<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 18 December 2016 at 12:28, John Schwarz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jschwarz@redhat.com" target="_blank">jschwarz@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hey,<br>
<br>
There is already an experimental job called<br>
"gate-tempest-dsvm-neutron-<wbr>dvr-ha-multinode-full-ubuntu-<wbr>xenial-nv"<br>
(which was added by [1]).<br>
<br>
However, the job is currently a "one dvr_snat nodes, two dvr nodes"<br>
deployment (instead of the "two dvr_snat nodes, one dvr node" that it<br>
should be in order to make L3HA work there). The patch which makes the<br>
final transition is being worked on in [2], and it's ready to be<br>
merged afaik. Once it merges, we'll have a DVR+HA gate in the<br>
experimental queue.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Excellent! thanks for the update, John!</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Armando</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
John.<br>
<br>
[1]: <a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/383742/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/#<wbr>/c/383742/</a><br>
[2]: <a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/383827/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/#<wbr>/c/383827/</a><br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 2:23 AM, Armando M. <<a href="mailto:armamig@gmail.com">armamig@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hi Neutrinos,<br>
><br>
> Infra patch proposed in [1] got me thinking again about what we shall do<br>
> when it comes to multinode testing in the gate and how to focus our testing<br>
> and CI efforts upstream going forward. My line of thinking has always been<br>
> that multinode resources should be devoted to configurations whose coverage<br>
> fully benefit from the inherent nature of the distributed deployment, and<br>
> that means giving priority to DVR+HA and demote other configurations that<br>
> use centralized routing.<br>
><br>
> I know that some of you in team have worked on this, but I am a bit behind<br>
> on the latest status update. Any good soul willing to bring a strapped (for<br>
> time) PTL up to speed?<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
> Armando<br>
><br>
> [1] <a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/411263/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/#<wbr>/c/411263/</a><br>
><br>
</div></div>> ______________________________<wbr>______________________________<wbr>______________<br>
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
> Unsubscribe: <a href="http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev-request@lists.<wbr>openstack.org?subject:<wbr>unsubscribe</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/<wbr>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<wbr>openstack-dev</a><br>
><br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
John Schwarz,<br>
Senior Software Engineer,<br>
Red Hat.<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>______________________________<wbr>______________<br>
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev-request@lists.<wbr>openstack.org?subject:<wbr>unsubscribe</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/<wbr>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<wbr>openstack-dev</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div>