Open Stack

On 08/20/2014 07:35 PM, Gregory Haynes wrote:
> Excerpts from Derek Higgins's message of 2014-08-20 09:06:48 +0000:
>> On 19/08/14 20:58, Gregory Haynes wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Giulio Fidente's message of 2014-08-19 12:07:53 +0000:
>>>> One last comment, maybe a bit OT but I'm raising it here to see what is
>>>> the other people opinion: how about we modify the -ha job so that at
>>>> some point we actually kill one of the controllers and spawn a second
>>>> user image?
>>>
>>> I think this is a great long term goal, but IMO performing an update
>>> isnt really the type of verification we want for this kind of test. We
>>> really should have some minimal tempest testing in place first so we can
>>> verify that when these types of failures occur our cloud remains in a
>>> functioning state.
>>
>> Greg, you said "performing an update" did you mean "killing a controller
>> node" ?
>>
>> if so I agree, verifying our cloud is still in a working order with
>> tempest would get us more coverage then spawning a node. So once we have
>> tempest in place we can add a test to kill a controller node.
>>
>
> Ah, I misread the original message a bit, but sounds like were all on
> the same page.

I don't see why we should wait for tempest being add too before 
introducing the node kill step.

I understand to have a view of the overall status tempest is the tool we 
need, but today we rely on small, short, scenario: we boot a guest from 
a volume and assign it a float

I think we can continue to rely on this and also introduce the node kill 
step, without interfering with the work needed to put tempest in the cycle.

-- 
Giulio Fidente
GPG KEY: 08D733BA