<div dir="ltr">Good update, thanks fungi.<div><br></div><div>Just a thought, given the pain we felt yesterday when static.o.o was down, we should consider if a log solution needs to be a priority. Using afs (or swift) could allow us to scale static.o.o horizontally.<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Jeremy Stanley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fungi@yuggoth.org" target="_blank">fungi@yuggoth.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 2016-06-08 23:08:16 +1000 (+1000), Joshua Hesketh wrote:<br>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Jeremy Stanley <<a href="mailto:fungi@yuggoth.org">fungi@yuggoth.org</a>> wrote:<br>
</span>> [...]<br>
<span class="">> > Store Build Logs in Swift<br>
</span>> [...]<br>
<span class="">> > We should remove the original spec from our priority list (since<br>
> > that's basically already ceased to be an actual priority), and<br>
> > probably supercede it with the AFS proposal.<br>
</span>[...]<br>
<span class="">> Additionally the urgency of this spec seems to have been reduced (due to<br>
> limiting the retention on logs). We should perhaps reconsider if it's a<br>
> priority spec or not after we've decided on a path forward.<br>
<br>
</span>That makes sense, though I think we can agree the original spec (and<br>
accompanying implementation) has ceased to be treated as a priority<br>
so it's a bit disingenuous to leave it on our priority list.<br>
<br>
Anyway, I've pushed a cleanup/update change at<br>
<a href="https://review.openstack.org/331903" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/331903</a> which:<br>
<br>
* removes logs-in-swift<br>
* replaces maniphest with task-tracker<br>
* adds nodepool-zookeeper-workers due to its coupling with zuulv3<br>
* updates the Gerrit query string/URL accordingly<br>
<br>
I'll put it on the meeting agenda now for formal council vote this<br>
week. If approved, this leaves us at 6 priority specs, so if we<br>
consider that we were pretty well saturated at 8 last cycle, we can<br>
also discuss adding a couple more we expect to be spending<br>
significant time on over the remainder of this cycle or whether<br>
sticking with those 6 is perhaps better for focusing our efforts?<br>
<span class=""><font color="#888888">--<br>
Jeremy Stanley<br>
</font></span><br>_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-Infra mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Jeremy Stanley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fungi@yuggoth.org" target="_blank">fungi@yuggoth.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 2016-06-08 23:08:16 +1000 (+1000), Joshua Hesketh wrote:<br>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Jeremy Stanley <<a href="mailto:fungi@yuggoth.org">fungi@yuggoth.org</a>> wrote:<br>
</span>> [...]<br>
<span class="">> > Store Build Logs in Swift<br>
</span>> [...]<br>
<span class="">> > We should remove the original spec from our priority list (since<br>
> > that's basically already ceased to be an actual priority), and<br>
> > probably supercede it with the AFS proposal.<br>
</span>[...]<br>
<span class="">> Additionally the urgency of this spec seems to have been reduced (due to<br>
> limiting the retention on logs). We should perhaps reconsider if it's a<br>
> priority spec or not after we've decided on a path forward.<br>
<br>
</span>That makes sense, though I think we can agree the original spec (and<br>
accompanying implementation) has ceased to be treated as a priority<br>
so it's a bit disingenuous to leave it on our priority list.<br>
<br>
Anyway, I've pushed a cleanup/update change at<br>
<a href="https://review.openstack.org/331903" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/331903</a> which:<br>
<br>
* removes logs-in-swift<br>
* replaces maniphest with task-tracker<br>
* adds nodepool-zookeeper-workers due to its coupling with zuulv3<br>
* updates the Gerrit query string/URL accordingly<br>
<br>
I'll put it on the meeting agenda now for formal council vote this<br>
week. If approved, this leaves us at 6 priority specs, so if we<br>
consider that we were pretty well saturated at 8 last cycle, we can<br>
also discuss adding a couple more we expect to be spending<br>
significant time on over the remainder of this cycle or whether<br>
sticking with those 6 is perhaps better for focusing our efforts?<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">--<br>
Jeremy Stanley<br>
</font></span><br>_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-Infra mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>