Open Stack

Thanks for the highlights, Melanie. Appreciated. Some thoughts inline...

On 11/19/2018 04:17 AM, melanie witt wrote:
> Hey all,
> 
> Here's some notes I took in forum sessions I attended -- feel free to 
> add notes on sessions I missed.
> 
> Etherpad links: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Forum/Berlin2018
> 
> Cheers,
> -melanie
> 
> 
> TUE
> ---
> 
> Cells v2 updates
> ================
> - Went over the etherpad, no objections to anything
> - Not directly related to the session, but CERN (hallway track) and 
> NeCTAR (dev ML) have both given feedback and asked that the 
> policy-driven idea for handling quota for down cells be avoided. Revived 
> the "propose counting quota in placement" spec to see if there's any way 
> forward here

\o/

> Getting users involved in the project
> =====================================
> - Disconnect between SIGs/WGs and project teams
> - Too steep a first step to get involved by subscribing to ML
> - People confused about how to participate

Seriously? If subscribing to a mailing list is seen as too much of a 
burden for users to provide feedback, I'm wondering what the point is of 
having an open source community at all.

> Community outreach when culture, time zones, and language differ
> ================================================================
> - Most discussion around how to synchronize real-time communication 
> considering different time zones
> - Best to emphasize asynchronous communication. Discussion on ML and 
> gerrit reviews

+1

> - Helpful to create weekly meeting agenda in advance so contributors 
> from other time zones can add notes/response to discussion items

+1, though I think it's also good to be able to say "look, nobody has 
brought up anything they'd like to discuss this week so let's not take 
time out of people's busy schedules if there's nothing to discuss".

> WED
> ---
> 
> NFV/HPC pain points
> ===================
> Top issues for immediate action: NUMA-aware live migration (spec just 
> needs re-approval), improved scheduler logging (resurrect cfriesen's 
> patch and clean it up), distant third is SRIOV live migration
> 
> BFV improvements
> ================
> - Went over the etherpad, no major objections to anything
> - Agree: we should expose boot_index from the attachments API
> - Unclear what to do about post-create delete_on_termination. Being able 
> to specify it for attach sounds reasonable, but is it enough for those 
> asking? Or would it end up serving no one?
> 
> Better expose what we produce
> =============================
> - Project teams should propose patches to openstack/openstack-map to 
> improve their project pages
> - Would be ideal if project pages included a longer paragraph explaining 
> the project, have a diagram, list SIGs/WGs related to the project, etc
> 
> Blazar reservations to new resource types
> =========================================
> - For nova compute hosts, reservations are done by putting reserved 
> hosts into "blazar" host aggregate and then a special scheduler filter 
> is used to exclude those hosts from scheduling. But how to extend that 
> concept to other projects?
> - Note: the nova approach will change from scheduler filter => placement 
> request filter

Didn't we agree in Denver to use a placement request filter that 
generated a forbidden aggregate request for this? I know Matt has had 
concerns about the proposed spec for forbidden aggregates not adequately 
explaining the Nova side configuration, but I was under the impression 
the general idea of using a forbidden aggregate placement request filter 
was a good one?

> Edge use cases and requirements
> ===============================
> - Showed the reference architectures again
> - Most popular use case was "Mobile service provider 5G/4G virtual RAN 
> deployment and Edge Cloud B2B2X" with seven +1s on the etherpad

Snore.

Until one of those +1s is willing to uncouple nova-compute's tight use 
of rabbitmq and RDBMS-over-rabbitmq that we use as our control plane in 
Nova, all the talk of "edge" this and "MEC" that is nothing more than 
... well, talk.

> Deletion of project and project resources
> =========================================
> - What is wanted: a delete API per service that takes a project_id and 
> force deletes all resources owned by it with --dry-run component
> - Challenge to work out the dependencies for the order of deletion of 
> all resources in all projects. Disable project, then delete things in 
> order of dependency
> - Idea: turn os-purge into a REST API and each project implement a 
> plugin for it

I don't see why a REST API would be needed. We could more easily 
implement the functionality by focusing on a plugin API for each service 
project and leaving it at that.

> Getting operators' bug fixes upstreamed
> =======================================
> - Problem: operator reports a bug and provides a solution, for example, 
> pastes a diff in launchpad or otherwise describes how to fix the bug. 
> How can we increase the chances of those fixes making it to gerrit?
> - Concern: are there legal issues with accepting patches pasted into 
> launchpad by someone who hasn't signed the ICLA?
> - Possible actions: create a best practices guide tailored for operators 
> and socialize it among the ops docs/meetup/midcycle group. Example: 
> guidance on how to indicate you don't have time to add test coverage, 
> etc when you propose a patch
> 
> THU
> ---
> 
> Bug triage: why not all the community?
> ======================================
> - Cruft and mixing tasks with defect reports makes triage more difficult 
> to manage. Example: difference between a defect reported by a user vs an 
> effective TODO added by a developer. If New bugs were reliably from end 
> users, would we be more likely to triage?
> - Bug deputy weekly ML reporting could help
> - Action: copy the generic portion of the nova bug triage wiki doc into 
> the contributor guide docs. The idea/hope being that easy-to-understand 
> instructions available to the wider community might increase the chances 
> of people outside of the project team being capable of triaging bugs, so 
> all of it doesn't fall on project teams
> - Idea: should we remove the bug supervisor requirement from nova to 
> allow people who haven't joined the bug team to set Status and Importance?
> 
> Current state of volume encryption
> ==================================
> - Feedback: public clouds can't offer encryption because keys are stored 
> in the cloud. Telcos are required to make sure admin can't access 
> secrets. Action: SecuStack has a PoC for E2E key transfer, mnaser to 
> help see what could be upstreamed
> - Features needed: ability for users to provide keys or use customer 
> barbican or other key store. Thread: 
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-November/136258.html 
> 
> 
> Cross-technical leadership session (OpenStack, Kata, StarlingX, Airship, 
> Zuul)
> ========================================================================
> - Took down the structure of how leadership positions work in each 
> project on the etherpad, look at differences
> - StarlingX taking a new approach for upstreaming, New strategy: align 
> with master, analyze what they need, and address the gaps (as opposed to 
> pushing all the deltas up). Bug fixes still need to be brought forward, 
> that won't change
> 
> Concurrency limits for service instance creation
> ================================================
> - Looking for ways to test and detect changes in performance as a 
> community. Not straightforward because test hardware must stay 
> consistent in order to detect performance deltas, release to release. 
> Infra can't provide such an environment
> - Idea: it could help to write up a doc per project with a list of the 
> usual tunables and basic info about how to use them
> 
> Change of ownership of resources
> ================================
> - Ignore the network piece for now, it's the most complicated. Being 
> able to transfer everything else would solve 90% of City Network's use 
> cases
> - Some ideas around having this be a keystone auth-based access granting 
> instead of an update of project/user, but if keystone could hand user A 
> a token for user B, that token would apply to all resources of user B's, 
> not just the ones desired for transfer

Whatever happened with the os-chown project Dan started in Denver?

https://github.com/kk7ds/oschown

> Update on placement extraction from nova
> ========================================
> - Upgrade step additions from integrated placement to extracted 
> placement in TripleO and OpenStackAnsible are being worked on now
> - Reshaper patches for libvirt and xenapi drivers are up for review
> - Lab test for vGPU upgrade and reshape + new schedule for libvirt 
> driver patch has been done already

This is news to me. Can someone provide me a link to where I can get 
some more information about this?

> - FFU script work needs an owner. Will need to query libvirtd to get 
> mdevs and use PlacementDirect to populate placement
> 
> Python bindings for the placement API
> =====================================
> - Placement client code replicated in different projects: nova, blazar, 
> neutron, cyborg. Want to commonize into python bindings lib
> - Consensus was that the placement bindings should go into openstacksdk 
> and then projects will consume it from there
> 
> T series community goal discussion
> ==================================
> - Most popular goal ideas: Finish moving legacy python-*client CLIs to 
> python-openstackclient, Deletion of project resources as discussed in 
> forum session earlier in the week, ensure all projects use ServiceTokens 
> when calling one another with incoming token
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev