======================================= #acumos-meeting: Architecture Committee ======================================= Meeting started by farheen_att at 14:10:37 UTC. The full logs are available at http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/acumos-meeting/2019/acumos-meeting.2019-09-04-14.10.log.html . Meeting summary --------------- * Acumos-1188 (farheen_att, 14:10:50) * Bryan - We found that we don't have the flexibility to use k8 cluster. Host map is the only persistence volume of service. (farheen_att, 14:12:23) * not scalable so you have to distribute the components across a cluster node. A side car is related to that cluster of services. (farheen_att, 14:13:19) * this is an effort to deploy components across a k8 cluster. I am adding labels with their own log volumes. (farheen_att, 14:14:11) * I have a patch open to system integration to see the first stage. (farheen_att, 14:14:44) * Regarding the CI pipeline. The design of deployment is there. Still working on SV. (farheen_att, 14:15:14) * Looking at how the platform works with Docker in all aspects and consider all of those things are offloaded to an external service like Jenkins. It is a security concern. We are establishing a pattern. Onboarding team should take a look. (farheen_att, 14:16:29) * What is the scope in Clio? (farheen_att, 14:16:43) * Bryan - I don't think anything in Clio will be developed in Clio. There is an interplay of Jenkins and Acumos components. APIs need to be created and roles distributed. It is a significant aspect change across the platform. (farheen_att, 14:17:47) * ACTION: Guy and Phillippe how does the onboarding code need to be refactored to fit into the CI/CD pipeline. What can be done in short term and what is coming up in the releases. (farheen_att, 14:18:30) * Guy - it is do-able but we may not have time to do it in Clio. It will disrupt and break things. (farheen_att, 14:19:12) * The ms code is missing. Even though at a high level we know what can be done and what is feasible. If you can bring together a plan we can review. (farheen_att, 14:20:04) * ACTION: Manoop add this topic to next week's agenda. (farheen_att, 14:20:16) * Guy I agree we will discuss a bit and bring it up at the next architecture meeting. (farheen_att, 14:20:37) * Access Control (farheen_att, 14:21:41) * Bryan the need for the Docker proxy is less and less therefore it's role can be simplified. Proposal to manage images through workflow that wraps the platform. (farheen_att, 14:23:10) * HA Availability (farheen_att, 14:23:18) * Bryan this is a big ask. I don't know that the platform will scale. Suggested to plan out experiments to test whats possible. We need to take a planned experiment to see impacts. (farheen_att, 14:24:32) * ACTION: Manoop Bryan wants to have a design review for HA (farheen_att, 14:24:59) * we can perform load tests to baseline what our platform can support. This will give us a clue to which components are impacted by the load tests. Save them in he HELM charts. (farheen_att, 14:26:11) * we need two action items. Load test and analyze the deployment techniques. (farheen_att, 14:27:05) * Ask the component leads these questions. (farheen_att, 14:27:14) * ACTION: Ken to perform the load test to baseline the platform performance (talasila, 14:27:58) * ACTION: Parichay to analyze the helm chart of k8 deployment to address HA/scalability (talasila, 14:28:23) * Is your component stateless? What aspects of your app depend on a state. What aspects are stateless? (farheen_att, 14:28:47) * Search functionality (farheen_att, 14:29:53) * Many defects are being opened. Records per page. When we search we search on the 11 - 20 records. Search does not search all records. To do the entire database search a lot of changes will be required. (farheen_att, 14:31:24) * Do we really want to achieve the database search. Acumos-2940. (farheen_att, 14:33:56) * ACTION: Tausif, Nat suggested collecting the search defects and we can review on the community call. (farheen_att, 14:36:28) * ACTION: Tausif review with the product committee and then with the architecture committee. (farheen_att, 14:37:40) * regarding Acumos-1188 need support from the Federation team. When we do an un-publish on the model that has been federated we need to know the rules around how to handle a federated file. (farheen_att, 14:40:17) * when a model is federated from A to B. B wants to unpublish the model. If a model has been published and federated to another instance then the federated instance should un-publish. (farheen_att, 14:41:49) * un-publish will delete the model everywhere? (farheen_att, 14:42:05) * yes (farheen_att, 14:42:13) * Manoop once a model is federated it will show up somewhere. We can not remove a model once it is federated to the internet. Show the model as depricated. (farheen_att, 14:44:49) * what rites does the publisher have? (farheen_att, 14:45:31) * what rites does the publisher has after publication? (farheen_att, 14:45:53) * How instance A can changed ownership via instance B? Can we restrict further access? (farheen_att, 14:46:50) * It depends on license and terms if any. (farheen_att, 14:47:02) * Does the licensing team address the federated license models? (farheen_att, 14:48:08) * That has not been discussed. If the company wants to remove their model and they don't want anyone to use it they will have to do it offline. (farheen_att, 14:48:56) * Publisher takes the model down from A and B through the federation API? (farheen_att, 14:49:18) * yes, a scenario has to put together for that. (farheen_att, 14:49:33) * We can trigger the request from Portal front end but need Federation team to take the action for portal to trigger so it can be un-published. (farheen_att, 14:53:21) * this is not for-seen in the federation model. The need to withdraw a model we have to decide how to notify the peer. (farheen_att, 14:54:49) * ACTION: Tausif put together a clear design and bring this topic to the Community call to Reuben. (farheen_att, 14:55:35) * ACTION: Justin add link to documentation to meeting minutes to the documentation api (farheen_att, 14:58:20) * ACTION: Manoop add Priya's Spark review to next weeks agenda. (farheen_att, 14:59:08) * LINK: https://wiki.acumos.org/display/AR/Architecture+Reviews+Score+Card (farheen_att, 15:00:32) * reviewed score card link above (farheen_att, 15:00:57) Meeting ended at 15:01:07 UTC. People present (lines said) --------------------------- * farheen_att (50) * collabot` (3) * talasila (2) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4