08:04:21 #startmeeting multisite 08:04:21 Meeting started Thu Mar 17 08:04:21 2016 UTC. The chair is joehuang123. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 08:04:21 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 08:04:21 The meeting name has been set to 'multisite' 08:04:25 Hello All 08:04:33 hi 08:04:52 Mitaka will be released on Apr.8 08:05:21 #topic rollcall 08:05:26 #info joehuang 08:05:36 #info SAshsih 08:05:41 #info dimitri 08:06:15 So I think it would be ok to have a release 0.1 for Kingbird, that means not full release 08:07:15 last meeting : 1. Finilize work in KB for the first mile-stone with OpenStack mitaka 08:07:18 yes. If it can then, what all we need for this release 08:07:28 1.5 CURL FT test 08:07:31 with a tag 0.1 or release mitaka? 08:07:43 2. Tag for mitaka 08:08:31 we can use the tag for Mitaka, but the release number maybe 0.1.0? not the formal 1.0.0 08:08:43 I’m fine with that 08:08:51 fine 08:08:53 as long as we have a version 08:09:03 yes 08:09:52 The challenge here is to prepare the FT test environment 08:10:12 If we only using one devstack node, it'll be easy 08:10:24 we are almost at verge of finishing 1. 08:10:27 so 1.5 is next 08:10:45 just one more commit then we are done with 1 08:10:59 the locking one 08:11:14 but if we want to use two nodes FT, it's more difficult 08:11:25 Yes. 08:11:36 Just one comment on the locking 08:11:45 a fuel based setup 08:11:58 single node 08:12:02 with multi regions 08:12:11 Can fuel setup multiple regions? 08:12:16 yes 08:12:21 multiple environments 08:12:32 with separate keystones 08:12:33 yeah 08:12:45 I am not family with fuel 08:12:46 so manual work to reconfigure auth will still be required 08:13:10 configure the second one to use the node1 keystone 08:13:22 yes, but manually 08:13:23 yes, also for multiple controllers, there will be internal IPs, so kingbird also needs to sit on same node 08:13:26 each service configuration file need to be modified 08:13:33 correct 08:13:47 it can be scripted of course 08:14:00 one node == fuel(internally multinode) + KB serivce 08:14:34 two things on same node 08:15:05 Am I making sense? 08:15:07 for two environments fuel will need two nodes 08:15:13 If we have to setup the environment manually, then the FT can only be done manually 08:15:19 or we can use virtual fuel 08:15:35 that two nodes will be VMs created by fuel master/node 08:16:16 yes, but you’re refering to virtual box MOS 08:16:19 fuel creates multiple VMs for multiple environments 08:16:23 yes 08:16:25 We tried two regions environment in vitual box 08:16:26 exactly 08:16:36 virtual box MOS 08:16:58 what's MOS? 08:17:04 mirantis openstack 08:17:13 latest has come recently 8.0 liberty based 08:17:25 got it 08:17:42 OPNFV has a different version i think 08:17:53 may be lower 08:18:25 so I guess first we need to check if we can use virtualbox MOS in opnfv for kb 08:18:39 one question here guys 08:18:58 this setup is for our FTs 08:19:21 not installer project 08:19:37 if we push FTs when gerrit runs FTs? 08:19:56 for installer, it'll be good to use virtual box MOS 08:20:09 it also needs some environment right? 08:20:39 for FT, can we integrate into CI in gerrit 08:20:42 suppose I push my FTs for KB, do we need to tell gerrit where is the env details 08:21:03 to Ashish, that's also my concerns 08:21:08 okay 08:22:03 All current Function test is based on one openstack instance 08:22:28 otherwise, we can just integrate it into function test projects 08:22:30 and from where they get that instance 08:22:45 that openstack instance? 08:23:05 Not like CI always use the latest one 08:23:16 OPNFV use the stable release 08:26:47 If we create installer then from where we get infrastructure 08:27:30 may be I have a very basic question. 08:28:37 ok 08:28:46 so I’ve just talked to opnfv CI guys here 08:28:48 see. our code is on gerrit, suppose we have a multisite installer, we need some infrastructure to install with our installer. this infrastructure has to be accessible by our code on gerrit 08:28:59 first we need to get a physical blade, I’ll try to do that this week 08:29:17 exactly. 08:29:26 great sorantis 08:29:29 when we will have secured physical resources we can either use fuel to create two environments or use two fuels 08:29:42 they said both can be done 08:30:01 if we want to automate deployment of OpenStack, this can also be done, but later 08:30:06 so first thing first, get a blade 08:30:27 I will talk to Dan Smith and describe him our requirements. 08:30:48 That's absolutely helpful 08:31:02 One important thing to keep in mind, is that that environment will not only be for KB, but for general multisite purpose 08:31:27 sure 08:31:36 I think so, for example, multisite identity management 08:31:37 so in such case, perhaps having a static two region deployment is good enough for a start 08:31:49 yes 08:31:54 Two regions at first is enough 08:32:01 we can actually automate the identity management use case too 08:32:38 Support Fernet token? 08:33:04 and clustered DB for the backend of KeyStone 08:33:26 yes 08:33:31 but first, the blade! :) 08:33:50 so, the access for the blade has to be there 08:33:53 Yes, hope you can get one blade 08:34:13 again, that was just a suggestion from the CI folks, not a promise 08:34:15 so can it be accessed from gerrit/jenkins? 08:34:17 let me work on it 08:35:09 one more Q: for OPNFV do we need to get our code in review.opnfv.org 08:35:20 right now it is review.openstack.org 08:35:43 now we leverage the infrastructure of openstack 08:35:50 yes 08:35:56 we don’t move the code anywhere 08:36:04 okay. 08:36:43 I think OpenStack infrastructure is good for development 08:37:12 we need to request for infrastructure? 08:37:22 I also talked to compass4nfv guys for the installation 08:37:35 but currently, the most urgent one is FT 08:39:16 Yes, I want to verify the code till now once. 08:39:27 started looking into Tempest as well 08:39:29 ok. It takes time for Dimitri to get the blade 08:39:32 Ashish, how about the discussion with the locking? 08:39:37 sure 08:39:40 I have replied 08:40:06 Dimitri, your opinion? 08:40:27 It's a little too heavy to use DB for locking. From my point of view, using a QuotaManager level variable to keep track the project list to be rebalanced, once it's rebalanced , remove it from the project list, if list become empty, then a new re balance cycle could be started when the timer comes. If the projectlist is not empty when the new timer comes, no action will be done, the previous timer is still there working until a 08:40:33 this was Joe's comment 08:40:47 I think its better to use DB for locking because of below reasons(2nd point is crucial). 1. Can be shared with any other sync job of Kingbird. 2. Align with other openstack projects in the way(using DB) locking implemented there(Heat & Senlin). Current implementation in DB is based on locking in Senlin/Heat. I am sure other openstack projects also use DB for locking. 3. If DB, then at any instant of time, we can query if th 08:41:03 mine here 08:41:04 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/292917 08:41:11 yeah better 08:41:14 I also would like to have locking 08:41:33 I think this mechanism will come in handing in many other situations 08:41:42 and it’s already there 08:41:44 so why not use it 08:41:49 which one? 08:41:52 locking with DB? 08:41:52 it’s actually very easy to use 08:41:54 yes 08:41:58 your commit 08:41:58 yes 08:42:01 fine 08:42:24 ok 08:42:48 but locking using under galera cluster has a little different behavior 08:43:35 #link http://www.joinfu.com/2015/01/understanding-reservations-concurrency-locking-in-nova/ 08:43:37 mysql behaviour ? 08:44:09 yes, I’ve read this one 08:44:13 good article 08:44:19 mysql without and with galera is a little different 08:45:10 have to catch "40001 dead lock error" 08:45:54 no matter for primary key record duplicate writing or update a same record 08:46:15 in our case one sync task have access to lock table 08:46:50 Ok. I'll review the patch next Monday, for tomorrow I'll leave office. 08:47:00 I’ve sent a request 08:47:08 will update you as soon as there’s news 08:47:20 is there anything else to discuss? 08:47:28 nothing. 08:47:29 I have to run quite soon 08:47:32 no 08:47:38 so let's end the meeting 08:47:45 joe please review when you have time 08:47:48 thank you 08:47:53 yeah plese 08:47:53 thanks and bye 08:47:53 #endmeeting