►
From YouTube: Velero Community Meeting - Oct 29, 2019
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Let's
see,
we
are,
let's
start
by
announcing
that
we
released
our
version
1.2
beta
last
week,
we
as
always
yeah.
We
appreciate
any
testing
and
feedback
and
bug
reports,
and
all
of
that,
so
please,
let
us
know,
and
if
testing,
if
you
are
using
AI
and
everything
goes
well,
let
us
know:
let's
move
on
to
status
updates.
I
am
working
on
updating
the
help,
charts
and
documentation
the
documentation.
B
C
You
I
don't
have
a
whole
lot.
It's
a
report
on
mostly
just
catching
out.
I
know,
I,
don't
think
Scott's
on
the
call,
but
Scott
was
asking
about
PR
I
have
open
for
waiting
for
CR
DS
to
be
ready
before
continuing
through
store.
I,
don't
know
if
that
will
get
into
the
1.2.0
our
yeah
on
to
zero,
but
we'll
see
I,
don't
think
it
would
be
a
major
change
but
we'll
see
I
need
to
test
that
and
also
work
on
testing
the
beta
and
I'll
I'll
link
to
that
issue.
A
C
D
C
A
Yes,
this
one
we've
been
discussing
this
and
we
need
to
come
to
a
conclusion,
because
we
need
to
take
a
an
action
here,
but
there
are
so
many
different
ways
that
this
could
go
and
Steve
definitely
should
be
part
of
the
conversation.
I,
don't
know,
no
one
admin.
Do
you
want
to
add
any
highlights
to
this
right
now?
Without
you
know,
we
know
we
never
know
recently.
C
A
C
Read
over
it
briefly
and
and
I
get
like
it
looks
like
all
of
us
or
everyone's
comment
so
far,
as
is
a
little
conflicted,
because
essentially
this
looks
like
you're
you're
asking
for
arrow
to
back
up
an
invalid
state.
If
there's
no
about
there's
no
volume,
there,
then
Valero
will
happily
move
on
and
call
the
back
up
partially
failed.
A
A
Maybe
he
felt
validation
and
there
are
specific
things
that
called
it
to
be
marked
and
spell,
and
then
iris
partially
failed,
which
might
be
oh
I,
didn't
up
to
a
three
or
some
other
reasons.
They're
different
from
confirm,
fails
and
then,
if
that
backup
is
failed,
it
partially
felt.
Is
it
or
is
it
not
proper
to
restore
from
it
where
they
still
be
desirable
to
restore
from
a
failed
back?
So
we
have
user
saying
yes,
we
want
to
do
that,
but
then
do
we
make
so
it's
the
defaults.
A
It's
going
to
trigger
of
the
backup
is
going
to
be
marked
as
partially
filled
should
we
just
mark
it
as
so
it
in
repeating
myself
here,
but
should
that
be
okay,
because
I
was
Valera
so
positive
validates
that
the
resources
everything
is
there
as
issue
for
this
reveller
would
not
care
about
that
and
just
back
up,
and
if
there
were
no
error
is
per
se,
because
if
a
resources
should
be
there,
but
wasn't
there,
we
can't
back
it
up.
So
we
could
could
just
proceed
as
normal
and
say
this
is
a
fine.
A
A
E
I
think
yeah,
you
kind
of
differentiated
to
things
very
nicely,
so
there's
the
cases
where
the
data
was
there
and
we
failed
to
back
them
up,
at
which
point
that's
a
big,
pretty
big
problem
right.
So
that's
where
in
velaro
should
indicate
a
failure
worth
de
that
was
there
and
we
fail
to
to
get
them,
because
that
also
means
you,
your
business.
E
Continuity
cannot
be
met
because
you
can
restore
from
it
and
then
there's
a
second
case
where
someone
asks
us
to
bug
a
sub
thing
that
doesn't
exist,
so
we're
not
making
any
worse
for
them
since
you
couldn't
back
it
up.
You
also
can't
restore
it,
but
they're,
no
worse
off
that
when
they
started,
because
we
didn't
have
the
data
to
begin
with.
E
I
have
a
couple
questions,
I,
guess
before
before
I
kind
of
answer
this:
is
it
possible
that
Valero
can
do
a
quick
sanity
check
before
we
start
the
backup
so
that
we
let
them
know
that
something
is
missing,
that
we
won't
be
able
to
back
something
up,
like
think
of
this,
as
a
preflight
check
check
that
Valero
can
run
across
the
board
of
the
environment
and
say
yes,
everything
that
API
tells
him
it's
supposed
to
be
there.
Is
there
like.
E
A
scanner
that's
right,
so
we
could
flag
our
errors
in
there.
That
is
like
indicate
to
them
that
this
could
not
be
backed
up.
I
mean
I,
see
the
point
of
stevis
is
bringing
here
on
this
item
right.
So
if
someone
added
automation
on
top
of
Valero
every
time
you
get
a
partially
failed
all
alarms,
kind
of
star
ringing
and
say:
okay,
what
did
I
not
well,
it
would
would
not
get
backed
up
in
my
environment
that
I
need
to
worry
about,
because
the
business
depends
on
it.
A
C
Talked
about
having
a
two
pass
system
on
our
backup,
so
we
basically
we
take
our
our
resource
selection
criteria
and,
like
say,
okay,
this
is
enumerate
everything
that
would
be
selected
by
this
and
then
do
a
filter
on
that.
But
currently
we
go
and
look
at
each
item
individually
once
so,
we
don't
have
a
pre-flight
or
a
two-step
process.
Yeah.
A
I
think,
but
I
think
that
if
we'd
have
a
scanner
and
knocks
against
having
a
scanner
and
I,
remember
now
that
you
mentioned
it,
no
one
that
we
did
talk
about
this
before
we'd
have
anything
about
this,
not
all
all
the
time.
Every
time
everyone's
know.
Why
are
you
fops
up
this
this
the
thing
of
doing
a
one
pass
before
backing
things
up
and
just
gathering
everything
that
that
should
be
imagine
against
the
cost
of
manifest,
but
I
think
we
fall
into
the
same
question.
What
do
we
do
with
it?
A
E
E
A
One
case
that
I
can
think
of.
In
other
cases
everything
was
backed
up
by
we
couldn't
upload
the
backup
to
to
the
last
three
buckets.
That's
house
of
partially
failed
because
failed,
because
we
did
back
up
back
things
up,
but
we
couldn't
deliver
so
it's
partially
found
there
might
be
a
couple
that
might
be
other
I
can't
think
of
any
other
cases.
E
A
D
E
So
that
that's
what
I
was
thinking,
maybe
we
need
to
maybe
you
can
rename
the
state
right
so
failed
is
everything
things
failed
like
you
couldn't
I
think
that
if
you
couldn't
upload
to
s3
or
to
the
bucket
that
should
be
failed
in
my
personal
opinion,
because
the
the
backup
it
doesn't
this
for
the
customer.
So
if
you're
an
admin
they'll
automated
it,
you
don't
have
peace
of
mind
if
he
didn't
get
uploaded
to
history
and
I.
E
That's
that's
a
limited
success
or
a
partial
success,
so
kind
of
a
little
bit
different,
a
different
way
of
phrasing
to
the
user
so
where
they
can,
you
can
tell
them
that
hey.
If
this
thing
wasn't
there
to
begin
with,
we
still
succeeded
by
this
partial
success.
It's
up
to
you
to
decide
if
you
want
to
ignore
it
or
not
and
fix
your
API
objects,
but
it's
okay.
If
you
don't,
because
what
the
very
back
tab
will
also
be
able
to
restore-
and
that
was
your
entire
environment
I.
A
Think
so
that's
a
good
solution
to
to
make
these
more
sorry
for
us
to
recognize
better,
like
you
can
be
using
better
words
to
describe
the
situation,
but
then
we
still
have
another
question
and
we
didn't
talk
about.
We
didn't
mention
this
here.
I
didn't
mention
it
here,
so
I'm
going
to
mention
it
now.
Okay,.
E
A
Do
we
do
at
the
time?
How
do
we
do
at
the
time
of
restore?
Because
when,
when
we
automate
the
when
to
automate
a
restore,
they
fetch
the
last
successful
backup
the
less
complete
backup?
So
are
we
going
to
now
say?
Well,
you
can
automate
it
so
because
that's
what
people
are
asking,
so
if
it's
complete
or
partially
successful,
do
we
let
people
restore
partially
successful
or
maybe
they
could
choose
why
I'd
want
partially
successful
and
people
say
I
would
maybe
have
a
flag
there.
A
C
No,
no
I
understand
go
ahead.
Well,
I
was
just
gonna
ask
so
this
this
issue.
That's
on
screen
like
links
to
one
eight,
five,
eight
and
I
see
the
last
comment.
There
says
that
we
added
a
allow
partially
failed
flag
to
lira
restore.
So
that
sounds
to
me
like
what
you
were
just
talking
about.
Curly
Xia.
Is
that
correct,
I.
B
C
So
he
added
a
flag
to
velaro
restore
like
it.
It
looks
like
this
particular
customer,
for
whatever
reason
all
their
backups
are
partially
fitted
partially
failed
because
reading
their
comment,
it
said
that
well
we,
if,
if
we
only
restore
completed
backups,
we
would
never
be
able
to
use
from
schedule
which
is
strange
to
me.
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
why
their
environment
is
always
partially
failed,
but.
A
Yeah,
that's
the
question
like,
for
example,
do
we
want
a
letter
to
be
a
validation
tool?
Hadn't
made
this
case
I?
Think
Steve
house
with
me
this
case:
do
we
want
to
let
it
be
a
validation
to
do?
We
won't
alert
her
to
be
staying
well,
the
manifest
says
this
resource
is
there,
but
we
validating
the
reason
there.
So,
let's
just
partially
fail
this
backup,
or
do
we
want
other
leadership
to
be
a
plane
backup
to
if
it's
there
we
backup,
if
it's
there
and
we
fail
to
back
up
its
failed.
A
If
it's
there,
if
it's
not
there
and
we
attempted
to
backup
and
is
not
there,
we
just
it's
a
fight.
It's
a
it's
a
complete
backup.
We
don't
need
to
validate
the
resources
and
because
if
we
on
the
other
side
of
this
issue
is
the
restore
because
our
concern
is
if,
if
like
I
said,
but
just
like
giving
a
whole
picture
into
and
trying
here,
if
we
don't
validate
before
backup,
what's
there,
it
is
maybe
something
supposed
to
be
there.
But
hey.
There
is
not
a
validation.
A
So
if
we
say
test
and
learn
is
not
a
validation
tool,
we
say
well,
this
backup
is
complete
because
we
backed
up
everything
that
was
there
and
then
people
rely
on
that.
Well,
this
is
a
fine
backup
is
a
complete
backup
and
a
restore
and
then
later
down
the
road
they
think
they
look
at
is
well.
Why
is
this
thing
missing?
It
should
be
there.
It's
like.
D
A
C
C
C
Yeah
like
to
me,
this
is
it's
asking
okay,
if
we
pack
up
an
invalid
state,
can
we
restore
a
valid
state
and,
like
I,
don't
think
we
can?
Because
if
okay,
let's
say
we,
we
skipped
the
the
items
that
are
not
found.
We
then
have
to
update
the
manifests
to
not
point
to
them
or
we'll
get
in
the
same
scenario
when
we
restore
like,
even
if
we
omit
the
PVC
from
the
backup
when
we
restore
that
pod
still
gonna
have
a
reference
to
it.
B
I'm
just
wondering
if
there's
a
case
for
a
late
bound
intention
here,
so
if
I
were
to,
if
I
were
to
back
up
a
part
that
references
a
PVC
that
doesn't
exist
and
then
restore
that
in
another
cluster,
that
does
have
that
PVC
or
I
later
then
create
that
PVC.
Then
eventually,
you
will
get
bound
I,
don't
know
if
that's
a
real
use
case,
but
I.
B
E
More
inclined
to
say
that
it's
not
partially
failed.
This
is
just
failed.
Yeah
I
think
partially
failed
gives
you
the
false
sense
of
security
that
certain
things
succeeded.
I
mean
it's
okay
to
have
a
failure
that
basically
tells
you
exactly
what
things
failed
right
and
in
some
cases
it
could
be
I
failed
to
upload
to
this
three
bucket
or
in
some
other
cases,
I
fail
to
to
back
up
everything
and,
if
we're
crystal
clear
about
what
failed
and
they
can
go
back
and
and
fix
it
or
identify
what
happened.
C
Yeah
I
think
trying
to
remember
back
to
the
the
discussion
about
the
partially
failed
and
and
having
that
kind
of
intermediate
status
was
this
particular
in
this
instance
of
this
particular
pod
wouldn't
be
useful,
but
everything
in
the
backup-
that's
not
referring
to
it.
Let's
say
you
got
a
bunch
of
namespaces
and
this
happened
to
be
the
one
deployment
slash
pod
in
that
in
the
whole
cluster
that
couldn't
do
it
the
rest
of
its
valid,
but
that
particular
one
isn't
which
I
think
there's
there's
definitely
debate.
C
A
E
Understand,
but
you
know
you
when,
when
you
get
a
failure
like
that,
you
don't
have
to
stop
the
backup
right,
you
can
continue
all
the
operations
of
velaro
and
put
even
try
to
push
them
into
that
stay
back,
that
it
would
just
be
a
failed
backup,
so
that
doesn't
make
it
any
less
useful
like
when
the
operator
goes
and
looks
at
the
log.
He
will
see
that
the
only
thing
that
failed
in
this
backup
was
basically
this
object
that
this
part
that
basically
was
referring
to
something
that
no
none
existed
and
say.
E
Okay,
you
know
this
is
a
good
backup.
If
something
happened
and
I
need
to
restore
I
could
still
use
it,
because
there's
only
one
thing
missing
from
me
right,
so
that
log
tells
you
what's
missing
so
that
that
doesn't
make
it
any
less
useful.
But
what
it
does
tell
him
is,
if
he
has
automation,
gives
him
the
clear
signal
that
everything
that
you
asked
me
to
do.
I
couldn't
do
and
reliability
is
one
of
the
biggest
things
that
you
expect
from
from
a
backup
right.
It
needs
to
work
100%
or
anything
less
than
100.
E
A
A
This
was
supposed
to
be
there,
but
he
wasn't,
but
we
technically
didn't
fail
so
having
the
partially
failed,
the
partially
successful
would
exclude
the
need
for
going
through
like
failed
backups,
so
so
the
operator
admin,
the
operator
would
well
I'm
not
going
to
look
at
the
fell
back
up
because
they
felt
like
I,
don't
need
to
so
I'm
going
to
limit
my
search
to
okay.
Let's
see
what
this
partially
fails
telling
me
if
it's
recoverable
yeah.
B
B
E
D
E
The
negative
validation,
so
in
this
specific
case,
I,
will
call
this
partial
success.
Everything
belleros
power
to
complete
the
backup.
If
you
fail
to
upload
two
to
three
and
you
guys
called
it
partially
failed
earlier,
that's
why
I
want
to
change
that
to
make
it
completely
fail,
because
that's
a
failure.
E
C
E
C
C
C
E
A
E
A
A
E
Problem
and
unfortunately,
my
my
kubernetes
meeting
for
sick
windows,
which
is
another
community
I'd
share,
this
is
right
that,
in
the
middle
of
this
meeting,
so
I
will
only
be
able
to
attend
the
first
half
an
hour
every
week,
cool
all
right.
Thank
you
all
and
have
a
great
rest
of
your
day.
Bye.
Thank.
C
I
think
something
Adnan
and
Michael
said
here
is
probably
the
most
important
part
is,
regardless
of
whether
we
call
this
middle
state,
partially
failed
or
partially
completed,
or
whatever
we
named
it
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
make
sure
we're
crystal
clear
on
what
what
parts
of
the
backup
we
inherent
trouble
with
making
sure
those
are
easily
findable
via
our
tools
and
automation.
I,
think
that
might
be
the
bigger
thing
versus
trying
to
intelligently
like
skip
404
errors.
C
B
Ultimately,
I
think
you
know
the
class
topper
is
gonna
have
to
decide
whether
something
that's
missing
is
actually
a
problem
or
not,
and
we
just
have
to
make
that
visible
and
easy
for
someone
to
decide
and
I.
Think
I
think
documentation
here
on
saying:
okay,
failed
means
it's
something
that
can't
be
recovered,
partial,
fail
means
or
partial,
successful.
Whatever
we
end
up
calling
it
means
you
need
to
go
in
and
check
if
this
is
actually
a
complete
backup
or
not
and
and
then
decide
whatever
you
want
to
restore
it
or
not.
A
A
C
A
F
For
making
I
have
a
question
regarding
the
you
know,
the
back,
the
back
up
trouble
and
the
failure
for
that.
So
I
noticed
that
in
the
you
know,
doing
a
restore.
Let's
say
you
run
into
any
errors
or
warnings
with
the
restore.
The
letter
will
actually
create
I.
Think
in
the
back
in
the
s3
bucket,
you
love
like
a
results:
dots
zipped
file
there,
which
contains
all
the
the
warnings
and
errors
that
were
encountered
during
the
wrist,
all
right
so
further
for
the
backup,
though
it
seems
like
we
are
not
doing
something
similar
to
that.
F
F
C
I
think
I
think
one
of
the
challenges
with
the
backup
was
that
so
I.
In
the
early
days
of
Valero,
we
actually
put
the
entire
log
on
the
backup
CR
and
what
we
found
was
that
would
overflow
the
size
of
objects
and
sed
so
this
year
the
backup
CR
could
potentially
get
too
big
to
store
a
net
CD,
and
then
that
would
cause
all
kinds
of
problems.
C
C
So
the
challenge
is:
if
we
can't
upload
the
log
to
s
3,
then
we
have
limited
ways
of
communicating
that
I
see
yeah.
So
if
the
failure
mode
is
hey,
we
can't
communicate
with
s3
or
whatever
the
bucket
is
at
all.
Then
we
need
it's
very
least
a
way
to
signal
with
that,
and
but
if
a
backup
can
get
up
to
s3,
then
it
the
bucket,
then
it
should
also
have
those
logs
with
it.
Yeah.
F
G
Hi
I
have
a
question
about
because
from
the
latest,
because
I
knew
that
the
label
has
just
released
beta
version
on
last
Friday
right
and
besides
I
founded
the
AWS
and
mature
and
the
GCP.
Previously
they
are
in
soil
of
the
binary
play
right
now.
We
need
to
explicitly
to
specified
it
as
a
problem.
We
install
it.
That's
correct
yeah,
so
I
found
them
when
I
have
two
habitable
a
row
plug
in
and
then
at
the
image
of
the
WS,
and
then
it
shows
off
an
arrow
I.
Don't
know
why?
G
G
A
G
A
B
It
was
that
I
think
goes
from
the
conversation
that
we
had
yesterday.
Well
we're
a
lot
of
things
in
the
chart.
Readme
was
just
very
confusing,
so
if
you'll
I
guess
have
you
already
tackling
that,
then
that's
great
yeah,
we
can
I
mean
we
can
see
when
Steve
comes
back.
If
he
has
anything
else
to
add
or
not.
A
Maybe
the
intention
of
separating
the
plugins
was
one
of
the
intentions.
There
were
many
intentions,
but
one
of
it
was
maybe
on
board
people
who
can
be
eventually
maintained
under
served
as
plugins,
and
we
want
to
be
more
focused
on
the
Villareal
core.
So
the
answer
to
that
is
no
I.
Don't
know,
if
is
an
answer
you
like
we?
What
we
are
going
to
be
diligent
about
is
having
our
documentation
links
to
every
plugin,
that's
maintained
by
the
community.
C
C
C
Yeah,
like
I,
think
long
term,
like
I'm
thinking
like
year,
two
years
down
the
road
we
start
doing
more,
yes,
I
based
work
and
the
the
providers
have
that
support,
and
we
won't
have
to
worry
as
much
about
it,
but
with
the
state
of
things
as
they
are.
There's
not
besides
the
Cisco,
OpenStack,
plugins
I.
Don't
think,
there's
really
an
option
at
the
moment.
Okay,.
A
Yeah,
that's
not
the
question,
it's
just
just
to
add
to
that.
What
if
he
was
if
we
had,
if
we
make
exceptions
for
one
we
have
to
make,
you
know,
make
it
a
rule
for
everyone.
I
mean
one
system
in
our
guitar
work,
it's
the
organization,
then
we
give
the
impression
that
we
are
responsible
for
that
and
it's
can
get
to
be
quite
a
lot
anyway.
A
A
If
not
I'm
going
to
do
the
use
usual
spill
or
saying
you
can
get
involved
with
Valero
website
the
Laura
dot
IO
and
there
is
an
issue
open.
This
is
just
gonna
be
looking
for
maybe
forever
you
can.
Let
us
know
how
you
use
Valero,
go
to
our
dignity
to
be
updated,
go
to
the
issue,
one
three
to
seven
and
drop
another.
How
you
use
well,
we
do
have
a
carbonated
slide.
Channel
is
hashtag,
Valera,
surprise
and
no
contributor
shoutouts.
This
week
we
had
a
bunch
last
week.