15:02:20 #startmeeting fedora cloud meeting 15:02:20 Meeting started Thu Jul 8 15:02:20 2021 UTC. 15:02:20 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 15:02:20 The chair is davdunc. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:02:20 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:02:20 The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_cloud_meeting' 15:02:31 .hi 15:02:32 cyberpear: cyberpear 'James Cassell' 15:02:33 .hi 15:02:34 dcavalca: dcavalca 'Davide Cavalca' 15:02:37 .hello salimma 15:02:39 .hello ngompa 15:02:42 michel: salimma 'Michel Alexandre Salim' 15:02:45 Eighth_Doctor: ngompa 'Neal Gompa' 15:02:48 .hi 15:02:48 cmurf[m]: Sorry, but you don't exist 15:02:53 haha 15:02:56 awesome 15:03:02 cmurf: you're `cmurf[m]` on the IRC side 15:03:08 so it doesn't recognize you 15:03:11 hello everyone. even cmurf! 15:03:15 it never does 15:03:19 .hello cmurf 15:03:19 cmurf[m]: Sorry, but you don't exist 15:03:34 i have an alias in fas and noggin, it's ignored 15:03:41 .hello chrismurphy 15:03:42 cmurf[m]: chrismurphy 'Chris Murphy' 15:03:58 we know you are here. :) 15:04:04 since FAS went multi-alias, I wonder if zodbot understood it 15:04:22 Alright. not a lot on the top of the queue today. 15:05:05 #topic QCOW image are not sparse 15:05:09 #link https://pagure.io/cloud-sig/issue/340 15:05:51 cmurf[m]: did you want to share more here? 15:06:27 issue has the details but probably the biggest gain would be to not make vagrant images 40G 15:07:34 so we have a fix proposed in lorax? 15:08:06 do we want to consider a workaround until that is completed? 15:08:31 if sparse files are OK, and it seems they are or we'd have issues (right?) then then issuing `fstrim` before umount would also fix it and they'd be smaller than the above fix 15:08:49 so do we want to just add fstrim to the kickstart? 15:09:01 why is it a 40G image? is that kickstart? 15:09:12 no, that's what ImageFactory does 15:09:19 it creates a disk about that big and then runs Anaconda on it 15:09:26 it essentially does a kickstart install 15:09:29 it's not even using Lorax 15:10:12 using `fstrim -av` in %post would work as a temp solution 15:10:52 #action add fstrim -av to the %post until BZ#1971186 is resolved 15:11:31 is everyone in agreement then? 15:11:41 be sure to link to the bug in the kickstart so future us can find out "why" it's there :P 15:12:03 haha. cyberpear good callout 15:12:23 yeah, we can do that 15:12:24 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1971186 15:12:29 who's going to do it? 15:12:51 I am up for just adding it to the ks. 15:13:01 can do that after the meeting. 15:13:06 I can. 15:13:15 sounds good 15:13:23 you should action yourself for the record 15:13:50 #action davdunc to add fstrim -av to the cloud base kickstart 15:14:28 and Ill consider that agreed. I should add that in. 15:15:00 #agreed temporarily adding in fstrim command to the cloud kickstart to decrease the root volume size. 15:15:46 # topic add btrfs to containers overlay 15:15:57 #link https://pagure.io/cloud-sig/issue/332 15:16:08 I did that wrong. :) 15:16:21 #topic add btrfs to containers overlay 15:17:10 this was also proposed by cmurf[m] and we discussed this at the last meeting. 15:17:26 so i guess upstream containers/storage folks are against it 15:18:03 meanwhile there are folks who use the btrfs driver automatically if the fs is btrfs 15:18:25 do we have a path forward without upstream support? 15:18:31 e.g. Docker (but I haven't tested this so I'm not sure how common it is) 15:19:17 Fedora can have its own default 15:20:18 So do we need that as an entry in storage.conf like Dan said and is that a system-wide change? 15:21:02 I think it's a good idea to use the change process to explore the issues. 15:21:19 Seems self contained but maybe not. 15:21:25 we should probably do some testing before that, but the upcoming version supports drop-in files to configure things 15:21:25 I think that's the right course of action. 15:23:14 Or would it be a system-wide change? 15:23:20 #action we need to some testing for the btrfs driver for container storage driver set to btrfs 15:23:57 Is there a test suite to run? 15:24:11 I don't know. 15:24:13 I've done rudimentary tests with the btrfs driver in podman and it works fine 15:25:50 is this a benefit for the new changes Eighth_Doctor has so generously committed supporting btrfs on the cloud images? We might want to explore it as a contained change for cloud images only. 15:26:05 though it would be helpful for workstation as well, would it not? 15:26:15 it'll be useful for all flavors using btrfs 15:26:25 I think if it'd be just Cloud edition, and affects only podman, it'd be self contained. 15:26:48 but the containers team believes that it's not usable or tested (by what definition, I dunno) 15:26:48 so question is if Cloud Edition wants to lead on it before attempting a system-wide change for f36? 15:27:07 do we have some good testcases for this? 15:27:19 * Eighth_Doctor shrugs 15:27:21 dcavalca: I think the answer to that is no. 15:27:38 the two main cases we need to test is the podman case and the kubernetes+cri-o case 15:28:03 both need to be validated as fully functional for even cloud edition to change 15:28:12 much less moving all btrfs-based Fedora variants 15:28:30 we'd also need to make sure both rootless and rootful cases work as expected 15:28:54 yeah i've done the latter 15:28:58 that makes sense. So we need tickets to identify that both of those conditions are met? 15:29:08 yes 15:29:24 we need to come up with a way to test this reliably too, ideally in a way we can run them in OpenQA 15:29:40 we may also, as the Cloud WG, want to take ownership of the kubernetes package in Fedora 15:29:51 and make sure we validate it for Cloud Edition 15:30:02 for rootless, if `user_subvol_rm_allowed` mount option is used, it all works the same as rootful; since that is not a default mount option, what we get is a fallback to unlink() (basically it's rm -rf) 15:30:31 so are we taking ownership of the packages or just validating them? it seems like ownership would follow along with FCOS more than cloud to me. 15:30:32 but one thing I expect we're going to want to do is make sure btrfs driver works fully in rootless mode 15:30:39 Fedora toolbox uses podman and container images, right? 15:30:50 davdunc: validating the usability for now 15:30:52 so any change to the containers should benefit Silverblue power users too 15:31:06 technically the kubernetes package right now is semi-orphaned 15:31:18 it's nominally cared for, but isn't used or tested by anybody 15:31:42 cri-o is still being reviewed for unretirement 15:32:08 Eighth_Doctor: that's an interesting consideration. Is there a high level of activity there? 15:32:31 the kubernetes package mostly just gets version bumps and not much else 15:32:41 there are folks sending pull requests to fix things, so I assume it works 15:32:56 but it'd be a good idea to produce some basic tests on Cloud Edition for it 15:33:12 none of that is something I expect for F35, this is for the future 15:33:13 okay. that's sounding like something we should pick up separately if we need to, but we do need to validate it. 15:33:21 yup 15:33:47 de minimis, we need to validate podman rootless and rootful with btrfs, fix bugs in containers/storage for btrfs in those workflows 15:34:08 but we should also test k8s+cri-o with btrfs to ensure that works too 15:34:44 #action davdunc to file tickets on the test cases, one for podman and one for k8s+cri-o with btrfs 15:35:11 i guess we need to ask around if there's a testsuite? because if running "hello world" counts as validation, all of those use cases except k8s, is validated (by me) :P 15:35:12 do we need to confirm root vs. rootless in poth of those cases or just for podman 15:35:31 cmurf[m]: I would call that a smoke test. 15:35:43 davdunc: I don't know, we need to find out more for k8s 15:35:51 that whole world is weird to me 15:36:35 Eighth_Doctor: I am personally good with that as a point of completion and then we can add more as we run into them. 15:36:47 yup 15:37:14 the reason k8s is important is that the flag setting will affect any user of containers/storage 15:37:21 that's podman and cri-o 15:37:29 okay. So we will have the two tickets for test conditions. 15:37:46 oh... and upgrades 15:38:04 we'd have to prevent it from silently flipping to btrfs driver when doing upgrades 15:38:26 yes. 15:38:59 more fodder for Eighth_Doctor 's consideration of owning the k8s packages 15:39:23 to ensure that we have the conditions right for managing the config. 15:40:38 anything else we want to consider here? We are just testing it right now, correct? 15:41:15 yes 15:41:20 that's all 15:41:30 we need the data for being able to prepare the change proposal anyway 15:41:31 speaking of k8s, if anybody cares, I got helm packaged a while ago 15:41:39 oh nice! 15:41:40 mostly for shit and giggles, as I use it at home 15:41:44 :D 15:41:45 haha 15:41:48 but if anybody wants to co-maintain it, happy to add you 15:42:20 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-helm-3 15:42:47 very cool. 15:42:57 helm will always be an Emacs thing for me 15:42:59 name collisions 15:43:03 For reference, here's the kubernetes package: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kubernetes 15:43:07 should we move over to the bigger changes? 15:43:37 #topic F35 Change: Build Fedora Cloud Images with Hybrid BIOS+UEFI Boot Support 15:44:09 yup 15:44:11 Eighth_Doctor: you have completed the modifications for this, right? we are all buttoned up on this. 15:44:15 yes 15:44:20 we are, however, missing tests in OpenQA 15:44:24 It's also working 15:44:41 we are missing too many tests in OpenQA. 15:44:42 #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/os-autoinst-distri-fedora/issue/238 15:44:57 well, actually I don't think I can do the link thing 15:45:01 but there is the issue 15:45:25 #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/os-autoinst-distri-fedora/issue/238 15:45:34 I think it worked. 15:45:38 on the upside, we now basically will never have the problem of images not booting because the environment was randomly UEFI instead of BIOS at image creation time 15:45:38 Fedora-Cloud-Base-Rawhide-20210706.n.0.x86_64.raw boots both BIOS and UEFI 15:45:57 fantastic. 15:46:10 but for some reason i don't understand, we're missing images since 20210706 15:46:11 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=21547 15:46:19 both rawhide and f34 and f33 15:46:27 I noticed that! 15:46:29 * rawhide and f34 and f33 15:46:42 yesterday I was looking for them and came up empty handed. 15:47:16 since neither f33 or f34 were modified (by us, as far as i know) it's curious they too are affected 15:48:12 wait. 15:48:22 are you saying the change isn't in 33 and 34? 15:48:47 b/c it should only be in rawhide. 15:48:55 or did I misunderstand? 15:49:09 * davdunc had a different problem I think. 15:49:23 correct 15:50:03 yea, we should see ext4 with and no UEFI support for x86_64 15:50:24 "are affected" => are failing like rawhide 15:50:34 sorry 15:50:41 hmm. 15:50:45 that's no good. 15:51:11 #action davdunc to continue working on the boot issue, but extend to 33 and 34 15:51:13 but i'm not sure where the logs are 15:51:22 i can't find cloud image creation tasks in koji 15:52:10 mboddu would know the answer to this if Conan Kudo doesn't 15:52:21 I have no idea 15:52:21 where to find the logs 15:52:42 They point back to the execution of the image-factory build don't they. 15:52:46 https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/Fedora-Cloud-Base/34/20210706.0/data/logs/image/oz-x86_64.log 15:52:56 isn't this what you are looking for? 15:52:56 easiest to ask in #fedora-releng 15:53:23 yes but for 20210706 and 20210707 15:53:25 the missing ones 15:53:40 okay. 15:53:45 logs for the attempted (but presumably failed) creation of the images 15:54:14 * mboddu reading back 15:54:45 oh wait 15:54:59 Fedora-Workstation-Live-Rawhide-20210706.n.0 15:55:09 that's the most recent one there too 15:55:15 yea. 15:55:18 something else is going on 15:55:32 davdunc: From a brief reading back, all the compose logs are available at https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/ depending on which compose you are looking for 15:55:32 so 0707 just hasn't been published? 15:55:53 For cloud, they will be under https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/cloud/ 15:56:05 mboddu: thanks 15:57:21 davdunc: The compose logs contain koji task numbers, you can go to koji and look at the task for those task specific logs 15:57:44 mboddu: super! yes. thanks for that. 15:57:56 let's table this for now. 15:58:04 we just have a couple of minutes left. 15:58:43 #topic Open Floor 15:58:55 Anything else we need to discuss? 15:59:04 nope 15:59:44 I want to thank Eighth_Doctor for getting in the commits that we needed for GPT and for btrfs on the images 15:59:55 I think there's someone here who wants to talk to us 15:59:56 :) 15:59:57 Conan Kudo++ 16:01:05 doowder, I believe, you wanted to talk to us? 16:01:26 Thanks 16:01:38 I think I will put it in as an issue to make sure everyone has context 16:01:44 and we can go from there 16:02:02 That will probably be the most effective way so everyone has background on it 16:02:05 if you want to hit us with the high-level pitch I am listening. 16:02:14 Cool-- 16:02:20 we're all friends here. 16:02:25 haha thanks 16:02:54 So I am Alex from Shells by the way, and we have been talking with mattdm and neal about getting Fedora up on Shells 16:03:04 oh awesome! 16:03:36 Yeah! So we obviously want to do it right, but need some help with some of the integration to make sure it fits Fedora's liking as well as ours! 16:03:56 So I know its extra work, but was hoping to get some help on getting it up and running and maintaining 16:04:11 I would definitely be happy to provide accounts, etc. to everyone getting involved to help out 16:04:48 So anyway, thats my high level pitch haha 16:04:50 #topic Add Fedora to Shells. 16:05:03 I think the cloud sig would be happy to pitch in there. 16:05:13 what do others think? 16:05:37 That would be great! 16:05:43 yeah, this seems fine 16:05:53 sounds good to me 16:05:55 not my meeting (i'm here waiting for the fpc meeting to start) but personally i'm concerned about associating fedora with shells.com due to the freenode fiasco 16:06:21 thanks carlwgeorge 16:06:23 carlwgeorge understood, and i would love to help address any concerns from my end if possible 16:06:47 the concern is exactly what i just laid out, it's pretty simple 16:06:57 we'll do that in the ticket and discuss next meeting . 16:07:08 That sounds good 16:07:19 I am available to chat about anything related to that though 16:07:30 I think that would be great to work out and we'll see where we can get to. 16:07:42 Yeah sounds good 16:07:45 I think we are way over time now so anything before we end? 16:07:52 Thanks so much davdunc 16:08:06 thanks for coming in and chatting doowder . 16:08:10 thanks all! 16:08:14 #endmeeting