Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com
 designates 66.165.176.89 as permitted sender)
From: Sudha Ponnaganti <sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com>
To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
	<cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:34:01 -0800
Subject: RE: Summary of IRC meeting in #cloudstack-meeting, Wed Feb 27
 17:05:23 2013
Thread-Topic: Summary of IRC meeting in #cloudstack-meeting, Wed Feb 27
 17:05:23 2013
Thread-Index: Ac4VEq5J6xrjHbGmSEOhw1uk5FFa+QAz0Aqg
Message-ID: 
 <7914B38A4445B34AA16EB9F1352942F10130E66866AB@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
References: <20130227174824.A2462100D9@urd.zones.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130227174824.A2462100D9@urd.zones.apache.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Hi,

I checked on the testing. We haven' t seen performance related issues in th=
e last 1 week however some of the listAPI calls seem to have perf issues.
See this one -  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1290

Automation is still blocked because of other failures so did not get benchm=
arks from that run.

Thanks
/sudha


-----Original Message-----
From: ASF IRC Services [mailto:asfbot@wilderness.apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:48 AM
To: Summary Recipient
Subject: Summary of IRC meeting in #cloudstack-meeting, Wed Feb 27 17:05:23=
 2013

Members present: topcloud, chipc, ke4qqq, _ps, jburwell, vogxn, bhaisaab, l=
ikitha, sudhap

----------------
Meeting summary:
----------------

1. Preface

2. 4.1.0 release updates (Active Feature Release)
  a. As of this morning, there are 9 open blocker bugs (3 of which are unas=
signed) and 14 open critical bugs (7 of which are unassigned) (chipc, 2)

3. 4.1.0 QA Status

4. 4.1.0 Doc Status

5. 4.1.0 Additional issues
  a. jburwell reporting that 4.1 management server is still consuming quite=
 a bit more mem than 4.0 (chipc, 5)
  b. sudhap to check with QA to see what the 4.1 mgmt server memory looks l=
ike, vs previous versions (chipc, 5)

6. 4.1.0 QA Status (take 2)
  a. sudhap to help claify if blockers are blocking test execution or are r=
elease quality issues (chipc, 6)

7. 4.0.2 updates (Active Bug-Fix Release)

8. Master Branch discussions
  a. vogxn commented that getting the memory reduction fixes ported from 4.=
1 to master would be helpful (chipc, 8)

9. Infra discussions

10. Other?
  a. topcloud to raise setting the java compat options from within the poms=
 for 4.1 on the list (chipc, 10)


--------
Actions:
--------
- sudhap to check with QA to see what the 4.1 mgmt server memory looks like=
, vs previous versions (chipc, 17:27:05)
- sudhap to help claify if blockers are blocking test execution or are rele=
ase quality issues (chipc, 17:30:02)
- topcloud to raise setting the java compat options from within the poms fo=
r 4.1 on the list (chipc, 17:44:55)

IRC log follows:


# 1. Preface #
17:05:38 [chipc]: hi all - light attendance this week due to apache con NA
17:05:45 [chipc]: but here's the agenda:
17:06:00 [chipc]: 4.1.0 release updates (Active Feature Release)
17:06:00 [chipc]: 4.1.0 QA Status
17:06:00 [chipc]: 4.1.0 Doc Status
17:06:00 [chipc]: 4.1.0 Additional issues? (packaging is on my list)
17:06:00 [chipc]: 4.0.2 updates (Active Bug-Fix Release)
17:06:00 [chipc]: Master Branch discussions
17:06:03 [chipc]: Infra discussions
17:06:07 [chipc]: Other
17:06:09 [chipc]: so let's get started


# 2. 4.1.0 release updates (Active Feature Release) #
17:06:22 [chipc]: 4.1.0 Schedule update / reminder:
17:06:30 [chipc]: 2013-02-28 is the end of the current phase, which include=
s the docs completion "target" and is when we shift to a limited update mod=
el for the release branch (i.e.: I'll be responsible for cherry-picking any=
 changes)
17:06:37 [chipc]: #info As of this morning, there are 9 open blocker bugs (=
3 of which are unassigned) and 14 open critical bugs (7 of which are unassi=
gned)
17:06:45 [chipc]: Last week, I went through all of the bugs, one at a time.=
  I think there are too many this week...  but I'll ask for updates on all =
of them in the tickets themselves
17:06:52 [chipc]: We *really* need people to volunteer for the unassigned b=
ugs.
17:07:07 [chipc]: so that's where we stand with the bugs and the schedule
17:07:16 [chipc]: any thoughts / questions / concerns about it?
17:08:15 [ke4qqq]: =01ACTION wonders how we get folks to take ownership of =
these=01
17:08:22 [chipc]: asking on the list seems to be the only way
17:08:45 [bhaisaab]: yeah, encourage them to step up
17:08:45 [chipc]: I'll start asking about specific bugs during the course o=
f the day today
17:09:00 [bhaisaab]: the vmware and storage related bugs are the worst
17:09:07 [chipc]: +1
17:09:37 [chipc]: ok, so I guess we'll try to shift to QA update
17:09:37 [bhaisaab]: and then we had console-proxy and paths related bugs, =
bug most of 'em are fixed now
17:09:39 [bhaisaab]: yes!


# 3. 4.1.0 QA Status #
17:10:00 [chipc]: is there anyone from ctx QA here now?
17:10:02 [chipc]: and able to talk about status?
17:10:37 [jburwell]: chipc: I don't know about the QA status, but just gett=
ing the management server up and running has been a bear from the 4.1 branc=
h ???
17:11:00 [jburwell]: I have finally gotten it up again, but marvin just app=
ears to hang when attempting to populate a configuration
17:11:02 [bhaisaab]: none I think, and I'm from ctx but I don't know what t=
hey are doing
17:11:08 [chipc]: indeed, and did you file bugs for issues you found?
17:11:16 [jburwell]: I have for the interactive password issue
17:11:22 [chipc]: bhaisaab: yeah, gotcha
17:11:23 [ke4qqq]: should we gate
17:11:23 [topcloud]: jburwell: is it related to the spring work?
17:11:37 [chipc]: ke4qqq: explain?
17:11:37 [jburwell]: I am just now experiencing the marvin hang
17:11:46 [jburwell]: haven't been able to characterize it yet
17:11:47 [topcloud]: jburwell: at what stage?
17:11:54 [topcloud]: compile? deploy?
17:12:07 [topcloud]: deploydb?
17:12:15 [bhaisaab]: jburwell: let me knwo I may be able to help
17:12:15 [jburwell]: topcloud: I have compiled and deployed the database an=
d management server
17:12:17 [ke4qqq]: chipc: should we start gating stuff into 4.1 until we ge=
t it stabilized....the problems here have me wanting gerrit ;)
17:12:30 [jburwell]: marvin connects and is running
17:12:37 [topcloud]: ke4qqq: only now?
17:12:37 [bhaisaab]: ke4qqq: +1 me too :)
17:12:39 [jburwell]: but no reflection of work in the logs other than creat=
ion of the admin user
17:12:48 [jburwell]: no errors or info output
17:13:00 [jburwell]: in either vmops.log or api.log
17:13:00 [chipc]: ke4qqq: well, only a couple of days until we said we'd do=
 that anyway
17:13:07 [bhaisaab]: jburwell: it gets sttuck
17:13:15 [bhaisaab]: ?
17:13:22 [jburwell]: bhaisaab: appears so
17:13:37 [topcloud]: we can see if we can help you get unstuck after this m=
eeting.
17:13:37 [jburwell]: but I have no log or console output yet to characteriz=
e either the issue
17:13:39 [jburwell]: or where it is hanging
17:13:52 [jburwell]: topcloud: works for me
17:14:01 [ke4qqq]: topcloud: I like gerrit - worried about the effects - th=
ough the current state of things is just appalling.
17:14:08 [bhaisaab]: jburwell: did you try adding some break points? and do=
es fails for you even with latest 4.1?
17:14:45 [topcloud]: bhaisaab: jburwell: let's stay on post meeting and wor=
k on this.
17:14:52 [chipc]: bhaisaab / jburwell: can we table, or move that discussio=
n to #cloudstack-dev?
17:14:54 [bhaisaab]: ke4qqq: with growing no. of committers, if we don't ha=
ve some kind of review process, it's gonna make things difficult
17:15:07 [topcloud]: +1 to that
17:15:30 [bhaisaab]: chipc: topcloud ok! jburwell we can work on it later o=
r you can file an issue, start a thread on ML.
17:15:38 [chipc]: ok, so no QA folks in the meeting...  let's try to move o=
n with the limited folks we have here now
17:15:38 [_ps]: bhaisaab: +1


# 4. 4.1.0 Doc Status #
17:16:03 [chipc]: It appears that docs are moving along, but are still lagg=
ing
17:16:17 [ke4qqq]: well hopefully we've unblocked at least one docs contrib=
utor
17:16:20 [chipc]: ke4qqq: do  you know if jzb is still doing the doc sprint=
 on Friday?
17:16:25 [chipc]: +1 to that
17:16:26 [ke4qqq]: chipc: yes
17:16:41 [chipc]: great - so we'll be behind schedule, but we'll be able to=
 pull into 4.1 as they complete
17:16:42 [_ps]: chipc: Any specific feature you are looking for the documen=
tation to be done by now ?
17:17:05 [chipc]: well, reviewing the published doc plan (no link handy), t=
here were plenty outstanding
17:17:12 [bhaisaab]: anyone doing one of cloudmonkey, if not I can take it =
up next week?
17:17:18 [bhaisaab]: *of -> on
17:17:25 [chipc]: bhaisaab: unknown
17:17:32 [ke4qqq]: bhaisaab: sebgoa talked about it
17:17:40 [ke4qqq]: might follow up with him
17:17:41 [bhaisaab]: okay will do
17:17:47 [_ps]: bhaisaab: I heard Jessica T might  pick that up
17:18:02 [ke4qqq]: or rather he mentioned it in IRC
17:18:10 [ke4qqq]: =01ACTION doesn't want to obligate him....much=01
17:18:17 [chipc]: bhaisaab: if jessica was looking at it, perhaps you can o=
ffer to take it instead
17:18:25 [chipc]: perhaps freeing her up for other features?
17:18:55 [chipc]: I was going to ask sebgoa to talk about translation statu=
s today, but I know he's at the conference
17:19:02 [bhaisaab]: okay I will ask both of them if they can do it, it's f=
ine, else I'll take it up free them for some other stuff
17:19:12 [ke4qqq]: chipc: I can get you an update in a few minutes - come b=
ack to that
17:19:17 [chipc]: great!  thanks!
17:19:25 [chipc]: ke4qqq: ok - I'll loop back at the end
17:19:33 [chipc]: next topic


# 5. 4.1.0 Additional issues #
17:19:41 [chipc]: packaging is the main one
17:19:48 [chipc]: so it *seems* that RPMs are good now
17:20:10 [chipc]: and noa having access to commit helped him get the deb st=
uff into the repo this morning (my morning)
17:20:19 [chipc]: but I think that it's incomplete from his description
17:20:25 [sudhap]: chipc: QA is on the call - when you get a chance give me=
 some time
17:20:32 [chipc]: ok
17:20:40 [chipc]: will come back to that
17:20:55 [chipc]: so packaging is my "additional issue" concern
17:20:55 [bhaisaab]: So, systemvm template issue is settled; we'll use both=
 of them; the old one, and work on the new one, if it's done, people can bu=
ild their own for ipv6 etc...
17:20:56 [bhaisaab]: ?
17:20:58 [chipc]: any other 4.1.0 concerns (coming back to QA shortly)
17:21:25 [chipc]: bhaisaab: I believe that we label v6 as experimental
17:21:25 [jburwell]: chipc: mgmt sir memory consumption
17:21:32 [jburwell]: oops mgmt svr
17:21:40 [chipc]: jburwell: ack - just a sec
17:21:50 [bhaisaab]: chipc: cool, okay!
17:21:58 [chipc]: bhaisaab: I said that on the thread, and would like other=
s to chime in with agreement
17:22:10 [bhaisaab]: ok :) got it
17:22:25 [chipc]: because I think that it's not acceptable to try to get a =
fully tested new system VM into production quality now
17:22:35 [bhaisaab]: jburwell: we've asked kelven to fix master; he already=
 fixed 4.1 and it's much better now; about 45-55% memory usage reduction
17:22:35 [chipc]: btw - nice work (+ chiradeep) on the system vm build proc=
ess
17:22:48 [bhaisaab]: thanks :)
17:22:58 [chipc]: jburwell: on the mem - are you concerned about master or =
4.1?
17:23:02 [bhaisaab]: chipc: you can build on your system, empowering the de=
vs :)
17:23:02 [chipc]: because we're in the 4.1 topic
17:23:17 [jburwell]: chipc: 4.1
17:23:33 [chipc]: so have you tested after kelvin's changes arrived in the =
4.1 branch?
17:23:48 [chipc]: or are you saying that the improvement isn't enough>
17:23:48 [chipc]: ?
17:24:04 [jburwell]: chipc: I don't know when they landed, but am running b=
ased on a pull from mid-morning
17:24:34 [chipc]: they were in there before that
17:24:42 [chipc]: ok - so that's an outstanding issue
17:24:48 [jburwell]: it's burning around 1.5MB on my box right now
17:24:48 [jburwell]: was less than 512 MB previously for the same configura=
tion/load
17:24:48 [bhaisaab]: okay, I've test 4.1 and I can confirm it runs better a=
nd faster now than it used to be
17:25:11 [chipc]: #info jburwell reporting that 4.1 management server is st=
ill consuming quite a bit more mem than 4.0
17:25:13 [bhaisaab]: the peak usage was 417 MB for me, it lowered after bas=
ic zone deployment for me
17:25:40 [chipc]: ok, well that's one to follow up on
17:25:51 [chipc]: anyone want to take an action for that?
17:26:02 [sudhap]: chipc: This was resolved for QA compared to the original=
 issue - but will check if this is better than before or same or worse
17:26:18 [bhaisaab]: oh man, we've to ask Kelven he only understand it bett=
er
17:26:40 [chipc]: sudhap: thx
17:26:55 [sudhap]: we are running automation also - so I should be able to =
get some data points
17:27:05 [chipc]: #action sudhap to check with QA to see what the 4.1 mgmt =
server memory looks like, vs previous versions
17:27:10 [bhaisaab]: coollike benchmarks?
17:27:12 [likitha]: i too found it to be much better.
17:27:25 [chipc]: ok - let's transition back to QA status


# 6. 4.1.0 QA Status (take 2) #
17:27:32 [chipc]: sudhap: can you talk about status?
17:27:40 [chipc]: I hit the bug counts already
17:27:48 [sudhap]: We are seeing improvement in burning down blockers since=
 yesterday
17:27:48 [chipc]: with a plea for people to grab blockers and crits
17:28:02 [chipc]: how about test execution status?
17:28:17 [sudhap]: some long standing items were resolved so making progres=
s on feature validation
17:28:47 [sudhap]: So far closed around 7 features and some are infrastruct=
ure features which I have to follow up on individuals
17:28:55 [sudhap]: So would be able to close those
17:29:02 [sudhap]: Automation blockers are closed for Xen and KVM
17:29:05 [chipc]: one thing that might help - can we clarify if blockers ar=
e blocking test execution vs blocking a release based on impact?
17:29:18 [chipc]: because one impacts schedule, while the other impacts rel=
ease quality
17:29:20 [sudhap]: chipc: Yes defintely
17:29:25 [chipc]: thx
17:29:40 [sudhap]: Will be getting to a state to post metrics
17:29:47 [vogxn]: sudhap, one blocker found  for kvmtoday
17:30:02 [sudhap]: UI one or something else??
17:30:02 [chipc]: #action sudhap to help claify if blockers are blocking te=
st execution or are release quality issues
17:30:12 [vogxn]: ssvm not up
17:30:33 [ke4qqq]: =01ACTION doesn't understand how a blocker to running te=
sts isn't a blocker for release=01
17:30:40 [vogxn]: marcus looking into it
17:30:55 [sudhap]: ok - Vijay provided some analysis yesterday - thougt  th=
at this is related to permissions.
17:31:10 [chipc]: ke4qqq: they block a release...  but blocking testing is =
worse than blocking a release
17:31:10 [vogxn]: thats vmware ithink
17:31:17 [chipc]: because it means things are probably hidden behind it
17:31:25 [sudhap]: vogxn: ok
17:31:33 [ke4qqq]: chipc: indeed
17:31:33 [sudhap]: I did not check blocker list this morning
17:31:48 [chipc]: ke4qqq: so that's the distinction I was trying to get at
17:31:55 [chipc]: ok - sudhap - anything else?
17:32:25 [bhaisaab]: =01ACTION I've to go now, thanks folks!=01
17:32:25 [sudhap]: chipc: that is about it but need to get test plan from I=
lya - would like to understand if there is an effort to write a test plan o=
r no
17:32:47 [sudhap]: Then I will look for someone else to write it if ilya ca=
n provide help to execute it
17:33:02 [chipc]: sudhap: ok - I'd suggest keeping in mind that he's a volu=
nteer for that feature...
17:33:17 [chipc]: sudhap: which you just basically said as I wrote that
17:33:18 [chipc]: ;-)
17:33:25 [chipc]: ok - moving topics


# 7. 4.0.2 updates (Active Bug-Fix Release) #
17:33:43 [chipc]: does anyone here know anything about 4.0.2?
17:33:55 [chipc]: do we have anything to discuss about that release?
17:34:11 [ke4qqq]: jzb is working on it- taking second place to docs sprint=
 fwiu
17:34:19 [chipc]: yeah, and that's fair
17:34:41 [chipc]: actually, we need to formalize the informal concensus we =
reached WRT feature release support lifetime
17:35:02 [chipc]: because if we don't kick out a 4.0.2 before 4.1, do we do=
 it at all?
17:35:17 [chipc]: anyone want to try to formalize that?
17:35:50 [chipc]: ok, guess not...
17:35:55 [ke4qqq]: I'm happy to start the conversation
17:36:02 [ke4qqq]: =01ACTION is lagging at the keynote - /me apologizes=01
17:36:10 [chipc]: ke4qqq: that would be great if you could
17:36:19 [chipc]: ok - then next topic


# 8. Master Branch discussions #
17:36:32 [chipc]: anything to discuss on the master branch?
17:36:41 [chipc]: besides the general problem of master stability ;-(
17:36:55 [vogxn]: just wnt the mem fix
17:37:10 [chipc]: +1
17:37:17 [ke4qqq]: =01ACTION wants better stability fixes - and reports fro=
m the devcloud tests as well=01
17:37:41 [vogxn]: server wasnt coming up today. edison will probablyget to =
it
17:37:48 [chipc]: #info vogxn commented that getting the memory reduction f=
ixes ported from 4.1 to master would be helpful
17:38:42 [chipc]: ok, anything else about master?
17:39:12 [chipc]: ok, moving on - and perhaps wrapping up soon


# 9. Infra discussions #
17:39:20 [sudhap]: chipc: QA is logging defects for master as 4.2 so blocke=
rs can be reviewed with that fix version query
17:39:27 [chipc]: do we have any project infra statements?
17:39:32 [chipc]: sudhap: thanks
17:39:41 [ke4qqq]: sudhap: why is QA testing against master as opposed to 4=
.1?
17:39:55 [ke4qqq]: I mean - testing at all is good, I am just curious
17:40:10 [chipc]: ke4qqq: wouldn't that be for testing features that are fo=
r 4.2?
17:40:40 [sudhap]: 4.1 is being tested mainly - but some have used 4.2 as e=
ither complete feature is not allowed on to 4.1 or feature is only checked =
in to master - some folks volunteered for specific features
17:40:47 [sudhap]: which they are interested
17:40:49 [ke4qqq]: I suppose - just I have a perception that testing cycles=
 are limited....and current focus is presumably 4.1
17:40:56 [ke4qqq]: ahhh ok - that makes good sense
17:41:17 [chipc]: sudhap: I actually applaud that
17:41:32 [ke4qqq]: agreed - testing what you are interested in is awesome.
17:41:32 [vogxn]: +1
17:41:47 [chipc]: because I really would like to actually get things tested=
 prior to merging...  but that's a step in the right direction (i.e.: not w=
aiting for the "QA" phase of a release)
17:41:49 [sudhap]: But for automation we are focusing only on 4.1 once we r=
un all regressions will run on master


# 10. Other? #
17:42:17 [topcloud]: chipc and jburwell: I do have one thing I want to talk=
 about for 4.1
17:42:27 [chipc]: since we weren't talking about any infra, switched topic =
to other
17:42:33 [chipc]: so let's talk about topcloud's thing
17:42:42 [chipc]: topcloud: you have the floor!
17:42:48 [topcloud]: I think we need to add in parameters for maven to set =
the java compat levels for 4.1 source code.
17:42:55 [topcloud]: don't think it's set right now.
17:43:02 [jburwell]: topcloud: those should always be set
17:43:10 [topcloud]: agreed.
17:43:11 [jburwell]: so if they aren't, we should put them in ricky tick
17:43:19 [topcloud]: i took a look though.
17:43:27 [topcloud]: i'm not how to set it in one place and have it all wor=
k.
17:43:33 [topcloud]: looks like i have to touch all the pom files.
17:43:40 [jburwell]: topcloud: you shouldn;t
17:43:41 [chipc]: topcloud / jburwell: does one of you want to raise that o=
n the ML, and then do it?
17:43:48 [topcloud]: so i might have a big change like that coming into 4.1
17:43:55 [jburwell]: that is something you should only need to do in the ro=
ot pom
17:43:55 [ke4qqq]: parent pom isn't enough
17:44:02 [topcloud]: just want to alert you guys make sure it's ok.
17:44:17 [topcloud]: i thought it should be ok but I'm just not very famili=
ar with maven.
17:44:25 [chipc]: topcloud: just call it out on the dev list, but I'm +1 to=
 that
17:44:25 [topcloud]: i couldn't see how it can be done in the parent pom
17:44:32 [topcloud]: ok...i'll bring it up on dev list.
17:44:34 [jburwell]: ke4qqq: while I am not a maven expert (in fact I hate =
it with a purple passion), every maven project I have worked on set it in t=
he root pom and it worked ..
17:44:55 [chipc]: #action topcloud to raise setting the java compat options=
 from within the poms for 4.1 on the list
17:44:55 [jburwell]: do our POMs actually inherit?
17:45:25 [vogxn]: they do. couldbebetter
17:45:25 [topcloud]: there's a child tree but i'm not sure if they inherit.
17:45:40 [topcloud]: not a big maven expert either but i'll try to take up =
this change.
17:46:02 [jburwell]: it looks like they do
17:46:19 [jburwell]: the java plugin properties from root should be applied=
 to the children
17:46:32 [jburwell]: provided the children don't override the java plugin s=
ettings
17:46:42 [jburwell]: we can mess with it offline
17:46:55 [jburwell]: to determine the lowest touch modification
17:46:55 [topcloud]: anyways. that's it from me.
17:47:05 [topcloud]: definitely parent pom should be the way to go if we ca=
n.
17:47:16 [chipc]: great - thanks for that topcloud
17:47:24 [chipc]: so moving on...  any other topics for today?
17:48:01 [chipc]: so let's call it a wrap then
17:48:03 [chipc]: thanks all!