Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev][tc][all][osprofiler] OSprofiler is dead, long live OSprofiler

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 02:57:37AM -0800, Boris Pavlovic wrote: > Hi stackers, > > Intro > --- > > It's not a big secret that OpenStack is huge and complicated ecosystem of > different > services that are working together to implement OpenStack API. > > For example booting VM is going

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [tc][all][osprofiler] OSprofiler is dead, long live OSprofiler

regarding ceilometer+oslo.messaging backend[1]. i feel like i should mention, i'm not sure how you guys are using the query but i should mention that is not the correct way to use Ceilometer meters as it currently isn't measuring anything (see hardcoded - volume:1) again, i'm not sure what

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Performance Team summit session results

Mark, yes, sorry for not mentioning it here. it's 3PM - 4PM UTC time zone. Cheers, Dina On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Mark Wagner wrote: > > For clarification, this is 3-4 PM (15:00 - 16:00) UTC, correct ?. > > -mark > > - Original Message - > > From: "Dina

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Excerpts from James King's message of 2015-11-09 08:47:08 -0800: > disclaimer: I’ve never worked in a software auditing department or on in a > company with one > > What about risk-averse organizations with strict policy compliance > guidelines? Can we expect them to audit a new distribution of

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On 2015-11-09 17:11:35 + (+), Tom Cameron wrote: [...] > I support an LTS release strategy because it will allow more > adoption for more sectors by offering that stability everyone's > talking about. But, it shouldn't be a super-super long support > offering. Maybe steal some of Ubuntu's

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Performance Team summit session results

For clarification, this is 3-4 PM (15:00 - 16:00) UTC, correct ?. -mark - Original Message - > From: "Dina Belova" > To: "Matt Riedemann" > Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List" , >

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

James, > What about risk-averse organizations with strict policy compliance guidelines? I strongly suspect most operators don't have customers (internal or otherwise) clamouring to upgrade every 6 months. But 5 years is, frankly, absurd. But, to the point about auditing, many organizations

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

>From your other thread... >Or else you're saying you intend to fix the current inability of our projects >to skip intermediate releases entirely during upgrades I think without knowing it, that's what most would be suggesting, yeah. Of course, like you mentioned, the real work is in how

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

BTW, what's the EOL date of Juno? On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:50 PM, Tom Cameron wrote: > On a personal level, supporting the same release of an open source project > for 5 years is something you should pay for...dearly. If operators have > customers that are pinned to

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On a personal level, supporting the same release of an open source project for 5 years is something you should pay for...dearly. If operators have customers that are pinned to Juno for some reason I couldn't imagine right now, and they're willing to pay us to support it, then great! But I

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

disclaimer: I’ve never worked in a software auditing department or on in a company with one What about risk-averse organizations with strict policy compliance guidelines? Can we expect them to audit a new distribution of Openstack every 6 months? Some sort of community-supported LTS system

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev][tc][all][osprofiler] OSprofiler is dead, long live OSprofiler

+1 from me (although I've already contributed to osprofiler so my vote might not count, ha). Anyway, people can poke me as well if they have any questions about osprofiler and boris isn't around. I'm happy to answer any questions as well... Thanks boris for getting this rolling again... Another

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Thanks Jeremy, I hope it come earlier personally. Our company is designing next could product release, based on Juno. Now I have powerful talking points ;) On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2015-11-10 00:18:34 +0800 (+0800), Gareth wrote: >> BTW,

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On 11/09/15 22:18, matt wrote: Hell. There's no clear upgrade path, and no guaranteed matched functionality just for starters. Also most enterprise deployments do 3 to 5 year deployment plans. This ties into how equipment / power / resources are budgeted in the project plans. They don't

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

tons from what i've seen. there are a LOT of havana and even earlier stuff out there. essex is still out there in the wild. On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2015-11-09 19:01:36 + (+), Tom Cameron wrote: > [...] > > What do the user/operator

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:18:16PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: :On 2015-11-09 19:01:36 + (+), Tom Cameron wrote: :[...] :> What do the user/operator surveys say about the usage of older :> releases? What portion of the user base is actually on releases :> prior to Havana? : :The most

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On 2015-11-09 19:35:21 + (+), Kevin Bringard (kevinbri) wrote: [...] > Perhaps a good solution would be for the foundation to allow a > process by which vendors may maintain "canonical" (no pun > intended) stable branches which are community endorsed. Then > everyone has a common stable

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

I wonder how many people forgot to update their cloud in the user survey. I almost did this, I noticed it had my cloud pre-defined and almost clicked next. Versus going in and editing the cloud to make sure the details were correct (they weren't). If I forgot to do this – I would have been

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

All good points, but I’m not sure about the 3-5 window…it’s so anti-cloud. Although I think many of us are not doing cloudy things with OpenStack. That said, RedHat’s stable OSP releases are trailing 6mos behind community releases. And many of us do site-stability testing that lasts for months

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On 2015-11-09 19:01:36 + (+), Tom Cameron wrote: [...] > What do the user/operator surveys say about the usage of older > releases? What portion of the user base is actually on releases > prior to Havana? The most recent OpenStack User Survey Report has an awesome trending analysis

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev][tc][all][osprofiler] OSprofiler is dead, long live OSprofiler

Joshua, I believe that was one of the original complaints/questions, is that > with osprofiler there is now 2 trace like headers > (https://github.com/openstack/osprofiler/blob/master/osprofiler/web.py#L36 > ) > and such being sent around, should we nail that down now and put that >

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On 11/09/15 22:06, Tom Cameron wrote: I would not call that the extreme minority. I would say a good percentage of users are on only getting to Juno now. The survey seems to indicate lots of people are on Havana, Icehouse and Juno in production. I would love to see the survey ask _why_ people

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

>I would not call that the extreme minority. >I would say a good percentage of users are on only getting to Juno now. The survey seems to indicate lots of people are on Havana, Icehouse and Juno in production. I would love to see the survey ask _why_ people are on older versions because for

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

YOLO. Because it's in The Cloud. -- Tom Cameron From: Donald Talton Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 15:41 To: matt; Tom Cameron Cc: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Subject: RE: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all]

[Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev][tc][all][osprofiler] OSprofiler is dead, long live OSprofiler

Hi stackers, Intro --- It's not a big secret that OpenStack is huge and complicated ecosystem of different services that are working together to implement OpenStack API. For example booting VM is going through many projects and services: nova-api, nova-scheduler, nova-compute, glance-api,

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Sean, I am not sure this can be completely or even satisfactorily addressed by the OpenStack community. A part of the problem is supporting environment. As OpenStack advances it relies on advancing underlying operating systems and development environments. Example is the shift from 12.04

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Performance Team summit session results

Folks, due to the doodle 3:00 - 4:00 UTC Tuesdays (starting from tomorrow) is ok for all voted people. Although for the US folks with PST time zone it'll be very early due to the time zone change happened for US on November, 1st. Still hope seeing

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Performance Team summit session results

Matt, thank you so much for covering [1], [2] and [3] points - I'll ping folks who've written these lines directly and will try to find out the answers. Cheers, Dina On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > > On 10/29/2015 10:55 AM, Matt Riedemann

[Openstack-operators] How to install and use Barbican in Openstack

Hi, guys Can anyone share me some documents about installing and using Barbican in Openstack(Kilo)? Thanks. Regards, ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [tc][all][osprofiler] OSprofiler is dead, long live OSprofiler

Boris, I believe finishing work related to OSprofiler development is crucial for the teams like Performance Team kicked off during the Tokyo summit. I'll raise question is people are interested in taking part in its development tomorrow on IRC meeting