Open Stack

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Deepak Shetty <dpkshetty at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Deepak Shetty <dpkshetty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Deepak Shetty <dpkshetty at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-02-25 17:02:34 +0530 (+0530), Deepak Shetty wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> > Run 2) We removed glusterfs backend, so Cinder was configured with
>>>> > the default storage backend i.e. LVM. We re-created the OOM here
>>>> > too
>>>> >
>>>> > So that proves that glusterfs doesn't cause it, as its happening
>>>> > without glusterfs too.
>>>>
>>>> Well, if you re-ran the job on the same VM then the second result is
>>>> potentially contaminated. Luckily this hypothesis can be confirmed
>>>> by running the second test on a fresh VM in Rackspace.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe true, but we did the same on hpcloud provider VM too and both time
>>> it ran successfully with glusterfs as the cinder backend. Also before
>>> starting
>>> the 2nd run, we did unstack and saw that free memory did go back to 5G+
>>> and then re-invoked your script, I believe the contamination could
>>> result in some
>>> additional testcase failures (which we did see) but shouldn't be related
>>> to
>>> whether system can OOM or not, since thats a runtime thing.
>>>
>>> I see that the VM is up again. We will execute the 2nd run afresh now
>>> and update
>>> here.
>>>
>>
>> Ran tempest with configured with default backend i.e. LVM and was able to
>> recreate
>> the OOM issue, so running tempest without gluster against a fresh VM
>> reliably
>> recreates the OOM issue, snip below from syslog.
>>
>> Feb 25 16:58:37 devstack-centos7-rax-dfw-979654 kernel: glance-api
>> invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x201da, order=0, oom_score_adj=0
>>
>> Had a discussion with clarkb on IRC and given that F20 is discontinued,
>> F21 has issues with tempest (under debug by ianw)
>> and centos7 also has issues on rax (as evident from this thread), the
>> only option left is to go with ubuntu based CI job, which
>> BharatK is working on now.
>>
>
> Quick Update:
>
>     Cinder-GlusterFS CI job on ubuntu was added (
> https://review.openstack.org/159217)
>
> We ran it 3 times against our stackforge repo patch @
> https://review.openstack.org/159711
> and it works fine (2 testcase failures, which are expected and we're
> working towards fixing them)
>
> For the logs of the 3 experimental runs, look @
>
> http://logs.openstack.org/11/159711/1/experimental/gate-tempest-dsvm-full-glusterfs/
>
> Of the 3 jobs, 1 was schedued on rax and 2 on hpcloud, so its working
> nicely across
> the different cloud providers.
>

Clarkb, Fungi,
  Given that the ubuntu job is stable, I would like to propose to add it as
experimental to the
openstack cinder while we work on fixing the 2 failed test cases in parallel

thanx,
deepak
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150227/27d3a900/attachment.html>