[openstack-dev] [TripleO] [CI] Cinder/Ceph CI setup
openstack at nemebean.com
Tue Dec 2 16:49:24 UTC 2014
On 11/27/2014 07:23 AM, Derek Higgins wrote:
> On 27/11/14 10:21, Duncan Thomas wrote:
>> I'd suggest starting by making it an extra job, so that it can be
>> monitored for a while for stability without affecting what is there.
> we have to be careful here, adding an extra job for this is probably the
> safest option but tripleo CI resources are a constraint, for that reason
> I would add it to the HA job (which is currently non voting) and once
> its stable we should make it voting.
The only problem is that the HA job has been non-voting for so long that
I don't think anyone pays attention to it. That said, I don't have a
better suggestion because it makes no sense to run a Cinder HA job in a
non-HA CI run, so I guess until HA CI is fixed we're kind of stuck.
So +1 to making this the default in HA jobs.
>> I'd be supportive of making it the default HA job in the longer term as
>> long as the LVM code is still getting tested somewhere - LVM is still
>> the reference implementation in cinder and after discussion there was
>> strong resistance to changing that.
> We are and would continue to use lvm for our non ha jobs, If I
> understand it correctly the tripleo lvm support isn't HA so continuing
> to test it on our HA job doesn't achieve much.
>> I've no strong opinions on the node layout, I'll leave that to more
>> knowledgable people to discuss.
>> Is the ceph/tripleO code in a working state yet? Is there a guide to
>> using it?
>> On 26 November 2014 at 13:10, Giulio Fidente <gfidente at redhat.com
>> <mailto:gfidente at redhat.com>> wrote:
>> hi there,
>> while working on the TripleO cinder-ha spec meant to provide HA for
>> Cinder via Ceph , we wondered how to (if at all) test this in CI,
>> so we're looking for some feedback
>> first of all, shall we make Cinder/Ceph the default for our
>> (currently non-voting) HA job?
>> current implementation (under review) should permit for the
>> deployment of both the Ceph monitors and Ceph OSDs on either
>> controllers, dedicated nodes, or to split them up so that only OSDs
>> are on dedicated nodes
>> what would be the best scenario for CI?
>> * a single additional node hosting a Ceph OSD with the Ceph monitors
>> deployed on all controllers (my preference is for this one)
> I would be happy with this so long as it didn't drastically increase the
> time to run the HA job.
>> * a single additional node hosting a Ceph OSD and a Ceph monitor
>> * no additional nodes with controllers also service as Ceph monitor
>> and Ceph OSD
>> more scenarios? comments? Thanks for helping
>> Giulio Fidente
>> GPG KEY: 08D733BA
>> 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 <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>> Duncan Thomas
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
More information about the OpenStack-dev