[openstack-dev] [tripleo] CI jobs failures

James Slagle james.slagle at gmail.com
Sun Mar 6 16:58:40 UTC 2016

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Emilien Macchi <emilien at redhat.com> wrote:
> I'm kind of hijacking Dan's e-mail but I would like to propose some
> technical improvements to stop having so much CI failures.
> 1/ Stop creating swap files. We don't have SSD, this is IMHO a terrible
> mistake to swap on files because we don't have enough RAM. In my
> experience, swaping on non-SSD disks is even worst that not having
> enough RAM. We should stop doing that I think.

We have been relying on swap in tripleo-ci for a little while. While
not ideal, it has been an effective way to at least be able to test
what we've been testing given the amount of physical RAM that is

The recent change to add swap to the overcloud nodes has proved to be
unstable. But that has more to do with it being racey with the
validation deployment afaict. There are some patches currently up to
address those issues.

> 2/ Split CI jobs in scenarios.
> Currently we have CI jobs for ceph, HA, non-ha, containers and the
> current situation is that jobs fail randomly, due to performances issues.
> Puppet OpenStack CI had the same issue where we had one integration job
> and we never stopped adding more services until all becomes *very*
> unstable. We solved that issue by splitting the jobs and creating scenarios:
> https://github.com/openstack/puppet-openstack-integration#description
> What I propose is to split TripleO jobs in more jobs, but with less
> services.
> The benefit of that:
> * more services coverage
> * jobs will run faster
> * less random issues due to bad performances
> The cost is of course it will consume more resources.
> That's why I suggest 3/.
> We could have:
> * HA job with ceph and a full compute scenario (glance, nova, cinder,
> ceilometer, aodh & gnocchi).
> * Same with IPv6 & SSL.
> * HA job without ceph and full compute scenario too
> * HA job without ceph and basic compute (glance and nova), with extra
> services like Trove, Sahara, etc.
> * ...
> (note: all jobs would have network isolation, which is to me a
> requirement when testing an installer like TripleO).

Each of those jobs would at least require as much memory as our
current HA job. I don't see how this gets us to using less memory. The
HA job we have now already deploys the minimal amount of services that
is possible given our current architecture. Without the composable
service roles work, we can't deploy less services than we already are.

> 3/ Drop non-ha job.
> I'm not sure why we have it, and the benefit of testing that comparing
> to HA.

In my opinion, I actually think that we could drop the ceph and non-ha
job from the check-tripleo queue.

non-ha doesn't test anything realistic, and it doesn't really provide
any faster feedback on patches. It seems at most it might run 15-20
minutes faster than the HA job on average. Sometimes it even runs
slower than the HA job.

The ceph job we could move to the experimental queue to run on demand
on patches that might affect ceph, and it could also be a daily
periodic job.

The same could be done for the containers job, an IPv6 job, and an
upgrades job. Ideally with a way to run an individual job as needed.
Would we need different experimental queues to do that?

That would leave only the HA job in the check queue, which we should
run with SSL and network isolation. We could deploy less testenv's
since we'd have less jobs running, but give the ones we do deploy more
RAM. I think this would really alleviate a lot of the transient
intermittent failures we get in CI currently. It would also likely run

It's probably worth seeking out some exact evidence from the RDO
centos-ci, because I think they are testing with virtual environments
that have a lot more RAM than tripleo-ci does. It'd be good to
understand if they have some of the transient failures that tripleo-ci
does as well.

We really are deploying on the absolute minimum cpu/ram requirements
that is even possible. I think it's unrealistic to expect a lot of
stability in that scenario. And I think that's a big reason why we get
so many transient failures.

In summary: give the testenv's more ram, have one job in the
check-tripleo queue, as many jobs as needed in the experimental queue,
and as many periodic jobs as necessary.

> Any comment / feedback is welcome,
> --
> Emilien Macchi
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-- James Slagle

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list