From rp2723 at att.com Thu May 6 13:38:34 2021 From: rp2723 at att.com (PACHECO, RODOLFO J) Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 13:38:34 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] Thursday May 6th - Design Call - need to cancel Message-ID: Sorry for the late notice , unfortunately I need to cancel the Design Call today, neither Matt or me can be there. We can discuss the topics in hackmd on Tuesday. Regards Rodolfo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From MM9745 at att.com Tue May 11 14:02:04 2021 From: MM9745 at att.com (MCEUEN, MATT) Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 14:02:04 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] Cancelled: IRC team meeting (5/11) Message-ID: Sorry for the late notice. Today's Airship IRC meeting is cancelled. Please add any topics you'd like to discuss next time (5/11) to the agenda etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/airship-team-meeting Thanks, Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ak3216 at att.com Thu May 13 22:05:45 2021 From: ak3216 at att.com (KARANDJEFF, ANDREW) Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 22:05:45 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] Airship 2 Troubleshooting Guide Message-ID: As Airship 2 begins to roll out, we want to provide an easy & flexible way to gather tips, gotchas, workarounds, etc. Long term, this will be included in the Troubleshooting Guide as part of our standard documentation, but to start the process we've created a hackMD page to get input from the community. It can be found at the link below. Thank you in advance for any contributions! https://hackmd.io/Nbc4XF6mQBmutMX_FEs51Q Andrew Karandjeff Principal System Engineer Network Cloud Platform Design Team AT&T Services Inc. 3400 W Plano Pkwy, Plano, TX 75075 m 470 985-5484 | a.karandjeff at att.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ab805p at att.com Fri May 14 19:20:21 2021 From: ab805p at att.com (BAILEY, ALEXANDER) Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 19:20:21 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] Technical Committee Vote - Combining Airship Working Committees Message-ID: Hello Airship Technical Committee, As we'd discussed on our last meeting, let's take a formal vote on our proposal to combine the Airship Working and Technical Committees. The proposal is as follows: The Airship Technical and Working committees shall be combined into a single committee with name TBD. The size of the new committee shall initially be 9 members, with no single employer able to occupy more than 4 of those 9 slots. We can have follow up discussions to determine whether 9 is the right number of committee members, or if that should be adjusted. The outcome of our vote will help the current Airship Working Committee determine whether or not to go to a vote on combining the committees. If our vote passes, and the Working Committee vote passes, the Working Committee will have the responsibility of updating the Airship community governance. Please reply all to this thread to a +1 or a -1 by end of day Monday May 17th. Alex Bailey Scrum Master Cloud Platforms Development -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ab805p at att.com Fri May 14 19:23:08 2021 From: ab805p at att.com (BAILEY, ALEXANDER) Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 19:23:08 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] Technical Committee Vote - Combining Airship Working Committees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Regards, Alex Bailey From: BAILEY, ALEXANDER Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 2:20 PM To: BAILEY, ALEXANDER ; alexander.hughes at pm.me; aodinokov at mirantis.com; j.t.williams at dell.com; Jan-Erik Mångs Cc: wc at airshipit.org; airship-discuss at lists.airshipit.org Subject: Technical Committee Vote - Combining Airship Working Committees Hello Airship Technical Committee, As we'd discussed on our last meeting, let's take a formal vote on our proposal to combine the Airship Working and Technical Committees. The proposal is as follows: The Airship Technical and Working committees shall be combined into a single committee with name TBD. The size of the new committee shall initially be 9 members, with no single employer able to occupy more than 4 of those 9 slots. We can have follow up discussions to determine whether 9 is the right number of committee members, or if that should be adjusted. The outcome of our vote will help the current Airship Working Committee determine whether or not to go to a vote on combining the committees. If our vote passes, and the Working Committee vote passes, the Working Committee will have the responsibility of updating the Airship community governance. Please reply all to this thread to a +1 or a -1 by end of day Monday May 17th. Alex Bailey Scrum Master Cloud Platforms Development -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From MM9745 at att.com Mon May 17 19:27:34 2021 From: MM9745 at att.com (MCEUEN, MATT) Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 19:27:34 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] Proposal: retire the IRC/Slack biweekly meeting Message-ID: Airship team, In today's working committee meeting we discussed retiring the bi-weekly IRC/Slack meeting, with favorable reception to the idea. We feel that the meeting has become redundant to the Design Meetings + Flightplan meeting, which is reflected in the fact that we've nearly always cancelled the IRC meetings due to lack of agenda topics over the past few months. I'd like to seek feedback from the wider team on this change - please let us know if anyone has concerns or would like to retain the meeting in its present or a modified form. Thanks, Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ak3216 at att.com Mon May 17 19:31:20 2021 From: ak3216 at att.com (KARANDJEFF, ANDREW) Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 19:31:20 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] Proposal: retire the IRC/Slack biweekly meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 for retiring Andrew From: MCEUEN, MATT Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 14:28 To: airship-discuss at lists.airshipit.org Subject: [Airship-discuss] Proposal: retire the IRC/Slack biweekly meeting ***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T *** Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information. Airship team, In today's working committee meeting we discussed retiring the bi-weekly IRC/Slack meeting, with favorable reception to the idea. We feel that the meeting has become redundant to the Design Meetings + Flightplan meeting, which is reflected in the fact that we've nearly always cancelled the IRC meetings due to lack of agenda topics over the past few months. I'd like to seek feedback from the wider team on this change - please let us know if anyone has concerns or would like to retain the meeting in its present or a modified form. Thanks, Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mf4716 at att.com Mon May 17 19:33:21 2021 From: mf4716 at att.com (FIX, MICHAEL A) Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 19:33:21 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] Proposal: retire the IRC/Slack biweekly meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 to retire From: KARANDJEFF, ANDREW Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 2:31 PM To: airship-discuss at lists.airshipit.org Subject: Re: [Airship-discuss] Proposal: retire the IRC/Slack biweekly meeting ***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T *** Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information. +1 for retiring Andrew From: MCEUEN, MATT > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 14:28 To: airship-discuss at lists.airshipit.org Subject: [Airship-discuss] Proposal: retire the IRC/Slack biweekly meeting ***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T *** Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information. Airship team, In today's working committee meeting we discussed retiring the bi-weekly IRC/Slack meeting, with favorable reception to the idea. We feel that the meeting has become redundant to the Design Meetings + Flightplan meeting, which is reflected in the fact that we've nearly always cancelled the IRC meetings due to lack of agenda topics over the past few months. I'd like to seek feedback from the wider team on this change - please let us know if anyone has concerns or would like to retain the meeting in its present or a modified form. Thanks, Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paye600 at gmail.com Tue May 18 04:29:21 2021 From: paye600 at gmail.com (Roman Gorshunov) Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 06:29:21 +0200 Subject: [Airship-discuss] Proposal: retire the IRC/Slack biweekly meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 to retire — Roman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aodinokov at mirantis.com Tue May 18 18:21:40 2021 From: aodinokov at mirantis.com (Alexey Odinokov) Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 13:21:40 -0500 Subject: [Airship-discuss] Technical Committee Vote - Combining Airship Working Committees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry. I missed that email. +1 (even though it doesn't change anything) On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 2:23 PM BAILEY, ALEXANDER wrote: > +1 > > > > Regards, > > Alex Bailey > > > > *From:* BAILEY, ALEXANDER > *Sent:* Friday, May 14, 2021 2:20 PM > *To:* BAILEY, ALEXANDER ; alexander.hughes at pm.me; > aodinokov at mirantis.com; j.t.williams at dell.com; Jan-Erik Mångs < > jan-erik.mangs at ericsson.com> > *Cc:* wc at airshipit.org; airship-discuss at lists.airshipit.org > *Subject:* Technical Committee Vote - Combining Airship Working Committees > > > > Hello Airship Technical Committee, > > > > As we’d discussed on our last meeting, let’s take a formal vote on our > proposal to combine the Airship Working and Technical Committees. > > > > The proposal is as follows: *The Airship Technical and Working committees > shall be combined into a single committee with name TBD. The size of the > new committee shall initially be 9 members, with no single employer able to > occupy more than 4 of those 9 slots.* > > > > We can have follow up discussions to determine whether 9 is the right > number of committee members, or if that should be adjusted. The outcome of > our vote will help the current Airship Working Committee determine whether > or not to go to a vote on combining the committees. If our vote passes, > and the Working Committee vote passes, the Working Committee will have the > responsibility of updating the Airship community governance. > > > > Please reply all to this thread to a +1 or a -1 by end of day Monday May 17 > th. > > > > *Alex Bailey* > > Scrum Master > > Cloud Platforms Development > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From J.T.Williams at dell.com Tue May 18 19:31:37 2021 From: J.T.Williams at dell.com (Williams, J T) Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 19:31:37 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] Technical Committee Vote - Combining Airship Working Committees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dell Customer Communication - Confidential +1 From: Alexey Odinokov Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 1:22 PM To: BAILEY, ALEXANDER Cc: alexander.hughes at pm.me; Williams, J T; Jan-Erik Mångs; wc at airshipit.org; airship-discuss at lists.airshipit.org Subject: Re: Technical Committee Vote - Combining Airship Working Committees [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Sorry. I missed that email. +1 (even though it doesn't change anything) On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 2:23 PM BAILEY, ALEXANDER > wrote: +1 Regards, Alex Bailey From: BAILEY, ALEXANDER > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 2:20 PM To: BAILEY, ALEXANDER >; alexander.hughes at pm.me; aodinokov at mirantis.com; j.t.williams at dell.com; Jan-Erik Mångs > Cc: wc at airshipit.org; airship-discuss at lists.airshipit.org Subject: Technical Committee Vote - Combining Airship Working Committees Hello Airship Technical Committee, As we'd discussed on our last meeting, let's take a formal vote on our proposal to combine the Airship Working and Technical Committees. The proposal is as follows: The Airship Technical and Working committees shall be combined into a single committee with name TBD. The size of the new committee shall initially be 9 members, with no single employer able to occupy more than 4 of those 9 slots. We can have follow up discussions to determine whether 9 is the right number of committee members, or if that should be adjusted. The outcome of our vote will help the current Airship Working Committee determine whether or not to go to a vote on combining the committees. If our vote passes, and the Working Committee vote passes, the Working Committee will have the responsibility of updating the Airship community governance. Please reply all to this thread to a +1 or a -1 by end of day Monday May 17th. Alex Bailey Scrum Master Cloud Platforms Development -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fungi at yuggoth.org Fri May 21 19:49:21 2021 From: fungi at yuggoth.org (Jeremy Stanley) Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 19:49:21 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] OpenDev Collaboratory IRC services Message-ID: <20210521194921.gpcnwd4mqxl2rgrf@yuggoth.org> I know lots of people are discussing the recent Freenode IRC upheaval and what it means for their projects. On behalf of the OpenDev sysadmins I've started a thread on the service-discuss at lists.opendev.org mailing list to get feedback from communities currently utilizing the OpenDev Collaboratory's IRC bot services in their channels on Freenode (meeting minutes/logging, Gerrit change events, OpenDev service status information, channel operator assistance): http://lists.opendev.org/pipermail/service-discuss/2021-May/000236.html Please follow up there with your thoughts, to assist in our decision making, so we can take the needs of your project into account. Thanks! -- Jeremy Stanley -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 963 bytes Desc: not available URL: From MM9745 at att.com Mon May 24 21:59:19 2021 From: MM9745 at att.com (MCEUEN, MATT) Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 21:59:19 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] Proposal: retire the IRC/Slack biweekly meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Airship team, Based on consistent feedback in favor of the change, we will discontinue the biweekly slack/IRC team meeting (beginning tomorrow). We'll instead rely on ongoing conversation in the channel along with our other regularly scheduled community meetings. Thanks, Matt From: MCEUEN, MATT Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 2:28 PM To: airship-discuss at lists.airshipit.org Subject: [Airship-discuss] Proposal: retire the IRC/Slack biweekly meeting ***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T *** Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information. Airship team, In today's working committee meeting we discussed retiring the bi-weekly IRC/Slack meeting, with favorable reception to the idea. We feel that the meeting has become redundant to the Design Meetings + Flightplan meeting, which is reflected in the fact that we've nearly always cancelled the IRC meetings due to lack of agenda topics over the past few months. I'd like to seek feedback from the wider team on this change - please let us know if anyone has concerns or would like to retain the meeting in its present or a modified form. Thanks, Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zainub.wahid at xflowresearch.com Tue May 25 16:50:15 2021 From: zainub.wahid at xflowresearch.com (Zainub Wahid) Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 21:50:15 +0500 Subject: [Airship-discuss] RAID Config Implementation Message-ID: Hello everyone, As discussed in today's meeting, this is related to the demo represented by Noor, last year, related to performing RAID configurations in Airship via Metal3 (and Ironic). Add RAID to example hardwareprofile (I50c82ce5) · Gerrit Code Review ( opendev.org) Through Airship, the user should be able to perform RAID configurations on their hardware. The user can specify the RAID controller names and their associated disks, along with the required RAID level, the desired number of disks and the amount of storage required. Here is the proposal for specifying the RAID configuration for a bare metal host via Metal3: https://github.com/metal3-io/metal3-docs/pull/148/files In terms of the CRD, the current implementation of the RAID has the following sections in it, for hardware RAID: spec: raid: hardwareRAIDVolumes: - sizeGibiBytes: 1000 level: 1 name: volume-name rotational: true numberOfPhysicalDisks: 2 We propose to add fields into the CRD, in the following manner: spec: raid: hardwareRAIDVolumes: - sizeGibiBytes: 1000 level: 1 name: volume-1 rotational: true numberOfPhysicalDisks: 2 physicalDisks: - diskName: Disk-1 - diskName: Disk-2 controller: primary-controller - sizeGibiBytes: 2000 level: 0 name: volume-2 rotational: false numberOfPhysicalDisks: 2 physicalDisks: - diskName: Disk-3 - diskName: Disk-4 controller: secondary-controller-2 However, it remains unclear how the user would have the in-depth knowledge of the RAID controllers available to them, along with the vendor-specific disk names. Example disk names (Dell): ['Disk.Bay.0:Enclosure.Internal.0-1:RAID.Intergrated.1-1', 'Disk.Bay.2:Enclosure.Internal.0-1:RAID.Integrated.1-1', 'Disk.Bay.3:Enclosure.Internal.0-1:RAID.Integrated.1-1',...] Example disk names (HP): ['2I:1:1', '2I:1:2', '2I:1:3',...] Example RAID Controllers (Dell): [‘Boss-F1 RAID Controller’, 'Dell PowerEdge RAID Controller H740P', ' Dell PowerEdge RAID Controller H830',...] Example RAID controller (HP): ['HP Smart Array P400 Controller', 'HPE Smart Array E208i-a Controller', 'HPE Smart Array P816i-a Controller',...] One possible solution is to let the user specify the required RAID level, number of disks and storage capacity needed. Metal3 could then validate this request using the Ironic drivers (e.g. Redfish driver, iDRAC driver etc.) in order to ensure the required hardware is available in the cluster. If it is available, the RAID configuration can be applied. Ifnot, the user can be informed about the error. Another solution is that Airship can perform inventory of the storage subsystems available in the cluster, and so the user can construct a RAID configuration accordingly. Conversely, the logic to select the physical disks and associated controllers may be implemented in Airship, whilst the user just specifies the high level requirements. One issue is that Redfish requires the explicit RAID controller and disk names in order to do the RAID configuration, but it would be more convenient if the user did not have to know the low level details of their system. Here is the Redfish Action URI: {Base URI of target resource}/Actions/Volume.ChangeRAIDLayout (Provided in 6.109.4.2 of Redfish Resource and Schema Guide (dmtf.org)) The disk names can be generated using the Redfish logic constructing a human friendly identifier or label for hardware devices. https://github.com/DMTF/Redfish-Tacklebox/blob/e429f70a79cfe288756618498ce485ab4be37131/redfish_utilities/inventory.py#L192 Disk selection logic needs to be implemented in the most appropriate place. Airship may require that the user be unaware of the storage subsystem details when requesting the RAID config. Ironic requires a vendor independent implementation for this purpose. Here is relevant work done in metal3 to support RAID configuration in baremetal servers, using the Fujitsu iRMC driver: https://github.com/metal3-io/baremetal-operator/issues/206 https://github.com/metal3-io/baremetal-operator/pull/292 Warm Regards, Zainub Wahid Network Design Engineer II, xFlow Research Inc. +923044506900 zainub.wahid at xflowresearch.com www.xFlowResearch.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fungi at yuggoth.org Wed May 26 19:33:53 2021 From: fungi at yuggoth.org (Jeremy Stanley) Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 19:33:53 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] OpenDev IRC services are moving to OFTC this weekend Message-ID: <20210526193353.p2rztudskbbcms2z@yuggoth.org> As a majority of our constituent projects have voiced a preference for enacting our long-standing evacuation plan, the OpenDev Collaboratory's IRC service bots will be switching from Freenode to the OFTC network this weekend (May 29-30, 2021). We understand this is short notice, but multiple projects have requested that we act quickly. Please expect some gaps in channel logging and notifications from our various bots over the course of the weekend. I have provided a much more detailed writeup to the service-discuss mailing list, and encourage anyone with questions to read it and follow up there if needed. Subsequent updates will be sent only to service-discuss, in order to limit noise for individual project lists and keep further discussion focused in one place as much as possible: http://lists.opendev.org/pipermail/service-discuss/2021-May/000249.html -- Jeremy Stanley -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 963 bytes Desc: not available URL: From MM9745 at att.com Wed May 26 21:17:24 2021 From: MM9745 at att.com (MCEUEN, MATT) Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 21:17:24 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] RAID Config Implementation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for sharing & summarizing this, Zainub. Phil, Craig, Greg, Darren, (& anyone else with experience with RAID config today) – here are my thoughts; please refine/agree/disagree with them so we can give the Metal3 community good feedback on the interface we need for declarative RAID config. First: long term, we want to be able to declaratively configure all the BIOS settings that need to be configured. Steps like this RAID config are a valuable step in that direction. Second: I think there are use cases for both of these setups, and I’d advocate for M3 facilitating both of them in the long run*: 1. Strongly declarative: I want a RAID-N array on ControllerX with disks [DiskY, DiskZ] 2. Declarative with hints: I want a RAID-N array with two SSDs (and I don’t care what disk or what controller – you figure it out, M3!) * Rook supports something similar – “use all disks:yes/no”, or alternately “use these specific disks:…” Third: I think that #1 is a good fit for our most common use cases, where we put a lot of work into a reference definition, and then stamp it out many times on identical hardware. This is also the simplest implementation and would probably get something usable into Airship’s hands fastest. Does that sound right to you all? The other thing to consider is thresholding when disks are bad. I.e. a config item that says something like, “tolerate disk failures as long as I get Xgb” or “as long as I get 3 disks” or something. Do you think this is critical enough to be needed on Day 1? Thanks! Matt From: Zainub Wahid Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 11:50 AM To: airship-discuss at lists.airshipit.org Cc: Williams, J T ; Airship ; richard_pioso at dell.com Subject: [Airship-discuss] RAID Config Implementation Hello everyone, As discussed in today's meeting, this is related to the demo represented by Noor, last year, related to performing RAID configurations in Airship via Metal3 (and Ironic). Add RAID to example hardwareprofile (I50c82ce5) · Gerrit Code Review (opendev.org) Through Airship, the user should be able to perform RAID configurations on their hardware. The user can specify the RAID controller names and their associated disks, along with the required RAID level, the desired number of disks and the amount of storage required. Here is the proposal for specifying the RAID configuration for a bare metal host via Metal3: https://github.com/metal3-io/metal3-docs/pull/148/files In terms of the CRD, the current implementation of the RAID has the following sections in it, for hardware RAID: spec: raid: hardwareRAIDVolumes: - sizeGibiBytes: 1000 level: 1 name: volume-name rotational: true numberOfPhysicalDisks: 2 We propose to add fields into the CRD, in the following manner: spec: raid: hardwareRAIDVolumes: - sizeGibiBytes: 1000 level: 1 name: volume-1 rotational: true numberOfPhysicalDisks: 2 physicalDisks: - diskName: Disk-1 - diskName: Disk-2 controller: primary-controller - sizeGibiBytes: 2000 level: 0 name: volume-2 rotational: false numberOfPhysicalDisks: 2 physicalDisks: - diskName: Disk-3 - diskName: Disk-4 controller: secondary-controller-2 However, it remains unclear how the user would have the in-depth knowledge of the RAID controllers available to them, along with the vendor-specific disk names. Example disk names (Dell): ['Disk.Bay.0:Enclosure.Internal.0-1:RAID.Intergrated.1-1', 'Disk.Bay.2:Enclosure.Internal.0-1:RAID.Integrated.1-1', 'Disk.Bay.3:Enclosure.Internal.0-1:RAID.Integrated.1-1',...] Example disk names (HP): ['2I:1:1', '2I:1:2', '2I:1:3',...] Example RAID Controllers (Dell): [‘Boss-F1 RAID Controller’, 'Dell PowerEdge RAID Controller H740P', ' Dell PowerEdge RAID Controller H830',...] Example RAID controller (HP): ['HP Smart Array P400 Controller', 'HPE Smart Array E208i-a Controller', 'HPE Smart Array P816i-a Controller',...] One possible solution is to let the user specify the required RAID level, number of disks and storage capacity needed. Metal3 could then validate this request using the Ironic drivers (e.g. Redfish driver, iDRAC driver etc.) in order to ensure the required hardware is available in the cluster. If it is available, the RAID configuration can be applied. Ifnot, the user can be informed about the error. Another solution is that Airship can perform inventory of the storage subsystems available in the cluster, and so the user can construct a RAID configuration accordingly. Conversely, the logic to select the physical disks and associated controllers may be implemented in Airship, whilst the user just specifies the high level requirements. One issue is that Redfish requires the explicit RAID controller and disk names in order to do the RAID configuration, but it would be more convenient if the user did not have to know the low level details of their system. Here is the Redfish Action URI: {Base URI of target resource}/Actions/Volume.ChangeRAIDLayout (Provided in 6.109.4.2 of Redfish Resource and Schema Guide (dmtf.org)) The disk names can be generated using the Redfish logic constructing a human friendly identifier or label for hardware devices. https://github.com/DMTF/Redfish-Tacklebox/blob/e429f70a79cfe288756618498ce485ab4be37131/redfish_utilities/inventory.py#L192 Disk selection logic needs to be implemented in the most appropriate place. Airship may require that the user be unaware of the storage subsystem details when requesting the RAID config. Ironic requires a vendor independent implementation for this purpose. Here is relevant work done in metal3 to support RAID configuration in baremetal servers, using the Fujitsu iRMC driver: https://github.com/metal3-io/baremetal-operator/issues/206 https://github.com/metal3-io/baremetal-operator/pull/292 Warm Regards, Zainub Wahid Network Design Engineer II, xFlow Research Inc. +923044506900 zainub.wahid at xflowresearch.com www.xFlowResearch.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kire at kth.se Thu May 27 15:00:52 2021 From: kire at kth.se (=?utf-8?B?SmFuLUVyaWsgTcOlbmdz?=) Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 15:00:52 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] Technical Committee Vote - Combining Airship Working Committees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <756EB87B-BB5B-4F48-B975-81F9DFE7280D@kth.se> +1 Regards /Jan-Erik (now using the correct email address for the Airship-discuss mailman list) On 14 May 2021, at 21:20, BAILEY, ALEXANDER > wrote: Hello Airship Technical Committee, As we’d discussed on our last meeting, let’s take a formal vote on our proposal to combine the Airship Working and Technical Committees. The proposal is as follows: The Airship Technical and Working committees shall be combined into a single committee with name TBD. The size of the new committee shall initially be 9 members, with no single employer able to occupy more than 4 of those 9 slots. We can have follow up discussions to determine whether 9 is the right number of committee members, or if that should be adjusted. The outcome of our vote will help the current Airship Working Committee determine whether or not to go to a vote on combining the committees. If our vote passes, and the Working Committee vote passes, the Working Committee will have the responsibility of updating the Airship community governance. Please reply all to this thread to a +1 or a -1 by end of day Monday May 17th. Alex Bailey Scrum Master Cloud Platforms Development _______________________________________________ Airship-discuss mailing list Airship-discuss at lists.airshipit.org http://lists.airshipit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/airship-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From MM9745 at att.com Thu May 27 18:20:34 2021 From: MM9745 at att.com (MCEUEN, MATT) Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 18:20:34 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] [Working Committee] combining the WC and TC Message-ID: Airship Working Committee, With the TC having voted unanimously in favor of merging the TC and WC into a single body with 9 seats, it falls on us to vote and then to update our governance per the outcome. Our normal WC meeting would be this following Monday, but that falls on a holiday (so consider this a cancellation notice!). If we'd like to discuss/refine this further before voting I can set up a make-up call next week. I propose that we combine the TC and WC into a single body with 9 seats, with the name "Airship Technical Committee". Working Committee members (only), please respond with +1, -1, or "needs discussion". Discussion/approval of the nitty gritty details can be handled via code review on a patchset to the governance repo. Thanks and have a happy Memorial Day! Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mahnoor.asghar at xflowresearch.com Thu May 27 08:44:57 2021 From: mahnoor.asghar at xflowresearch.com (Mahnoor Asghar) Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 13:44:57 +0500 Subject: [Airship-discuss] RAID Config Implementation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you for your email, Matt. About the Airship use cases: 1. The strongly declarative one would be easy to support via Metal3, to the best of my knowledge. This would be perfect as long as the Airship user is okay with finding out the disk and RAID controller names through other means (using iDRAC, for example). It would also be an easier and valuable implementation. 2. Metal3 will perform the disk selection itself (or delegate to Ironic). Providing some level of guarantee for the disk failures would contribute to a reliable user experience. For the declarative case, we can perhaps ensure that the specified disks are functional. For the specification with hints, I suggest making the disk capacity a metric that must always be satisfied (e.g. x GB always provided). Input on these requirements is much appreciated, so we can carry the discussion forward with the Metal3 community and get to implementation. Thank you so much! Regards, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jan-erik.mangs at ericsson.com Thu May 27 14:57:30 2021 From: jan-erik.mangs at ericsson.com (=?Windows-1252?Q?Jan-Erik_M=E5ngs?=) Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 14:57:30 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] Technical Committee Vote - Combining Airship Working Committees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Regards /Jan-Erik From: BAILEY, ALEXANDER Date: Friday, 14 May 2021 at 21:20 To: BAILEY, ALEXANDER , alexander.hughes at pm.me , aodinokov at mirantis.com , j.t.williams at dell.com , Jan-Erik Mångs Cc: wc at airshipit.org , airship-discuss at lists.airshipit.org Subject: Technical Committee Vote - Combining Airship Working Committees Hello Airship Technical Committee, As we’d discussed on our last meeting, let’s take a formal vote on our proposal to combine the Airship Working and Technical Committees. The proposal is as follows: The Airship Technical and Working committees shall be combined into a single committee with name TBD. The size of the new committee shall initially be 9 members, with no single employer able to occupy more than 4 of those 9 slots. We can have follow up discussions to determine whether 9 is the right number of committee members, or if that should be adjusted. The outcome of our vote will help the current Airship Working Committee determine whether or not to go to a vote on combining the committees. If our vote passes, and the Working Committee vote passes, the Working Committee will have the responsibility of updating the Airship community governance. Please reply all to this thread to a +1 or a -1 by end of day Monday May 17th. Alex Bailey Scrum Master Cloud Platforms Development -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aw442m at att.com Thu May 27 20:19:46 2021 From: aw442m at att.com (WALTERS, ANDREW) Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 20:19:46 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] [Working Committee] combining the WC and TC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Airship Working Committee, > > With the TC having voted unanimously in favor of merging the TC and WC into a single body with 9 seats, it falls on us to vote and then to update our governance per the outcome. > > Our normal WC meeting would be this following Monday, but that falls on a holiday (so consider this a cancellation notice!). If we'd like to discuss/refine this further before voting I can set up a make-up call next week. > > I propose that we combine the TC and WC into a single body with 9 seats, with the name "Airship Technical Committee". Working Committee members (only), please respond with +1, -1, or "needs discussion". Discussion/approval of the nitty gritty details can be handled via code review on a patchset to the governance repo. > > Thanks and have a happy Memorial Day! > Matt +1 From kkalynovskyi at mirantis.com Thu May 27 21:32:42 2021 From: kkalynovskyi at mirantis.com (Kostiantyn Kalynovskyi) Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 16:32:42 -0500 Subject: [Airship-discuss] [Working Committee] combining the WC and TC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 3:21 PM WALTERS, ANDREW wrote: > > Airship Working Committee, > > > > With the TC having voted unanimously in favor of merging the TC and WC > into a single body with 9 seats, it falls on us to vote and then to update > our governance per the outcome. > > > > Our normal WC meeting would be this following Monday, but that falls on > a holiday (so consider this a cancellation notice!). If we'd like to > discuss/refine this further before voting I can set up a make-up call next > week. > > > > I propose that we combine the TC and WC into a single body with 9 seats, > with the name "Airship Technical Committee". Working Committee members > (only), please respond with +1, -1, or "needs discussion". > Discussion/approval of the nitty gritty details can be handled via code > review on a patchset to the governance repo. > > > > Thanks and have a happy Memorial Day! > > Matt > > +1 > > > _______________________________________________ > Airship-discuss mailing list > Airship-discuss at lists.airshipit.org > http://lists.airshipit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/airship-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ji5690 at att.com Thu May 27 21:33:57 2021 From: ji5690 at att.com (GU, JAMES) Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 21:33:57 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] [Working Committee] combining the WC and TC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 From: Kostiantyn Kalynovskyi Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 2:33 PM To: WALTERS, ANDREW Cc: MCEUEN, MATT ; GU, JAMES ; KALYNOVSKYI, KOSTIANTYN ; PUNNAPUZHA, SREEJITH ; airship-discuss at lists.airshipit.org Subject: Re: [Airship-discuss] [Working Committee] combining the WC and TC +1 On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 3:21 PM WALTERS, ANDREW > wrote: > Airship Working Committee, > > With the TC having voted unanimously in favor of merging the TC and WC into a single body with 9 seats, it falls on us to vote and then to update our governance per the outcome. > > Our normal WC meeting would be this following Monday, but that falls on a holiday (so consider this a cancellation notice!). If we'd like to discuss/refine this further before voting I can set up a make-up call next week. > > I propose that we combine the TC and WC into a single body with 9 seats, with the name "Airship Technical Committee". Working Committee members (only), please respond with +1, -1, or "needs discussion". Discussion/approval of the nitty gritty details can be handled via code review on a patchset to the governance repo. > > Thanks and have a happy Memorial Day! > Matt +1 _______________________________________________ Airship-discuss mailing list Airship-discuss at lists.airshipit.org http://lists.airshipit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/airship-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kk6740 at att.com Thu May 27 20:35:06 2021 From: kk6740 at att.com (KALYNOVSKYI, KOSTIANTYN) Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 20:35:06 +0000 Subject: [Airship-discuss] [Working Committee] combining the WC and TC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3963383d00344a71b852967b4712703e@att.com> +1 -----Original Message----- From: WALTERS, ANDREW Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 3:20 PM To: MCEUEN, MATT ; GU, JAMES ; KALYNOVSKYI, KOSTIANTYN ; PUNNAPUZHA, SREEJITH Cc: airship-discuss at lists.airshipit.org Subject: RE: [Working Committee] combining the WC and TC > Airship Working Committee, > > With the TC having voted unanimously in favor of merging the TC and WC into a single body with 9 seats, it falls on us to vote and then to update our governance per the outcome. > > Our normal WC meeting would be this following Monday, but that falls on a holiday (so consider this a cancellation notice!). If we'd like to discuss/refine this further before voting I can set up a make-up call next week. > > I propose that we combine the TC and WC into a single body with 9 seats, with the name "Airship Technical Committee". Working Committee members (only), please respond with +1, -1, or "needs discussion". Discussion/approval of the nitty gritty details can be handled via code review on a patchset to the governance repo. > > Thanks and have a happy Memorial Day! > Matt +1