[15:59] <cpaelzer> o/
[16:00] <powersj> o/
[16:01] <jgrimm> o/
[16:01] <powersj> wait a min. or two?
[16:01] <rharper> o/
[16:01] <cpaelzer> depends no how much showed up, you might highlight some you consider missing
[16:02] <jgrimm> yeah, i just poked internal channel
[16:02] <nacc> o/
[16:02] <brauner> o/
[16:02] <nacc> sorry was messing with the importer
[16:03] <powersj> ok let's see if I do this right :)
[16:03] <jgrimm> :)
[16:03] <smoser> o/
[16:03] <powersj> #startmeeting ubuntu-server-team
[16:03] <meetingology> 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] <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
[16:03] <powersj> #topic Review ACTION points from previous meeting
[16:03] <powersj> (jamespage) checkin with old iscsitarget users on relevancy with new kernels
[16:04] <powersj> anything here?
[16:04] <jgrimm> powersj, if we don't get an update in next irc meeting, i'll work via email
[16:05] <powersj> ok, moving on
[16:05] <powersj> #topic Yakkety Development
[16:05] <powersj> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/YakketyYak/ReleaseSchedule
[16:05] <nacc> that should be Zesty now, right?
[16:05] <powersj> done with this topic now?
[16:05] <powersj> :)
[16:05] <jgrimm> :)
[16:05] <cpaelzer> nacc: it is not there yet
[16:05] <powersj> any lingering or post-release yakkety issues?
[16:06] <nacc> cpaelzer: which is not?
[16:06] <jgrimm> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/servercloud-z-server-core
[16:06] <jgrimm> just a reminder that the blueprint is open for business that we want to track ^^
[16:07] <rharper> jgrimm: we may want to add the /boot install outcome
[16:07] <powersj> great! anything else for yakkety or zesty dev?
[16:07] <jgrimm> rharper, agreed. i'll fix now
[16:07] <nacc> jgrimm: would you be ok with adding putting the importer live to the blueprint? or should we keep it unofficial? :)
[16:07] <rharper> I think rbasak was going to take that to ubuntu-devel as well
[16:08] <jgrimm> rharper, yep
[16:08] <jgrimm> nacc, feel free to use blueprint for it (or create new separate and link)
[16:08] <nacc> jgrimm: thanks
[16:08] <jgrimm> its not terribly formal.. however we feel it helps us be effective.
[16:08] <nacc> absolutely
[16:09] <jgrimm> rharper, added /boot to blueprit
[16:09] <jgrimm> blueprint even
[16:09] <powersj> ok moving on
[16:09] <powersj> #link http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-y-tracking-bug-tasks.html#ubuntu-server
[16:09] <powersj> wwops
[16:09] <powersj> #subtopic Release Bugs
[16:10] <powersj> do we have rbasak?
[16:10] <nacc> i recollect seeing in my scrollback he might be out
[16:10] <jgrimm> ah, new stuff in the report at least
[16:10] <powersj> ah yes he is out today
[16:11] <jgrimm> 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] <powersj> jgrimm: thank you! moving on
[16:11] <powersj> #topic Server & Cloud Bugs (caribou)
[16:11] <powersj> #link http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-x-tracking-bug-tasks.html#ubuntu-server
[16:12] <jgrimm> powersj, caribou unable to make it today, sent status ahead of time that he had nothing to bring up today
[16:12] <powersj> making this easy on me ;)
[16:12] <powersj> #topic Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (powersj)
[16:12] <powersj> #link https://jenkins.ubuntu.com/server/
[16:12] <powersj> Yakkety ISO testing last week, few issues with ppc64el and ppc
[16:13] <powersj> Focus is on cloud-init integration testing. Goal is still to have something working by Friday in our jenkins (linked above)
[16:13] <powersj> any questions for me?
[16:13] <smoser> powersj, woot!
[16:13] <jgrimm> looks good.  will be great to have cloud-init integration tests finally !
[16:13] <powersj> :)
[16:14] <powersj> ok moving on then
[16:14] <cpaelzer> I still feel too red on the migration tests powersj
[16:14] <cpaelzer> is the ball currently with you or me ?
[16:14] <powersj> cpaelzer: I agree - let me remind myself of status later today and send you mail
[16:14] <cpaelzer> powersj: I'll let you remind yourself :-P
[16:14] <powersj> :)
[16:14] <powersj> #topic Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (smb, sforshee)
[16:14]  * cpaelzer stops stropping people reminding things
[16:15] <cpaelzer> stopping even
[16:15] <smb> Nothing to report from here
[16:15] <powersj> ok
[16:15] <powersj> #topic Upcoming Call For Papers
[16:16] <powersj> anything here?
[16:16] <jgrimm> checking
[16:17] <jgrimm> CFP for OSCON is Oct 25, FOSDEM is Oct 31.
[16:18] <jgrimm> powersj, fwiw.. i usually rely upon the LWN CFP deadline page.
[16:18] <powersj> jgrimm: good to know, I will go read that after this
[16:19] <powersj> anything else from folks?
[16:19] <rharper> jgrimm: link ?
[16:19] <rharper> just  #  link it here
[16:19] <jgrimm> #link http://lwn.net/Calendar/Monthly/cfp/
[16:20] <powersj> excellent, thank you!
[16:20] <jgrimm> np
[16:20] <powersj> #topic Ubuntu Server Team Events
[16:20] <smoser> is zesty open for uploads ?
[16:20] <jgrimm> good question
[16:20] <cpaelzer> smoser: not a few hours ago
[16:20] <cpaelzer> smoser: I saw xnox having extra work since not all things were ready
[16:21] <cpaelzer> smoser: so I wouldn't rush things today unless we hear a "go"
[16:21] <nacc> i'm seeing stuff go into z-p on #ubuntu-release
[16:21] <jgrimm> ooo > Unapproved: mistral (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.0.0-1 => 3.0.0-1ubuntu1] (no packageset
[16:21] <nacc> but that might be an artifact of the copy forward?
[16:21] <nacc> not sure
[16:21] <nacc> the /topic says its still closed
[16:21] <cpaelzer> well then it was resolved in the last few hours
[16:21] <cpaelzer> but copy?
[16:21] <jgrimm> so some bits getting close
[16:21] <cpaelzer> yeah ack
[16:22] <powersj> anyting for team events?
[16:22] <powersj> anything rather
[16:23] <powersj> ok, moving on
[16:23] <powersj> #topic Open Discussion
[16:23] <cpaelzer> I have two topics for this one
[16:24] <cpaelzer> One would be a discussion on proactive stable updates for qemu
[16:24] <cpaelzer> I found that 2.5 got 2.5.1 and 2.5.1.1 upstream
[16:24] <cpaelzer> FYI - http://paste.ubuntu.com/23344536/
[16:24] <cpaelzer> the CVEs are already in by the security Team
[16:24] <cpaelzer> 2.5 is Xenial = LTS
[16:24] <nacc> cpaelzer: would this be a MRE kind of thing?
[16:24] <nacc> Micro Release Exception
[16:24] <cpaelzer> that is kind of what I'm wondering about
[16:24] <rharper> I don't think so
[16:25] <rharper> those are all bugs (just not filed against xenial)
[16:25] <cpaelzer> I'd think since it is only bug fixes not
[16:25] <cpaelzer> rharper: exactly
[16:25] <nacc> rharper: ah ok
[16:25] <cpaelzer> I would suggest I open a bug and work against that over the next time, but wanted to ask for any objections
[16:25] <cpaelzer> like "we usually don't because ..."
[16:25] <rharper> I think we should chat with the openstack team
[16:25] <nacc> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#New_upstream_microreleases fwiw, MRE is for (aiui) bugfix microreleases upstream
[16:25] <rharper> they possibly have a similar cadence of changes/fixes
[16:25] <cpaelzer> FYI - debian hasn't got to them since all releases are on 2.4.* or 2.6.* now
[16:26] <nacc> that's what i followed for php7.0, e.g.
[16:26] <rharper> nacc: ah, nice
[16:26] <cpaelzer> nacc: interesting
[16:26] <nacc> it just puts it on the SRU team radar to approve a 'new' upstream version (not normally allowed) in the SRU
[16:26] <cpaelzer> ok, without objection I think I'll handle this as such microrelease
[16:26] <rharper> cpaelzer: won't that increase delta?
[16:27] <rharper> until sync?
[16:27] <cpaelzer> rharper: it will increase the delta to something that isn't maintained - that is what I tried to say above
[16:27] <nacc> cpaelzer: fyi, LP: #1569609 is how i filed it
[16:27] <cpaelzer> Debian is either on <2.5 or >2.5 on all releases
[16:27] <nacc> and y is already on 2.6.x right?
[16:28] <nacc> rharper: so this would only be for x, aiui
[16:28] <cpaelzer> yes Y=2.6
[16:28] <cpaelzer> exactly
[16:28] <rharper> well, why not T or P ?
[16:28] <cpaelzer> it is only X for all of the Debian/Ubuntu world
[16:28] <rharper> I guess I don't get why we're doing it now and only for X ?
[16:28] <cpaelzer> rharper: I didn't check the same might apply for T (and update to 2.0)
[16:28] <rharper> it's a nice to have
[16:28] <nacc> because somebody cares enough to do it? :)
[16:28] <rharper> not a care
[16:28] <rharper> a _cost_
[16:29] <rharper> which we've not explored w.r.t impact on other choices
[16:29] <nacc> i thought cpaelzer was saying the cost was we might get bugs for all of the bugfixes
[16:29] <nacc> so we'd be backporting those individually to x
[16:29] <rharper> but if we don't get those?
[16:29] <nacc> i mean, they are known bugs in the upstream version x is based on
[16:29] <rharper> so, in the past, it's been a judgement call during the process
[16:29] <cpaelzer> nacc: right, I thought those are known issues and fixing bugs in non emergency mode as a batch would be worth it
[16:30] <nacc> rharper: yeah, i'm not sure what makes the most sense
[16:30] <rharper> 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] <jgrimm> cpaelzer, have you done any looking at the bugs fixed to see if any of that list seem critical?
[16:31] <rharper> we could discuss this next week and return here with our findings
[16:31] <cpaelzer> jgrimm: just slightly, would need a bit more time to do so
[16:31] <jgrimm> i do think i can be swayed, as qemu is critical component to our stack
[16:31] <nacc> sounds like an action item :)
[16:31] <cpaelzer> rharper: that is good, I'll analyze the severity and come back with it
[16:31] <rharper> right, and getting some input from other teams
[16:31] <rharper> will it increase churn? help them out?
[16:32] <cpaelzer> #action cpaelzer investigating severity of issues covered by qemu 2.5. stable releases and ask other Teams on their input
[16:32] <meetingology> ACTION: cpaelzer investigating severity of issues covered by qemu 2.5. stable releases and ask other Teams on their input
[16:32] <nacc> yeah, the testing impact is a good point, it's an integration point
[16:32] <powersj> cpaelzer: was that both of your topics?
[16:32] <cpaelzer> that was one
[16:32] <rharper> one more =)
[16:32] <jgrimm> fwiw, the newton c-a, does _not_ include a y qemu.
[16:33] <rharper> jgrimm: it won't until Z
[16:33] <rharper> IIUC
[16:33]  * cpaelzer is moving to second topic
[16:33] <rharper> they pull from archive until it goes out of support
[16:33] <jgrimm> rharper, ack
[16:34] <cpaelzer> that actually was brought up by rharper - which was TL;DR "We should follow-up on this:" in regard to VNIC offloads
[16:34] <cpaelzer> I think here is the right place to discuss, unless you prefer doing that via ML
[16:35] <cpaelzer> #link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlyutCppcU&list=PLrninrcyMo3IkTvpvM2LK6gn4NdbFhI0G&index=10
[16:35] <rharper> sure;  at netdev 1.2 there was a discussion on vnic performance and specifically offload features, in KVM and containers
[16:35] <cpaelzer> I checked Xenial and Yakkety and we were already at the recommended setting
[16:35] <rharper> exercised on top of 16.04
[16:35] <rharper> I wanted to see the paper/slides so I could get the data
[16:35] <cpaelzer> the question is what else could/should we (not?) do based on that
[16:36] <cpaelzer> rharper: getting data would be nice - just to see if there are any outliers that we want to care for
[16:36] <rharper> yeah
[16:36] <rharper> exactly
[16:36] <rharper> specifically  VM to VM and container to container (LXD)  vs. say docker (libnetwork )
[16:36] <rharper> bridge mode vs. something else
[16:36] <cpaelzer> 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] <rharper> right
[16:37] <cpaelzer> 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] <cpaelzer> and for the container east/west I'm interested to know about
[16:37] <cpaelzer> rharper: will you kindly inquire that data?
[16:37] <rharper> yeah, I need to look around for more details
[16:38] <rharper> the other performance (which I don't know if the video covered)
[16:38] <rharper> is small-packet-performance, latency
[16:38] <cpaelzer> rharper: the video did not cover the others
[16:38] <cpaelzer> rharper: I had it running in background
[16:38] <cpaelzer> rharper: didn't come back to it
[16:38] <rharper> I ran across an interesting KVM paper on that;
[16:38] <cpaelzer> rharper: wait that was Stephen Hemminger right?
[16:38] <rharper> yes
[16:39] <cpaelzer> I'll likely meet him on Thursday on DPDK Userspace
[16:39] <cpaelzer> while I feel buried I tihnk I'll define another action for me
[16:39] <cpaelzer> at least to kindly ask for more there
[16:39] <rharper> sure
[16:39] <cpaelzer> #action cpaelzer will try to ask Stephen Hemminger for more data on the netdev presentation
[16:39] <meetingology> ACTION: cpaelzer will try to ask Stephen Hemminger for more data on the netdev presentation
[16:39] <powersj> any other actions?
[16:40] <cpaelzer> I stalled you long enough - I'm done
[16:40] <powersj> any other topics?
[16:40] <jgrimm> nacc, .. import status?
[16:40] <powersj> yes - shall I update the agenda to say "zesty" instead of "yakkety"?
[16:40] <jgrimm> powersj, yes please!
[16:40] <brauner> have we agreed on zesty as the new release name?
[16:41] <powersj> #ACTION powersj to update agenda to remove yakkety add in zesty
[16:41] <meetingology> ACTION: powersj to update agenda to remove yakkety add in zesty
[16:41] <rharper> #link http://www.linux-kvm.org/images/d/df/02x11-AspenMario_Smarduch-Migrating_NFV_applicatoins_to_KVM_Guest.pdf
[16:41] <jgrimm> brauner: Zesty Zapus
[16:41] <nacc> jgrimm: i need to sync with rbasak on tagging and we should be ready for 1.0
[16:41] <powersj> brauner: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/
[16:41] <nacc> 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] <jgrimm> cool.. we can start assigning out some merges once done and zesty open for business!
[16:42] <nacc> jgrimm: my plan is to update all the lpusip trees by EOW and then we will look to flip over to lpusdp
[16:42] <jgrimm> great!
[16:42] <nacc> working on documentation today
[16:43] <powersj> last call!
[16:43] <powersj> #topic Assigned merges/bugwork (rbasak)
[16:44] <powersj> since he is out, just a friendly reminder to update the sheet!
[16:44]  * jgrimm thought he killed that from agenda
[16:44] <powersj> lol it is in the copy and paste page
[16:44] <jgrimm> ahhh
[16:44] <powersj> I'll remove it
[16:44] <jgrimm> thanks
[16:44] <powersj> #topic Announce next meeting date, time and chair
[16:44] <powersj> Same time, same place
[16:44] <powersj> beisner will be our host
[16:45] <powersj> that's all folks!
[16:45] <powersj> #endmeeting
[16:45] <meetingology> Meeting ended Tue Oct 18 16:45:06 2016 UTC.
[16:45] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2016/ubuntu-meeting.2016-10-18-16.03.moin.txt
[16:45] <rharper> powersj: thanks !
[16:45] <nacc> powersj: thanks!
[16:45] <jgrimm> thanks powersj
[16:45] <powersj> o/
[17:19] <jgrimm> powersj, http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2016/ubuntu-meeting.2016-10-18-16.03.moin.txt
[17:19] <powersj> jgrimm: brilliant thank you
[17:20] <jgrimm> np, you'll see that above ^^ when you did your endmeeting
[17:20] <powersj> oh look at that :)
[22:03] <xnox> cpaelzer, yeah adam will send archive open for development email, when it's open.
[22:03] <xnox> if you upload things now they will just be stuck in unapproved queue for zesty