Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Chris Morgan]

+1

Greetings from Reykjavik

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 2, 2018, at 8:58 PM,  
>  wrote:
> 
> +1
>  
> From: Erik McCormick [mailto:emccorm...@cirrusseven.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 3:57 PM
> To: Melvin Hillsman 
> Cc: openstack-operators 
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User 
> Feedback
>  
> I'm a +1 too as long as the devs at large are cool with it and won't hate on 
> us for crashing their party. I also +1 the proposed format.  It's basically 
> what we're discussed in Tokyo. Make it so. 
>  
> Cheers 
> Erik
>  
> PS. Sorry for the radio silence the past couple weeks. Vacation,  kids,  etc.
>  
> On Apr 2, 2018 4:18 PM, "Melvin Hillsman"  wrote:
> Unless anyone has any objections I believe we have quorum Jimmy.
>  
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Melvin Hillsman  wrote:
> +1
>  
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Jimmy McArthur  wrote:
> Hi all -
> 
> I'd like to check in to see if we've come to a consensus on the colocation of 
> the Ops Meetup.  Please let us know as soon as possible as we have to alert 
> our events team.
> 
> Thanks!
> Jimmy
> 
> 
> Chris Morgan
> March 27, 2018 at 11:44 AM
> Hello Everyone,
>   This proposal looks to have very good backing in the community. There was 
> an informal IRC meeting today with the meetups team, some of the foundation 
> folk and others and everyone seems to like a proposal put forward as a sample 
> definition of the combined event - I certainly do, it looks like we could 
> have a really great combined event in September. 
>  
> I volunteered to share that a bit later today with some other info. In the 
> meanwhile if you have a viewpoint please do chime in here as we'd like to 
> declare this agreed by the community ASAP, so in particular IF YOU OBJECT 
> please speak up by end of week, this week.
>  
> Thanks!
>  
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
>  
> --
> Chris Morgan 
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> Jonathan Proulx
> March 23, 2018 at 10:07 AM
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:02:48PM -0700, Yih Leong, Sun. wrote:
> :I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG.
> :Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a
> :try.
> :
> :Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to
> :meet and offline discussion. :)
> 
> Agreeing stongly with Matt and Melvin's comments about Forum -vs-
> PTG/OpsMidcycle
> 
> PTG/OpsMidcycle (as I see them) are about focusing inside teams to get
> work done ("how" is a a good one word I think). The advantage of
> colocation is for cross team questions like "we're thinking of doing
> this thing this way, does this have any impacts on your work my might
> not have considered", can get a quick respose in the hall, at lunch,
> or over beers as Yih Leong suggests.
> 
> Forum has become about coming to gather across groups for more
> conceptual "what" discussions.
> 
> So I also thing they are very distinct and I do see potential benefits
> to colocation.
> 
> We do need to watch out for downsides. The concerns around colocation
> seemed mostly about larger events costing more and being generally
> harder to organize. If we try we will find out if there is merit to
> this concern, but (IMO) it is important to keep both of the
> events as cheap and simple as possible.
> 
> -Jon
> 
> :
> :On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman  wrote:
> :
> :> Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very
> :> base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is my +2
> :> since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and agree
> :> with them here as I have in individual discussions.
> :>
> :> If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least giving
> :> this a try.
> :>
> :> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Matt Van Winkle 
> :> wrote:
> :>
> :>> Hey folks,
> :>> Great discussion! There are number of points to comment on going back
> :>> through the last few emails. I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's
> :>> latest below. From a User Committee perspective (and as a member of the
> :>> Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of co-location, but
> :>> have come to see a lot of value in it. I'll point some of that out as I
> :>> respond to specific comments, but first a couple of overarching points.
> :>>
> :>> In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the
> :>> software should do. Keeping the discussions focused on behavior, feature
> :>> and function has made it much easier for an operator to participate
> 

[Openstack-operators] Last chance Vancouver Summit Early Birds!

[Mark Collier]

Hey Stackers,

You’ve got TWO DAYS left to snag an early bird ticket, which is $699 for a full 
access, week-long pass. That’s four days of 300+ sessions and workshops on 
OpenStack, containers, edge, CI/CD and HPC/GPU/AI in Vancouver May 21-24th.

The OpenStack Summit is my favorite place to meet and learn from smart, driven, 
funny people from all over the world. Will you join me in Vancouver May 21-24? 
OpenStack.org/summit  has the details.

Who else will you meet in Vancouver? 

- An OpenStack developer to discuss the future of the software?
- A Kubernetes expert in one of more than 60 sessions about Kubernetes?
- A Foundation member who can help you learn how to contribute code upstream at 
the Upstream Institute?
- Other enterprises & service providers running OpenStack at scale like 
JPMorgan Chase, Progressive Insurance, Google, Target, Walmart, Yahoo!, China 
Mobile, AT, Verizon, China Railway, and Yahoo! Japan?
- Your next employee… or employer?

Key links:
Register: openstack.org/summit  (Early bird 
pricing ends April 4 at 11:59pm Pacific Time / April 5 6:59 UTC)
Full Schedule: 
https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2018/summit-schedule/#day=2018-05-21 

Hotel Discounts: https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2018/travel/ 

Sponsor: https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2018/sponsors/ 

Code of Conduct: 
https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2018/code-of-conduct/ 


See you at the Summit!

Mark
twitter.com/sparkycollier ___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Arkady.Kanevsky]

+1

From: Erik McCormick [mailto:emccorm...@cirrusseven.com]
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 3:57 PM
To: Melvin Hillsman 
Cc: openstack-operators 
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User 
Feedback

I'm a +1 too as long as the devs at large are cool with it and won't hate on us 
for crashing their party. I also +1 the proposed format.  It's basically what 
we're discussed in Tokyo. Make it so.

Cheers
Erik

PS. Sorry for the radio silence the past couple weeks. Vacation,  kids,  etc.

On Apr 2, 2018 4:18 PM, "Melvin Hillsman" 
> wrote:
Unless anyone has any objections I believe we have quorum Jimmy.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Melvin Hillsman 
> wrote:
+1

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Jimmy McArthur 
> wrote:
Hi all -

I'd like to check in to see if we've come to a consensus on the colocation of 
the Ops Meetup.  Please let us know as soon as possible as we have to alert our 
events team.

Thanks!
Jimmy


Chris Morgan
March 27, 2018 at 11:44 AM
Hello Everyone,
  This proposal looks to have very good backing in the community. There was an 
informal IRC meeting today with the meetups team, some of the foundation folk 
and others and everyone seems to like a proposal put forward as a sample 
definition of the combined event - I certainly do, it looks like we could have 
a really great combined event in September.

I volunteered to share that a bit later today with some other info. In the 
meanwhile if you have a viewpoint please do chime in here as we'd like to 
declare this agreed by the community ASAP, so in particular IF YOU OBJECT 
please speak up by end of week, this week.

Thanks!

Chris




--
Chris Morgan >
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Jonathan Proulx
March 23, 2018 at 10:07 AM
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:02:48PM -0700, Yih Leong, Sun. wrote:
:I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG.
:Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a
:try.
:
:Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to
:meet and offline discussion. :)

Agreeing stongly with Matt and Melvin's comments about Forum -vs-
PTG/OpsMidcycle

PTG/OpsMidcycle (as I see them) are about focusing inside teams to get
work done ("how" is a a good one word I think). The advantage of
colocation is for cross team questions like "we're thinking of doing
this thing this way, does this have any impacts on your work my might
not have considered", can get a quick respose in the hall, at lunch,
or over beers as Yih Leong suggests.

Forum has become about coming to gather across groups for more
conceptual "what" discussions.

So I also thing they are very distinct and I do see potential benefits
to colocation.

We do need to watch out for downsides. The concerns around colocation
seemed mostly about larger events costing more and being generally
harder to organize. If we try we will find out if there is merit to
this concern, but (IMO) it is important to keep both of the
events as cheap and simple as possible.

-Jon

:
:On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman 
 wrote:
:
:> Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very
:> base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is my +2
:> since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and agree
:> with them here as I have in individual discussions.
:>
:> If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least giving
:> this a try.
:>
:> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Matt Van Winkle 

:> wrote:
:>
:>> Hey folks,
:>> Great discussion! There are number of points to comment on going back
:>> through the last few emails. I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's
:>> latest below. From a User Committee perspective (and as a member of the
:>> Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of co-location, but
:>> have come to see a lot of value in it. I'll point some of that out as I
:>> respond to specific comments, but first a couple of overarching points.
:>>
:>> In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the
:>> software should do. Keeping the discussions focused on behavior, feature
:>> and function has made it much easier for an operator to participate
:>> effectively in the conversation versus the older, design sessions, that
:>> focused largely on blueprints, coding 

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Erik McCormick]

I'm a +1 too as long as the devs at large are cool with it and won't hate
on us for crashing their party. I also +1 the proposed format.  It's
basically what we're discussed in Tokyo. Make it so.

Cheers
Erik

PS. Sorry for the radio silence the past couple weeks. Vacation,  kids,
etc.

On Apr 2, 2018 4:18 PM, "Melvin Hillsman"  wrote:

Unless anyone has any objections I believe we have quorum Jimmy.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Melvin Hillsman 
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Jimmy McArthur 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all -
>>
>> I'd like to check in to see if we've come to a consensus on the
>> colocation of the Ops Meetup.  Please let us know as soon as possible as we
>> have to alert our events team.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Jimmy
>>
>> Chris Morgan 
>> March 27, 2018 at 11:44 AM
>> Hello Everyone,
>>   This proposal looks to have very good backing in the community. There
>> was an informal IRC meeting today with the meetups team, some of the
>> foundation folk and others and everyone seems to like a proposal put
>> forward as a sample definition of the combined event - I certainly do, it
>> looks like we could have a really great combined event in September.
>>
>> I volunteered to share that a bit later today with some other info. In
>> the meanwhile if you have a viewpoint please do chime in here as we'd like
>> to declare this agreed by the community ASAP, so in particular IF YOU
>> OBJECT please speak up by end of week, this week.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Chris Morgan 
>> ___
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>> Jonathan Proulx 
>> March 23, 2018 at 10:07 AM
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:02:48PM -0700, Yih Leong, Sun. wrote:
>> :I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG.
>> :Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a
>> :try.
>> :
>> :Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to
>> :meet and offline discussion. :)
>>
>> Agreeing stongly with Matt and Melvin's comments about Forum -vs-
>> PTG/OpsMidcycle
>>
>> PTG/OpsMidcycle (as I see them) are about focusing inside teams to get
>> work done ("how" is a a good one word I think). The advantage of
>> colocation is for cross team questions like "we're thinking of doing
>> this thing this way, does this have any impacts on your work my might
>> not have considered", can get a quick respose in the hall, at lunch,
>> or over beers as Yih Leong suggests.
>>
>> Forum has become about coming to gather across groups for more
>> conceptual "what" discussions.
>>
>> So I also thing they are very distinct and I do see potential benefits
>> to colocation.
>>
>> We do need to watch out for downsides. The concerns around colocation
>> seemed mostly about larger events costing more and being generally
>> harder to organize. If we try we will find out if there is merit to
>> this concern, but (IMO) it is important to keep both of the
>> events as cheap and simple as possible.
>>
>> -Jon
>>
>> :
>> :On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman 
>>  wrote:
>> :
>> :> Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very
>> :> base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is my
>> +2
>> :> since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and
>> agree
>> :> with them here as I have in individual discussions.
>> :>
>> :> If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least
>> giving
>> :> this a try.
>> :>
>> :> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Matt Van Winkle
>>  
>> :> wrote:
>> :>
>> :>> Hey folks,
>> :>> Great discussion! There are number of points to comment on going back
>> :>> through the last few emails. I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's
>> :>> latest below. From a User Committee perspective (and as a member of
>> the
>> :>> Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of co-location,
>> but
>> :>> have come to see a lot of value in it. I'll point some of that out as
>> I
>> :>> respond to specific comments, but first a couple of overarching
>> points.
>> :>>
>> :>> In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the
>> :>> software should do. Keeping the discussions focused on behavior,
>> feature
>> :>> and function has made it much easier for an operator to participate
>> :>> effectively in the conversation versus the older, design sessions,
>> that
>> :>> focused largely on blueprints, coding approaches, etc. These are HOW
>> the
>> :>> developers should make things work and, now, are a large part of the
>> focus
>> :>> of the PTG. I realize it's not that cut and dry, but 

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Amy Marrich]

+2, I think all concerns have been addressed

Amy (spotz)

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Sean McGinnis  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 03:15:56PM -0500, Melvin Hillsman wrote:
> > Unless anyone has any objections I believe we have quorum Jimmy.
> >
>
> I agree, I think the feedback I've heard so far is that all parties are
> willing
> to give this a shot. I think we should go ahead.
>
> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Melvin Hillsman 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Jimmy McArthur 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all -
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to check in to see if we've come to a consensus on the
> > >> colocation of the Ops Meetup.  Please let us know as soon as possible
> as we
> > >> have to alert our events team.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >> Jimmy
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Sean McGinnis]

On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 03:15:56PM -0500, Melvin Hillsman wrote:
> Unless anyone has any objections I believe we have quorum Jimmy.
> 

I agree, I think the feedback I've heard so far is that all parties are willing
to give this a shot. I think we should go ahead.

> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Melvin Hillsman 
> wrote:
> 
> > +1
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Jimmy McArthur 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all -
> >>
> >> I'd like to check in to see if we've come to a consensus on the
> >> colocation of the Ops Meetup.  Please let us know as soon as possible as we
> >> have to alert our events team.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Jimmy

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Melvin Hillsman]

+1

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Jimmy McArthur  wrote:

> Hi all -
>
> I'd like to check in to see if we've come to a consensus on the colocation
> of the Ops Meetup.  Please let us know as soon as possible as we have to
> alert our events team.
>
> Thanks!
> Jimmy
>
> Chris Morgan 
> March 27, 2018 at 11:44 AM
> Hello Everyone,
>   This proposal looks to have very good backing in the community. There
> was an informal IRC meeting today with the meetups team, some of the
> foundation folk and others and everyone seems to like a proposal put
> forward as a sample definition of the combined event - I certainly do, it
> looks like we could have a really great combined event in September.
>
> I volunteered to share that a bit later today with some other info. In the
> meanwhile if you have a viewpoint please do chime in here as we'd like to
> declare this agreed by the community ASAP, so in particular IF YOU OBJECT
> please speak up by end of week, this week.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Morgan 
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> Jonathan Proulx 
> March 23, 2018 at 10:07 AM
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:02:48PM -0700, Yih Leong, Sun. wrote:
> :I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG.
> :Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a
> :try.
> :
> :Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to
> :meet and offline discussion. :)
>
> Agreeing stongly with Matt and Melvin's comments about Forum -vs-
> PTG/OpsMidcycle
>
> PTG/OpsMidcycle (as I see them) are about focusing inside teams to get
> work done ("how" is a a good one word I think). The advantage of
> colocation is for cross team questions like "we're thinking of doing
> this thing this way, does this have any impacts on your work my might
> not have considered", can get a quick respose in the hall, at lunch,
> or over beers as Yih Leong suggests.
>
> Forum has become about coming to gather across groups for more
> conceptual "what" discussions.
>
> So I also thing they are very distinct and I do see potential benefits
> to colocation.
>
> We do need to watch out for downsides. The concerns around colocation
> seemed mostly about larger events costing more and being generally
> harder to organize. If we try we will find out if there is merit to
> this concern, but (IMO) it is important to keep both of the
> events as cheap and simple as possible.
>
> -Jon
>
> :
> :On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman 
>  wrote:
> :
> :> Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very
> :> base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is my
> +2
> :> since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and agree
> :> with them here as I have in individual discussions.
> :>
> :> If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least
> giving
> :> this a try.
> :>
> :> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Matt Van Winkle
>  
> :> wrote:
> :>
> :>> Hey folks,
> :>> Great discussion! There are number of points to comment on going back
> :>> through the last few emails. I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's
> :>> latest below. From a User Committee perspective (and as a member of the
> :>> Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of co-location,
> but
> :>> have come to see a lot of value in it. I'll point some of that out as I
> :>> respond to specific comments, but first a couple of overarching points.
> :>>
> :>> In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the
> :>> software should do. Keeping the discussions focused on behavior,
> feature
> :>> and function has made it much easier for an operator to participate
> :>> effectively in the conversation versus the older, design sessions, that
> :>> focused largely on blueprints, coding approaches, etc. These are HOW
> the
> :>> developers should make things work and, now, are a large part of the
> focus
> :>> of the PTG. I realize it's not that cut and dry, but current model has
> :>> allowed for this division of "what" and "how" in many areas, and I know
> :>> several who have found it valuable.
> :>>
> :>> The other contextual thing to remember is the PTG was the effective
> :>> combining of all the various team mid-cycle meetups that were
> occurring.
> :>> The current Ops mid-cycle was born in that same period. While it's
> purpose
> :>> was a little different, it's spirit is the same - gather a team (in
> this
> :>> case operators) together outside the hustle and bustle of a summit to
> :>> discuss common issues, topics, etc. I'll also point out, that they have
> :>> been good vehicles 

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Jimmy McArthur]

Hi all -

I'd like to check in to see if we've come to a consensus on the 
colocation of the Ops Meetup.  Please let us know as soon as possible as 
we have to alert our events team.


Thanks!
Jimmy


Chris Morgan 
March 27, 2018 at 11:44 AM
Hello Everyone,
  This proposal looks to have very good backing in the community. 
There was an informal IRC meeting today with the meetups team, some of 
the foundation folk and others and everyone seems to like a proposal 
put forward as a sample definition of the combined event - I certainly 
do, it looks like we could have a really great combined event in 
September.


I volunteered to share that a bit later today with some other info. In 
the meanwhile if you have a viewpoint please do chime in here as we'd 
like to declare this agreed by the community ASAP, so in particular IF 
YOU OBJECT please speak up by end of week, this week.


Thanks!

Chris




--
Chris Morgan >
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Jonathan Proulx 
March 23, 2018 at 10:07 AM
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:02:48PM -0700, Yih Leong, Sun. wrote:
:I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG.
:Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a
:try.
:
:Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to
:meet and offline discussion. :)

Agreeing stongly with Matt and Melvin's comments about Forum -vs-
PTG/OpsMidcycle

PTG/OpsMidcycle (as I see them) are about focusing inside teams to get
work done ("how" is a a good one word I think). The advantage of
colocation is for cross team questions like "we're thinking of doing
this thing this way, does this have any impacts on your work my might
not have considered", can get a quick respose in the hall, at lunch,
or over beers as Yih Leong suggests.

Forum has become about coming to gather across groups for more
conceptual "what" discussions.

So I also thing they are very distinct and I do see potential benefits
to colocation.

We do need to watch out for downsides. The concerns around colocation
seemed mostly about larger events costing more and being generally
harder to organize. If we try we will find out if there is merit to
this concern, but (IMO) it is important to keep both of the
events as cheap and simple as possible.

-Jon

:
:On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman  
wrote:

:
:> Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very
:> base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is 
my +2
:> since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and 
agree

:> with them here as I have in individual discussions.
:>
:> If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least 
giving

:> this a try.
:>
:> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Matt Van Winkle 


:> wrote:
:>
:>> Hey folks,
:>> Great discussion! There are number of points to comment on going back
:>> through the last few emails. I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's
:>> latest below. From a User Committee perspective (and as a member 
of the
:>> Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of 
co-location, but
:>> have come to see a lot of value in it. I'll point some of that out 
as I
:>> respond to specific comments, but first a couple of overarching 
points.

:>>
:>> In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the
:>> software should do. Keeping the discussions focused on behavior, 
feature

:>> and function has made it much easier for an operator to participate
:>> effectively in the conversation versus the older, design sessions, 
that
:>> focused largely on blueprints, coding approaches, etc. These are 
HOW the
:>> developers should make things work and, now, are a large part of 
the focus

:>> of the PTG. I realize it's not that cut and dry, but current model has
:>> allowed for this division of "what" and "how" in many areas, and I 
know

:>> several who have found it valuable.
:>>
:>> The other contextual thing to remember is the PTG was the effective
:>> combining of all the various team mid-cycle meetups that were 
occurring.
:>> The current Ops mid-cycle was born in that same period. While it's 
purpose
:>> was a little different, it's spirit is the same - gather a team 
(in this

:>> case operators) together outside the hustle and bustle of a summit to
:>> discuss common issues, topics, etc. I'll also point out, that they 
have
:>> been good vehicles in the Ops community to get new folks 
integrated. For

:>> the purpose of this discussion, though, one could argue this is just
:>> bringing the last mid-cycle event in to the fold.
:>>
:>> On 3/21/18, 4:40 AM, "Thierry Carrez"  wrote:
:>>
:>> 

Re: [Openstack-operators] nova-placement-api tuning

[Alex Schultz]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 11:11 AM, iain MacDonnell
 wrote:
>
>
> On 03/29/2018 02:13 AM, Belmiro Moreira wrote:
>>
>> Some lessons so far...
>> - Scale keystone accordingly when enabling placement.
>
>
> Speaking of which; I suppose I have the same question for keystone
> (currently running under httpd also). I'm currently using threads=1, based
> on this (IIRC):
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/puppet-keystone/+bug/1602530
>
> but I'm not sure if that's valid?
>
> Between placement and ceilometer feeding gnocchi, keystone is kept very
> busy.
>
> Recommendations for processes/threads for keystone? And any other tuning
> hints... ?
>

So this is/was valid. A few years back there was some perf tests done
with various combinations of process/threads and for Keystone it was
determined that threads should be 1 while you should adjust the
process count (hence the bug). Now I guess the question is for every
service what is the optimal configuration but I'm not sure there's
anyone who's looking at this in the upstream for all the services.  In
the puppet modules for consistency we applied a similar concept for
all the services when they are deployed under apache.  It can be tuned
as needed for each service but I don't think we have any great
examples of perf numbers. It's really a YMMV thing. We ship a basic
default that isn't crazy, but it's probably not optimal either.

Thanks,
-Alex

> Thanks!
>
> ~iain
>
>
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators