| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-cyborg - 2018-08-09 | |||
| 21:53:33 | Sundar_ | The split of ownership can be added to the spec. Sure. | |
| 21:53:43 | Sundar_ | Does that address your concern? | |
| 21:54:11 | sean-k-mooney | Sundar_: if the nova-virt driver calls oss acc and is returned an ovo with then the virt driver uses that to generate the xml or the equvalent for another driver then yes. | |
| 21:54:57 | sean-k-mooney | but only there is a clear seperation between preparing the device. and generating the hyperviors specific configration input | |
| 22:02:18 | Sundar_ | I am wondering how the separation would be so clear-cut for device/cpu/memory interaction, such as conveying device properties for NUMA etc. while keeping Nova device-agnostic. Anyways, I need to join a call now. We can touch base later. | |
| 22:03:27 | Sundar_ | Thanks, efried and sean-k-mooney | |
| #openstack-cyborg - 2018-08-10 | |||
| 04:12:47 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/cyborg master: Fix deployable get all sort issue and unit test failure. https://review.openstack.org/590075 | |
| 05:17:47 | openstackgerrit | YumengBao proposed openstack/cyborg master: Follow the new PTI for document build https://review.openstack.org/590647 | |
| 05:26:52 | openstackgerrit | YumengBao proposed openstack/cyborg master: Follow the new PTI for document build https://review.openstack.org/590647 | |
| 08:02:17 | openstackgerrit | ShaoHe Feng proposed openstack/cyborg master: support sub provider https://review.openstack.org/585146 | |
| 08:54:10 | openstackgerrit | YumengBao proposed openstack/cyborg master: Follow the new PTI for document build https://review.openstack.org/590706 | |
| 08:55:13 | openstackgerrit | YumengBao proposed openstack/cyborg master: Follow the new PTI for document build https://review.openstack.org/590706 | |
| 12:07:53 | openstackgerrit | zhurong proposed openstack/cyborg master: Follow the new PTI for document build https://review.openstack.org/590706 | |
| 14:43:11 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/cyborg master: support sub provider https://review.openstack.org/585146 | |
| 16:06:10 | annabelleB | zhipengh[m]: I’m reviewing your cycle-highlights now; does the “quota support” you mention on line 30 correspond to this review? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/564968/ | |
| #openstack-cyborg - 2018-08-11 | |||
| 04:28:15 | openstackgerrit | YumengBao proposed openstack/cyborg master: Update html_theme so cyborg doc page displays in standard page theme https://review.openstack.org/591120 | |
| 04:56:03 | openstackgerrit | YumengBao proposed openstack/cyborg master: Follow the new PTI for document build https://review.openstack.org/590706 | |
| #openstack-cyborg - 2018-08-13 | |||
| 08:27:55 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/cyborg master: Update html_theme so cyborg doc page displays in standard page theme https://review.openstack.org/591120 | |
| 10:26:14 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/os-acc master: Update reno for stable/rocky https://review.openstack.org/584362 | |
| 13:37:10 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/cyborg master: Follow the new PTI for document build https://review.openstack.org/590706 | |
| 14:01:10 | shaohe_feng | #startmeeting openstack-cyborg-driver | |
| 14:01:11 | openstack | Meeting started Mon Aug 13 14:01:10 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is shaohe_feng. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | |
| 14:01:13 | openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | |
| 14:01:13 | shaohe_feng | #topic Roll Call | |
| 14:01:15 | openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_cyborg_driver' | |
| 14:01:40 | shaohe_feng | #info shaohe_feng | |
| 14:02:16 | edleafe | #info ed leafe | |
| 14:05:13 | Sundar | #info Sundar | |
| 14:05:54 | shaohe_feng | Sundar, edleafe morning | |
| 14:06:10 | edleafe | good UGT morning to you! | |
| 14:06:36 | shaohe_feng | :) | |
| 14:06:43 | Sundar | Good day, Shaohe | |
| 14:07:50 | shaohe_feng | edleafe, Sundar now only we three on line. | |
| 14:08:28 | Li_Liu | #info Li_Liu | |
| 14:08:40 | Li_Liu | do we still have the meeting today? | |
| 14:08:41 | Sundar | shaohe: I had sent an email yesterday to openstack-dev. Shall we talk about that? | |
| 14:09:01 | shaohe_feng | Sundar: OK, go ahead. | |
| 14:09:16 | shaohe_feng | Li_Liu: morning. | |
| 14:09:46 | shaohe_feng | good evening, xinran | |
| 14:09:48 | Li_Liu | shaohe_feng: good evening :P | |
| 14:09:58 | xinran | Hi all | |
| 14:10:33 | shaohe_feng | Sundar: You can talk about your email | |
| 14:10:40 | Sundar | It was apparently decided in some meeting that, to record the discovered devices, Cyborg agent will call Cyborg REST API. Also, to allocate and deallocate accelerators. If so, that will make the public and ha many disadvantages. | |
| 14:11:45 | Sundar | Among other things, it means it is not internal to Cyborg any more. Any user can call it. So, we should authenticate. Even if we open it only to operators, it is still error-prone. We can just keep it Cyborg-internal, right? | |
| 14:12:43 | xinran | When Cyborg agent will call restful API? | |
| 14:13:38 | shaohe_feng | Cyborg agent should not call Cyborg REST API. | |
| 14:13:53 | Li_Liu | Agent should stay with rpc | |
| 14:13:59 | Sundar | xinran: Rest API is meant for things that can be accessed by external users, operators or other services. | |
| 14:14:44 | xinran | Sundar: can you give us an example when agent call restful api | |
| 14:15:31 | Sundar | shaohe, Li_Liu: Agreed. I amreferring to #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cyborg-rocky-development (Line 44) | |
| 14:15:38 | wangzhh | Hi all. Test connection. | |
| 14:16:03 | xinran | IMHO agent should not call restful api | |
| 14:16:32 | Li_Liu | Sundar, that is exposed by cyborg-api, not meat to be used by Agent | |
| 14:17:46 | Sundar | Li_Liu: Was that agreed only for GET, not for PUT/POST? | |
| 14:18:19 | shaohe_feng | wangzhh: good evening. | |
| 14:19:10 | wangzhh | shaohe_feng: good evening. :) | |
| 14:19:15 | Li_Liu | Sundar, PUT/POST are open to admin I think, in case they want to tune some of the deployables | |
| 14:20:18 | Sundar | Li_Liu: the issue there is that we will have to maintain backwards compat for REST APIs. That is going to constrain our development and/or cause upgrade issues. | |
| 14:21:13 | Li_Liu | wangzhh, do you have comments on this? | |
| 14:22:00 | wangzhh | Sundar, what do you mean about "we will have to maintain backwards compat for REST APIs. That is going to constrain our development and/or cause upgrade issues." | |
| 14:23:11 | wangzhh | Can u give me an example which current APIs can not handle? | |
| 14:23:32 | Sundar | wangzhh: In #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cyborg-rocky-development (Line 44), if we allow PUT/POST in addition to get, we may have such considerations | |
| 14:25:15 | wangzhh | We have PATCH now. If we want to update deployable. we can use it. | |
| 14:25:46 | shaohe_feng | sure we should allow PUT/POST, that depends on | |
| 14:26:09 | Sundar | wangzhh: Can you elaborate? | |
| 14:26:35 | wangzhh | shaohe_feng: Do we need create deployable via API? | |
| 14:27:52 | shaohe_feng | That depends on. | |
| 14:28:07 | Li_Liu | wangzhh, maybe we should allow that for now | |
| 14:28:23 | shaohe_feng | at present, agent creates deployable. | |
| 14:28:30 | Li_Liu | to let admin able to add stuff in manaully | |
| 14:29:02 | Sundar | Li_Liu, shaohe: can you explain why that is necessary? And how we will ensure backwards compat and avoid upgrade issues? | |
| 14:29:04 | wangzhh | Sundar: https://github.com/openstack/cyborg/blob/719f3dee01b6f0b0f4f2ce9b45ffd4978eeac287/cyborg/api/controllers/v1/deployables.py#L217 | |
| 14:30:03 | shaohe_feng | Sundar: we should allow users to update some attribution of a deployable | |
| 14:30:30 | wangzhh | I agree that users need to update something. | |
| 14:31:20 | Sundar | By users, I hope you mean operators. End users (tenants) should not be touching this | |
| 14:31:22 | wangzhh | But can user create a new deployable? In which case? Could u give some example? | |
| 14:31:55 | Li_Liu | The users here should mean admin/operators | |
| 14:32:08 | shaohe_feng | ^ IMHO, Li_Liu, the intention of your attribution design should allow user to update them, right? | |
| 14:32:20 | Li_Liu | yes, indeed | |
| 14:32:30 | wangzhh | Agree. | |
| 14:32:50 | Sundar | If operators need a manual way, can't we provide a script of some kind? Before opening up REST APIs, we need to understand their implications. | |
| 14:33:06 | Li_Liu | I agree, right now Create api for deployables might not be very useful | |
| 14:34:15 | Li_Liu | Sundar, I assume the script you mena cyborg-pythonclient? | |
| 14:34:16 | shaohe_feng | Sundar: yes, at present it means admin/operations, Unless there are sufficient reasons that end users should update them | |
| 14:35:19 | wangzhh | Sundar, I think update is necessary. For example, I need change my deployable's name. Some attr which we can't collect from driver. | |
| 14:35:44 | Sundar | Li_Liu: isn't pythonclient a wrapper around the REST API? | |
| 14:36:19 | Li_Liu | Yes | |
| 14:36:23 | Sundar | wangzhh: Sure, we can provide some script that not guarantees backwards compat till it all matures | |
| 14:36:40 | Sundar | *does not guarantee | |
| 14:37:32 | Sundar | Perhaps @edleafe can comment but, my understand is that REST APIs need to be honored in future releases | |
| 14:37:42 | Sundar | *understanding | |
| 14:38:26 | Li_Liu | So you suggestion is take out the deployable creation rest api? | |
| 14:38:46 | edleafe | Sundar: it has nothing to do with REST - any published API should not be removed or modified | |
| 14:39:43 | Sundar | edleafe: What APIs do we publish to users apart from REST? RPC APIs are internal and can evolve across releases, right? | |
| 14:39:46 | edleafe | A public API is a contract with your users | |
| 14:40:26 | edleafe | I'm speaking more generally | |
| 14:40:57 | edleafe | Whether your API is REST, RPC, SOAP, or anything else: public APIs need to be maintained | |
| 14:42:16 | Sundar | If, say, Cyborg offers a RPC API to Nova or os-acc, we can evolve that in future releases based on mutual understanding, right? IOW, that doesn;t count as 'public' - exposed to users | |
| 14:43:04 | edleafe | I'm not following. If another service is relying on an API, then it's public | |
| 14:43:25 | wangzhh | Sundar, if we use script. It's hard to intergrate with other project or software. | |