Open Stack

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 [1], 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?
>>     (check-tripleo-ironic-__overcloud-precise-ha)
>>
>>     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
>>
>>     1.
>>     https://blueprints.launchpad.__net/tripleo/+spec/tripleo-__kilo-cinder-ha
>>     <https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tripleo/+spec/tripleo-kilo-cinder-ha>
>>     -- 
>>     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
>> 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
>