15:00:38 #startmeeting telemetry 15:00:38 Meeting started Thu Jan 28 15:00:38 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is gordc. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:39 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:00:42 The meeting name has been set to 'telemetry' 15:00:56 o/ 15:01:18 o/ 15:01:35 ... very quick meeting? 15:01:56 o/ 15:01:59 o/ 15:02:23 let's blame through this 15:02:24 <_nadya_> o/ 15:02:27 o/ 15:02:37 o/ 15:02:41 #topic roadmap items (new/old/blockers) https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Telemetry/RoadMap 15:02:42 o/ 15:02:53 ok. so we are in final stretch 15:03:11 i have list of Roadmap items listed... if someone still has open time 15:03:20 but i have nothing really to add. any blockers? 15:04:11 cool. nothing 15:04:18 #topic aodh topics 15:04:23 anything for aodh? 15:04:41 <_nadya_> yep! I have a question about mandatory limits 15:04:48 _nadya_: kk 15:05:20 <_nadya_> so, I don't think we need it in aodh. Also, it affects QAs and customers very much 15:05:27 #topic aodh mandatory limits 15:06:22 <_nadya_> the main purpose of mandatory limits in Ceilo was not to show too many resources and not create a load on dbs 15:06:25 _nadya_: qa because they need to update default return setting? 15:06:58 _nadya_: so i'm pretty indifferent to mandatory limits... are we against adding limit completely though? 15:07:24 <_nadya_> gordc: yes. so you have a test with expectation that 10001 resource should be returned, but it starts return only 10000 15:07:24 So the question is that how many alarms typically would return in a query for production? 15:07:38 o/ 15:07:51 _nadya_: well we can have a limit but make it optional? 15:08:03 liusheng: do you know how many alarms we have? 15:08:16 i guess per resource it becomes a lot? 15:08:21 <_nadya_> gordc: yep, I don't mind to have -l option, but not mandatory 15:08:53 I think it's better to keep the option, but I agree to skip the mandatory part 15:09:03 there's a standard in OpenStack, let's use it 15:09:04 gordc: don't have a exact num 15:09:17 jd__: what's the standard? 15:09:31 jd__: this seems like taht pagination craziness again. 15:09:38 the one we use in Gnocchi AFAIK, that is backed by oslo.db features 15:09:40 jd__: the standard for limit is optional or mandtary? 15:10:03 gordc: but seems about several thousands 15:10:16 gordc: that's that, but it's standardized AFAIK now – at least for sql 15:10:41 jd__: is pagination in oslo.db? 15:10:56 yes AFAIK 15:10:58 sileht knows 15:11:08 the problem is we aren't killing mongo/hbase for aodh just yet 15:11:43 so... maybe we should officially mark them deprecated 15:11:57 yes, we merged a spec for that 15:11:59 and then start applying all the oslo.db pagination easy stuff afterwards. 15:12:02 and just not implement the feature there 15:12:35 gordc: I will add docco if we deprecate Mongo and HBase now 15:13:08 jd__: i'm ok with adopting oslo.db pagination. we just need to formally say: 'mongo/hbase aodh is what it is' 15:13:17 and maybe have a v2.1 api or something 15:13:27 no need AFAIK since it's just addition 15:13:47 something to consider. 15:14:08 so we all ok with prioritising deprecation spec 15:14:24 <_nadya_> I'm not sure I wanted this.... 15:14:28 and we can apply oslo.db rules for api limits in aodh? 15:14:39 _nadya_: the deprecation? 15:15:00 <_nadya_> gordc: yep :) So we will have only one db option for Aodh? 15:15:14 _nadya_: yes. 15:15:28 let's be honest here, our resources are stretch too thin as is. 15:15:45 <_nadya_> gordc: agreed 15:15:49 unless someone yells "i'm using mongo/hbase and i will work on it" 15:15:52 gordc: the pagination in oslo.db can surppot limit, marker, sort, don't have a default limit confg option 15:15:55 i don't see how we can maintain it. 15:16:27 liusheng: so it could solve our concerns still? 15:17:02 _nadya_: i think i consider it like zmq or qpid in oslo.db. 15:17:07 gordc, you just have to set it like this: https://github.com/openstack/gnocchi/blob/master/gnocchi/indexer/sqlalchemy.py#L526 15:17:10 <_nadya_> gordc: people usually use the same backend for alarming as for metering. but probably, it is not a blocker. It just a tradition 15:17:13 it's there. but no one gives a damn about it so probably don't use it. 15:17:34 or at least for qpid 15:17:48 sileht: ah cool. 15:17:49 nice. 15:18:20 sileht: qpid still exists right? in oslo.messaging? 15:18:27 it just not tested or worked on? 15:18:35 gordc, no it have been removed 15:18:38 _nadya_: I assume it's the easiest to handle, but it's prolly not a blocker 15:18:39 oh.lol 15:18:48 the 1 cycle deprecation have been done 15:18:54 <_nadya_> ildikov: yep, tend to agree 15:18:57 yeah. so i guess we do the same. 15:19:09 we deprecate and if no one steps up. it's gone? 15:19:24 for me i'd rather have one working rather than 3 broken options. 15:19:53 _nadya_: although if we go into this direction I assume we will hear complainings from ops if it wasn't a that good idea 15:20:38 ildikov: yep. and then they can go to their boss and let them know backend support don't grow on trees 15:20:46 and then we get more resources :) 15:20:48 gordc++ 15:20:49 if we want to deprecate mongodb/hbase, maybe we should write an tool to help migrate them into sql? 15:21:03 llu-laptop: no, same answer than gordc just gave 15:21:15 gordc: lol :) agreed 15:21:32 gordc: also the code is still up on github it can be picked up later... 15:21:44 llu-laptop: yeah. if there's a request... we're not at point where we can give false hope. :) 15:21:52 <_nadya_> jd__: why not? It should be pretty easy 15:22:06 ildikov: ++ 15:22:06 <_nadya_> false hope, ok 15:22:15 llu-laptop: I have tried that, but I am in busy for other things these days :( 15:22:16 _nadya_: yeah, all about resources. 15:22:19 _nadya_: sure, you'll do it? 15:22:40 _nadya_: we can backlog it. 15:22:50 <_nadya_> jd__: ok, I understood :) Anyway, I think I will 15:23:08 i should create a section that says: 'pay someone, tell them to do this, and it will happen' 15:23:10 _nadya_: taking your word for it :) 15:23:39 although, that's basically the enitre backlog 15:23:48 <_nadya_> jd__: my name can be translated in english as "hope" :) 15:23:57 :) we all good? 15:23:59 gordc: yeah, let's backlog that and encourage new comer to work on that. 15:24:19 #action backlog mongo/hbase to sql tool 15:24:39 #action prioritise db deprecation 15:24:53 #action adopt oslo.db for pagination/limits 15:24:57 _nadya_: good to know lol 15:25:13 cool. anything else? 15:25:33 llu-laptop: all those shitty tasks in the backlog that nobody wants to work on, you call that encouragement. remind me to never work for you ;) 15:26:56 jd__: intel has a lot of money... you may eat your words 15:27:06 #topic ceilometer topics 15:27:59 i'm going to assume nothign for this? 15:28:01 <_nadya_> can I merge this nova polling improvements https://review.openstack.org/#/c/209799/9? 15:28:13 gordc: don't confuse the man and the company :) 15:29:58 _nadya_: sorry, was readnig liushengs comment 15:30:01 i'm ok merging. 15:31:12 _nadya_: i'm going to edit to make liushengs comment address my comment but i'll push merge or fix later 15:31:29 _nadya_: feel free to merge now if you like 15:31:36 <_nadya_> gordc: ok! 15:31:39 #topic gnocchi topics 15:32:05 I just released 1.3.4 with a bunch of interesting fixes 15:32:05 jd__: anything? or just check openstack-telemetry logs to see all the comments? 15:32:33 jd__: we haven't released the split timeserie patch yet right? 15:32:38 now I'm planning on 2.0 in the next weeks, once dust settles 15:32:43 gordc: no that'd be in 2.0 15:32:49 jd__: kk. 15:32:52 whereas my plan to release it in the upcoming weeks 15:33:04 jd__: i'm not sure stevelle has pinged you or not about the ansible support problem of gnocchi with swift 15:33:10 good to see what bugs we get from nicodemus_ 15:33:13 next we'd release 2.1 with sileht work on dynamic resource type, probably around mitaka I guess 15:33:19 llu-laptop: he didn't 15:33:25 jd__: make sense. 15:33:41 then the dynamic resource type support will have to got in Ceilometer for N I guess :) 15:33:58 other than that, project is in really good shape so far 15:35:50 jd__: cool cool. 15:36:05 jd__: the problem is that if goncchi saves data into swift, the ceilometermiddleware will send out notifications which are turned into metrics to be published into gnocchi 15:36:11 a loop 15:36:15 jd__: hoping lab is ready next week and i can start etsting in a few weeks. 15:36:23 llu-laptop: yeah. 15:36:29 you can filter it in ceilometermiddleware 15:36:38 or just disable ceilometermiddleware. 15:36:40 llu-laptop, a configuration flags exists to filterout the gnocchi account 15:36:50 or create another proxy-server? 15:37:02 what sileht said 15:37:09 sileht: configuration flag in ceilometermiddleware? 15:37:17 in Gnocchi 15:37:31 sileht: i think it needs to happen at proxy-server rather than dispatcher. 15:37:44 llu-laptop, https://github.com/openstack/ceilometermiddleware/blob/master/ceilometermiddleware/swift.py#L39 15:38:00 llu-laptop, or https://github.com/openstack/ceilometer/blob/master/ceilometer/dispatcher/gnocchi.py#L47 15:38:09 depending of your needs 15:38:45 llu-laptop: i'd recommend the ceilometermiddleware. the dispatcher filter will still hammer queue. but yeah, you have options 15:40:09 any other items? 15:40:46 #topic open discussion 15:41:13 just a heads up, feb 1 is last day to submit speaker talks for summit (if you plan to do antyhing) 15:41:19 that's all i have. 15:42:51 let's call it. 15:42:54 thanks folks. 15:42:57 #endmeeting