13:01:20 #startmeeting tricircle 13:01:20 Meeting started Wed May 4 13:01:20 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is joehuang. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:01:21 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 13:01:24 The meeting name has been set to 'tricircle' 13:01:48 #topic rollcall 13:01:54 #info joehuang 13:02:09 #info Ronghui 13:02:19 #info zhiyuan 13:02:20 #info Yipei 13:02:37 #topic PTL election 13:03:40 hello, to be an openstack TC approved big tent project 13:03:49 we need to do PTL election 13:04:37 in OpenStack tradition, every one in the project could nominate himself to serve as the PTL of the release 13:04:59 what is the PTL? 13:05:29 project team leader? 13:05:36 project technical leader 13:06:01 that's cool 13:07:21 if you are interested in leading the project for the release, you can nominate yourself as the PTL, and members in the project can vote who will be the PTL if more than one nomination 13:07:22 I heard that there is a tool to run the election? 13:08:05 if more than one nomination happened, then we need to use the tool for election 13:09:22 so first a period for self nomination, then election 13:09:36 hi, all we just update the spec for cross L2 networking 13:09:56 please review :) 13:10:11 will do, ronghui, thanks for the update 13:10:29 we can refer to https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/PTL_Elections_March_2016 for the election procedure 13:11:09 we will also have one week for nomination, another week for election 13:12:37 how do you think that nomination period from May 9 ~ May 13, election from May 16 ~ May 20 if more than one nomination 13:12:54 no problem 13:13:02 that's fine 13:13:11 what we must to do? 13:13:15 fine for me 13:13:50 if you want to be the PTL for Newton release, than send self nomination letter in the mail-list 13:13:59 @zhiyuan it can see the flavor list of Pod2 but the problem is also happen 13:14:03 will search one example 13:14:45 @Ronghui, ok, let's discuss this problem offline 13:14:56 ok 13:16:59 for example: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.cloud.openstack.devel/78989 13:17:27 another self nomination: http://www.tesora.com/openstack-trove-ptl-candidacy/ 13:18:26 #info PTL nomination period from May 9 ~ May 13, election from May 16 ~ May 20 if more than one nomination 13:18:52 #info if you want to be the PTL for Newton release, then send self nomination letter in the mail-list 13:19:35 ok, will send a mail tomorrow in m-l for the PTL election 13:19:57 next topic server group 13:20:06 #topic server group 13:20:41 hi, zhiyuan, in the virtual design summit, the server group topic is not finished yet, let's discuss about it 13:20:47 please 13:21:13 ok, two problems for server group 13:22:01 one is that if two VMs are created in two pods, we cannot guarantee server group affinity 13:22:53 for server group with affinity policy, should be forwarded to same pod in Tricircle 13:22:56 the other one is when to create server group in bottom pod. create server group when creating VM, or when create server group in top pod 13:23:35 I saw that for server group only CRD, no U operation 13:23:58 that means the once the policy is defined, no change will be done on the same group 13:24:53 and currently only two policy supported for server group: affinity, anti-affinity 13:24:59 so if the pod binding changed, we reject creating VM in the server group which already has VMs, right? 13:25:32 do you mean active pod binding? 13:26:13 currently the assumption that only one pod binding in one AZ needs to be updated if we support multiple pod in one AZ 13:26:51 only one "active" pod binding, but can multiple inactive pod binding in the history 13:27:25 yes, but the previous VM in the same server group may be created in the previous pod 13:27:49 so do we need server group pod binding? 13:28:08 that means a server group will only be created in one pod 13:28:42 or do we need to support server group across multiple pods for anti-affinity policy? 13:29:09 for affinity policy, all VMs should allocated in same pod 13:29:58 i think we can support anti-affinity policy. 13:30:12 across multiple pods? 13:30:14 does it mean we need a mapping between server group and pod? 13:30:20 u mean the pod instance of the tradition compute node in the server group? 13:30:30 for affinity policy, we need to check if the new VM is in the same pod with the old VMs in the same server group 13:30:55 pod is one bottom openstack instance 13:31:10 agree for affinity policy 13:31:30 if AZ-pod binding changed, the new VM cannot be placed in the same pod with the old one, thus creation fails 13:32:37 ok, then what about the creation time for server group? 13:32:41 that usually means no more capacity to create VM in the old pod 13:32:56 and there will be two layer server group 13:33:14 to Ronghui, yes 13:33:20 one for pod and one for compute node in same pod 13:33:27 "that usually means no more capacity to create VM in the old pod" +1 13:34:37 not "one for pod" 13:35:32 "that usually means no more capacity to create VM in the old pod" that means we not only can not create VM in the same node but also can not create the VM in the same bottom openstack? 13:36:10 to Ronghui, what do you mean "same node" 13:36:54 same compute node in bottom openstack the tradition server group 13:37:11 to affinity policy, yes 13:37:54 ok, zhiyuan, now we have some consensus on server group, please have a summary here 13:38:18 wheather the commutication cost is too big for this case between affinity VMs 13:40:12 usually need better communication capability or a close group relationship of VMs 13:40:48 agree 13:40:58 for anti-affinity policy, VMs in the same server group needs to be placed in the same bottom pod, if AZ-pod binding is changed, creating a new VM in a server group that already has VMs will fail 13:41:08 sorry for affinity policy 13:41:46 #info for affinity policy, VMs in the same server group needs to be placed in the same bottom pod, if AZ-pod binding is changed, creating a new VM in a server group that already has VMs will fail 13:43:01 for anti-affinity policy, AZ-pod binding change has not impact, since creating VMs in different bottom pods also satisfies anti-affinity policy 13:43:12 yes 13:43:27 #info anti-affinity policy, AZ-pod binding change has not impact, since creating VMs in different bottom pods also satisfies anti-affinity policy 13:44:22 ok, what about the time to create server group? 13:44:23 ok next topic 13:44:30 sorry 13:44:48 if no routing info for a server group 13:45:19 when first time to create a VM in the server group 13:46:48 when create a VM in the server group and find no regarding routing info in the binding pod 13:49:25 ok, please vote Shinobu to be a core reviewer or not in the mail-list 13:49:57 and yipei, how about dynamic pod binding? 13:51:19 For the code, I still study how to write unit test. For the pod binding framework, I plan to submit a patch before next weekend. 13:51:33 i think i miss something about server group 13:51:37 quite good 13:51:40 please 13:51:58 For the spec file, I have already add some content, but still need to organise and refine the draft. I will update it before this weekend. 13:52:26 your question about server group? 13:53:51 no for now, i think i did not consider the server group issues 13:54:43 ok, refer to http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref-compute-v2.1.html#os-server-groups-v2.1 for server group 13:55:15 ronghui just said that L2 networking spec updated, so let's review the spec 13:55:22 ok, got it 13:55:27 ok 13:55:45 ok, thank you for attending the meeting 13:55:52 it's time to end the meeting 13:56:06 thank you 13:56:12 #endmeeting