Open Stack

On 10/18/2013 12:17 PM, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
> John,
>
> Actually seems like a pretty good suggestion IMO, at least something 
> worth some investigation and consideration before quickly discounting 
> it.  Rather than "that's not what tempest is", maybe it's something 
> tempest "could do".  Don't know, not saying one way or the other, just 
> wondering if it's worth some investigation or thought.
>
>
> These investigations I made before start working around Rally. It was 
> about 3 months ago.
> It is not "quickly discounting" I didn't have yesterday time to make 
> long response, so I will write it today:
>
> I really don't like to make a copy of another projects, so I tried to 
> reuse all projects & libs that we already have.
>
> To explain why we shouldn't merge Rally & Tempest in one project (and 
> should keep both)  we should analyze their use cases.
>
>
> 1. DevStack - one "click" and get your OpenStack cloud from sources
>
> 2. Tempest - one "click" and get your OpenStack Cloud verified
>
> Both of these projects are great, because they are very useful and 
> solve complicated tasks without "pain" for end user. (and I like them)
>
> 3. Rally is also one "click" system that solve OpenStack benchmarking.
>
> To clarify situation. We should analyze what I mean by one "click" 
> benchmarking and what are the use cases.
>
> Use Cases:
> 1. Investigate how deployments influence on OS performance (find the 
> set of good OpenStack deployment architectures)
> 2. Automatically get numbers & profiling info about how your changes 
> influence on OS performance
> 3. Using Rally profiler detect scale & performance issues.
> Like here when we are trying to delete 3 VMs by one request they are 
> deleted one by one because of DB lock on quotas table 
> http://37.58.79.43:8080/traces/0011f252c9d98e31
> 4. Determine maximal load that could handle production cloud
>
> To cover these cases we should actually test OpenStack deployments 
> making simultaneously OpenStack API calls.
>
> So to get results we have to:
> 1. Deploy OpenStack cloud somewhere. (Or get existing cloud)
> 2. Verify It
> 3. Run Benchmarks
> 4. Collect all results & present it in human readable form.
>
>
> The goal of Rally was designed to automate these steps:
> 1.a Use existing cloud.
> 1.b.1 Automatically get (virtual) Servers from (soft layer, Amazon, 
> RackSpace or you private public cloud, or OpenStack cloud)
> 1.b.2 DeployOpenStack on these servers from source (using Devstack, 
> Anvli, Fuel or TrippleO...).
> 1.b.3 Patch this OpenStack with tomograph to get profiling information 
> (I hope we will merge these patches into upstream).
> 2. Using tempest verify this cloud (we are going to switch from 
> fuel-ostf-tests)
> 3. Run specified parametrized (to be able to make different load) 
> benchmark scenarios
> 4. Collect all information about execution & present it in human 
> readable form. (Tomograph, Zipking, matplotlib...)
>
>
> So I am not sure that we should put inside Tempest Rally, because 
> Rally use tempest. It is something like putting Nova into Cinder =)
> Also putting Tempest into Rally is not a good idea. (same as putting 
> Cinder back to Nova).
>
>
> Best regards,
> Boris Pavlovic
> ---
> Mirantis Inc.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:56 PM, John Griffith 
> <john.griffith at solidfire.com <mailto:john.griffith at solidfire.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>     On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com
>     <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         On 10/17/2013 03:32 PM, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
>
>             Jay,
>
>
>             Or, alternately, just have Rally as part of Tempest.
>
>
>             Actually, tempest is used only to verify that cloud works
>             properly.
>             And verification is only small part of the Rally.
>
>             At this moment we are using fuel-ostf-tests, but we are
>             going to use
>             tempest to verify cloud.
>
>
>         OK, cool... was just a suggestion :) Tempest has a set of
>         stress tests [1] which are kind of related, which is the only
>         reason I brought it up.
>
>         Best,
>         -jay
>
>         [1]
>         https://github.com/openstack/tempest/tree/master/tempest/stress
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         OpenStack-dev mailing list
>         OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>         <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>         http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>     Actually seems like a pretty good suggestion IMO, at least
>     something worth some investigation and consideration before
>     quickly discounting it.  Rather than "that's not what tempest is",
>     maybe it's something tempest "could do".  Don't know, not saying
>     one way or the other, just wondering if it's worth some
>     investigation or thought.
>
>     By the way, VERY COOL!!
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     OpenStack-dev mailing list
>     OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>     <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Thanks, Boris. This is really great. I took a look and there is a lot of 
similarity between the tempest stress framework and the rally benchmark 
driver and some code could be shared. But that code is only a very small 
part of each of these projects and IMO there is no reason to try and 
integrate the two more deeply. Rally will be beneficial to the OpenStack 
QA community which needs to grow beyond "OpenStackQA == tempest".

  -David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131018/8b247add/attachment.html>