Open Stack

Miguel,
As a telco operator, who is active in the WG, I am absolutely an interested party for QoS.  I’d be willing to hop between the two of them if absolutely necessary (it’s IRC, after all) but would prefer they not overlap if possible. Thanks!
-Anthony

On Apr 15, 2015, at 6:39 , Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <mangelajo at redhat.com<mailto:mangelajo at redhat.com>> wrote:

I saw Mathieu Rohon message on the mail list archive, but it didn’t reach my inbox
for some reason:


>Hi,

>It will overlap with the Telco Working group weekly meeting [1]. It's too
>bad, since Qos is a big interest for Telco Cloud Operator!

>Mathieu

>[1]https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TelcoWorkingGroup#Meetings


My intention was to set the meeting one hour earlier, but it seems that the DST time changes got to confuse me, I’m very sorry. I’m ok with moving the meeting 1 hour later (15:00 UTC) for future meetings, as long as it still works for other people interested in the QoS topic.

Mathieu, I’m not sure if people from the telco meeting would be interested in participation on this meeting, but my participation on the TWG meeting would probably help getting everyone in sync.


Best,

Miguel Ángel

On 14/4/2015, at 10:43, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <mangelajo at redhat.com<mailto:mangelajo at redhat.com>> wrote:

Ok, after one week, looks like the most popular time slot is B,
that is 14:00 UTC / Wednesdays.

I’m proposing first meeting for Wednesday / Apr 22th 14:00 UTC / #openstack-meeting-2.

Tomorrow (Apr 15th / 14:00 UTC) It’s a been early since the announcement, so
I will join #openstack-meeting-2 while working on the agenda for next week, feel free to join
if you want/have time.




On 9/4/2015, at 22:43, Howard, Victor <Victor_Howard at cable.comcast.com<mailto:Victor_Howard at cable.comcast.com>> wrote:

I prefer Timeslot B, thanks for coordinating.  I would be interested in helping out in any way with the design session let me know!

From: "Sandhya Dasu (sadasu)" <sadasu at cisco.com<mailto:sadasu at cisco.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 12:19 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [QoS] QoS weekly meeting

Hi Miguel,
    Both time slots work for me. Thanks for rekindling this effort.

Thanks,
Sandhya

From: Miguel Ángel Ajo <majopela at redhat.com<mailto:majopela at redhat.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 1:45 AM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [QoS] QoS weekly meeting

On Tuesday, 7 de April de 2015 at 3:14, Kyle Mestery wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com<mailto:sorlando at nicira.com>> wrote:


On 7 April 2015 at 00:33, Armando M. <armamig at gmail.com<mailto:armamig at gmail.com>> wrote:

On 6 April 2015 at 08:56, Miguel Ángel Ajo <majopela at redhat.com<mailto:majopela at redhat.com>> wrote:
I’d like to co-organized a QoS weekly meeting with Sean M. Collins,

    In the last few years, the interest for QoS support has increased, Sean has been leading
this effort [1] and we believe we should get into a consensus about how to model an extension
to let vendor plugins implement QoS capabilities on network ports and tenant networks, and
how to extend agents, and the reference implementation & others [2]

As you surely know, so far every attempt to achieve a consensus has failed in a pretty miserable way.
This mostly because "QoS" can be interpreted in a lot of different ways, both from the conceptual and practical perspective.
Yes, I’m fully aware of it, it was also a new feature, so it was out of scope for Kilo.
It is important in my opinion to clearly define the goals first. For instance a simple extensions for bandwidth limiting could be a reasonable target for the Liberty release.
I quite agree here, but IMHO, as you said it’s a quite open field (limiting, guaranteeing,
marking, traffic shaping..), we should do our best in trying to define a model allowing us
to build that up in the future without huge changes, on the API side I guess micro versioning
is going to help in the API evolution.

Also, at some point, we should/could need to involve the nova folks, for example, to define
port flavors that can be associated to nova
instance flavors, providing them
1) different types of network port speeds/guarantees/priorities,
2) being able to schedule instance/ports in coordination to be able to met specified guarantees.

yes, complexity can sky rocket fast,
Moving things such as ECN into "future works" is the right thing to do in my opinion. Attempting to define a flexible framework that can deal with advanced QoS policies specification is a laudable effort, but I am a bit skeptical about its feasibility.

++, I think focusing on perhaps bandwidth limiting may make a lot of sense
Yes, I believe we should look into the future , but at the same pick our very first feature (or a
very simple set of them) for L, stick to it, and try to make a design that can be extended.



    As per discussion we’ve had during the last few months [3], I believe we should start simple, but
prepare a model allowing future extendibility, to allow for example specific traffic rules (per port,
per IP, etc..), congestion notification support [4], …

"Simple" in my mind is even more extreme then what you're proposing here... I'd start with bare APIs for specifying bandwidth limiting, and then phase them out once this "framework" is in place.
Also note that this kind of design bears some overlap with the flavor framework which is probably going to be another goal for Liberty.

Indeed, and the flavor framework is something I'm hoping we can land by Liberty-1 (yes, I just said Liberty-1).
Yes it’s something I looked at, I must admit I wasn’t able to see it work together (It doesn’t
mean it doesn’t play well, but most probably I was silly enough not to see it :) ),

I didn’t want to distract attention from the Kilo cycle focus making questions, so it should
be a good thing to talk about during the first meetings.

Who are the flavor fathers/mothers? ;)


Morever, consider using "common" tools such as the specs repo to share and discuss design documents.

Also a good idea.
Yes, that was the plan now, we didn’t use it before to avoid creating unnecessary noise during this cycle.



    It’s the first time I’m trying to organize an openstack/neutron meeting, so, I don’t know what’s the
best way to do it, or find the best timeslot. I guess interested people may have a saying, so I’ve
looped anybody I know is interested in the CC of this mail.

I think that's a good idea. Incidentally I was speaking with Sean regarding Summit session [1], and we were hoping we could get some folks together either prior or during the summit, to try and get some momentum going behind this initiative, once again.
Very interesting [1]!, nice to see we start to have a bunch of people with an interest in QoS.

I think is a good idea as well.  I was thinking that perhaps it might be a good idea to grab a design summit session as well (surely not a fishbowl one as they're totally unfit for this purpose).
However, it might be good to achieve some sort of consensus before the summit, as as we know fairly well now the summit is probably the worst place where consensus can be achieved!

And finally, agreed here as well.

Yes, a bit of preliminary discussion, and a “deadline” and final discussion on summit. Sounds good.

We'd need to fill in page [2], and find an empty slot on [3]

[2] done, and Meetings/QoS created

About [3]
Do any of those sound reasonable:
a) Thursdays / 19:00 CEST
b)  Wednesdays / 16:00 CEST

One thing I had proposed to Miguel was to use the meeting as an initial starting point, and then once momentum is achieved to naturally end it and move any further meeting needs to the regular Neutron meeting.

Correct, that seems a natural thing to do once the meetings can be done under a certain
amount of time we could move them to a weekly meeting timeslot for details/progress tracking.

Thanks for starting this thread!
Thank you all :)

[1] https://openstacksummitmay2015vancouver.sched.org/event/27eeef71d5f57997ac09b4c7783c72fe#.VSMIzJT-NhM
[2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/NeutronSubTeams
[3] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings




Miguel Ángel Ajo

[1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/quantum-qos-api
[2] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2XATqL7DxHFRHNjU3k1UFNYRjQ/view?usp=sharing
[3] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xUx0Oq-txz_qVA2eYE1kIAJlwxGCSqXHgQEEGylwlZE/edit#heading=h.2pdgqfl3a231
[4] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/explicit-congestion-notification

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Miguel Angel Ajo




Miguel Angel Ajo



__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150415/04ca4a93/attachment.html>