16:03 #startmeeting ubuntu-server-team 16:03 Meeting started Tue Oct 18 16:03:10 2016 UTC. The chair is powersj. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. 16:03 16:03 Available commands: action commands idea info link nick 16:03 o/ 16:03 #topic Review ACTION points from previous meeting 16:03 (jamespage) checkin with old iscsitarget users on relevancy with new kernels 16:04 anything here? 16:04 powersj, if we don't get an update in next irc meeting, i'll work via email 16:05 ok, moving on 16:05 #topic Yakkety Development 16:05 #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/YakketyYak/ReleaseSchedule 16:05 that should be Zesty now, right? 16:05 done with this topic now? 16:05 :) 16:05 :) 16:05 nacc: it is not there yet 16:05 any lingering or post-release yakkety issues? 16:06 cpaelzer: which is not? 16:06 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/servercloud-z-server-core 16:06 just a reminder that the blueprint is open for business that we want to track ^^ 16:07 jgrimm: we may want to add the /boot install outcome 16:07 great! anything else for yakkety or zesty dev? 16:07 rharper, agreed. i'll fix now 16:07 jgrimm: would you be ok with adding putting the importer live to the blueprint? or should we keep it unofficial? :) 16:07 I think rbasak was going to take that to ubuntu-devel as well 16:08 rharper, yep 16:08 nacc, feel free to use blueprint for it (or create new separate and link) 16:08 jgrimm: thanks 16:08 its not terribly formal.. however we feel it helps us be effective. 16:08 absolutely 16:09 rharper, added /boot to blueprit 16:09 blueprint even 16:09 ok moving on 16:09 #link http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-y-tracking-bug-tasks.html#ubuntu-server 16:09 wwops 16:09 #subtopic Release Bugs 16:10 do we have rbasak? 16:10 i recollect seeing in my scrollback he might be out 16:10 ah, new stuff in the report at least 16:10 ah yes he is out today 16:11 powersj, i just did a quick look at the y report. all have owners or in progress that I don't see anything worth bringing up here. 16:11 jgrimm: thank you! moving on 16:11 #topic Server & Cloud Bugs (caribou) 16:11 #link http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-x-tracking-bug-tasks.html#ubuntu-server 16:12 powersj, caribou unable to make it today, sent status ahead of time that he had nothing to bring up today 16:12 making this easy on me ;) 16:12 #topic Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (powersj) 16:12 #link https://jenkins.ubuntu.com/server/ 16:12 Yakkety ISO testing last week, few issues with ppc64el and ppc 16:13 Focus is on cloud-init integration testing. Goal is still to have something working by Friday in our jenkins (linked above) 16:13 any questions for me? 16:13 powersj, woot! 16:13 looks good. will be great to have cloud-init integration tests finally ! 16:13 :) 16:14 ok moving on then 16:14 I still feel too red on the migration tests powersj 16:14 is the ball currently with you or me ? 16:14 cpaelzer: I agree - let me remind myself of status later today and send you mail 16:14 powersj: I'll let you remind yourself :-P 16:14 :) 16:14 #topic Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (smb, sforshee) 16:14 * cpaelzer stops stropping people reminding things 16:15 stopping even 16:15 Nothing to report from here 16:15 ok 16:15 #topic Upcoming Call For Papers 16:16 anything here? 16:16 checking 16:17 CFP for OSCON is Oct 25, FOSDEM is Oct 31. 16:18 powersj, fwiw.. i usually rely upon the LWN CFP deadline page. 16:18 jgrimm: good to know, I will go read that after this 16:19 anything else from folks? 16:19 jgrimm: link ? 16:19 just # link it here 16:19 #link http://lwn.net/Calendar/Monthly/cfp/ 16:20 excellent, thank you! 16:20 np 16:20 #topic Ubuntu Server Team Events 16:20 is zesty open for uploads ? 16:20 good question 16:20 smoser: not a few hours ago 16:20 smoser: I saw xnox having extra work since not all things were ready 16:21 smoser: so I wouldn't rush things today unless we hear a "go" 16:21 i'm seeing stuff go into z-p on #ubuntu-release 16:21 ooo > Unapproved: mistral (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.0.0-1 => 3.0.0-1ubuntu1] (no packageset 16:21 but that might be an artifact of the copy forward? 16:21 not sure 16:21 the /topic says its still closed 16:21 well then it was resolved in the last few hours 16:21 but copy? 16:21 so some bits getting close 16:21 yeah ack 16:22 anyting for team events? 16:22 anything rather 16:23 ok, moving on 16:23 #topic Open Discussion 16:23 I have two topics for this one 16:24 One would be a discussion on proactive stable updates for qemu 16:24 I found that 2.5 got 2.5.1 and 2.5.1.1 upstream 16:24 FYI - http://paste.ubuntu.com/23344536/ 16:24 the CVEs are already in by the security Team 16:24 2.5 is Xenial = LTS 16:24 cpaelzer: would this be a MRE kind of thing? 16:24 Micro Release Exception 16:24 that is kind of what I'm wondering about 16:24 I don't think so 16:25 those are all bugs (just not filed against xenial) 16:25 I'd think since it is only bug fixes not 16:25 rharper: exactly 16:25 rharper: ah ok 16:25 I would suggest I open a bug and work against that over the next time, but wanted to ask for any objections 16:25 like "we usually don't because ..." 16:25 I think we should chat with the openstack team 16:25 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#New_upstream_microreleases fwiw, MRE is for (aiui) bugfix microreleases upstream 16:25 they possibly have a similar cadence of changes/fixes 16:25 FYI - debian hasn't got to them since all releases are on 2.4.* or 2.6.* now 16:26 that's what i followed for php7.0, e.g. 16:26 nacc: ah, nice 16:26 nacc: interesting 16:26 it just puts it on the SRU team radar to approve a 'new' upstream version (not normally allowed) in the SRU 16:26 ok, without objection I think I'll handle this as such microrelease 16:26 cpaelzer: won't that increase delta? 16:27 until sync? 16:27 rharper: it will increase the delta to something that isn't maintained - that is what I tried to say above 16:27 cpaelzer: fyi, LP: #1569609 is how i filed it 16:27 Debian is either on <2.5 or >2.5 on all releases 16:27 Launchpad bug 1569609 in php7.0 (Ubuntu Xenial) "[SRU] microrelease exception for src:php7.0" [Wishlist,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1569609 16:27 and y is already on 2.6.x right? 16:28 rharper: so this would only be for x, aiui 16:28 yes Y=2.6 16:28 exactly 16:28 well, why not T or P ? 16:28 it is only X for all of the Debian/Ubuntu world 16:28 I guess I don't get why we're doing it now and only for X ? 16:28 rharper: I didn't check the same might apply for T (and update to 2.0) 16:28 it's a nice to have 16:28 because somebody cares enough to do it? :) 16:28 not a care 16:28 a _cost_ 16:29 which we've not explored w.r.t impact on other choices 16:29 i thought cpaelzer was saying the cost was we might get bugs for all of the bugfixes 16:29 so we'd be backporting those individually to x 16:29 but if we don't get those? 16:29 i mean, they are known bugs in the upstream version x is based on 16:29 so, in the past, it's been a judgement call during the process 16:29 nacc: right, I thought those are known issues and fixing bugs in non emergency mode as a batch would be worth it 16:30 rharper: yeah, i'm not sure what makes the most sense 16:30 let's continue the discussion w.r.t trade-offs of time vs. benefit; I think jgrimm and openstack folks should opine on the matter 16:30 cpaelzer, have you done any looking at the bugs fixed to see if any of that list seem critical? 16:31 we could discuss this next week and return here with our findings 16:31 jgrimm: just slightly, would need a bit more time to do so 16:31 i do think i can be swayed, as qemu is critical component to our stack 16:31 sounds like an action item :) 16:31 rharper: that is good, I'll analyze the severity and come back with it 16:31 right, and getting some input from other teams 16:31 will it increase churn? help them out? 16:32 #action cpaelzer investigating severity of issues covered by qemu 2.5. stable releases and ask other Teams on their input 16:32 * meetingology cpaelzer investigating severity of issues covered by qemu 2.5. stable releases and ask other Teams on their input 16:32 yeah, the testing impact is a good point, it's an integration point 16:32 cpaelzer: was that both of your topics? 16:32 that was one 16:32 fwiw, the newton c-a, does _not_ include a y qemu. 16:32 one more =) 16:33 jgrimm: it won't until Z 16:33 IIUC 16:33 * cpaelzer is moving to second topic 16:33 they pull from archive until it goes out of support 16:33 rharper, ack 16:34 that actually was brought up by rharper - which was TL;DR "We should follow-up on this:" in regard to VNIC offloads 16:34 I think here is the right place to discuss, unless you prefer doing that via ML 16:35 #link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlyutCppcU&list=PLrninrcyMo3IkTvpvM2LK6gn4NdbFhI0G&index=10 16:35 sure; at netdev 1.2 there was a discussion on vnic performance and specifically offload features, in KVM and containers 16:35 I checked Xenial and Yakkety and we were already at the recommended setting 16:35 exercised on top of 16.04 16:35 I wanted to see the paper/slides so I could get the data 16:35 the question is what else could/should we (not?) do based on that 16:36 rharper: getting data would be nice - just to see if there are any outliers that we want to care for 16:36 yeah 16:36 exactly 16:36 specifically VM to VM and container to container (LXD) vs. say docker (libnetwork ) 16:36 bridge mode vs. something else 16:36 what is good is that the most common "huge" case for us will be openstack and that is optimized a lot for east/west traffic in VM/VM 16:37 right 16:37 about 4 times faster than what they had, but getting access to the data would allow to get from "I assume" to "we know" 16:37 and for the container east/west I'm interested to know about 16:37 rharper: will you kindly inquire that data? 16:37 yeah, I need to look around for more details 16:38 the other performance (which I don't know if the video covered) 16:38 is small-packet-performance, latency 16:38 rharper: the video did not cover the others 16:38 rharper: I had it running in background 16:38 rharper: didn't come back to it 16:38 I ran across an interesting KVM paper on that; 16:38 rharper: wait that was Stephen Hemminger right? 16:38 yes 16:39 I'll likely meet him on Thursday on DPDK Userspace 16:39 while I feel buried I tihnk I'll define another action for me 16:39 at least to kindly ask for more there 16:39 sure 16:39 #action cpaelzer will try to ask Stephen Hemminger for more data on the netdev presentation 16:39 * meetingology cpaelzer will try to ask Stephen Hemminger for more data on the netdev presentation 16:39 any other actions? 16:40 I stalled you long enough - I'm done 16:40 any other topics? 16:40 nacc, .. import status? 16:40 yes - shall I update the agenda to say "zesty" instead of "yakkety"? 16:40 powersj, yes please! 16:40 have we agreed on zesty as the new release name? 16:41 #ACTION powersj to update agenda to remove yakkety add in zesty 16:41 * meetingology powersj to update agenda to remove yakkety add in zesty 16:41 #link http://www.linux-kvm.org/images/d/df/02x11-AspenMario_Smarduch-Migrating_NFV_applicatoins_to_KVM_Guest.pdf 16:41 brauner: Zesty Zapus 16:41 jgrimm: i need to sync with rbasak on tagging and we should be ready for 1.0 16:41 brauner: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/ 16:41 jgrimm: importer seemed to run fine last night on the packages we care about, i wanted to confirm with rbasak that all the MRs we did last cycle are tagged 16:42 cool.. we can start assigning out some merges once done and zesty open for business! 16:42 jgrimm: my plan is to update all the lpusip trees by EOW and then we will look to flip over to lpusdp 16:42 great! 16:42 working on documentation today 16:43 last call! 16:43 #topic Assigned merges/bugwork (rbasak) 16:44 since he is out, just a friendly reminder to update the sheet! 16:44 * jgrimm thought he killed that from agenda 16:44 lol it is in the copy and paste page 16:44 ahhh 16:44 I'll remove it 16:44 thanks 16:44 #topic Announce next meeting date, time and chair 16:44 Same time, same place 16:44 beisner will be our host 16:45 that's all folks! 16:45 #endmeeting