| *** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 02:55 | |
| *** sdake_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 03:00 | |
| *** sdake has quit IRC | 03:03 | |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 03:27 | |
| *** dims_ has quit IRC | 03:28 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 03:30 | |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 03:43 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 03:47 | |
| *** sdake_ has quit IRC | 07:00 | |
| *** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 07:01 | |
| *** sdake has quit IRC | 07:03 | |
| *** evgenyf has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 07:38 | |
| *** reed_ has quit IRC | 07:59 | |
| *** reed_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 08:00 | |
| *** reed_ has quit IRC | 08:01 | |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 10:45 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 10:49 | |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 10:50 | |
| *** evgenyf has quit IRC | 11:24 | |
| *** dims_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 11:40 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 11:40 | |
| *** dims_ has quit IRC | 12:11 | |
| *** evgenyf has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 12:17 | |
| *** dims_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 12:19 | |
| *** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 13:19 | |
| *** sdake_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 13:21 | |
| *** sdake has quit IRC | 13:24 | |
| *** sdake_ is now known as sdake | 13:24 | |
| *** sdake has quit IRC | 13:40 | |
| *** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 13:41 | |
| *** sdake has quit IRC | 13:48 | |
| *** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 13:49 | |
| *** dims_ has quit IRC | 14:03 | |
| *** sdake has quit IRC | 14:10 | |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 14:10 | |
| *** evgenyf has quit IRC | 14:24 | |
| *** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 14:38 | |
| nikhil | flwang: hi, ping me when awake :) | 14:56 |
|---|---|---|
| *** angdraug has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 15:51 | |
| *** nikhil is now known as nikhil_k | 15:56 | |
| *** sdake has quit IRC | 17:11 | |
| *** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 17:13 | |
| -openstackstatus- NOTICE: Gerrit is restarting now, to alleviate current performance impact and WebUI errors. | 17:24 | |
| *** sdake has quit IRC | 17:33 | |
| *** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 17:33 | |
| *** angdraug has quit IRC | 18:02 | |
| *** angdraug has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 18:53 | |
| *** dims_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 19:17 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 19:17 | |
| *** dims_ has quit IRC | 19:27 | |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 19:30 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 19:41 | |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 19:42 | |
| *** dims_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 19:46 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 19:49 | |
| *** dims_ has quit IRC | 19:57 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 20:45 | |
| *** ddeja has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 20:45 | |
| *** avarner__ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 20:57 | |
| *** avarner__ is now known as avarner | 20:57 | |
| *** samueldmq has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 20:58 | |
| *** henrynash has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 20:58 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 20:59 | |
| *** lbragstad has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 20:59 | |
| *** thinrichs has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 20:59 | |
| thingee | courtesy ping for Qiming TravT gordc dirk mriedem SergeyLukjanov | 21:00 |
| thingee | courtesy ping for daemontool jroll boris-42 redrobot flaper87 rhochmuth | 21:00 |
| thingee | courtesy ping for fungi flwang dims vipul johnthetubaguy rakhmerov | 21:00 |
| thingee | courtesy ping for docaedo stevemar mtreinish bswartz adam_g adrian_otto | 21:00 |
| thingee | courtesy ping for zigo Piet sdake mugsie sheeprine thinrichs | 21:00 |
| thingee | courtesy ping for jklare loquacities smelikyan Daisy skraynev odyssey4me | 21:00 |
| thingee | courtesy ping for catherineD dhellmann dprince hyakuhei notmyname devkulkarni | 21:00 |
| odyssey4me | o/ | 21:00 |
| thingee | courtesy ping for emilienm cp16net claudiub armax david-lyle angdraug | 21:00 |
| redrobot | o/ | 21:00 |
| thingee | courtesy ping for smcginnis dtroyer | 21:00 |
| flwang | o/ | 21:00 |
| dolphm | o/ | 21:00 |
| jroll | \o | 21:00 |
| EmilienM | hello | 21:00 |
| fungi | ahh parallel meetings! | 21:00 |
| elmiko | heyo/ | 21:00 |
| diablo_rojo | o/ | 21:00 |
| *** ayoung has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:00 | |
| david-lyle | o/ | 21:00 |
| cdent | o/ | 21:00 |
| ayoung | Heyo | 21:00 |
| notmyname | here | 21:01 |
| smcginnis | o/ | 21:01 |
| * jroll calls fork(fungi) | 21:01 | |
| cdent | now | 21:01 |
| nikhil_k | o/ | 21:01 |
| thingee | #startmeeting crossproject | 21:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Feb 9 21:01:38 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is thingee. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 21:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 21:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: crossproject)" | 21:01 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'crossproject' | 21:01 |
| samueldmq | hey | 21:01 |
| fungi | jroll: i don't disassociate | 21:01 |
| *** nikhil_k is now known as nikhil_ | 21:01 | |
| nikhil_ | how do I get on the ping list? | 21:01 |
| jroll | :P | 21:01 |
| thingee | Agenda: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/CrossProjectMeeting | 21:02 |
| *** nikhil_ is now known as nikhil_k | 21:02 | |
| flwang | nikhil_: since you proposed the quota topic? | 21:02 |
| thingee | nikhil_: oh sorry, I thought I grabbed everyone on the cp-spec laision list. I can also just add you :) | 21:02 |
| *** rockyg has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:02 | |
| nikhil_k | flwang: that's not the first item | 21:02 |
| rockyg | o/ | 21:02 |
| *** dtroyer has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:02 | |
| *** mtreinish has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:02 | |
| *** notmorgan has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:02 | |
| jamielennox | o/ | 21:02 |
| mugsie | o/ | 21:02 |
| samueldmq | thingee: me too please :) | 21:02 |
| notmorgan | oh hey. new channel | 21:02 |
| nikhil_k | thingee: please do, though I should ideally be on the list | 21:03 |
| thingee | #topic Team announcements (horizontal, vertical, diagonal) | 21:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Team announcements (horizontal, vertical, diagonal) (Meeting topic: crossproject)" | 21:03 | |
| notmorgan | just realized. | 21:03 |
| dtroyer | o/ | 21:03 |
| thingee | nikhil_k: will do | 21:03 |
| *** flaper87 has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:03 | |
| adam_g | o/ | 21:03 |
| thingee | what's going on people | 21:03 |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:03 | |
| thingee | with your project that others should be aware of? | 21:03 |
| odyssey4me | o/ | 21:03 |
| angdraug | o/ | 21:03 |
| thingee | #info Final release for non-client libraries: Feb 24 | 21:04 |
| dhellmann | o/ | 21:04 |
| thingee | #info Final release for client libraries: Mar 2 | 21:04 |
| thingee | #info Mitaka 3: Feb 29-Mar 4 (includes feature freeze and soft string freeze) | 21:04 |
| lifeless | grah, echannels | 21:04 |
| *** olaph has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:04 | |
| thingee | read all about these release focuses from your release manager dhellmann http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-February/085705.html | 21:04 |
| smcginnis | Of interest to possibly nova, cinder is planning on a final os-brick release next week. | 21:04 |
| thingee | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-February/085705.html release focuses | 21:05 |
| *** bogdando_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:05 | |
| thingee | #info nova/cinder planning final os-brick release next week | 21:05 |
| bogdando_ | hi | 21:05 |
| dims | o/ | 21:05 |
| dhellmann | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-February/086152.html final release process | 21:05 |
| sdague | smcginnis: and, the privsep parts are integrated into it? | 21:06 |
| *** loquacities has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:06 | |
| loquacities | o/ | 21:06 |
| thingee | Think it's also good for people to be aware of a discussion started by sdague in terms of api resources and how projects overlap today. This is progress on that issue | 21:06 |
| thingee | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-February/085748.html The trouble with names | 21:07 |
| thingee | thanks sdague for that starting that | 21:07 |
| smcginnis | sdague: That's the part we're hoping to finish up in time. | 21:07 |
| sdague | thingee: no prob, I'll propose resolution by end of work on that | 21:07 |
| sdague | smcginnis: ack, great | 21:07 |
| smcginnis | sdague: Keeping my fingers crossed. ;) | 21:07 |
| thingee | also there are so many discussions happening with open core, service type names versus project names. If you can't keep up, stay informed with the summaries I try to bring to people http://www.openstack.org/blog/2016/02/openstack-developer-mailing-list-digest-20160205/ | 21:08 |
| thingee | feedback is much appreciated | 21:08 |
| elmiko | sdague: seems like we will still need to setup some sort of registry process, even if the api-wg is going to drive that | 21:08 |
| cdent | (thingee's summaries)++ | 21:08 |
| rockyg | elmiko, ++ | 21:08 |
| sdague | elmiko: yep | 21:08 |
| thingee | sdague: do you want to have a slot to talk about that today? | 21:08 |
| thingee | or next week? | 21:08 |
| sdague | that's what I meant by proposing resolution | 21:08 |
| elmiko | from the reactions on that thread, it seems like the next step | 21:08 |
| sdague | thingee: I'll just do it on the mailing list | 21:09 |
| thingee | sdague: sounds good :) | 21:09 |
| elmiko | thanks sdague | 21:09 |
| thingee | #topic Quotas: Cross project vs. distributed & dedicated. What are the current challenges and are there any unannounced plans? | 21:09 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Quotas: Cross project vs. distributed & dedicated. What are the current challenges and are there any unannounced plans? (Meeting topic: crossproject)" | 21:09 | |
| thingee | nikhil_k: hi! | 21:09 |
| nikhil_k | hi hi | 21:09 |
| nikhil_k | So, that's me trying to get some sense out of the community of what we must do in "newton" | 21:10 |
| *** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:10 | |
| nikhil_k | I know there has been a bit of back and forth and finally many (big) projects went ahead with dedicated quota effort in the resp proj | 21:10 |
| nikhil_k | In glance we are trying to accomplish a nested or simple quota mechanism | 21:11 |
| nikhil_k | and the dilemma persist on what's the right thing to do | 21:11 |
| nikhil_k | first questions as usually were "what's the larger community want" | 21:11 |
| nikhil_k | and I am hoping to get some answers here for that | 21:11 |
| nikhil_k | 1. Are there any other projects that are implementing quotas? | 21:12 |
| nikhil_k | 2. Are there any strong nested quota or simple quota implementations? | 21:12 |
| nikhil_k | 3. Do we need to start a guideline spec? | 21:12 |
| diablo_rojo | nikhil_k: Cinder is currently working on getting their quota implementations cleaned up- they are currently VERY broken | 21:12 |
| thingee | so the nested quota thing is kind of a disappointing feature at the moment unless we have a cross effort to make it available | 21:13 |
| notmyname | nikhil_k: swift supports quotas http://docs.openstack.org/developer/swift/api/container_quotas.html | 21:13 |
| nikhil_k | diablo_rojo: I heard the transition was from simple to complex, is that some unadvised ? | 21:13 |
| ayoung | What makes it broken? | 21:13 |
| samueldmq | nikhil_k: from what I understand, your goal is to get a consistent approach for quotas in openstack right ? | 21:13 |
| samueldmq | e.g an unique approach for nested quotas across projects | 21:14 |
| thingee | Right, I think we don't want to say these three projects support nested quotas, everyone else, eh maybe they do? | 21:14 |
| thingee | it's bad experience | 21:14 |
| redrobot | barbican supports quotas as well http://docs.openstack.org/developer/barbican/api/reference/quotas.html | 21:14 |
| henrynash | this is probably also requiedd given that keystone is making some changes where a domain is actually represented as a top level parenr project to all projects in that domain | 21:14 |
| samueldmq | thingee: why can't 3 projects support nested quotas ? | 21:14 |
| smcginnis | redrobot, notmyname: Quotas, or nested quotas? | 21:15 |
| nikhil_k | samueldmq: My approach is to try to get consistent with the community as far as possible | 21:15 |
| samueldmq | thingee: you mean a single config across projects ? | 21:15 |
| henrynash | this = a cross project approach | 21:15 |
| nikhil_k | samueldmq: but I would love some insights into nested work | 21:15 |
| notmyname | smcginnis: what's a nested quota? | 21:15 |
| thingee | samueldmq: well what if you want nested quotas available in all your services? I'm just saying it's not widely available. | 21:15 |
| smcginnis | OK. :) | 21:15 |
| redrobot | smcginnis yeah... not sure what "nested" means? | 21:15 |
| diablo_rojo | I should have specified nested quotas is broken in Cinder, not regular quotas | 21:15 |
| samueldmq | notmyname: it's related to how set quotas in a project hierarchy | 21:15 |
| flwang | glance is using config file to store the quota, and we're going to use db-based | 21:15 |
| bknudson_ | could we have a quota microservice? | 21:15 |
| flwang | and then the question is what's the api should be looked like? | 21:16 |
| notmyname | smcginnis: wat? | 21:16 |
| samueldmq | notmyname: where a quota of child projects depends on their parent quota | 21:16 |
| thingee | #link http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/cinder-specs/specs/liberty/cinder-nested-quota-driver.html nested quota | 21:16 |
| thingee | so there's the first problem^ | 21:16 |
| nikhil_k | flwang: I think that's not it | 21:16 |
| flwang | since nova/cinder/neutorn/swift are using different(more or less) api format | 21:16 |
| mugsie | designate has had quotas for quite a while as well - http://docs.openstack.org/developer/designate/rest/admin/quotas.html | 21:16 |
| thingee | it's only a project spec. For some reason I thought we had this in a cross-project spec | 21:16 |
| nikhil_k | Glance wants quotas for data, no. images etc. A DB based approach covers everything. | 21:16 |
| nikhil_k | diablo_rojo: I heard the transition was from simple to complex, is that some unadvised ? I mean we start with simple and then try a nested approach later? | 21:17 |
| smcginnis | I definitely think we need a cp-spec. First to make sure everyone knows what "nested quotas" means... | 21:17 |
| samueldmq | thingee: I agree, even thought we have different APIs, the behavior should be the same across projects (for nested quotas ,eg) | 21:17 |
| smcginnis | And second to make sure we implement it in an at least semi-consistent way across projects. | 21:18 |
| thingee | nikhil_k: I feel like I'm hijacking your topic. Was it just around nested quotas? | 21:18 |
| nikhil_k | thingee: no, this is useful. I am taking notes and will prolly come back on this topic in a couple of weeks with more ad-hoc discussions. | 21:18 |
| diablo_rojo | nikhil_k: To understand the structure of how nested quotas works it would make sense to have quotas working properly first, in my opinion anyway. | 21:18 |
| nikhil_k | I see | 21:19 |
| flwang | thingee: glance team also want to know the experience if it's the good way from simple to nested or just go for nested directly | 21:19 |
| rockyg | thingee, If the xproject spec addresses nested quotas for all projects, I think it answers nikhil_k's questions | 21:19 |
| *** vilobhmm11 has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:19 | |
| *** penick has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:19 | |
| nikhil_k | diablo_rojo: personally, I am a bit worried on the upgrades though (ie from simple to nested) and wasn't sure if any project is attempting to do that now | 21:19 |
| thingee | harlowja: ping | 21:20 |
| harlowja | thinrichs pong | 21:20 |
| harlowja | vilobhmm11 pong | 21:20 |
| harlowja | penick pong | 21:20 |
| harlowja | *just noticed this being talked about, ha | 21:20 |
| thingee | harlowja: is the person that worked on nested quotas around? | 21:20 |
| harlowja | vilobhmm11 ping | 21:20 |
| harlowja | ;) | 21:20 |
| harlowja | they might be reading the logs to catch up | 21:20 |
| thingee | harlowja: I think he would have good insight in what nikhil_k is asking | 21:20 |
| harlowja | yup | 21:20 |
| harlowja | agreed +1 | 21:20 |
| harlowja | vilobhmm11 likely catching up | 21:21 |
| diablo_rojo | nikhil_k: I am not sure we are working on upgrading exactly, or just working on getting an implementation of nested quotas in addition to regular quotas, I just pinged the person working on it in Cinder to see if he would talk a bit, otherwise I can put you in contact with him after. | 21:21 |
| vilobhmm11 | thingee : i m here | 21:21 |
| *** melwitt has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:21 | |
| nikhil_k | diablo_rojo: that would be great | 21:21 |
| thingee | diablo_rojo: right but you have to transition to nested quotas if users are already using quotas in your project. | 21:21 |
| thingee | I think that's what upgrade is meaning in this context | 21:21 |
| samueldmq | fyi: if you don't have a project hierarchy, nested quotas = regular quotas anyways | 21:21 |
| harlowja | thingee +1 to 'the nested quota thing is kind of a disappointing feature at the moment unless we have a cross effort' | 21:22 |
| diablo_rojo | thingee: Oh okay, that makes more sense. | 21:22 |
| penick | *skims log* | 21:22 |
| vilobhmm11 | nikhil_k : had filed blueprint for glance as well https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/glance-quota-enhancements but looks like this was not a priority then | 21:22 |
| *** sballe has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:22 | |
| vilobhmm11 | thingee : nested quota had a lot of push back in the past | 21:22 |
| vilobhmm11 | even this time the nested quota feature for nova has been pushed to newton | 21:23 |
| nikhil_k | vilobhmm11: yeah, I know! there are/were 5 quota BPs that I know of | 21:23 |
| thingee | johnthetubaguy: ^ | 21:23 |
| harlowja | i'd like a cp-spec as smcginnis was talking about, it'd be nice to have a agreement cp wise what to do here (because each project will get quota, as they have, and they will all vary) | 21:23 |
| penick | I think the transition is fairly minimal if you’re not using hierarchical multitenancy yet, but I definitely need nested quotas in my environment across neutron, nova, glance, etc | 21:23 |
| vilobhmm11 | thingee : if as a community we are interested we can definately take it forward | 21:23 |
| harlowja | said cp-spec will not be easy to pull off (since projects already have impls of quota, in various ways...) | 21:23 |
| *** mc_nair has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:24 | |
| diablo_rojo | nikhil_k: I just got a response from him, he should be here in a sec. | 21:24 |
| thingee | nikhil_k: so I think it would be good if we could have cinder's spec be brought to a cross-project spec and start getting people familiar with the tech details | 21:24 |
| samueldmq | harlowja: +1 on cross-project spec | 21:24 |
| mc_nair | hey there | 21:24 |
| penick | harlowja: Are there any oslo libraries for quota mgmt in existence? | 21:24 |
| *** annegentle_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:24 | |
| harlowja | penick so there was an attempt | 21:24 |
| diablo_rojo | mc_nair: nikhil_k wanted to know about if it is better to implement quotas first or go right for nested quotas | 21:24 |
| *** gordc has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:24 | |
| penick | (dont say boson) | 21:24 |
| nikhil_k | penick: exactly, the clause being not using yet. I think we are getting requirement of HMT in glance and nested quotas in glance at the same time. I want it to be simplistic from ops standapoint :) | 21:24 |
| thingee | from there cp-spec liaisons can carry the priority forward to their respected projects | 21:24 |
| harlowja | it gets into a tricky gray area penick because that library needs to store data somewhere | 21:24 |
| harlowja | and not alot of oslo libraries do this | 21:24 |
| harlowja | because migrations of data now become library responsiblity (where is the data stored?) | 21:25 |
| nikhil_k | thingee: that sounds fair | 21:25 |
| vilobhmm11 | thingee : cinder nested quota driver https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/cinder-nested-quota-driver nikhil_k | 21:25 |
| dims | once upon a time we had plans for quota library penick - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/132127/ | 21:25 |
| vilobhmm11 | has more details | 21:25 |
| penick | Well, a starting point would be a common library with a common data model, even if stored in project-specific dbs. At least we can work from there | 21:25 |
| harlowja | dims right penick see commentary in that review | 21:25 |
| dolphm | there's openstack.common.quota http://docs.openstack.org/developer/oslo-incubator/api/openstack.common.quota.html | 21:25 |
| harlowja | penick quite possibly, the main objections where what to do about data migrations | 21:25 |
| thingee | dims: seems to make sense, not sure what the push back was. | 21:26 |
| dims | penick : y, maintaining db was the thing that stopped its progress | 21:26 |
| harlowja | and 'We have plans to massively rework the nova quota stuff in liberty, I wonder if we want to do that first, as it might end up being quite a good base for oslo, if we get all those things done?' | 21:26 |
| thingee | dims: I mean, I need to read that closer :) | 21:26 |
| harlowja | that also didn't help, ha | 21:26 |
| mc_nair | nikhil_k: IMO you should be able to implement quotas first and extend that support for nested quotas. | 21:26 |
| vilobhmm11 | mc_nair : +1 | 21:26 |
| dims | thingee ack :) | 21:26 |
| thingee | mc_nair: I agree | 21:26 |
| mc_nair | nikhil_k: I just put up a patch for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/274825/ which will split out the nested quota support into it's own driver | 21:26 |
| thingee | nikhil_k: the oslo quota thing might also be interesting. Too bad cinder is already spearheading things. But it can always adopt a module later if that ends being the case. | 21:27 |
| mc_nair | I like the idea of moving this effort cross-project (at least w/ collaboration) but for the time being I've just been scrambling to get the existing stuff in Cinder fixed up because we already released some stuff that's got some bugs | 21:27 |
| harlowja | but dims and other oslo people (me included) are probably ok with thinking about oslo again (i'll try not to put words in dims mouth) | 21:27 |
| thingee | so who is interested in copying the spec and bring it forward as a cp-spec? | 21:27 |
| harlowja | but same objects are still going to happen ;) | 21:27 |
| penick | the ‘wait until we rework quota’ thing does ring a bell. But, i’m not sure how far that got compared to their other priorities | 21:27 |
| harlowja | *objections, not objects, lol | 21:27 |
| nikhil_k | thingee: olso.quotas would be great. Would be even better if the wait wasn't of separation from nova! | 21:28 |
| dims | harlowja : yep | 21:28 |
| harlowja | so cp-spec with maybe something in oslo | 21:28 |
| penick | I think a cross-project spec would be better, since trying to take something project specific and make it usable for other technologies has some drawbacks. like baremetal vs VM in the compute layer. | 21:28 |
| nikhil_k | thingee: I can do that if no one from cinder is interested | 21:28 |
| thingee | nikhil_k: check with dims on the oslo spec if one exists | 21:28 |
| nikhil_k | I want to see this stuff through in newton as far as possible | 21:29 |
| thingee | we can promote it within this channel of people | 21:29 |
| harlowja | nikhil_k ya, there might have been one, i can't remember, dims might remember, ha | 21:29 |
| vilobhmm11 | nikhil_k : feel free to involve me if any help is needed | 21:29 |
| mc_nair | nikhil_k: I'm up for helping with that also | 21:29 |
| thingee | #action nikhil_k to look into possibly a cp-spec or oslo spec that already exists for quotas | 21:29 |
| dims | we'll need someone from nova :) | 21:29 |
| smcginnis | mc_nair has been doing a lot of work on this in cinder, so yes, please include him. | 21:29 |
| harlowja | dims and or all the projects with quota impls (future or present) | 21:29 |
| thingee | johnthetubaguy is my cc for this meeting, but not sure he's around | 21:29 |
| thingee | alright lets move on because we have some others that were kind to join to talk about their specs. | 21:30 |
| thingee | thanks nikhil_k | 21:30 |
| nikhil_k | thanks you. | 21:30 |
| nikhil_k | thank* | 21:30 |
| dims | harlowja : ack | 21:30 |
| cdent | I'm here sort of as nova-rep, but my context on nova quota is nil so far | 21:30 |
| cdent | I can make sure john's aware | 21:30 |
| dims | cdent : yay | 21:30 |
| thingee | cdent: sorry forgot about you! | 21:30 |
| thingee | :( | 21:30 |
| thingee | #topic Query Config From UI | 21:30 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Query Config From UI (Meeting topic: crossproject)" | 21:30 | |
| thingee | ayoung: hi | 21:31 |
| *** dprince has quit IRC | 21:31 | |
| thingee | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/242852/ Query Config from UI spec | 21:31 |
| ayoung | Yo | 21:31 |
| rockyg | quickie on last topic: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mitaka-nova-priorities-tracking ln#453 Quotas subteam info | 21:31 |
| ayoung | So, this came up in the past on a couple occasions | 21:31 |
| cdent | Maybe it is just me, but I feel like the actual proposal isn't really present in that spec | 21:32 |
| cdent | thus my comments are sort of from left field | 21:32 |
| ayoung | the biggest one was v2 to v3 conversion | 21:32 |
| ayoung | we had kn way of reporting what the Default domain was | 21:32 |
| jroll | cdent: +1, but going to hear adam out first :) | 21:32 |
| ayoung | not a big deal, punted on it | 21:32 |
| ayoung | but it seems to keep coming up. I was looking at this from a Keystone perspective | 21:32 |
| bknudson_ | does UI mean horizon? | 21:32 |
| ayoung | and was told others have the same problem, and we should think cross project | 21:32 |
| ayoung | so here I am | 21:32 |
| jroll | so, my feelings on exposing config options in an API aside, this seems to be an incomplete spec | 21:33 |
| ayoung | I think the origianal blueprint got decomissioned. | 21:33 |
| jroll | so I'm curious, what the question we want to answer in this meeting is | 21:33 |
| ayoung | It was incomplete | 21:33 |
| thingee | bknudson_: I was confused by that too, but I think it's meant from the rest api. | 21:33 |
| ayoung | I brought it up because I've been told others are pursuing this as well | 21:33 |
| rockyg | I think from UI means coming up with cp standard for the callbacks for all the projects | 21:34 |
| ayoung | yeah, is should be REST API. | 21:34 |
| ayoung | hmmm | 21:34 |
| rockyg | REST ++ | 21:34 |
| cdent | callbacks for what? | 21:34 |
| ayoung | So...do other teams have this issue? | 21:34 |
| bknudson_ | operators don't know how their systems are configured? | 21:35 |
| jroll | ++ | 21:35 |
| rockyg | configs change. What is it *now*? | 21:35 |
| jroll | I disagree with the premise there should ever be a GET /config/foo API | 21:35 |
| ayoung | The idea is that if there are a subset of config options (not passwords for duh reasons) that need to be remotely queryable | 21:35 |
| ayoung | jroll, rationale? | 21:35 |
| cdent | ayoung: to answer what question(s)? | 21:35 |
| jroll | but rather something like (for this specific case), the /domains endpoint might return a "default": "foo" that is the value of that config option | 21:36 |
| ayoung | "I disagree with the premise there should ever be a GET /config/foo API" | 21:36 |
| fungi | is this meant as a solution to the lack of end-user/app-dev discoverability for various deployment choices in different providers? | 21:36 |
| ayoung | jroll, that could certainly work for my use. The question is does that cover what other people are asking for | 21:37 |
| bknudson_ | keystone has some REST APIs for getting config -- http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/keystone-specs/api/v3/identity-api-v3.html#domain-configuration-management | 21:37 |
| ayoung | WIth policy enforcement, we have found ways to work around it thus far | 21:37 |
| thingee | The problem description lists something that keystone wants to query in configs. I think ayoung wants to know does anyone else need this? | 21:37 |
| thingee | correct me if I'm wrong ayoung | 21:37 |
| * cdent still doesn't understand why people want to query configs | 21:38 | |
| ayoung | thingee, you are right | 21:38 |
| jroll | ayoung: I'm struggling to come up with a coherent reason "why not" other than "why would you" | 21:38 |
| thingee | ok so not really something available to users, but sservices | 21:38 |
| cdent | I'm not disputing that someone might, but it would help to know why? | 21:38 |
| jroll | anyway, to answer the question, no I don't see a need for this :) | 21:38 |
| samueldmq | exposing config via APIs might help on improving UX, e.g horizon hiding some buttons if user can't be created in the current domain | 21:38 |
| ayoung | the two reasons I've come up with both involve defaulting values for migrating forward | 21:38 |
| rockyg | jroll, troubleshooting? | 21:38 |
| ayoung | but they are ,as pointed out, specific values | 21:39 |
| jroll | rockyg: ssh? read the config management? | 21:39 |
| fungi | got it, so "querying configs" is a solution for some discoverability issue in $random_service which keystone will base some behavior on | 21:39 |
| thingee | samueldmq: that's a good point | 21:39 |
| cdent | would another way to describe this be: capabilities discovery? | 21:39 |
| thingee | so ayoung it sounds like it could be interesting for horizon. but people who are present here don't have a need for it. | 21:40 |
| jroll | I tend to think what is actually desired is "expose an API to get the value of $thing, which happens to be set by a config option" | 21:40 |
| rockyg | jroll, so login to service vm, cd to /etc/nnn/config, find out you want some other config option, repeat? | 21:40 |
| fungi | one possible devil's advocate question is, why not fix the discoverability issue in that service instead of just parsing its configuration somewhere that the configuration isn't actually directly applicable? | 21:40 |
| fungi | or yes, what cdent said in fewer words | 21:40 |
| lifeless | so years ago LP had this concept that you'd surface *everything* to the user | 21:41 |
| elmiko | tend to agree with jroll, i'm having trouble coming up with a "why not". although i have not heard any rumblings about needing this capability. | 21:41 |
| thingee | fungi: right I think that's what jroll was touching on | 21:41 |
| lifeless | it was in hindsight a terrible idea | 21:41 |
| samueldmq | thingee: however domain configs can already e stored/retrieved via API in keystone (as bknudson_ pointed above) | 21:41 |
| samueldmq | I think a good question to start is "what use cases are we trying to solve? who needs it?' | 21:41 |
| jroll | rockyg: yes; you'd need to ssh to change the config anyway, unless this can also change configs which is a huge can of worms :) | 21:41 |
| lifeless | In my experience you need to actually think about each thing being surfaced and decide where it belongs and how to best present it | 21:41 |
| elmiko | samueldmq: +1 | 21:41 |
| fungi | lifeless: then everything becomes a contractual api and you can't ever change anything? | 21:41 |
| thingee | Ok so it sounds like we're unsure of the use case for this and also that's potentially hiding another problem os service capabilities being discovered | 21:42 |
| lifeless | fungi: that is one of the side effects of surfacing everything without care, yes. | 21:42 |
| lifeless | fungi: another specific problem was that internal model != external model | 21:42 |
| rockyg | jroll, don't necessarily need to change, just get the info quickly | 21:42 |
| thingee | I think all this would be good feedback for people to add to the spec so that we have it there. | 21:42 |
| jroll | fungi: lifeless: ah yes, this also has implications for deprecating configs | 21:42 |
| lifeless | fungi: e.g. how we configure things from a sysadmin view, vs how users are affected are very different things | 21:42 |
| david-lyle | some specific examples of need for Horizon are around policy, but fix centralized policy and that goes away | 21:42 |
| jroll | given the "never delete API endpoints" talk/work lately | 21:42 |
| notmorgan | also keep in mind that configs often hold sensitive data, so it's another additonal surface area to verify is safe/sane/sanatized | 21:43 |
| lifeless | jroll: exactly | 21:43 |
| fungi | effectively, your configs become an api in their entirety | 21:43 |
| lifeless | yup | 21:43 |
| thingee | ayoung: not sure if this feedback was helpful. you're quiet :) | 21:43 |
| notmorgan | fungi: oh i don't like that | 21:43 |
| lifeless | and they are, but currently on a different lifecycle, and with different audiences | 21:43 |
| ayoung | thingee, I want input | 21:43 |
| * jroll quivers | 21:43 | |
| notmorgan | can we not make configs an API :P | 21:43 |
| fungi | and who knows what random services will start depending on nuanced details of your configuration | 21:43 |
| notmorgan | fungi: exactly | 21:43 |
| jroll | +1 | 21:44 |
| ayoung | as I said, I have workarounds for this | 21:44 |
| ayoung | but they don't feel any better than querying the value | 21:44 |
| angdraug | there's also a concern of not coupling this to config _files_, especially in specific format (ini) | 21:44 |
| bknudson_ | how about rather than a config api we have a capabilities discovery api? | 21:44 |
| lifeless | ayoung: I'm not against surfacing chosen things one by one | 21:44 |
| david-lyle | bknudson_: ++ | 21:44 |
| notmorgan | bknudson_: better idea | 21:44 |
| lifeless | ayoung: but - as bknudson_ says :) | 21:45 |
| *** nikhil_k is now known as nikhil | 21:45 | |
| breton | (btw, we already have configs in api in keystone) | 21:45 |
| ayoung | for example, to fix https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/968696 we actually added the value to the token response | 21:45 |
| openstack | Launchpad bug 968696 in Glance ""admin"-ness not properly scoped" [High,Triaged] | 21:45 |
| samueldmq | what is a capability we're talking about ? | 21:45 |
| jroll | or even GET /domains/default | 21:45 |
| thingee | fwiw, cinder has a concept of capabilities | 21:45 |
| notmorgan | jroll: that is not unreasonable. | 21:45 |
| samueldmq | APIs == capabilities ? | 21:45 |
| jroll | but not GET /configs/default_v2_domain or whatever | 21:45 |
| thingee | that can be asked for | 21:45 |
| rockyg | Yeah. I don't think most sysadmins would want *all* the configs and values on q query. Usually they are hunting for a specific one. | 21:45 |
| notmorgan | jroll: also leans towards expicit specific information | 21:46 |
| notmorgan | not "the config data" | 21:46 |
| jroll | notmorgan: again this should be a "expose an API to get the value of $thing, which happens to be set by a config option" | 21:46 |
| jroll | yeah | 21:46 |
| jroll | the fact it's a config is tangential | 21:46 |
| thingee | Ok so lets get some feedback back on the specs for ayoung to iterated on. we still have one more topic | 21:46 |
| jroll | we should get users the data they need, no matter where it comes from | 21:46 |
| ayoung | so, I was origianlly thinking that we would use a config option in policy enforcement, which might also be useful beyhond Keystone | 21:46 |
| rockyg | jroll, ++ | 21:47 |
| samueldmq | I don't think we should expose every config, let's think about the use cases, and how to solve them; as we did with domain configs API in keystone | 21:47 |
| ayoung | for exdample if networkid = config.admin.netowkr.id or soemthing in Neutron | 21:47 |
| notmorgan | ayoung: i am fairly against that unless there realy is no good other options | 21:47 |
| ayoung | notmorgan, well, there wasn't for policy, which is why henrynash 's example had you editing the poluicy file | 21:47 |
| ayoung | so if you need to edit a policy file, I'd argue its config anyway | 21:48 |
| notmorgan | except it is contained in policy | 21:48 |
| david-lyle | policy and config | 21:48 |
| notmorgan | vs. set [potentially] in multiple places | 21:48 |
| ayoung | Note that for policy it does not need to be remotely queryable | 21:48 |
| ayoung | just locally exposed to the policy engine | 21:48 |
| notmorgan | which could be an entry in the policy file | 21:48 |
| notmorgan | contained | 21:48 |
| *** sdake has quit IRC | 21:49 | |
| notmorgan | spreading this across multiple locations makes it far far more complex imo | 21:49 |
| *** ninag has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:50 | |
| samueldmq | 10 mins left | 21:50 |
| notmorgan | i'd rather see it contained in policy DSL than cross policy and osli.config | 21:50 |
| notmorgan | if that makes sense | 21:50 |
| ayoung | Anyway, that was my original reason for asking, and we have a lot of people shouiting "No" and I really am OK with letting this go. | 21:50 |
| notmorgan | ayoung: i think some of the other policy tnings can lead into a nice solution for you.. we'll chat more offline | 21:50 |
| thingee | ok, so like I said, seems like there are some things to be worked in the spec based on some good feedback from the group. ayoung got some input that. | 21:50 |
| notmorgan | ayoung: we talked about last week, | 21:50 |
| thingee | dolphm: I believe you need more time than 10 mins? | 21:51 |
| dolphm | definitely | 21:51 |
| dolphm | it'll take 10 minutes to introduce the topic | 21:51 |
| * jroll posts on the spec | 21:51 | |
| * notmorgan cheers for dolphm's topic | 21:51 | |
| thingee | ok, lets punt dolphm's topic to next week | 21:51 |
| dolphm | in the mean time, everyone become opinionated on the spec as homework https://review.openstack.org/#/c/245629/ | 21:51 |
| * notmorgan is sad there isn't time today | 21:51 | |
| ayoung | Oh. damn | 21:51 |
| ayoung | I would have preferred we talk about that | 21:52 |
| notmorgan | dolphm: i am already opinionated on the spec... it should be a thing! | 21:52 |
| notmorgan | :P | 21:52 |
| david-lyle | ++ | 21:52 |
| thingee | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/245629/ Homework: A Common Policy Scenario Across All Projects | 21:52 |
| ayoung | but, yeah, that one is a big one. | 21:52 |
| notmorgan | thingee: can we prioritise that first thing next week? | 21:52 |
| rockyg | You realize this is right in the middle (well end) of the ops summit, where you have *very* opinionated users who could comment? | 21:52 |
| notmorgan | it is a big topic | 21:52 |
| cdent | emerging conensus of too big ;) | 21:52 |
| thingee | so yes, that means we will be having a cross-project meeting next week! | 21:52 |
| thingee | notmorgan: of course. it waited through this meeting | 21:53 |
| diablo_rojo | YAY! | 21:53 |
| notmorgan | thingee: just making sure :) | 21:53 |
| samueldmq | ++ | 21:53 |
| thingee | #topic open discussion | 21:53 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion (Meeting topic: crossproject)" | 21:53 | |
| ayoung | also, as part of the homework, note that we now have implied roles to work with which makes this easier to implement, but also has ramifications | 21:53 |
| bogdando_ | The spec for instances evacuation https://review.openstack.org/#/c/257809/ was updated to reflect actual initiatives (as I see it) in progress by the #ha-openstack members. Please take a look. That is related to Nova and Mistral projects mostly. | 21:53 |
| jroll | dolphm: so I assume a project that is all-or-nothing policy will need to add policy entries for all the things to satisfy this? :) | 21:53 |
| dolphm | jroll: that would be a good starting point ;) | 21:53 |
| jroll | dolphm: heh. good, I like | 21:54 |
| dolphm | i *might* break down the spec into two parts before next week - what we have an existing, strong demand for, and the logical conclusion to policy as we know it | 21:54 |
| jamielennox | dolphm: maybe we make the per-controller stuff optional or different spec | 21:55 |
| thingee | dolphm: keep in mind just like the service catalog TNG, you are able to hold your own meeting in this channel | 21:55 |
| jamielennox | i don't mind if services want to do something but leave it out of the common | 21:55 |
| dolphm | jamielennox: right, split manager roles and endpoint / capability roles into a separate spec | 21:55 |
| ayoung | dolphm, the way I've started thinking of things is in 3 levels. THe top level is "here is the job you are assigned to do" the middle level is "here are the set of workflows you need to perform for your job" and the bottom level is "here are the permissions on the resourcesyou need to perform the workflows" | 21:55 |
| thingee | dolphm: I can talk to you more about that offline | 21:55 |
| dolphm | thingee: i think this is the right audience for the initial discussion - if we need to carry on more meetings, then ++ | 21:55 |
| thingee | dolphm: sounds good | 21:56 |
| *** gordc has left #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:56 | |
| jamielennox | the original goal of this was not to solve all problems for all deployers, just get the deployers who don't change policy files past admin/non-admin | 21:56 |
| dolphm | jamielennox: i definitely hijacked it | 21:56 |
| jamielennox | if we want to flesh out a complete policy i'm ok, but i'd take the immediate win rather tahn debate it forever | 21:56 |
| jamielennox | i think the deployers who want that level of granularity are the ones who can maintain there own policy files | 21:57 |
| dolphm | but if we have more than a couple, my argument is that it should be upstream | 21:57 |
| jamielennox | ideally sure | 21:58 |
| thingee | dolphm: would it be useful for me to start promoting this to ops folks? If so, next week will be bad due to ops midcycle | 21:58 |
| *** soren has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:58 | |
| dolphm | thingee: ooh, that's a good question... | 21:58 |
| jamielennox | but we put out that call for what things do you customize in your policy files and there really wasn't much | 21:58 |
| ayoung | thingee, we could call in to the ops midcycle via telconfernece | 21:59 |
| *** bogdando_ has quit IRC | 21:59 | |
| dolphm | let's not | 21:59 |
| jamielennox | which is not to say they wouldn't use it if not available, just this covered most of their needs | 21:59 |
| thingee | well I think it just means people be part of the irc channel in their TZ... | 21:59 |
| jroll | so there's two main goals here, right? 1) get people to stop using admin, generally; 2) get something somewhat common in policy amongst the projects | 21:59 |
| dolphm | jroll: yes | 21:59 |
| dolphm | jroll: and upstream the things deployers are already doing | 21:59 |
| jroll | ++ | 22:00 |
| thingee | so dolphm next week still or punt after midcycle? | 22:00 |
| dolphm | i'm good for next week | 22:00 |
| thingee | ok! | 22:00 |
| thingee | thanks everyone | 22:00 |
| thingee | #endmeeting | 22:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 22:00 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Feb 9 22:00:33 2016 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 22:00 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/crossproject/2016/crossproject.2016-02-09-21.01.html | 22:00 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/crossproject/2016/crossproject.2016-02-09-21.01.txt | 22:00 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/crossproject/2016/crossproject.2016-02-09-21.01.log.html | 22:00 |
| elmiko | thanks thingee | 22:00 |
| thingee | wow good turn out and good participation! | 22:00 |
| elmiko | +1 | 22:00 |
| jroll | thanks thingee :) | 22:01 |
| cdent | that was rather dense, nice | 22:01 |
| elmiko | thingee: i wanted to say, your email reminders are spot on. nicely done ;) | 22:01 |
| samueldmq | thanks | 22:01 |
| *** jamielennox has left #openstack-meeting-cp | 22:01 | |
| thingee | elmiko: Thanks. I'm hoping things like having some rep for projects to ping has helped too :) | 22:02 |
| thingee | it's nice having feedback from other perspectives. | 22:02 |
| elmiko | +1 | 22:02 |
| *** annegentle_ has quit IRC | 22:04 | |
| cdent | thingee long ago and far away I did a lot of experimentation with improving mailing list communication and one of the biggest wins were summaries that exposed opinions and helped distill and move things forward. it is great that you're doing that. | 22:04 |
| thingee | cdent: thanks. I hope people find it useful since I don't know how many people are following it. | 22:05 |
| *** thinrichs has quit IRC | 22:05 | |
| *** ninag has quit IRC | 22:08 | |
| diablo_rojo | thingee: I definitely find the emails helpful | 22:12 |
| *** henrynash has quit IRC | 22:19 | |
| *** cdent has left #openstack-meeting-cp | 22:24 | |
| *** rockyg has quit IRC | 22:25 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 22:25 | |
| *** mc_nair has left #openstack-meeting-cp | 22:33 | |
| *** dims_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 22:39 | |
| *** henrynash has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 22:39 | |
| *** dtroyer has left #openstack-meeting-cp | 22:40 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 22:40 | |
| *** henrynash has quit IRC | 22:53 | |
| *** penick has quit IRC | 23:18 | |
| *** thinrichs has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 23:24 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!