[openstack-dev] [tripleo] Pacemaker + containers CI

Emilien Macchi emilien at redhat.com
Tue Aug 29 15:12:10 UTC 2017


On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Jiří Stránský <jistr at redhat.com> wrote:
[...]
> the CI for containerized deployments with Pacemaker is close! In fact, it
> works [1][2] (but there are pending changes to merge).

Really good news, thanks for the update!

> The way it's proposed in gerrit currently is to switch the
> centos-7-containers-multinode job (featureset010) to deploy with Pacemaker.
> What do you think about making this switch as a first step? [...]

I'm ok with the idea as long as
gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-containers-multinode-upgrades-nv keep working
fine.
Deploying Pacemaker on a single node environment is not optimal but
already cover a bunch of code which is good.

> Later it would be nice to get a proper clustering test with 3 controllers.
> Should we try and switch the centos-7-ovb-ha-oooq job to deploy containers
> on master and stable/pike? (Probably by adding a new job that only runs on
> master + Pike, and making the old ovb-ha-oooq only run upto Ocata, to keep
> the OVB capacity demands unchanged?) I'd be +1 on that since containers are
> the intended way of deploying Pike and beyond. WDYT?

It's actually a good start to our discussion at the PTG:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-ptg-queens-ci-related-topics
(we have a session on Wednesday morning about CI topics, please make
sure you can join!)

I think in Queens, we'll run container-only jobs, even for OVB.
That said, I think OVB coverage in Queens will be very useful to try
HA with 3 controllers (containerized) and the baremetal services
coverage will only run on Pike, Ocata and Newton.

That way, we would have:

Queens:
- multinode jobs covering basic HA scenario, single node but still
useful to test a good part of the code
- OVB jobs covering production environment and hopefully spot issues
we wouldn't see with multinode jobs

Pike, Ocata, Newton:
no change on OVB job

(note it's a proposal, not a statement)

[...]
> [3] https://review.openstack.org/498474

approved

[...]

Thanks,
-- 
Emilien Macchi



More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list