[placement][ptg] We like the perfload job, maybe we should rally?
smooney at redhat.com
Tue Apr 9 13:55:21 UTC 2019
On Tue, 2019-04-09 at 09:33 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 04/09/2019 09:16 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 2019, at 7:45 AM, Chris Dent <cdent+os at anticdent.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > In a world of copious time we'd have more of this kind of
> > > measurement. Should we investigate Rally? It used to be the tool of
> > > choice for this kind of thing once upon a time. Is it still that
> > > time?
> > >
> > > Or should we continue using more focused and smaller setups, like
> > > perfload? If so, what should they be?
> > >
> > > Or is this something to worry about some other time?
> > As we do not have “copious time”, I think that this is not something we need right now. We do have a check in place
> > in case something goes wrong, so I think our attention can best be directed elsewhere for now.
> Agree with Ed. :)
if there was a placement specific tempest plugin woudl that not enmable rally to work automatically.
im wondering if the gabbi tempest plugin coudl be used to execute the placeim api test via rally with
some tweeking to the relevent config files?
More information about the openstack-discuss