14:01:18 <slagle> #startmeeting TripleO Edge Squad Meeting 14:01:18 <slagle> ping slagle, emilien, csatari, jaosorior, owalsh, fultonj, gfidente, hjensas, jtomasek,thrash, bogdando, dtantsur, rbrady 14:01:18 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Sep 27 14:01:18 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is slagle. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:01:19 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:01:21 <slagle> #info remove or update your nick from the Meeting Template on the etherpad if you want (or don't want) to be ping'd for the start of the meeting 14:01:22 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tripleo_edge_squad_meeting' 14:01:24 <slagle> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-edge-squad-status 14:01:27 <slagle> Anyone can use the #link, #action, #help, #idea and #info commands, not just the moderatorǃ 14:01:30 <bogdando> o/ 14:01:32 <slagle> #info remove or update your nick from the Meeting Template on the etherpad if you want (or don't want) to be ping'd for the start of the meeting 14:01:33 <hjensas> o/ 14:01:34 <fultonj> o/ 14:01:35 <slagle> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-edge-squad-status 14:01:59 <owalsh> o/ 14:02:02 <EmilienM> o/ 14:02:02 <jaosorior> o/ 14:02:38 <dtantsur> o/ 14:02:46 <slagle> hi everyone 14:02:57 <shardy> o/ 14:02:58 <slagle> #topic Agenda 14:02:59 <slagle> * Review past action items 14:02:59 <slagle> * One off items 14:02:59 <slagle> * Ongoing Work 14:02:59 <slagle> * New Work/Specs 14:03:01 <slagle> * Review Requests 14:03:03 <slagle> * Goals for the week 14:03:12 <slagle> #topic Review past action items 14:03:32 <slagle> bogdando fultonj gfidente refine tripleo split-controlplane use case and see how it lines up with proposed Edge architecture from PTG 14:03:37 <fultonj> Refine tripleo split-controlplane use case and see how it lines up with proposed Edge architecture from PTG 14:03:44 <slagle> :) 14:03:44 <fultonj> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-edge-working-group-split-control-plane 14:03:53 <fultonj> slagle: i think ^ might cover that 14:04:00 <fultonj> feedback welcome though 14:04:05 <bogdando> and from my side, there is also something to review and align with 14:04:13 <bogdando> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-edge-mvp 14:04:27 <fultonj> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-edge-working-group-split-control-plane 14:04:58 <slagle> great, this looks good. a lot of data to digest though 14:05:12 <slagle> anything to highlight? 14:05:18 <bogdando> concerns imo 14:05:30 <bogdando> we need to remove contradictional things 14:05:35 <bogdando> not now, ofc 14:05:52 <gfidente> slagle we don't cover yet how to deploy the "main site" and in that context the glance images distribution poses some more challenges 14:05:53 <openstackgerrit> Bob Fournier proposed openstack/tripleo-heat-templates master: In process-templates script write output files to provided dir when using base path https://review.openstack.org/605736 14:06:43 <gfidente> slagle but it matches pretty closely the edge/far-edge scenario though we use different terminology : ctlplane/edge 14:06:47 <slagle> bogdando: would you say the point of your etherpad is to define the mvp? 14:06:49 <fultonj> my highlight is that the edge working group's diagrams and compatible with the proposal in the split control plane 14:06:59 <bogdando> slagle: there is 4 goals 14:07:10 <bogdando> one of those is indeed define MVP 14:07:18 <bogdando> and meet the goal 4 as well 14:07:29 <bogdando> so it wouldn't look contradictional 14:07:57 <slagle> bogdando: ok, so we may want to focus on what is needed in addition to split-controlplane to get to a MVP we agree on 14:08:05 <bogdando> right 14:08:12 <fultonj> bogdando: please be specific if you see contradictions in MVP defined in https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-edge-working-group-split-control-plane 14:08:12 <slagle> b/c i think we all mostly agree split-controlplane is the first step 14:08:22 <slagle> but is not necessarily an MVP? 14:08:27 <bogdando> fultonj: not there, by another link 14:08:48 <fultonj> slagle: yeah, it doens't exactly have to be an MVP as much as step1 14:08:59 <bogdando> so I just captured all the contradictional view points there, raised just for a one day of discussions 14:08:59 <slagle> fultonj: yep, thinking the same 14:09:21 <slagle> bogdando: ok, i think this good to work through 14:09:23 <bogdando> so it's very high level 14:09:25 <dtantsur> one of the things is that someone do not consider MVP "V" without some provisioning approach 14:09:31 <bogdando> to agree on terms at very least 14:09:33 <slagle> let's all take an action to review your etherpad and continue the discussion there or on irc 14:09:38 <slagle> sound good? 14:09:50 <bogdando> yeah 14:10:04 <slagle> #action all: review https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-edge-mvp and discuss 14:10:17 <ooolpbot> URGENT TRIPLEO TASKS NEED ATTENTION 14:10:18 <ooolpbot> https://bugs.launchpad.net/tripleo/+bug/1715374 14:10:18 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1715374 in tripleo "Reloading compute with SIGHUP prenvents instances to boot" [Critical,In progress] - Assigned to Bogdan Dobrelya (bogdando) 14:10:19 <ooolpbot> https://bugs.launchpad.net/tripleo/+bug/1792560 14:10:20 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1792560 in tripleo "Upgrades in CI still using Q->master instead of R->master release" [Critical,Triaged] - Assigned to Jiří Stránský (jistr) 14:10:31 <bogdando> although I'd like to see the resulting bullet points (removed contradictional statements) in some spec... not just having discussions... 14:11:07 <bogdando> example: single operator view is a cool idea/is a must 14:11:10 <slagle> yes, one of the goals should be a spec documenting terms and the MVP 14:11:27 <slagle> we could start with that, and then have discussion on the spec patch? 14:11:34 <slagle> initially, etherpad seems a bit more fluid 14:11:48 <slagle> but no objection if you want to throw up an initial spec 14:11:58 <bogdando> I hope we already have some to edit? 14:12:10 <slagle> a spec? 14:12:12 <bogdando> yes 14:12:17 <fultonj> we don't 14:12:19 <fultonj> that i know of 14:12:23 <slagle> don't think so, other than split-controlplane 14:12:24 <bogdando> ok 14:12:32 <bogdando> so we can update that one 14:12:35 <bogdando> fits ideally 14:12:37 <openstackgerrit> Michele Baldessari proposed openstack/tripleo-heat-templates master: WIP DNR Unify rabbitmq bind mounts and env vars https://review.openstack.org/605598 14:12:54 <slagle> i think it should be a new one 14:13:03 <bogdando> just that a person who updates it cannot resolve concerns on his/her own, cuz that's a conflicting view points we have 14:13:04 <fultonj> split control plane spec merged 14:13:15 <bogdando> we can amend 14:13:15 <fultonj> blue prints exist 14:13:20 <openstackgerrit> Athlan-Guyot sofer proposed openstack/tripleo-quickstart master: Put create repo script into its own tasks file. https://review.openstack.org/605369 14:13:21 <openstackgerrit> Athlan-Guyot sofer proposed openstack/tripleo-quickstart master: Add new featureset 056 for standalone upgarde. https://review.openstack.org/605363 14:13:35 <slagle> i don't really see much to amend in the split-controlplane spec 14:13:43 <slagle> again, that work stands on its own 14:13:55 <bogdando> I'm not sure we need another spec. The concerns and goals in that ehterpad ideally fit into the split control plane 14:14:14 <dtantsur> the split-controlplane lacks the main site, it only has edge and far edge (hell, I hate these terms :) 14:14:17 <bogdando> but if you insist... 14:14:28 <bogdando> yes, that's one of the concerns 14:14:32 <bogdando> worth amending 14:15:02 <dtantsur> only it completely omits any undercloud business, except for shy "Director" somewhere in the corner 14:15:12 <dtantsur> s/only/also/ 14:15:14 <openstackgerrit> Athlan-Guyot sofer proposed openstack/tripleo-quickstart-extras master: Add standalone upgrade role and playbook. https://review.openstack.org/604736 14:15:28 <fultonj> the UC is implicit we're deploying to heat stacks 14:15:44 <slagle> dtantsur: bogdando that's because it's not what you're trying to redefine it as 14:16:01 * dtantsur ParseError 14:16:10 <slagle> it's simply what we do today, deploy 2 heat stacks 14:16:31 <dtantsur> fultonj: if I take that picture literally, it implies one traditional undercloud per Edge 14:16:36 <owalsh> or three stack (should work too) 14:16:39 <fultonj> dtantsur: no 14:16:46 <dtantsur> fultonj: then it needs updating 14:16:47 <fultonj> i think there's a misunderstanding then 14:16:49 <slagle> owalsh: yes, multiple compute stacks 14:17:04 <owalsh> slagle: I mean tiers of stacks 14:17:04 <fultonj> one undercloud 14:17:12 <fultonj> multiple stacks 14:17:17 <bogdando> see, we reading that spec differently right now, again 14:17:21 <dtantsur> I think we should clean up and clarify that spec a bit, but not turn it into a full Edge spec 14:17:34 <slagle> ok 14:17:44 <bogdando> some of the points, captured by that etherpad, and I see the only action item is to update the spec so we all read it the same way 14:17:55 <slagle> who is going to propose the amendment? then we can figure it out in the review 14:18:04 <fultonj> split control plane covers a specific area 14:18:06 <bogdando> w/o asking would we have Ironic central or federated or none 14:18:20 <dtantsur> yeah, let's leave ironic for the 2nd spec 14:18:21 <fultonj> i think ironic federation would be compatible but a separate probelm 14:18:21 <openstackgerrit> Jiri Stransky proposed openstack/tripleo-upgrade master: Update required packages for containerized undercloud upgrade https://review.openstack.org/605745 14:18:24 <bogdando> and more examples, just look into the open concerns please :) 14:18:29 <bogdando> goal 4 14:18:34 <jistr> quiquell: i think this is it, the patch ^^ 14:18:37 <dtantsur> for now it's enough to provide some vision for the undercloud OR explicitly say we deal with it later 14:18:43 <jistr> quiquell: i'll add depends-on to the branch switch 14:18:44 <hjensas> don't we want to have some distribution of undercloud? i.e images, inspector dhcp etc. very light weight with focus on not having to transfer too much data all the way to main site? (so edge has tiny-uc's, far-edge just the overcloud) ? 14:18:45 <dtantsur> (later means in the next spec, not after MVP IMO) 14:18:47 <bogdando> ok then, not sure for the action here... 2nd spec or amending... or both 14:18:59 <fultonj> for the second AI i filed blueprints and it's clear how to proceed for me and others working on split control plane 14:19:05 <dtantsur> hjensas: we do, just not in this particular spec (again, IMO) 14:19:05 <slagle> fultonj: agreed 14:19:14 <bogdando> slagle: before amending, we need to resolve conflicts in the etherpad perhaps 14:19:15 <dtantsur> but we do need it for MVP 14:19:20 <bogdando> then just dump the resulting 14:19:26 <bogdando> I can do the latter 14:19:27 <slagle> bogdando: dtantsur : you seem to not be clear about the scope of the split-controlplane spec? 14:19:39 <dtantsur> slagle: actually, I suggest not to increase it 14:19:46 <fultonj> dtantsur: agree 14:19:49 <bogdando> ok, so another spec then 14:19:50 <slagle> yes 14:19:52 <dtantsur> only clarify and say explicitly what we leave out of it (e.g. undercloud) 14:19:53 <slagle> ok, then bogdando :) 14:19:55 <openstackgerrit> Jiri Stransky proposed openstack-infra/tripleo-ci master: Switch previous release of master from 'queens' to 'rocky' https://review.openstack.org/590774 14:19:57 <quiquell> jistr: ack 14:19:59 <bogdando> just let please firstly fix contraditions ) 14:20:02 <fultonj> thanks bogdando 14:20:07 <quiquell> jistr: let's see 14:20:12 <dtantsur> what I think we may disagree on is the scope of the MVP 14:20:16 <fultonj> i would love to identify any contradictions i don't see any but please show me 14:20:27 <fultonj> i think there will be many MVPs 14:20:37 <slagle> bogdando: i'm not seeing how your contradictions relate to the split-controlplane spec 14:20:54 <bogdando> fultonj: see lines 53 and to the end 14:20:57 <bogdando> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-edge-mvp 14:20:59 <slagle> bogdando: please make this part more clear, or propose an amendment to the existing spec so we can discuss there 14:21:13 <bogdando> those are all contradictional statements, including the scope of MVP 14:21:19 <fultonj> i read that we should unpack that more 14:21:38 <slagle> bogdando: again, what i'm asking for is, if you think the split-controlplane spec is not clear, to address that 14:21:44 <slagle> otherwise, let's move on 14:21:51 <bogdando> ok, that may be an action item, to unpack it, before drafting an MVP spec 14:21:57 <bogdando> makes sense? 14:22:39 <bogdando> as far as dtantsur agrees Ironic for edge fits a new spec, I agree as well, so we need no to update that spec 14:22:53 * dtantsur agrees 14:22:56 <fultonj> bogdando: ok 14:23:02 <openstackgerrit> Alex Schultz proposed openstack/tripleo-quickstart-extras master: Add ability to specify undercloud install command https://review.openstack.org/605747 14:23:04 <fultonj> there was a second action item 14:23:06 <slagle> #agreed split-controlplane needs no updates and scope is clear based on filed blueprints 14:23:15 <fultonj> File blueprints for split-controlplane work in stein 14:23:34 <openstackgerrit> Athlan-Guyot sofer proposed openstack-infra/tripleo-ci master: New workflow for standalone upgrade. https://review.openstack.org/604706 14:23:39 <fultonj> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tripleo/+spec/split-controlplane 14:23:59 <fultonj> the above blueprint has 3 blueprints which depend on it 14:24:02 <slagle> i think it looks pretty good 14:24:06 <slagle> i added a couple 14:24:19 <dtantsur> yeah, the way this blueprint is written it's not even edge-specific, just a good feature to have 14:24:35 <fultonj> slagle: nice 14:24:42 <slagle> dtantsur: +1 14:24:49 <fultonj> template + workflow 14:24:56 <bogdando> to be clear, we have nothing to amend to that spec from https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-edge-working-group-split-control-plane ? 14:25:01 <dtantsur> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tripleo/+spec/split-controlplane-workflow may use some final decision on the ironic bits 14:25:09 <bogdando> indeed 14:25:11 <fultonj> dtantsur: yeah, it's something you can apply to edge 14:25:12 <slagle> bogdando: yes, see earlier #agreed 14:25:17 <slagle> it's settled :) 14:25:19 <bogdando> ok 14:25:36 <bogdando> ...some final decision on the ironic bits 14:25:39 <openstackgerrit> Kamil Sambor proposed openstack/tripleo-heat-templates master: Add posibilities to set tunnel_csum in ovs agent https://review.openstack.org/605033 14:25:43 <bogdando> ruins a little bit that but ok 14:25:56 <dtantsur> well, the final decision for this blueprint can be: use pigeons 14:26:01 <bogdando> we'll make a 2nd spec for that, a partially contradictional to the split CP :) 14:26:10 <dtantsur> which is probably a good idea to avoid the scope creep 14:26:25 * fultonj awaits statements of the form (P & ~P) 14:26:50 <dtantsur> and then we need a blueprint to figure out provisioning the servers (with a long and contentious spec attached to it :) 14:27:04 <fultonj> dtantsur: yeah i agree 14:28:08 <slagle> alright, other AI's? 14:28:32 <slagle> dtantsur: do you plan to file this spec this week, or await more discussion? 14:29:07 <dtantsur> slagle: oh, I hope bogdando will do it :D 14:29:17 <dtantsur> but I can, if bogdando touched nose earlier :) 14:29:23 <bogdando> I can, just please see my comment for unpacking 14:29:31 <bogdando> that should predate creating spec 14:29:39 <fultonj> #action fultonj to get feedback from tripleo CI group on https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tripleo/+spec/split-controlplane-ci 14:29:41 <dtantsur> bogdando: I'll help with any assumptions/expectations around ironic 14:29:49 <slagle> alright, well we already took an action to review that etherpad 14:29:53 <slagle> so we'll wait on the spec 14:29:55 <bogdando> ok, thanks! 14:30:02 <slagle> #agenda One Off items 14:30:10 <slagle> #topic One Off items 14:30:13 <bogdando> note, it would be nice if someone can capture ongoing daily discussions in a from like that I did IMO 14:30:26 <bogdando> at least showing off contradictional things among folks 14:30:30 <openstackgerrit> Merged openstack/tripleo-common stable/queens: Fix nova-placement healthcheck https://review.openstack.org/604272 14:31:03 <slagle> anything to highlight here? 14:31:06 <fultonj> we do have a meeting bot 14:31:11 <jistr> quiquell: sorry for pushing the tripleo-current promote, this time it was probably a red herring. It didn't click to me that it's actually t-h-t which is wrong, and that's taken from the bare metal host RPM. (Though if we don't have latest content in containers, we could still hit different issues potentially...) 14:31:18 <fultonj> regarding CI 14:31:44 <fultonj> i'm condering a using the standalone examples 14:31:50 <bogdando> fultonj: I did not mean the meeting notes 14:32:22 <slagle> fultonj: you mean standalone to deploy the separate compute? 14:32:30 <fultonj> slagle: yeah 14:32:47 <fultonj> tripleo-ci has stand-alone jobs... 14:32:49 <fultonj> https://github.com/openstack-infra/tripleo-ci/blob/master/zuul.d/standalone-jobs.yaml#L14 14:32:52 <fultonj> #https://github.com/openstack-infra/tripleo-ci/blob/master/zuul.d/standalone-jobs.yaml#L14 14:32:54 <slagle> it should work. EmilienM and I experimented with that a few weeks back 14:32:59 <fultonj> #link https://github.com/openstack-infra/tripleo-ci/blob/master/zuul.d/standalone-jobs.yaml#L14 14:33:28 <EmilienM> it was fun 14:33:30 <slagle> i agree it might be easier initially, until we have the whole workflow in place 14:33:39 <fultonj> #link https://gitlab.com/slagle/tripleo-standalone-edge/blob/master/standalone-central.sh 14:33:45 <openstackgerrit> Alex Schultz proposed openstack/tripleo-quickstart master: Pull in instack-undercloud https://review.openstack.org/605753 14:33:57 <EmilienM> #link https://gitlab.com/emacchi/tripleo-standalone-edge 14:34:04 <EmilienM> oh thanks fultonj 14:34:05 <slagle> the job could even be 2 standalones. no UC 14:34:31 <EmilienM> (just a note about that repo: it was an afternoon project and really basic/RAW) 14:34:47 <gfidente> EmilienM I thought you only worked early mornings 14:34:48 <EmilienM> well I even got a PR from slagle so 14:34:51 <slagle> #idea use standalone for split-controlplane CI 14:35:07 <openstackgerrit> Alex Schultz proposed openstack/instack-undercloud master: DNM: testing ci https://review.openstack.org/605755 14:35:48 <fultonj> owalsh: it would be an alternative to adding tripleo-quickstart/config/general_config/featureset056.yml 14:36:05 <fultonj> which could be based on https://github.com/olliewalsh/split/tree/fix_computes 14:36:33 <fultonj> any concerns about standalone not being sufficient to support the changes in the other blueprints? 14:36:34 <bogdando> +1 for the slagle's idea 14:36:52 <owalsh> fultonj: ack, good to test any custom roles etc... at least 14:38:07 <fultonj> #action fultonj try standalone for https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tripleo/+spec/split-controlplane-ci based on https://github.com/openstack-infra/tripleo-ci/blob/master/zuul.d/standalone-jobs.yaml#L14 14:38:16 <fultonj> EmilienM: i'll probably ask you for help :) 14:38:53 <openstackgerrit> Alex Schultz proposed openstack-infra/tripleo-ci master: Make standalone voting https://review.openstack.org/605756 14:38:57 <mwhahaha> weshay, EmilienM -^ 14:39:44 <slagle> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-compute-standalone 14:39:53 <slagle> fultonj: gfidente : there are notes i shared last week ^ 14:40:04 <EmilienM> fultonj: please do 14:40:20 <EmilienM> fultonj: even if edge isn't my full time focus at this moment, I'm happy to contribute how I can 14:40:24 <gfidente> slagle yeah thanks I wanted to make sure we use same steps as I wanted to try some changes for cinder a/a 14:40:29 <fultonj> thanks EmilienM 14:40:43 <EmilienM> mwhahaha: it was about time 14:40:45 <EmilienM> :P 14:40:51 * mwhahaha blames tempest 14:41:07 <dtantsur> $ rm -rf tempest 14:41:16 <slagle> dtantsur: do you want to highlight what you added to the etherpad now? 14:41:37 <dtantsur> tl;dr is that I'm working on swiftless undercloud from ironic and inspector side 14:41:54 <dtantsur> overall, I guess, my focus is lightweight ironic in the undercloud 14:41:57 <slagle> awesome 14:42:03 <dtantsur> falling under the same topic is my metalsmith work 14:42:11 <dtantsur> (for which I responded to your comments slagle - thanks!) 14:42:16 <EmilienM> swiftless, novaless wow :) 14:42:21 <dtantsur> and glanceless, yes 14:42:26 <EmilienM> (and I'm not trolling) 14:42:26 <slagle> i may get around to filing a spec for a full swiftless 14:42:34 <slagle> it will take a lot of work around the plan management area 14:42:44 <mwhahaha> glance uses swift doesn't it 14:42:50 <mwhahaha> so we just need to switch to file based 14:42:50 <EmilienM> IIRC dprince mentioned some limitations if we get rid of Swift 14:42:53 <EmilienM> at PTG 14:43:04 <slagle> yes, there are some concerns 14:43:15 <slagle> but general agreement i felt 14:43:21 <slagle> hence, why a spec would be good 14:43:26 <shardy> One issue is we still need an API for the UI, so we'll need to work that out 14:43:31 <slagle> to get some concensus 14:43:41 <dtantsur> ironic-inspector is a big user of swift as well 14:43:51 <slagle> shardy: yea, ideally, the UI uses the mistral api for everything, and we can make changes transparently 14:44:12 <slagle> i guess we'll see if that's the case 14:44:26 <shardy> slagle: agreed but I don't think that is the case, jtomasek can confirm 14:44:39 <shardy> some things do still interact with swift directly IIRC 14:45:03 <slagle> ok 14:46:17 <dprince> regarding the plan operations we are already working on speed those up by avoiding exploading the templates in Swift here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/581153/ 14:46:47 <dprince> that isn't related to getting rid of swift... but it would mean we'd be using it more effectiently/correctly 14:46:59 <dtantsur> a question: if we switch the backend for introspection data, is it fine to just start from empty database? 14:47:01 <slagle> cool 14:47:18 <slagle> dtantsur: so delete all existing data? 14:47:28 <dtantsur> slagle: essentially 14:47:43 <slagle> dunno :/ 14:47:46 <shardy> I don't think so, as on upgrade existing nodes would lose all their data? 14:47:48 <dprince> dtantsur: you would loose data. Like re-introspecting a deployed overcloud machine won't be an option in some cases 14:48:07 <shardy> yeah that's what I was thinking, migration would be better if possible 14:48:53 <dtantsur> I guess it boils down to whether people use introspection data after deployment 14:49:43 <dtantsur> if we come up with a separate script/playbook for migration, will it be okay? 14:49:51 <slagle> i'd think so 14:49:56 <slagle> as long as there's a way 14:50:04 <fultonj> +1 14:50:34 <dprince> what about swift-lite? :). Its like keystone-lite but faster 14:51:03 <EmilienM> no auth and basic middlewares only? 14:51:19 <slagle> i'd like a swift-lite. if it acted like a keystone authenticated file server 14:51:38 <weshay> bogdando, fyi.. I got master standalone deployed on f28 yesterday :) 14:51:46 <bogdando> weshay: \o/ 14:51:47 <slagle> that's really all we need 14:51:55 <shardy> it can't be noauth because the plan contains passwords etc 14:51:58 <dprince> yeah, like a minimum usage front end for swift that gives us basic file storage 14:52:26 <slagle> +1 14:52:55 <slagle> alright, we're down to just a few mins left 14:53:00 <slagle> #topic Goals for the week 14:53:02 <dprince> honestly, swift isn't that heavy as is. and can be peeled down if we really wanted to (Emilien may be on the right track with pealing off the middleware) 14:53:11 <slagle> we've already captured a few AI's for the week 14:53:17 <slagle> are there any others folks can think of? 14:55:00 <fultonj> who wrote Anybody tried or is willng to do the work to have both isolated and shared networks in the Edge? 14:55:19 <slagle> dtantsur i think 14:55:30 <dtantsur> wut 14:55:36 <slagle> or not :) 14:55:42 <openstackgerrit> Alex Schultz proposed openstack/tripleo-heat-templates master: DNM: Ci test https://review.openstack.org/605764 14:55:43 <dtantsur> no, I did not :) 14:55:47 <slagle> i'm not good at colors :) 14:55:56 <bogdando> pigeons 14:55:58 <bogdando> did 14:56:04 <fultonj> w.r.t. to that comment i assume we'll be doing both types of networks 14:56:25 <slagle> yea not sure if the comment is about undercloud or overcloud networks 14:56:50 <slagle> for the standalone separate compute we prototypes, we just used an isolated provider network on the compute node 14:58:02 <shardy> yeah with composable networks and/or separate stacks either should be possible 14:58:19 <shardy> but we'll need better validation in the multiple stacks case 14:58:26 <shardy> s/better/any 14:58:27 <bogdando> slagle: just a side rant, I wish we were talking the same thing, instead of undercloud vs overcloud. I mean really, the shared networking architecture should be the next step 14:59:06 <shardy> bogdando: the undercloud is one node, there's no need for multiple isolated networks? 14:59:13 <bogdando> yet 14:59:21 <openstackgerrit> Arx Cruz proposed openstack/tripleo-quickstart-extras master: WIP - Fix stackviz https://review.openstack.org/605419 14:59:29 <bogdando> but there is some bug already, as a first messenger 15:00:00 <shardy> A multi-node undercloud is an overcloud with Ironic IMO, therefore the architecture is already the same 15:00:44 <slagle> feel free to continue discussion post-meeting :) 15:00:46 <slagle> #endmeeting