[openstack-dev] [qa][ceilometer] swapping the roles of mongodb and sqlalchemy for ceilometer in Tempest

Devananda van der Veen devananda.vdv at gmail.com
Sat Aug 9 12:55:42 UTC 2014

On Aug 9, 2014 4:22 AM, "Eoghan Glynn" <eglynn at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> Dina Belova has recently landed some infra patches[1,2] to create
> an experimental mongodb-based Tempest job. This effectively just
> overrides the ceilometer storage backend config so that mongodb
> is used instead of sql-alchemy. The new job has been running
> happily for a few days so I'd like now to consider the path
> forwards with this.
> One of our Juno goals under the TC gap analysis was to more fully
> gate against mongodb, given that this is the storage backend
> recommended/supported by many distros. The sql-alchemy backend,
> on the other hand, is more suited for proofs of concept or small
> deployments. However up to now we've been hampered from reflecting
> that reality in the gate, due to the gate being stuck on Precise
> for a long time, as befits LTS, and the version of mongodb needed
> by ceilometer (i.e. 2.4) effectively unavailable on that Ubuntu
> release (in fact it was limited to 2.0.4).
> So the orientation towards gating on sql-alchemy was mostly
> driven by legacy issues in the gate's usage of Precise, as
> opposed to this being considered the most logical basket in
> which to put all our testing eggs.
> However, we're now finally in the brave new world of Trusty :)
> So I would like to make the long-delayed change over soon.
> This would involve transposing the roles of sql-alchemy and
> mongodb in the gate - the mongodb variant becomes the "blessed"
> job run by default, whereas the sql-alchemy based job to
> relegated to the second tier.
> So my questions are:
>  (a) would the QA side of the house be agreeable to this switch?
> and:
>  (b) how long would the mongodb job need to be stable in this
>      experimental mode before we pull the trigger on swicthing?
> If the answer to (a) is yes, we can get infra patches proposed
> early next week to make the swap.
> Cheers,
> Eoghan
> [1]
> [2]

My interpretation of the gap analysis [1] is merely that you have coverage,
not that you switch to it and relegate the SQLAlchemy tests to second
chair. I believe that's a dangerous departure from current standards. A
dependency on mongodb, due to it's AGPL license, and lack of sufficient
support for a non-AGPL storage back end, has consistently been raised as a
blocking issue for Marconi. [2]



is a very articulate example of this objection
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140809/b0a50d3e/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list