Open Stack

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:

> On 06/13/2014 06:47 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Dan Prince <dprince at redhat.com
> > <mailto:dprince at redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 09:24 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote:
> >     >
> >     > On Jun 12, 2014 8:37 AM, "Sean Dague" <sean at dague.net
> >     <mailto:sean at dague.net>> wrote:
> >     > >
> >     > > On 06/12/2014 10:38 AM, Mike Bayer wrote:
> >     > > >
> >     > > > On 6/12/14, 8:26 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> >     > > >> On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Sean Dague wrote:
> >     > > >>
> >     > > >>> That's not cacthable in unit or functional tests?
> >     > > >> Not in an accurate manner, no.
> >     > > >>
> >     > > >>> Keeping jobs alive based on the theory that they might one
> day
> >     > be useful
> >     > > >>> is something we just don't have the liberty to do any more.
> >     > We've not
> >     > > >>> seen an idle node in zuul in 2 days... and we're only at j-1.
> >     > j-3 will
> >     > > >>> be at least +50% of this load.
> >     > > >> Sure, I'm not saying we don't have a problem. I'm just saying
> >     > it's not a
> >     > > >> good solution to fix that problem IMHO.
> >     > > >
> >     > > > Just my 2c without having a full understanding of all of
> >     > OpenStack's CI
> >     > > > environment, Postgresql is definitely different enough that
> MySQL
> >     > > > "strict mode" could still allow issues to slip through quite
> >     > easily, and
> >     > > > also as far as capacity issues, this might be longer term but
> I'm
> >     > hoping
> >     > > > to get database-related tests to be lots faster if we can move
> to
> >     > a
> >     > > > model that spends much less time creating databases and
> schemas.
> >     > >
> >     > > This is what I mean by functional testing. If we were directly
> >     > hitting a
> >     > > real database on a set of in tree project tests, I think you
> could
> >     > > discover issues like this. Neutron was headed down that path.
> >     > >
> >     > > But if we're talking about a devstack / tempest run, it's not
> really
> >     > > applicable.
> >     > >
> >     > > If someone can point me to a case where we've actually found this
> >     > kind
> >     > > of bug with tempest / devstack, that would be great. I've just
> >     > *never*
> >     > > seen it. I was the one that did most of the fixing for pg
> support in
> >     > > Nova, and have helped other projects as well, so I'm relatively
> >     > familiar
> >     > > with the kinds of fails we can discover. The ones that Julien
> >     > pointed
> >     > > really aren't likely to be exposed in our current system.
> >     > >
> >     > > Which is why I think we're mostly just burning cycles on the
> >     > existing
> >     > > approach for no gain.
> >     >
> >     > Given all the points made above, I think dropping PostgreSQL is the
> >     > right choice; if only we had infinite cloud that would be another
> >     > story.
> >     >
> >     > What about converting one of our existing jobs (grenade partial
> ncpu,
> >     > large ops, regular grenade, tempest with nova network etc.) Into a
> >     > PostgreSQL only job? We could get some level of PostgreSQL testing
> >     > without any additional jobs, although this is  tradeoff obviously.
> >
> >     I'd be fine with this tradeoff if it allows us to keep PostgreSQL in
> the
> >     mix.
> >
> >
> > Here is my proposed change to how we handle postgres in the gate:
> >
> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100033
> >
> >
> > Merge postgres and neutron jobs in integrated-gate template
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Instead of having a separate job for postgres and neutron, combine them.
> > In the integrated-gate we will only test postgres+neutron and not
> >
> >
> > neutron/mysql or nova-network/postgres.
> >
> > * neutron/mysql is still tested in integrated-gate-neutron
> > * nova-network/postgres is tested in nova
>
> Because neutron only runs smoke jobs, this actually drops all the
> interesting testing of pg. The things I've actually seen catch
> differences are the nova negative tests, which basically aren't run in
> this job.
>

I forgot about the smoke test only part when I originally proposed this.
>From a cursory look, neutron-full appears to be fairly stable, so if we
move over to neutron-full in the near future that should address your
concerns. Are there plans to move over to neutron-full in the near future?


>
> So I think that's kind of the worst of all possible worlds, because it
> would make people think the thing is tested interestingly, when it's not.
>
>         -Sean
>
> --
> Sean Dague
> http://dague.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140616/04a31877/attachment.html>