I produced several summary messages at the end of the PTG [1] but then disappeared into a dark corporate belly, so I thought it might be useful to do a quick check in to assert and verify some status. I'll be doing a full pupdate on Friday. If any of the below doesn't align with your memories, please let me know.
At the end the PTG there were some open questions about priorities so I produced an etherpad listing all the existing RFE stories along with the new ones produced by discussions at the PTG and asked people to register their preferences. Thus far only three people (including me) have voted. Please look at
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/placement-ptg-train-rfe-voter
to register your input. As things currently stand our priorities are what you would expect based on who is available to work and the work that needs to be done to be able to satisfy other projects' dependencies on placement:
* Consumer types, spec at: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/654799/ * Nested things: * request group mapping in allocation candidates: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/657582/ * the remaining "nested magic: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/658510/
The latter is a WIP and will almost certainly need someone besides Eric to finish it off. Multiple inter-related features will come out of that. See the related story [2].
"support any trait in allocation candidates" and "support mixing required traits with any traits" are still under review but have been de-emphasized. If we're able to get to them that's great, but they are not critical. Same is also true for managing a local-to-placement container.
Since the PTG several of us have recognized/acknowledged a thing we already pretty much knew: Queries for nested providers in a highly populated but sparsely used cloud will be less performant than desired. There are things we can do to monitor and fix this. Tetsuro has already started some changes [3] and in the gaps I'm working on making changes to placeload [4] to build nested providers to be used in the perfload job.
"Support resource provider partitioning" is also being de-emphasized, but based on several recent conversations I suspect we will want it soon, and any performance improvements we get before then will be important.
So, to summarize this summary of summaries:
Look at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/placement-ptg-train-rfe-voter and review the three specs above. If you think other priorities are necessary please speak up and explain why.
Thanks to everyone for their participation in the PTG and especially the virtual pre-PTG. We got a lot figured out and were still able to attend other sessions.
[1] * Nested magic: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-May/005823.html * Shared disk: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-May/005829.html * Consumer Types: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-May/005878.html * Placement, Ironic, Blazar: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-May/005880.html
[2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2005575 [3] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/658977/ [4] https://pypi.org/project/placeload/