[openstack-dev] [tripleo] containerized undercloud update

Alex Schultz aschultz at redhat.com
Fri Dec 1 15:12:04 UTC 2017

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Alex Schultz <aschultz at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Wesley Hayutin <whayutin at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Greetings,
>> Just wanted to share some progress with the containerized undercloud work.
>> Ian pushed some of the patches along and we now have a successful undercloud
>> install with containers.
>> The initial undercloud install works [1]
>> The idempotency check failed where we reinstall the undercloud [2]
>> Question: Do we expect the reinstallation to work at this point? Should the
>> check be turned off?
> So I would say for the undercloud-container's job it's not required at
> this point but for the main undercloud job yes it is required and
> should not be disabled. This is expected functionality that must be
> replicated in the containers version in order to make the switch.  The
> original ask that I had was that from an operator perspective the
> containerized install works exactly like the non-containerized
> undercloud.
>> I will try it w/o the idempotency check, I suspect I will run into errors in
>> a full run with an overcloud deployment.  I ran into issues weeks ago.  I
>> suspect if we do hit something it will be CI related as Dan Price has been
>> deploying the overcloud for a while now.  Dan I may need to review your
>> latest doit.sh scripts to check for diffs in the CI.
> What I would propose is switching the undercloud-containers job to use
> the 'openstack undercloud install --use-heat' command and we switch
> that to non-voting and see how it performs. Originally when we

Oops s/non-voting/voting/.  I would like that job voting but I know
we've seen failure issues in comparison with the instack-undercloud
job. That however might be related to the number of times we run the
undercloud-containers job (on all THT patches) than the instack jobs
(just puppet-tripleo and instack-undercloud). So we really need to
understand the passing numbers.

> discussed this I wanted that job voting my milestone 1. Milestone 2 is
> next week so I'm very concerned at the state of this feature.  Do we
> have updates and upgrades with the containerized undercloud being
> tested anywhere in CI? That was one of items that I had mentioned[0]
> as a requirement to do the switch during the queens cycle. What I
> would really like to see is that we get those stable and then we can
> work on actually testing overcloud deploys and the various scenarios
> with the containerized undercloud.  If we update oooq to support
> adding the --use-heat flag it would make testing all the scenarios
> fairly trivial with a single patch and we would be able to see where
> there are issues.
> Thanks,
> -Alex
> [0] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-October/123065.html
>> Thanks
>> [1]
>> http://logs.openstack.org/18/518118/6/check/tripleo-ci-centos-7-undercloud-oooq/73115d6/logs/undercloud/home/zuul/undercloud_install.log.txt.gz
>> [2]
>> http://logs.openstack.org/18/518118/6/check/tripleo-ci-centos-7-undercloud-oooq/73115d6/logs/undercloud/home/zuul/undercloud_reinstall.log.txt.gz#_2017-11-30_19_51_26
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list