Open Stack

> > 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]
> > https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack-infra/config+branch:master+topic:ceilometer-mongodb-job,n,z
> > [2]
> > https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack-infra/devstack-gate+branch:master+topic:ceilometer-backend,n,z
> > 
> 
> 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]

Sure, the main goal is to have full mongodb-based coverage in the gate.

So, if the QA/infra folks are prepared to host *both* jobs, then I'd be
happy to change my request to simply:

  let's promote the mongodb-based Tempest variant to the first tier,
  to run alongside the current sqlalchemy-based job 

Does that work for you Devananda?

Cheers,
Eoghan
 
> -Deva
> 
> 
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee/Ceilometer_Gap_Coverage
> 
> [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/030510.html
> is a very articulate example of this objection