[openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

Matthew Treinish mtreinish at kortar.org
Thu Jun 12 17:01:35 UTC 2014


On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 09:24:15AM -0700, Joe Gordon wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2014 8:37 AM, "Sean Dague" <sean at dague.net> wrote:
> >
> > On 06/12/2014 10:38 AM, Mike Bayer wrote:
> > >
> > > On 6/12/14, 8:26 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Sean Dague wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> That's not cacthable in unit or functional tests?
> > >> Not in an accurate manner, no.
> > >>
> > >>> Keeping jobs alive based on the theory that they might one day be
> useful
> > >>> is something we just don't have the liberty to do any more. We've not
> > >>> seen an idle node in zuul in 2 days... and we're only at j-1. j-3 will
> > >>> be at least +50% of this load.
> > >> Sure, I'm not saying we don't have a problem. I'm just saying it's not
> a
> > >> good solution to fix that problem IMHO.
> > >
> > > Just my 2c without having a full understanding of all of OpenStack's CI
> > > environment, Postgresql is definitely different enough that MySQL
> > > "strict mode" could still allow issues to slip through quite easily, and
> > > also as far as capacity issues, this might be longer term but I'm hoping
> > > to get database-related tests to be lots faster if we can move to a
> > > model that spends much less time creating databases and schemas.
> >
> > This is what I mean by functional testing. If we were directly hitting a
> > real database on a set of in tree project tests, I think you could
> > discover issues like this. Neutron was headed down that path.
> >
> > But if we're talking about a devstack / tempest run, it's not really
> > applicable.
> >
> > If someone can point me to a case where we've actually found this kind
> > of bug with tempest / devstack, that would be great. I've just *never*
> > seen it. I was the one that did most of the fixing for pg support in
> > Nova, and have helped other projects as well, so I'm relatively familiar
> > with the kinds of fails we can discover. The ones that Julien pointed
> > really aren't likely to be exposed in our current system.
> >
> > Which is why I think we're mostly just burning cycles on the existing
> > approach for no gain.
> 
> Given all the points made above, I think dropping PostgreSQL is the right
> choice; if only we had infinite cloud that would be another story.

++

> 
> What about converting one of our existing jobs (grenade partial ncpu, large
> ops, regular grenade, tempest with nova network etc.) Into a PostgreSQL
> only job? We could get some level of PostgreSQL testing without any
> additional jobs, although this is  tradeoff obviously.
> 

I think that's a reasonable approach. Although, doing this you'd have to be
careful about asymmetry between what's gating on all the projects. We don't
want to only run postgres on a job that doesn't hit every project. Just thinking
out loud, but maybe it makes sense to switch the integrate-gate's neutron job
over to postgres and then keep the neutron jobs with mysql in the
integrated-gate-neutron template.

-Matt Treinish
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140612/a6083fc8/attachment.pgp>


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list