry for that! 21:36:38 tdasilva: initial goal being to rotate per-account keys, that probably being non-trivial to start with 21:37:25 so is mathias already looking into storing multiple keys in barbican? or are the per-account keys derived from the root key 21:37:25 ? 21:37:48 tdasilva: just a single root key in barbican for the moment 21:38:08 acoles: per-account keys would be useful for instant secure delete too - even w/o rotation 21:38:08 I wasn't able to be in that discussion. Are plans to provide a summary? 21:38:13 mathiasb: hi! 21:38:47 yes I too would ask that we each go through the etherpads and add notes to the various topics 21:38:56 it will help us all stay together 21:38:57 jrichli: I put a summary of the discussion here https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/ideas/keymaster_v2 21:39:09 great, thx! 21:39:28 jrichli: clayg yes writing some notes down might be more accurate than me trying to replay the discussion here, I think I might confuse matters 21:39:28 I can add them to the etherpad (as well) to make them easier to find 21:39:28 notmyname: i'll take it as a TODO to update the hummingbird section of whichever pad 21:39:39 mathiasb: thanks! 21:39:52 clayg: thanks! https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/BCN-swift-working-session-5 21:39:59 mathiasb: thanks 21:40:18 Only downside to splitting the room was there were alot of awesome discussions I wanted to sit in on, but had to make chocies. 21:40:24 +1 21:40:31 mattoliverau: always 21:40:33 ok, anything else to discuss about the summit? 21:40:36 I'll take a look at the etherpads of the discussions I was involved in and see if theres anything I can add to them 21:40:57 should we consider video recording some of the larger discussions? (like golang had the whole room) 21:41:39 or i guess it could make people worry about asking potentially silly questions/suggestions 21:41:40 bkeller`: I feel like we should work on simply taking notes first 21:42:06 bkeller`: I'm more worried about the time taken to watch than reliving silly questions 21:42:16 bkeller`: yeah I think a summary based on notes concensus is almost always going to be more useful to me than a video for this kind of thing 21:42:54 joeljwright: did you know most youtube videos can be watched at double playback speed!? 21:43:09 clayg: I did, and it's really funny 21:43:10 bkeller`: I'd be concerned that people might feel inhibited 21:43:22 ok, no videos 21:43:48 yep, that's fine 21:43:55 let's move on to the next topic 21:44:01 last call for summit discussions? 21:44:27 ok 21:44:29 bkeller`: on the bright side the *idea* of video recordings of design sessions will be preserved forever in irc logs 21:44:42 #topic patches/bugs before the next release 21:45:05 before the summit, we were trackign a few bugs to land before cutting a release. and wanting to cut a release to get the fixes available 21:45:12 https://bugs.launchpad.net/swift/+bug/1633647 21:45:12 Launchpad bug 1633647 in OpenStack Object Storage (swift) "bad fragment data not detected in audit" [Critical,Fix released] 21:45:15 has laneded 21:45:25 but https://bugs.launchpad.net/swift/+bug/1624088 has not 21:45:25 Launchpad bug 1624088 in OpenStack Object Storage (swift) "EC missing durable can prevent reconstruction" [Critical,Confirmed] 21:45:25 because it was *awesome* 21:45:27 nice 21:45:39 patch is https://review.openstack.org/#/c/376630/ 21:45:40 i forget why that one isn't merged - it's probably awesome too 21:45:51 has a +2 from tdasilva (thanks!). needs another 21:45:57 nm, i tae it back Co-Authored-By: Clay Gerrard 21:46:07 lol 21:46:11 nothing can be perfect 21:46:16 ;-) 21:46:26 clayg: he did that ambiguous thing again! 21:46:42 heh 21:47:24 the diff on code is *tiny* - just include some inscrutable json in a header and vioala! 200+ lines of test diff prove it's better 21:47:38 yup :-) 21:47:42 thanks kota_ clayg tdasilva for merging 376630, I am part way through preparing the backports 21:47:42 this is the only critical bug that's being tracked right now, so IIRC, when this one lands we can cut a release 21:47:45 what could go wrong? 21:48:03 notmyname: so what's the timeframe on a client release? 21:48:06 or was it timburke I should thank? thanks everyone! 21:48:10 sounds good - I'm not sure there's any other critical bugs that we have in fligth to fix? 21:48:11 you read my mind :-) 21:48:36 I will be looking into a client release asap too. the keystone session support that landed is great, and we shoudl release that soon 21:48:45 +1 21:49:00 that's why i ask :-) 21:49:03 #topic open discussion 21:49:07 timburke: do we want to try landing the keystone session supoprt for v1 auth too? 21:49:08 anything else to bring up this week? 21:49:18 joeljwright: good question 21:49:19 joeljwright: i'd love to 21:49:30 but i also don't view it as a blocker 21:49:37 good point 21:49:45 can we talk about a specific topic that was discussed during the summit, but still needs a resolution? 21:49:49 I will still get myself reviewing asap though 21:49:58 tdasilva: yes. what's up? 21:49:59 timburke: I was looking at your v1 patch on the plane, I'll try and finish up the review for it. 21:50:15 i just knew it'd be a necessary thing before we could ever hope to get rid of all the auth options in shell.py and only ever instantiate Sessions ourselves 21:50:25 thanks mattoliverau! 21:50:29 a few of us (can't remember exactly who, acoles, timburke, jrichli) were talking about how we should go about landing symlinks 21:50:36 ok 21:51:03 it is ready for review, but it would nice if there were a real client to use it, like versioning or tiering to test out the kinks 21:51:13 before being made available to users 21:51:31 so we talked about maybe landing on master and labeling it experimental 21:51:36 tdasilva: as opposed to "just" functional and probe tests? 21:52:40 no, it has functional tests. It just that it is more of a foundational feature and we think it would be nice if "clients" put it to use 21:52:52 so that we could find issues with it 21:53:17 by landing it on master, it would make it easier for features like tiering and versioning to use it 21:53:18 I'm not disagreeing. but what are you hoping to find that won't be found in functests? is it api design? 21:53:33 but at the same time it opens up for backwards compatibility issues in the future 21:53:40 we discussed the backwards compatibility "cost" of discovering later that a feature isn't quite what a yet-to-be-finalised application needed, versus the "cost" of not merging a feature and having it languish as a patch 21:54:04 yeah, makes sense 21:54:11 what consensus did you come to last week? 21:54:56 we talked about the pros and cons of landing on master as experimental 21:55:04 while it is not merged we keep talking (costing time and context swicthing) about it and applications have to base patches on a patch 21:55:21 not sure we came to a consensus, but personally i'm ok with it 21:55:40 because of what acoles jsut sais 21:56:03 what are the migration costs? is any data in it versioned? eg "this is a v1 symlink"? 21:56:07 tdasilva: lets' just maybe try to get a bunch of eyes on it - like really push folks to "hey! important foundational thing coming down! do you bit and try and make it good!" 21:56:08 I was leaning towards landing with an experimental label 21:56:34 clayg: yes, the more eyes now the better 21:57:05 so if it lands as exeperimaental then we need to make sure we note that the API may change in future is documentation then. 21:57:07 one thing 21:57:13 kota_: yes? 21:57:33 acoles: tdasilva: what's the review/change id? 21:57:38 and if it is not already well understood, make sure that people realise this is meant to be the enabling feature for tiering etc (I think, right?) 21:57:41 in this week, i found something on isa-l 21:57:50 now in discussion on fyi, https://github.com/01org/isa-l/issues/10 21:57:54 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/232162/ 21:57:56 kota_: right. I saw the github issue. thanks 21:58:08 (on the symlinks topic) ok, for now, let's do that. get more +2s on it (like we did with other big stuff) 21:58:24 notmyname: oh, you has already had, great. 21:58:50 ah jrichli has a -1 on it 21:59:00 sorry breaking the conversation. 21:59:05 kota_: so that latest diff to switch the vptr to the cauchy function? That works even with fragments encoded using the old function? 21:59:15 kota_: no worries 21:59:17 yes, i need to look into those failures 21:59:17 the matrix manipulation only comes into play when you're slicing around the errors right? 21:59:38 kota_: all the bytes are disk a full filled in matrix? the inversion issues don't come into play? 21:59:41 clayg: you are talking in public :/ 22:00:01 jrichli: tdasilva: ok, you two keep looking. when you say it's good (you're ready to +2), let the rest of us know to do more reviews. then when we have many, we'll land it 22:00:06 ... i thought that's why we were brining it up? 22:00:11 sorry 22:00:31 we're out of time in this room 22:00:38 thanks, everyone, for working on swift 22:00:58 don't forget that meetings are at UTC2100, regardless of your timezone changes 22:01:02 #endmeeting