15:01:05 <amoralej> #startmeeting NFV SIG meeting - 2020-07-29
15:01:05 <centbot> Meeting started Wed Jul 29 15:01:05 2020 UTC.  The chair is amoralej. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:01:05 <centbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
15:01:39 <amoralej> meeting agenda can be found in https://hackmd.io/oRe_HVJiTteDI4H332ApMw
15:01:45 <amoralej> feel free to add your topics there
15:01:55 <amoralej> anyone around?
15:04:44 <amoralej> ykarel, cfontain ^
15:04:58 <ykarel> o/
15:04:59 <cfontain> amoralej: hi
15:05:16 <amoralej> #chair cfontain ykarel
15:05:16 <centbot> Current chairs: amoralej cfontain ykarel
15:05:38 <amoralej> tfherbert, nfv meeting time, if you can join
15:06:24 <amoralej> #topic status of sig-nfv membership
15:07:57 <amoralej> #link https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=17629
15:08:07 <amoralej> i've contacted all former sig members
15:08:42 <amoralej> and i've created that bug to get the group clean and get only the actual users willing to be part of it
15:09:06 <amoralej> now, we need to work for centos infra guys to manage it
15:09:41 <amoralej> it seems that part of centos team is on pto and getting things done is getting longer that expected
15:10:16 <amoralej> but i hope we'll get all accounts approved in next days
15:10:40 <amoralej> please check the list of users in the bug and let me know if someone is missing
15:11:11 <amoralej> #topic CBS tags and buildroot creation for nfv8-openvswitch-2
15:11:29 <amoralej> #info CBS tags are created and ready to build
15:12:30 <amoralej> #link https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=17612
15:12:50 <amoralej> that means you can start building packages there once your accounts are in the group
15:13:51 <amoralej> #chair dholler
15:13:51 <centbot> Current chairs: amoralej cfontain dholler ykarel
15:14:34 <amoralej> dholler, i just mentioned, cbs tags are ready, but accounts are not approved yet
15:14:44 <amoralej> hopefully we can get it soon
15:14:52 <dholler> dholler, ok
15:15:11 <amoralej> #topic nfvsig branches for openvswitch and ovn in git.centos.org
15:15:36 <amoralej> i tried to create the branch for openvswitch 2.13 but i found an issue
15:15:54 <amoralej> #link https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=17614
15:16:07 <amoralej> i could not get help from centos team yet
15:16:26 <amoralej> but i pinged rbowen today, so let's see if he can get some attention on it
15:17:08 <rbowen> Related: https://git.centos.org/centos/board/issue/20
15:17:37 <amoralej> yup, that would be good
15:17:53 <amoralej> but note there are two different issues
15:17:55 <ykarel> the failure above seems related to permissions only
15:17:59 <amoralej> once is about group membership
15:18:06 <amoralej> this one is a different one
15:18:19 <amoralej> seems related to git hooks config i'd say
15:19:00 <amoralej> i'm member of sig-nfv now, but still couldn't create the branch following naming convention
15:19:36 <amoralej> btw, once this is fixed, any member can create a branch starting with c8-sig-nfv-...
15:19:49 <amoralej> i tried with  c8-sig-nfv-openvswitch-2.13
15:20:00 <rbowen> bstinson said that he is aware of the problem and hopes to work on it soon, but it will be later in the day.
15:20:00 <dholler> ok, I will try the same for 2.11
15:20:17 <amoralej> rbowen, that'd be really great
15:20:48 <amoralej> #topic build status
15:20:55 <amoralej> so i tried a scratch build with 2.13
15:21:01 <amoralej> in the new cbs tag
15:21:10 <amoralej> and hitted https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=16969
15:21:13 <amoralej> as expected
15:21:19 <ykarel> tests failure?
15:21:25 <ykarel> due to c7 build root
15:21:25 <amoralej> so i'm affraid we need to disable unit tests
15:21:26 <amoralej> yes
15:21:38 <ykarel> hmm ookk
15:21:40 <amoralej> dholler, you mentioned you built 2.11 in the past in virtsig, right?
15:21:46 <amoralej> did you hit similar issue?
15:21:49 <dholler> amoralej, yes
15:21:55 <amoralej> oooh
15:21:57 <amoralej> ook
15:22:03 <dholler> sorry
15:22:12 <dholler> I build, but used already availible branches
15:22:26 <amoralej> but you had to disable unit tests, right?
15:22:30 <amoralej> np
15:22:46 <dholler> yes,
15:22:48 <amoralej> ok
15:23:19 <amoralej> #info we'll need to disable unit tests for centos8 builds because of https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=16969
15:23:46 <amoralej> so, once we have permissions and branches issue fixed we can start building
15:23:59 <amoralej> dholler, you are taking care of 2.11, right?
15:24:03 <dholler> ack
15:24:09 <amoralej> good
15:24:27 <amoralej> #topic NFV SIG documentation status
15:24:43 <amoralej> i did a first update of https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/NFV
15:25:03 <amoralej> but still needs some refinement
15:25:16 <amoralej> as cleaning members
15:25:57 <amoralej> and references to opnfv, i'm not sure if someone still is interested in following opnfv and try some kind of integration
15:26:09 <tfherbert> I thought NFV SIG meeting was to start in 36 minutes?
15:26:30 <amoralej> sorry tfherbert we schedule it at 15:00 utc
15:26:35 <ykarel> looks like meeting time is wrong in wiki page
15:26:43 <tfherbert> Sorry I thought it was 1600 UTC
15:27:20 <ykarel> 1300 UTC --> 1500 UTC
15:27:36 <amoralej> yup
15:27:54 <amoralej> we also need to get https://git.centos.org/centos/centos.org/pull-request/45 merged
15:28:08 <amoralej> to get the meeting in the main meetings page
15:28:18 <tfherbert> OK, noted.
15:28:22 <amoralej> let me make sure i put the right time in the ML
15:28:40 <amoralej> tfherbert, so, wrt opnfv, is still relevant for the sig?
15:29:26 <amoralej> https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2020-July/055940.html
15:29:47 <tfherbert> amoralej: I don't think it is relevant any more. I think 1.5 years ago, there was declining interest. OPNFV has its own channel and also has largely been subsumed by the greater OpenStack in my opinion.
15:30:12 <amoralej> ok
15:30:21 <tfherbert> I think new focus on FDP and perhaps other individual Networking related packages are appropriate.
15:30:40 <amoralej> may you review content of https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/NFV when you have a chance?
15:30:52 <amoralej> i mean removing references to opnfv, i.e
15:30:55 <tfherbert> Sure.
15:30:59 <amoralej> thx
15:31:29 <amoralej> #action tfherbert to review goals and references to opnfv in nfv sig wiki
15:31:41 <amoralej> also, i'd like to add some information for users there
15:31:55 <amoralej> as, what packages are available in the sig repo
15:32:01 <amoralej> how to consume them
15:32:12 <amoralej> i.e. explaining about the tricky naming
15:32:33 <amoralej> so, it'd be good to update the page as soon as we build and publish packages
15:32:40 <amoralej> wdyt?
15:32:46 <tfherbert> Yes
15:32:54 <dholler> ack
15:33:22 <tfherbert> Yes, so our channel is still separate repo as it was before?
15:33:46 <amoralej> yes
15:33:51 <amoralej> you mean packages repo?
15:33:58 <amoralej> it will be a new one
15:34:02 <tfherbert> yes
15:34:20 <amoralej> will be located under http://mirror.centos.org/centos/8/nfv
15:34:34 <amoralej> will be created once we tag the first package in -release
15:34:47 <amoralej> now all the sign and ship is automated
15:34:51 <amoralej> so should be fine
15:34:54 <amoralej> and fast :)
15:35:13 <tfherbert> Sure. Do we have a plan to build release packages to get them into extras? I built some last time I was involved?
15:35:21 <amoralej> one more thing we will need to do is to create a nf release rpm
15:35:29 <amoralej> yep, you read my mind :)
15:35:35 <amoralej> once we have content on it
15:35:38 <tfherbert> Right, that is what I meant amoralej!
15:35:40 <amoralej> we can created
15:35:53 <amoralej> the process change for c8 too
15:36:15 <amoralej> now we need to populate the distgit for it in git.centos.org
15:36:23 <amoralej> we'll need to request a new repo there
15:36:31 <amoralej> and ask centos guys to build and publish it
15:36:44 <amoralej> extras repo is not longer built in CBS
15:36:45 <tfherbert> amoralej: Yes, that new process is new to me. I don't think it is documented well yet is it?
15:36:51 <amoralej> nop
15:37:24 <amoralej> we can use https://git.centos.org/rpms/centos-release-openstack/branches as reference
15:37:43 <amoralej> tfherbert, the signing keys for the sig are still usable, right?
15:37:52 <amoralej> i don't expect we will need any new keys
15:38:20 <tfherbert> amoralej, Don't we need new keys for 8?
15:38:42 <amoralej> iirc we didn't need it in cloudsig
15:38:44 <amoralej> mm
15:38:55 <amoralej> dholler, ^ you know if we need new keys for c8?
15:39:01 <amoralej> in virtsig
15:39:58 <amoralej> nop, definitively we use the same in cloudsig at least
15:40:10 <dholler> I have no idea what you are talking about
15:40:17 <amoralej> :)
15:40:24 <amoralej> packages are signed by centos infra
15:40:29 <amoralej> when published
15:40:39 <amoralej> every sig has its own signing keys
15:40:41 <tfherbert> dholler: We are talking about signing keys for packages in NFV yum repo.
15:40:50 <dholler> I just build the packages and tagged them, if I liked them in virt
15:41:22 <amoralej> signing is "transparent" fro the sig
15:41:29 <amoralej> it's done in the background
15:41:37 <amoralej> but we need to publish the public part of the key
15:41:43 <amoralej> to users
15:41:54 <amoralej> to check gpg signature of packages
15:42:23 <amoralej> we'll need to find them for nfv sig
15:42:45 <amoralej> dholler, i.e. https://git.centos.org/rpms/centos-release-openstack/blob/c8-sig-cloud-openstack-ussuri/f/SOURCES
15:42:49 <tfherbert> Right, the "-release" package will install the public part of the signature on the users C8 system in addition to installing the .repo file.
15:42:56 <amoralej> there you have the ones for virtualization and cloud sig
15:43:00 <amoralej> that we ship in cloudsig
15:45:08 <amoralej> we'll need to manage that once we have our first packages tagged into -release
15:46:46 <amoralej> so i think those are the topics i had
15:47:13 <amoralej> #topic open floor
15:47:19 <amoralej> anything you'd like to share?
15:47:49 <tfherbert> Do we have any request interest in other packages other then core OVS/OVN such as dpdk?
15:47:49 <cfontain> amoralej: what about tuned profiles ? Do we already have a way to provide them ?
15:48:40 <amoralej> tfherbert, wrt other packages, afaik, fdp builds ovs statically with embedded dpdk
15:48:59 <amoralej> and centos also provides dpdk separately
15:49:08 <amoralej> no plans to build other so far
15:49:59 <amoralej> there may be interest on going faster that centos on it?
15:50:18 <dholler> I guess the dpdk in centos is not maintained?
15:50:31 <amoralej> well, it's part of centos os
15:50:35 <amoralej> let me double check
15:50:46 <tfherbert> amoralej: Yes, in 7 dpdk was way out of date. Way beyond upstream dpdk.
15:50:56 <amoralej> yes, it appstream
15:51:02 <amoralej> so it's maintained
15:51:06 <cfontain> I don't see the value of providing dpdk, as we will have to provide a minimal set of functions, and so not usable for any VNF
15:51:12 <amoralej> currently it's 19.11
15:51:43 <tfherbert> cfontain: Hi! good to see you here.
15:51:54 <cfontain> tfherbert: o/
15:52:33 <amoralej> cfontain, for my education, what means "we will have to provide a minimal set of functions" ?
15:52:57 <cfontain> amoralej: just like the dpdk provided by RHEL, a lot a features are disabled
15:53:05 <amoralej> oh
15:53:20 <cfontain> every experimental feature won't be provided, and even some non-experimental are not provided
15:53:43 <cfontain> because of the support policy (only what is shipped is supported) and we know that some part of DPDK are so-so.
15:53:50 <amoralej> and rebuilding it enabling it in a separate repo would be useful for users?
15:53:51 <dholler> does dpdk make sense without ovs?
15:54:13 <tfherbert> dholler o/
15:54:29 <cfontain> dholler: yes, it makes sense for VNF vendors, but they will come with their own version and patches as well, so every thing will be linked statically
15:54:51 <cfontain> even OVS has a built-in dpdk (for performances)
15:55:14 <tfherbert> Not only OVS consumes dpdk. It is also incorporated in other DP projects and is sometimes deployed directly on BM. Most people consume the upstream source though for those and as cfontain, probably are doing some source customization.
15:55:30 <dholler> I see
15:56:27 <cfontain> (I'll have to drop for another meeting in a few min)
15:56:39 <amoralej> cfontain, tfherbert that means that the ovs build provided by fdp with dpdk support may not work for some vnfs?
15:57:27 <amoralej> they need *their own dpdk*?
15:57:43 <tfherbert> Yes, but maybe the package in AppStream is OK. I think this will require more investigation though.
15:57:49 <amoralej> ok
15:58:09 <amoralej> yep, we can keep this conversation for next meetings
15:58:17 <tfherbert> I asked because there was some interest last time I was involved but never any uptake.
15:58:33 <cfontain> amoralej: dpdk is a SDK, and the only interconnect with QEMU is virtio which is standardised., so a dpdk-enabled VNF can talk to a kernel-ovs and a dpdk ovs will also support any VM
15:59:06 <amoralej> cfontain, thanks, got it
15:59:13 <amoralej> cfontain, wrt tuned profiles
15:59:35 <amoralej> there are nfv specific tuned profiles, right?
15:59:58 <amoralej> where is the upstream for those?
16:00:16 <amoralej> we are almost out of time
16:00:25 <amoralej> cfontain, please add that topic for next meeting
16:00:34 <amoralej> looks interesting
16:00:42 <tfherbert> amoralej: I think cfontain may have left but I have the same question. tuned profiles make deployment alot easier.
16:00:48 <cfontain> amoralej: I'll do it, yes.
16:00:52 <amoralej> yup
16:00:58 <amoralej> we may create a package for that
16:01:01 <cfontain> we need cpu-partitioning at least
16:01:11 <amoralej> if suitable
16:01:12 <cfontain> (and maybe others, such as realtime-virtual-host)
16:01:13 <tfherbert> cfontain yes
16:01:23 <amoralej> but we need an upstream project
16:01:27 <tfherbert> yes on isolcpus etc.
16:01:29 <amoralej> where it's managed
16:01:44 <amoralej> and then build it in the sig, i see no problem on that
16:01:53 <cfontain> amoralej: I'll double check, the source I have is https://github.com/redhat-performance/tuned/
16:01:56 <amoralej> and cfontain seems candidate to maintain it :)
16:02:05 <cfontain> amoralej: grumpf :-D
16:02:19 <amoralej> those are not in standard tuned packages in RHEL/CentOS, right?
16:02:39 <cfontain> I don't know, I'll have to double check this.
16:02:43 <amoralej> ok
16:02:56 <amoralej> #action cfontain to investigate on nfv specific tuned profiles
16:03:03 <amoralej> btw, i'll be on pto next weeks
16:03:14 <amoralej> may someone chair next meeting?
16:03:19 <dholler> I am during next week
16:03:30 <amoralej> i'll be out next three weeks
16:04:21 <tfherbert> I can chair next meeting which is in two weeks, correct?
16:04:28 <amoralej> yes
16:04:34 <amoralej> aug 5th
16:04:44 <ykarel> mmm aug 12?
16:04:51 <amoralej> right 12
16:04:52 <amoralej> sorry
16:04:52 <tfherbert> august 12?
16:05:00 <ykarel> ack
16:05:06 <cfontain> ack
16:05:08 <amoralej> tfherbert, your name is in https://hackmd.io/oRe_HVJiTteDI4H332ApMw  :)
16:05:18 <amoralej> #action tfherbert to chair next meeting
16:05:30 <tfherbert> I will chair. I am happy to see broader interest then 1 to 2 years ago.
16:05:54 <amoralej> tfherbert, yep, i'm also happy seeing people from different projects
16:06:16 <amoralej> if there is no other topic, i'm closing the mtg
16:06:22 <amoralej> sorry for taking some extra minutes
16:06:37 <cfontain> amoralej: no pb, thanks a lot ! and happy PTO
16:06:47 <amoralej> btw, you can add content in https://hackmd.io/oRe_HVJiTteDI4H332ApMw , right?
16:07:05 <amoralej> i expect someone can add their own topics and discussions
16:07:16 <ykarel> i can
16:07:18 * gwd coughs politely
16:07:19 <amoralej> ok
16:07:23 <amoralej> sorry
16:07:25 <amoralej> i'm closing
16:07:30 <amoralej> thanks all for joining!
16:07:35 <amoralej> #endmeeting