LWG Minutes 2017-06-15

Attendance
Cray: Cory Spitz, Ben Evans, Patrick Farrell

ORNL: James Simmons, Dustin Leverman

IU: Ken Rawlings

SuperMicro: Abe Asraoui

HPE: Olaf Weber, Robert Clark

Intel: Andreas Dilger, Joe Gmitter, Peter Jones

Actions
New Actions Captured:


 * None

Existing Open Actions:


 * None

Actions Recently Closed:


 * Cory to speak with Chris regarding the open questions on the NRS delay policy docs (LUDOC-366).
 * Cory to get Ben engaged with Henri for review of LU-9021 patches.

Minutes
2.10 Release Update

Peter


 * We are down to 9 issues tracking with FixVersion 2.10, 5 of which have a fix in the ready state and is in gatekeeper testing.
 * One outstanding issue is LU-9073 that James has been working on and Sebastian Buisson providing feedback.
 * The good news is that John fixed the workaround and it is ready. Sebastian has been testing due to having a kerberos setup to use.
 * LU-9049 we have a fix that we believe works and is undergoing further testing.
 * Two issues which are the long poles at the moment are LU-9405 and LU-9485. We are still isolating what the problem is there.  These may be become blockers once we understand the issue.
 * On the documentation front, NRS delay policy, Project Quota, and multi-rail have patches in flight that are undergoing refinement.
 * James: We are getting an ARM machine soon and likely will need the last 2 patches from LU-8703.  There are two patches left and trying to get reviewers to look at them before code freeze.

Upstream Lustre Client

James


 * Submitted a bunch of cleanups. James reports that they are thinking of phasing out the 80 character issue.
 * Andreas: The logic for it is really is that it effects the number of terminals you can have open on one screen without line wrapping.
 * James: Linus is thinking about going to 100.

lustre.org

Ken


 * We decided to delay server upgrades until after LUG and will look do it before the next LWG call.
 * There is interest in putting together a Lustre tutorial. The thinking on this is to submit it as a BOF session at SC this year.  Will start engaging people interested in collaborating on it.  Any thoughts?
 * Peter: Is the thinking to have the BOF for new Lustre developers?
 * Ken:Yes
 * Peter: Is anyone on the call attending SC that could participate?
 * Dustin: May be going and might be able to participate.
 * Peter: What do you envision us needing for content?  For a BOF it would have to be 60-90 min in length.  Is this reasonable?
 * Discussion ensued around thoughts of what is best addressed in getting started. General consensus was it would be difficult to accomplish this in that sort of time frame.
 * If engineers were able to download items ahead of time and prepare, then it comes down to probably about 60 min of actual training time.
 * To be successful at this based on hackathon, a good idea of number of participants is needed and at least enough helpers to have 1 engineer available for every 3 engineers in training.

Other Business


 * Peter: Any thoughts on Developer Day or the hackathon from those that attended?
 * Ben: Developer Day went really well.  Hackathon would have been better with a bit more structure to it with having working groups set up in advance.
 * Peter: I agree and we thought we had this set up in advance, but we didn’t execute well on it at the event.
 * Cory: I thought hackathon was pretty cool and maybe we should have devoted my time to it.  Once we started people wanted to go off and join the social event.
 * Ken: The time pressure issue could be fixed, maybe post-LUG event with RSVP and topics set up in advance would be better.

Next meeting will be on 2017-06-29 at 11:00am Pacific