Open Stack

Patch [1] will solve the observed issue. It has already passed Jenkins
tests.
As it is a nova patch, the neutron full job did not run for it.
To check the neutron full job outcome with [1], please check [2].

Salvatore

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/112541/
[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98441/


On 7 August 2014 10:34, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com> wrote:

> I had to put the patch back on WIP because yesterday a bug causing a 100%
> failure rate slipped in.
> It should be an easy fix, and I'm already working on it.
> Situations like this, exemplified by [1] are a bit frustrating for all the
> people working on improving neutron quality.
> Now, if you allow me a little rant, as Neutron is receiving a lot of
> attention for all the ongoing discussion regarding this group policy stuff,
> would it be possible for us to receive a bit of attention to ensure both
> the full job and the grenade one are switched to voting before the juno-3
> review crunch.
>
> We've already had the attention of the QA team, it would probably good if
> we could get the attention of the infra core team to ensure:
> 1) the jobs are also deemed by them stable enough to be switched to voting
> 2) the relevant patches for openstack-infra/config are reviewed
>
> Regards,
> Salvatore
>
> [1]
> http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJtZXNzYWdlOlwie3UnbWVzc2FnZSc6IHUnRmxvYXRpbmcgaXAgcG9vbCBub3QgZm91bmQuJywgdSdjb2RlJzogNDAwfVwiIEFORCBidWlsZF9uYW1lOlwiY2hlY2stdGVtcGVzdC1kc3ZtLW5ldXRyb24tZnVsbFwiIEFORCBidWlsZF9icmFuY2g6XCJtYXN0ZXJcIiIsImZpZWxkcyI6W10sIm9mZnNldCI6MCwidGltZWZyYW1lIjoiMTcyODAwIiwiZ3JhcGhtb2RlIjoiY291bnQiLCJ0aW1lIjp7InVzZXJfaW50ZXJ2YWwiOjB9LCJzdGFtcCI6MTQwNzQwMDExMDIwNywibW9kZSI6IiIsImFuYWx5emVfZmllbGQiOiIifQ==
>
>
> On 23 July 2014 14:59, Matthew Treinish <mtreinish at kortar.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 02:40:02PM +0200, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
>> > Here I am again bothering you with the state of the full job for
>> Neutron.
>> >
>> > The patch for fixing an issue in nova's server external events extension
>> > merged yesterday [1]
>> > We do not have yet enough data points to make a reliable assessment,
>> but of
>> > out 37 runs since the patch merged, we had "only" 5 failures, which puts
>> > the failure rate at about 13%
>> >
>> > This is ugly compared with the current failure rate of the smoketest
>> (3%).
>> > However, I think it is good enough to start making the full job voting
>> at
>> > least for neutron patches.
>> > Once we'll be able to bring down failure rate to anything around 5%, we
>> can
>> > then enable the job everywhere.
>>
>> I think that sounds like a good plan. I'm also curious how the failure
>> rates
>> compare to the other non-neutron jobs, that might be a useful comparison
>> too
>> for deciding when to flip the switch everywhere.
>>
>> >
>> > As much as I hate asymmetric gating, I think this is a good compromise
>> for
>> > avoiding developers working on other projects are badly affected by the
>> > higher failure rate in the neutron full job.
>>
>> So we discussed this during the project meeting a couple of weeks ago [3]
>> and
>> there was a general agreement that doing it asymmetrically at first would
>> be
>> better. Everyone should be wary of the potential harms with doing it
>> asymmetrically and I think priority will be given to fixing issues that
>> block
>> the neutron gate should they arise.
>>
>> > I will therefore resume work on [2] and remove the WIP status as soon
>> as I
>> > can confirm a failure rate below 15% with more data points.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for keeping on top of this Salvatore. It'll be good to finally be
>> at
>> least partially gating with a parallel job.
>>
>> -Matt Treinish
>>
>> >
>> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103865/
>> > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88289/
>> [3]
>> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2014/project.2014-07-08-21.03.log.html#l-28
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10 July 2014 11:49, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 10 July 2014 11:27, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrachys at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > >> Hash: SHA512
>> > >>
>> > >> On 10/07/14 11:07, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
>> > >> > The patch for bug 1329564 [1] merged about 11 hours ago. From [2]
>> > >> > it seems there has been an improvement on the failure rate, which
>> > >> > seem to have dropped to 25% from over 40%. Still, since the patch
>> > >> > merged there have been 11 failures already in the full job out of
>> > >> > 42 jobs executed in total. Of these 11 failures: - 3 were due to
>> > >> > problems in the patches being tested - 1 had the same root cause as
>> > >> > bug 1329564. Indeed the related job started before the patch merged
>> > >> > but finished after. So this failure "doesn't count". - 1 was for an
>> > >> > issue introduced about a week ago which actually causing a lot of
>> > >> > failures in the full job [3]. Fix should be easy for it; however
>> > >> > given the nature of the test we might even skip it while it's
>> > >> > fixed. - 3 were for bug 1333654 [4]; for this bug discussion is
>> > >> > going on on gerrit regarding the most suitable approach. - 3 were
>> > >> > for lock wait timeout errors. Several people in the community are
>> > >> > already working on them. I hope this will raise the profile of this
>> > >> > issue (maybe some might think it's just a corner case as it rarely
>> > >> > causes failures in smoke jobs, whereas the truth is that error
>> > >> > occurs but it does not cause job failure because the jobs isn't
>> > >> > parallel).
>> > >>
>> > >> Can you give directions on where to find those lock timeout failures?
>> > >> I'd like to check logs to see whether they have the same nature as
>> > >> most other failures (e.g. improper yield under transaction).
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > This logstash query will give you all occurences of lock wait timeout
>> > > issues: message:"(OperationalError) (1205, 'Lock wait timeout
>> exceeded; try
>> > > restarting transaction')" AND tags:"screen-q-svc.txt"
>> > >
>> > > The fact that in most cases the build succeeds anyway is misleading,
>> > > because in many cases these errors occur in RPC handling between
>> agents and
>> > > servers, and therefore are not detected by tempest. The neutron full
>> job,
>> > > which is parallel, increases their occurrence because of parallelism
>> - and
>> > > since API request too occur concurrently it also yields a higher
>> tempest
>> > > build failure rate.
>> > >
>> > > However, as I argued in the past the "lock wait timeout" error should
>> > > always be treated as an error condition.
>> > > Eugene has already classified lock wait timeout failures and filed
>> bugs
>> > > for them a few weeks ago.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Summarizing, I think time is not yet ripe to enable the full job;
>> > >> > once bug 1333654 is fixed, we should go for it. AFAIK there is no
>> > >> > way for working around it in gate tests other than disabling
>> > >> > nova/neutron event reporting, which I guess we don't want to do.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Salvatore
>> > >> >
>> > >> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105239 [2]
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJidWlsZF9zdGF0dXM6RkFJTFVSRSBBTkQgbWVzc2FnZTpcIkZpbmlzaGVkOiBGQUlMVVJFXCIgQU5EIGJ1aWxkX25hbWU6XCJjaGVjay10ZW1wZXN0LWRzdm0tbmV1dHJvbi1mdWxsXCIgQU5EIGJ1aWxkX2JyYW5jaDpcIm1hc3RlclwiIiwiZmllbGRzIjpbXSwib2Zmc2V0IjowLCJ0aW1lZnJhbWUiOiIxNzI4MDAiLCJncmFwaG1vZGUiOiJjb3VudCIsInRpbWUiOnsiZnJvbSI6IjIwMTQtMDctMTBUMDA6MjQ6NTcrMDA6MDAiLCJ0byI6IjIwMTQtMDctMTBUMDg6MjQ6NTMrMDA6MDAiLCJ1c2VyX2ludGVydmFsIjoiMCJ9LCJzdGFtcCI6MTQwNDk4MjU2MjM2OCwibW9kZSI6IiIsImFuYWx5emVfZmllbGQiOiIifQ==
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> [3]
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJtZXNzYWdlOlwiSFRUUEJhZFJlcXVlc3Q6IFVucmVjb2duaXplZCBhdHRyaWJ1dGUocykgJ21lbWJlciwgdmlwLCBwb29sLCBoZWFsdGhfbW9uaXRvcidcIiBBTkQgdGFnczpcInNjcmVlbi1xLXN2Yy50eHRcIiIsImZpZWxkcyI6W10sIm9mZnNldCI6MCwidGltZWZyYW1lIjoiY3VzdG9tIiwiZ3JhcGhtb2RlIjoiY291bnQiLCJ0aW1lIjp7ImZyb20iOiIyMDE0LTA3LTAxVDA4OjU5OjAxKzAwOjAwIiwidG8iOiIyMDE0LTA3LTEwVDA4OjU5OjAxKzAwOjAwIiwidXNlcl9pbnRlcnZhbCI6IjAifSwic3RhbXAiOjE0MDQ5ODI3OTc3ODAsIm1vZGUiOiIiLCJhbmFseXplX2ZpZWxkIjoiIn0=
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> [4] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1333654
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On 2 July 2014 17:57, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com>
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> Hi again,
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> From my analysis most of the failures affecting the neutron full
>> > >> >> job are because of bugs [1] and [2] for which patch [3] and [4]
>> > >> >> have been proposed. Both patches address the nova side of the
>> > >> >> neutron/nova notification system for vif plugging. It is worth
>> > >> >> noting that these bugs did manifest only in the neutron full job
>> > >> >> not because of its "full" nature, but because of its "parallel"
>> > >> >> nature.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Openstackers with a good memory will probably remember we fixed
>> > >> >> the parallel job back in January, before the massive "kernel bug"
>> > >> >> gate outage [5]. However, since parallel testing was
>> > >> >> unfortunately never enabled on the smoke job we run on the gate,
>> > >> >> we allowed new bugs to slip in. For this reason I would recommend
>> > >> >> the following: - once patches [3] and [4] have been reviewed and
>> > >> >> merge, re-assess neutron full job failure rate over a period of
>> > >> >> 48 hours (72 if the period includes at least 24 hours within a
>> > >> >> weekend - GMT time) - turn neutron full job to voting if the
>> > >> >> previous step reveals a failure rate below 10%, otherwise go back
>> > >> >> to the drawing board
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> In my opinion whether the full job should be enabled in an
>> > >> >> asymmetric fashion or not should be a decision for the QA and
>> > >> >> Infra teams. Once the full job is made voting there will
>> > >> >> inevitably be a higher failure rate. An asymmetric gate will not
>> > >> >> cause backlogs on other projects, so less angry people, but as
>> > >> >> Matt said it will still allow other bugs to slip in. Personally
>> > >> >> I'm ok either way.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> The reason why we're expecting a higher failure rate on the full
>> > >> >> job is that we have already observed that some "known" bugs, such
>> > >> >> as the various lock timeout issues affecting neutron tend to show
>> > >> >> with a higher frequency on the full job because of its parallel
>> > >> >> nature.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Salvatore
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> [1] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1329546 [2]
>> > >> >> https://launchpad.net/bugs/1333654 [3]
>> > >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/99182/ [4]
>> > >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103865/ [5]
>> > >> >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1273386
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> On 25 June 2014 23:38, Matthew Treinish <mtreinish at kortar.org>
>> > >> >> wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 02:14:16PM +0200, Salvatore Orlando
>> > >> >>> wrote:
>> > >> >>>> There is a long standing patch [1] for enabling the neutron
>> > >> >>>> full job. Little before the Icehouse release date, when we
>> > >> >>>> first pushed this, the neutron full job had a failure rate of
>> > >> >>>> less than 10%. However, since has come by, and perceived
>> > >> >>>> failure rates were higher, we ran again this analysis.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> So I'm not exactly a fan of having the gates be asymmetrical.
>> > >> >>> It's very easy for breaks to slip in blocking the neutron gate
>> > >> >>> if it's not voting everywhere. Especially because I think most
>> > >> >>> people have been trained to ignore the full job because it's
>> > >> >>> been nonvoting for so long. Is there a particular reason we
>> > >> >>> just don't switch everything all at once? I think having a
>> > >> >>> little bit of friction everywhere during the migration is fine.
>> > >> >>> Especially if we do it way before a milestone. (as opposed to
>> > >> >>> the original parallel switch which was right before H-3)
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Here are the findings in a nutshell. 1) If we were to enable
>> > >> >>>> the job today we might expect about a 3-fold increase in
>> > >> >>>> neutron job failures when compared with the smoke test.
>> > >> >>> This is
>> > >> >>>> unfortunately not acceptable and we therefore need to
>> > >> >>>> identify and fix
>> > >> >>> the
>> > >> >>>> issues causing the additional failure rate. 2) However this
>> > >> >>>> also puts us in a position where if we wait until the failure
>> > >> >>>> rate drops under a given threshold we might end up chasing a
>> > >> >>> moving
>> > >> >>>> target as new issues might be introduced at any time since
>> > >> >>>> the job is
>> > >> >>> not
>> > >> >>>> voting. 3) When it comes to evaluating failure rates for a
>> > >> >>>> non voting job,
>> > >> >>> taking
>> > >> >>>> the rough numbers does not mean anything, as that will take
>> > >> >>>> in account patches 'in progress' which end up failing the
>> > >> >>>> tests because of
>> > >> >>> problems in
>> > >> >>>> the patch themselves.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Well, that was pretty much a lot for a "nutshell"; however if
>> > >> >>>> you're not yet bored to death please go on reading.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> The data in this post are a bit skewed because of a rise in
>> > >> >>>> neutron job failures in the past 36 hours. However, this rise
>> > >> >>>> affects both the full
>> > >> >>> and
>> > >> >>>> the smoke job so it does not invalidate what we say here. The
>> > >> >>>> results
>> > >> >>> shown
>> > >> >>>> below are representative of the gate status 12 hours ago.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> - Neutron smoke job failure rates (all queues) 24 hours:
>> > >> >>>> 22.4% 48 hours: 19.3% 7 days: 8.96% - Neutron smoke job
>> > >> >>>> failure rates (gate queue only): 24 hours: 10.41% 48 hours:
>> > >> >>>> 10.20% 7 days: 3.53% - Neutron full job failure rate (check
>> > >> >>>> queue only as it's non voting): 24 hours: 31.54% 48 hours:
>> > >> >>>> 28.87% 7 days: 25.73%
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Check/Gate Ratio between neutron smoke failures 24 hours:
>> > >> >>>> 2.15 48 hours: 1.89 7 days: 2.53
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Estimated job failure rate for neutron full job if it were to
>> > >> >>>> run in the gate: 24 hours: 14.67% 48 hours: 15.27% 7 days:
>> > >> >>>> 10.16%
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> The numbers are therefore not terrible, but definitely not
>> > >> >>>> good enough; looking at the last 7 days the full job will
>> > >> >>>> have a failure rate about 3 times higher than the smoke job.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> We then took, as it's usual for us when we do this kind of
>> > >> >>>> evaluation, a window with a reasonable number of failures (41
>> > >> >>>> in our case), and
>> > >> >>> analysed
>> > >> >>>> them in detail.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Of these 41 failures 17 were excluded because of infra
>> > >> >>>> problems, patches 'in progress', or other transient failures;
>> > >> >>>> considering that over the
>> > >> >>> same
>> > >> >>>> period of time 160 full job runs succeeded this would leave
>> > >> >>>> us with 24 failures on 184 run, and therefore a failure rate
>> > >> >>>> of 13.04%, which not
>> > >> >>> far
>> > >> >>>> from the estimate.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Let's consider now these 24 'real' falures: A)  2 were for
>> > >> >>>> the SSH timeout (8.33% of failures, 1.08% of total full
>> > >> >>> job
>> > >> >>>> runs). These specific failure is being analyzed to see if a
>> > >> >>>> specific fingerprint can be found B) 2  (8.33% of failures,
>> > >> >>>> 1.08% of total full job runs) were for a
>> > >> >>> failure
>> > >> >>>> in test load balancer basic, which is actually a test design
>> > >> >>>> issue and
>> > >> >>> is
>> > >> >>>> already being addressed [2] C) 7 (29.16% of failures, 3.81%
>> > >> >>>> of total full job runs) were for an
>> > >> >>> issue
>> > >> >>>> while resizing a server, which has been already spotted and
>> > >> >>>> has a bug in progress [3] D) 5 (20.83% of failures, 2.72% of
>> > >> >>>> total full job runs) manifested as a failure in
>> > >> >>>> test_server_address; however the actual root cause was being
>> > >> >>>> masked by [4]. A bug has been filed [5]; this is the most
>> > >> >>>> worrying one
>> > >> >>> in
>> > >> >>>> my opinion as there are many cases where the fault happens
>> > >> >>>> but does not trigger a failure because of the way tempest
>> > >> >>>> tests are designed. E) 6 are because of our friend lock wait
>> > >> >>>> timeout. This was initially
>> > >> >>> filed
>> > >> >>>> as [6] but since then we've closed it to file more detailed
>> > >> >>>> bug reports
>> > >> >>> as
>> > >> >>>> the lock wait timeout can manifest in various places; Eugene
>> > >> >>>> is leading
>> > >> >>> the
>> > >> >>>> effort on this problem with Kevin B.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Summarizing the only failure modes specific to the full job
>> > >> >>>> seem to be
>> > >> >>> C &
>> > >> >>>> D. If we were able to fix those we should reasonably expect a
>> > >> >>>> failure
>> > >> >>> rate
>> > >> >>>> of about 6.5%. That's still almost twice as the smoke job,
>> > >> >>>> but I deem it acceptable for two reasons: 1- by voting, we
>> > >> >>>> will avoid new bugs affecting the full job from being
>> > >> >>>> introduced. it is worth reminding people that any bug
>> > >> >>>> affecting the full job is likely to affect production
>> > >> >>>> environments
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> +1, this is a very good point.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>> 2- patches failing in the gate will spur neutron developers
>> > >> >>>> to quickly
>> > >> >>> find
>> > >> >>>> a fix. Patches failing a non voting job will cause some
>> > >> >>>> neutron core
>> > >> >>> team
>> > >> >>>> members to write long and boring posts to the mailing list.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> Well, you can always hope. :) But, in my experience the error
>> > >> >>> is often fixed quickly but the lesson isn't learned, so it will
>> > >> >>> just happen again. That's why I think we should just grit our
>> > >> >>> teeth and turn it on everywhere.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>> Salvatore
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88289/ [2]
>> > >> >>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98065/ [3]
>> > >> >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1329546 [4]
>> > >> >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/tempest/+bug/1332414 [5]
>> > >> >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1333654 [5]
>> > >> >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1283522
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> Very cool, thanks for the update Salvatore. I'm very excited to
>> > >> >>> get this voting.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> -Matt Treinish
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev
>> > >> >>> mailing list 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
>> > >> >
>> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > >> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
>> > >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>> > >>
>> > >> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTvlxzAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57FJ8H/i+gPR/VZuWFvkOu7pNTHuSj
>> > >> 8iSA1LJRGe7I9185Gbh22fVzGlahqDpB2hCJjKtWIcL/ml/pgSNGzafB/DhqUUlL
>> > >> 4GT1UUHptqlKaNX9GLl9I/bknUBEtpwg3hSBivVdCkRYiVwfX86a2ZeeHaCAONwY
>> > >> ykhiNgoXhR6mr8oEJEIvtjnTDlodR+1dcEq+Nchf/6Fzd8J29dI2Qu38JkweK/qP
>> > >> m6koPdKSJFzrneOWMCW0Dta6yBKjb3bMCNJUVO/KSGg+MRuSmrufOmLCW5JFu95S
>> > >> DWIQSTWs3A+dSy9+xuByClQP9kDpG3aUXxW6uRu5UshHMAF5vLATmdCdK4kBiBY=
>> > >> =K9qm
>> > >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > >>
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> > >> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140807/73f07bab/attachment.html>