[openstack-dev] [tripleo] Progress on overcloud upgrade / update jobs
whayutin at redhat.com
Fri Aug 5 20:19:38 UTC 2016
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emilien Macchi <emilien at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Steven Hardy <shardy at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:46:20PM -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I'm currently working by iteration to get a new upstream job that test
> >> upgrades and update.
> >> Until now, I'm doing baby steps. I bootstrapped the work to upgrade
> >> undercloud, see https> ://review.openstack.org/#/c/346995/ for details
> >> (it's almost working hitting a packaging issue now).
> >> Now I am interested by having 2 overcloud jobs:
> >> - update: Newton -> Newton: basically, we already have it with
> >> gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-upgrades - but my proposal is to use
> >> multinode work that James started.
> >> I have a PoC (2 lines of code):
> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/351330/1 that works, it deploys an
> >> overcloud using packaging, applies the patch in THT and run overcloud
> >> update. I tested it and it works fine, (I tried to break Keystone).
> >> Right now the job name is
> >> gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-nonha-multinode-upgrades-nv because I took
> >> example from the existing ovb job that does the exact same thing.
> >> I propose to rename it to
> >> gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-nonha-multinode-updates-nv. What do you
> >> think?
> > This sounds good, and it seems to be a valid replacement for the old
> > "upgrades" job - it won't catch all kinds of update bugs (in particular
> > obviously won't run any packaged based updates at all), but it will catch
> > the most serious template regressions, which will be useful coverage to
> > maintain I think.
> >> - upgrade: Mitaka -> Newton: I haven't started anything yet but the
> >> idea is to test the upgrade from stable to master, using multinode job
> >> now (not ovb).
> >> I can prototype something but I would like to hear from our community
> > I think getting this coverage in place is very important, we're
> > experiencing a lot of post-release pain due to the lack of this coverage,
> > so +1 on any steps we can take to get some coverage here, I'd say go
> > and do the prototype if you have time to do it.
> ok, /me working on it.
> > You may want to chat with weshay, as I know there are some RDO upgrade
> > tests which were planned to be run as third-party jobs to get some
> > coverage - I'm not sure if there is any scope for reuse here, or if it
> > be easier to just wire in the upgrade via our current scripts (obviously
> > some form of reuse would be good if possible).
> >> Please give some feedback if you are interested by this work and I
> >> will spend some time during the next weeks on $topic.
> >> Note: please also look my thread about undercloud upgrade job, I need
> >> your feedback too.
> > My only question about undercloud upgrades is whether we might combine
> > overcloud upgrade job with this, e.g upgrade undercloud, then updgrade
> > overcloud. Probably the blocker here will be the gate timeout I guess,
> > even if we're using pre-cached images etc.
> Yes, my final goal was to have a job like:
> 1) deploy Mitaka undercloud
> 2) deploy Mitaka overcloud
> 3) run pingtest
> 4) upgrade undercloud to Newton
> 5) upgrade overcloud to newton
> 6) re-run pingtest
FYI.. Mathieu wrote up https://review.openstack.org/#/c/323750/
Emilien feel free to take it over, just sync up w/ Mathieu when he returns
from PTO on Monday.
> Emilien Macchi
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev