14:30:29 <debrascott> #startmeeting Brahmaputra Daily Standup
14:30:29 <collabot`> Meeting started Wed Jan  6 14:30:29 2016 UTC.  The chair is debrascott. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:30:29 <collabot`> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
14:30:29 <collabot`> The meeting name has been set to 'brahmaputra_daily_standup'
14:31:15 <bin_> Hi guys
14:31:20 <debrascott> #topic build agenda for daily meetups- what do we need to touch base about on a daily basis?
14:31:42 <debrascott> Hi all
14:31:46 <anac1> hi
14:31:49 <morgan_orange> hi
14:32:09 <fdegir> hi
14:32:15 <anac1> lab status?
14:32:25 <fdegir> we can perhaps have a short summary of outstanding issues at the beginning
14:32:31 <fdegir> as anac1 suggests
14:32:37 <morgan_orange> +1
14:32:45 <bin_> +1
14:32:49 <debrascott> good +1
14:32:55 <fdegir> and then go through different type of activities such as installers, ci, test projects and have summary for them
14:33:11 <debrascott> in round table format?
14:33:22 <fdegir> I think so
14:33:41 <bin_> and also deployment scenarios, and status
14:33:43 <fdegir> since we all depend on installers, it is better they start and then the rest follows
14:33:49 <frankbrockners> could we also get a readout on milestone e reporting?
14:34:05 <anac1> what about outstanding issues at the beginning, then we decide what is the most urgent of the day?
14:34:08 <debrascott> outstanding issues should be prioritized too. for example any that are blocking should be discussed first
14:34:14 <frankbrockners> maybe start with that - i.e. who has frozen code, who is pending etc.
14:34:46 <debrascott> :) sounds like we are on the same page
14:35:10 <debrascott> So what about today- what are blocking/urgent issues?
14:35:11 <frankbrockners> debrascott - do you have a milestone e report posted somewhere?
14:35:50 <debrascott> frankbrockners: not yet. In meetings since 6:30am so haven’t reviewed latest inputs
14:36:00 <anac1> lab status
14:36:03 <fdegir> the outstanding issues list could be: milestone e (overall status, code freeze, branch off), hardware resources, scenario availability
14:36:23 <anac1> +1
14:36:48 <debrascott> fdegir +1
14:36:56 <debrascott> Will have overall status by tomorrow
14:37:20 <fdegir> we can switch to installer status from the scenario subject and move on
14:37:22 <debrascott> Let’s start with lab status…any updates?
14:37:40 <fdegir> should we type in the agenda first?
14:37:46 <trevor_intel> yes
14:37:46 <fdegir> people might want to take a look at minutes
14:37:53 <anac1> yes
14:37:58 <debrascott> sure
14:38:17 <fdegir> and it is important we keep minutes well and any decisions we might make
14:38:42 <fdegir> and attendance as well
14:40:40 <debrascott> agenda: roll call, outstanding issues by priority highest to lowest, milestone status, code freeze status, branch status, hardware status, scenario availabilty??
14:40:51 <debrascott> like that?
14:40:51 <morgan_orange> as far as I can see on the mails (probably missing some projects): E report done by Pharos, Joid, Onosfw, vsperf, ipvsix, releng, functest, octopus, compass, armband, bottleneck, yardstick (12 projects versus 39 declard projects for Brahmaputra)
14:41:16 <fdegir> rollcall
14:41:28 <fdegir> outstanding issues (the list you put there)
14:41:48 <fdegir> something like project status (installers, infra, test projects)
14:42:05 <fdegir> any new blockers/new issues should be reported
14:42:59 <debrascott> OK let’s give that a try for today. We can adjust if it needs improvement
14:44:49 <debrascott> #info Agenda roll call, outstanding issues by priority highest to lowest, project status (installers, infra, test), new blockers/issues, items for next day agenda
14:45:01 <debrascott> #topic roll call
14:45:09 <debrascott> #info Debra
14:45:12 <anac1> #info Ana Cunha
14:45:19 <bin_> #info Bin Hu
14:45:21 <fdegir> #info Fatih Degirmenci
14:45:22 <trevor_intel> #info Trevor
14:45:31 <frankbrockners> #info Frank Brockners
14:45:36 <morgan_orange> #info Morgan Richomme
14:46:08 <radez> #info Dan Radez (stand in for Tim Rozet)
14:46:31 <debrascott> #topic oustanding issues- blocking urgent
14:46:51 <debrascott> #info lab availability
14:47:04 <debrascott> what is the latest?
14:47:06 <fdegir> have some good news, typing in
14:47:25 <fdegir> #info Jumphosts for Intel POD5 and POD6 became available as of last night
14:47:49 <debrascott> awesome!
14:47:57 <fdegir> #info Joid team (Narinder) is working on changing the deployment configuration to have 3 controllers + 2 computes
14:48:00 <trevor_intel> #info and jumphost for POD 8 will be reconnected today
14:48:12 <anac1> fdegir: can we start with pod5 yardstick?
14:48:15 <debrascott> So those pods are up and running?
14:48:26 <fdegir> anac1: we need to wait Narinder to finish his work
14:48:33 <anac1> ok
14:48:33 <fdegir> anac1: will let you know once I hear from him
14:48:38 <anac1> ok
14:48:41 <anac1> thanks
14:49:01 <anac1> lf pod1?
14:49:03 <fdegir> #info The work with LF POD1 is still ongoing - need to check with Peter Bandzi
14:49:09 <anac1> ok
14:49:14 <fdegir> typing latest status for all PODs now
14:49:20 <fdegir> #info Status for all PODs
14:49:23 <trevor_intel> Fatih: Did you hear drom Peter Bandzi yesterday (LF POD 1)?
14:49:31 <fdegir> trevor_intel: nope
14:49:43 <fdegir> when I talked to him in the morning, he said he'll work on it
14:49:48 <fdegir> will check after the meeting
14:49:55 <trevor_intel> Fatih: ok
14:50:08 <debrascott> what can get kicked off in tests with the pods available?
14:50:19 <fdegir> #info Operational PODs: Intel POD2 (Apex), LF POD2 (Fuel), Huawei POD (Compass)
14:50:45 <fdegir> #info PODs under verification: Ericsson POD2 (Fuel), Intel POD5 (Joid), Intel POD6 (Joid)
14:51:17 <fdegir> #info PODs waiting to be configured: LF POD1 (rebuilding of the POD) , Intel POD8 (attaching jumphost)
14:52:06 <fdegir> I think hw status improved a lot comparing to what we had yesterday
14:52:07 <debrascott> how long does verification take if no issues found?
14:52:20 <debrascott> fdegir: agreed
14:52:55 <fdegir> for Ericsson POD2, deployment works fine but functest and yardstick are red
14:53:11 <fdegir> need to talk to anac1 and morgan_orange to see if the failures are pod related or not
14:53:21 <morgan_orange> yes we should have (modulo Narinder check) all the minimum PODs for the release (1 per installer)
14:53:23 <fdegir> if they're usual test failures, that POD is fine
14:53:23 <anac1> i know, have a hw fault on blade7
14:53:39 <fdegir> anac1: that's POD1 which is not in the list
14:53:44 <anac1> ok
14:53:49 <anac1> right
14:53:55 <fdegir> for Intel POD5 and POD6, we need to talk to Narinder
14:54:33 <morgan_orange> fdegir: for functest / intel POD 2 it is a known network issue, route to be added to speak to fuel management network I think
14:54:33 <frankbrockners> minor note on Peter Bandzi: Today is public holiday in Slovakia - he'll work on POD1 reconfig tomorrow
14:54:34 <fdegir> anac1: morgan_orange: please take a look at https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/fuel/job/fuel-nosdn-ericsson-pod2-daily-master/
14:54:43 <morgan_orange> from the jumphost
14:55:08 <fdegir> morgan_orange: Intel POD2 is apex POD
14:55:24 <morgan_orange> oup Ericsson POD2
14:55:32 <morgan_orange> not Intel
14:55:38 <fdegir> morgan_orange: so this is not a POD issue then
14:55:41 <morgan_orange> https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/functest/job/functest-fuel-ericsson-pod2-daily-master/lastFailedBuild/console
14:56:12 <trevor_intel> #info POD allocation can be found here: https://wiki.opnfv.org/pharos_rls_b_labs
14:56:13 <morgan_orange> yes and no there is a route to add from the jumphost, see prerequisites on https://wiki.opnfv.org/functest_docker?s[]=docker
14:56:20 <morgan_orange> it looks like the issue to management network
14:56:23 <anac1> fdegir: is it fuel 8?
14:56:28 <fdegir> anac1: nope
14:57:11 <morgan_orange> I do not know when Jose is back, the person to contact is Daniel?
14:57:23 <anac1> daniel is on vacation
14:57:25 <fdegir> morgan_orange: Daniel is going for vacation
14:57:43 <fdegir> we can talk offline about the pod issues I think
14:57:49 <morgan_orange> yep
14:57:59 <anac1> fdegir: we'll check tomorrow morning
14:58:05 <fdegir> thx anac1
14:58:08 <morgan_orange> but great job, we will finally have almost our 8 PODs as expected (compared to the 3 yesterday..)
14:58:24 <debrascott> +1
14:58:25 <fdegir> thanks to trevor_intel
14:58:29 <morgan_orange> no excuse with the hardware... :)
14:58:40 <fdegir> but we have full of excuses
14:58:44 <morgan_orange> fortunately there are other issues...
14:58:48 <fdegir> the next excuse is the scenario availability
14:58:58 <anac1> ok, 2 minutes left
14:59:01 <fdegir> #info Scenario Availability
14:59:13 <debrascott> #topic Scenario Availability
14:59:45 <debrascott> What’s the latest on this?
14:59:54 <fdegir> #info As agreed, we will start with Arno scenario: OS + ODL
15:00:07 <morgan_orange> my understanding today , we have for bare metal fuel/nosdn, compas/odl, joid/odl, apex/odl
15:00:19 <morgan_orange> plus virtual compas/onos
15:00:38 <fdegir> infoing them
15:00:51 <fdegir> #info Currently running
15:00:56 <debrascott> fuel currently having bare metal issues right? or was it JOID?
15:01:03 <fdegir> #info Fuel: nosdn, baremetal
15:01:09 <bin_> #info Scenario A3 and A4 is needed for IPv6 because of the bug in ODL Lithium
15:01:36 <fdegir> #info Joid: odl, baremetal (1 compute host missing)
15:01:40 <bin_> #ODL Lithium doesn't support IPv6 L3 routing, so we still need Neutron L3 routing instead
15:01:46 <fdegir> morgan_orange: can you put compass
15:01:51 <fdegir> is it baremetal?
15:02:02 <bin_> #info ODL Lithium doesn't support IPv6 L3 routing, so we still need Neutron L3 routing instead
15:02:23 <anac1> IPv6 will ony be tested in Huawei POD, right?
15:02:25 <morgan_orange> fdegir:  I think so, last test showed some test successful on odl suite
15:02:40 <fdegir> but I think it was manually executed, right?
15:02:46 <bin_> Ana: yes, it is only tested in Huawei's POD
15:02:58 <debrascott> what about arm?
15:02:59 <fdegir> #info Compass: odl, baremetal (testing manually executed)
15:03:01 <frankbrockners> also note that not all installers support v6
15:03:05 <bin_> Fatih: yes, manual testing
15:03:14 <anac1> bin_ thanks
15:03:20 <fdegir> radez: is apex odl virtual?
15:03:43 <radez> we can go virt or bm
15:03:45 <bin_> Ana and Fatih: Kubi from Huawei is developing code for automated testing in Yardstick
15:03:56 <radez> we're wiating on the lab reconfigure to get bm on the LF hardware
15:03:58 <fdegir> radez: yes, was asking what we have now
15:03:58 <radez> but we're ready for it
15:04:05 <fdegir> so currently virtual
15:04:09 <radez> so virt now and pending bm
15:04:24 <fdegir> #info Apex: odl, virtual (baremetal will be enabled once LF POD1 is ready)
15:04:32 <morgan_orange> fdegir: I have to cross check for compass, in the last run, there odl tests passed but all those related to neuton none on odl...
15:05:03 <fdegir> morgan_orange: ok
15:05:34 <morgan_orange> so according to our table we have A.2, J.1, C.1?
15:05:38 <fdegir> it seems, almost all installers will have arno scenario
15:05:44 <morgan_orange> the config nosdn is not mentione din the scenario
15:05:48 <anac1> radez: will bm be available in Intel POD2 ?
15:06:03 <fdegir> #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/brahmaputra_testing_page#test_scenarios_for_brahmaputra
15:06:23 <radez> anac1: I thing it was virtual only?
15:06:33 <anac1> ok
15:06:34 <radez> *think
15:06:41 <radez> I'm not sure there's hardware there to do bm
15:06:50 <fdegir> #info Based on the table: A.2, J.1, C.1 seem to be there
15:06:58 <fdegir> #info F1 will be available soon
15:07:07 <fdegir> radez: intel pod2 is full POD
15:07:16 <fdegir> radez: so bm can be run on it
15:07:35 <fdegir> radez: just to remind that Intel POD2 will run against master branch for apex
15:07:42 <radez> oh cool I don't think I realized that
15:07:47 <fdegir> radez: and LF POD1 will run against stable/brahmaputra for apex
15:08:07 <fdegir> as listed in the page trevor_intel put above
15:08:47 <fdegir> should we move on?
15:08:57 <debrascott> ARM isn’t listed in test scenarios. They are doing their own testing right? Are they using same test criteria and should I invite someone from that team here?
15:09:00 <radez> fdegir: I just asked tim about it, he said we've had trouble with the networking being unstable in there so we may need to visit it for stablilty to do bm
15:09:20 <fdegir> radez: can you contact trevor_intel and jack regarding Intel POD2?
15:09:36 <radez> fdegir: yea we'll do that
15:10:21 <bin_> Debra: ARM is planning to use the same test scenario
15:10:27 <morgan_orange> for me (I may be wrong) ARM can be considered as a feature project. the team project manage it and tries to run the test on it but It is not critical for the release (unlike the stable run on the 4 installers mentioned in trevor's page)
15:10:55 <fdegir> morgan_orange: +1
15:11:01 <bin_> Debra: basically, ARM will deploy the same scenario, run the same test, but on ARM environment
15:11:07 <fdegir> the last I heard is that they were working on porting fuel to arm
15:11:20 <fdegir> opnfv fuel I mean
15:11:26 <debrascott> fdegir: that’s what I thought too
15:11:51 <bin_> Yes, porting OPNFV Fuel on ARM
15:12:16 <debrascott> I think I should have someone from that team here too because I need to know if/when they are ready. Don’t want to dismiss them from release decisions
15:12:26 <bin_> Debra: you can invite Joe Kidder and/or Bob Monkman, but Joe will be better
15:12:43 <debrascott> bin_: thanks will do
15:13:16 <debrascott> we are past the hour. should I make this a longer meeting in the future?
15:13:56 <debrascott> or do you all think this is a one-off because of starting up?
15:14:05 <morgan_orange> if it is everyday I would suggest no...it was the first one (so we spent some time on the format, should be quicker next time)..but if we want to work on the project we should limit the duration of the synchro meeting
15:14:17 <anac1> starting up, 30 min everyday is enough
15:14:29 <bin_> +1
15:14:30 <debrascott> OK good. will leave it as is.
15:14:57 <debrascott> Let’s close and we will talk again tomorrow
15:15:09 <debrascott> #endmeeting