Open Stack

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 01:55:24PM -0500, Ben Nemec wrote:
> On 03/17/2016 01:13 PM, Paul Belanger wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:59:22AM -0500, Ben Nemec wrote:
> >> On 03/10/2016 05:24 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> >>> On 2016-03-10 16:09:44 -0500 (-0500), Dan Prince wrote:
> >>>> This seems to be the week people want to pile it on TripleO. Talking
> >>>> about upstream is great but I suppose I'd rather debate major changes
> >>>> after we branch Mitaka. :/
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> I didn't mean to pile on TripleO, nor did I intend to imply this was
> >>> something which should happen ASAP (or even necessarily at all), but
> >>> I do want to better understand what actual benefit is currently
> >>> derived from this implementation vs. a more typical third-party CI
> >>> (which lots of projects are doing when they find their testing needs
> >>> are not met by the constraints of our generic test infrastructure).
> >>>
> >>>> With regards to Jenkins restarts I think it is understood that our job
> >>>> times are long. How often do you find infra needs to restart Jenkins?
> >>>
> >>> We're restarting all 8 of our production Jenkins masters weekly at a
> >>> minimum, but generally more often when things are busy (2-3 times a
> >>> week). For many months we've been struggling with a thread leak for
> >>> which their development team has not seen as a priority to even
> >>> triage our bug report effectively. At this point I think we've
> >>> mostly given up on expecting it to be solved by anything other than
> >>> our upcoming migration off of Jenkins, but that's another topic
> >>> altogether.
> >>>
> >>>> And regardless of that what if we just said we didn't mind the
> >>>> destructiveness of losing a few jobs now and then (until our job
> >>>> times are under the line... say 1.5 hours or so). To be clear I'd
> >>>> be fine with infra pulling the rug on running jobs if this is the
> >>>> root cause of the long running jobs in TripleO.
> >>>
> >>> For manual Jenkins restarts this is probably doable (if additional
> >>> hassle), but I don't know whether that's something we can easily
> >>> shoehorn into our orchestrated/automated restarts.
> >>>
> >>>> I think the "benefits are minimal" is bit of an overstatement. The
> >>>> initial vision for TripleO CI stands and I would still like to see
> >>>> individual projects entertain the option to use us in their gates.
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> This is what I'd like to delve deeper into. The current
> >>> implementation isn't providing you with any mechanism to prevent
> >>> changes which fail jobs running in the tripleo-test cloud from
> >>> merging to your repos, is it? You're still having to manually
> >>> inspect the job results posted by it? How is that particularly
> >>> different from relying on third-party CI integration?
> >>>
> >>> As for other projects making use of the same jobs, right now the
> >>> only convenience I'm aware of is that they can add check-tripleo
> >>> pipeline jobs in our Zuul layout file instead of having you add it
> >>> to yours (which could itself reside in a Git repo under your
> >>> control, giving you even more flexibility over those choices). In
> >>> fact, with a third-party CI using its own separate Gerrit account,
> >>> you would be able to leave clear -1/+1 votes on check results which
> >>> is not possible with the present solution.
> >>>
> >>> So anyway, I'm not saying that I definitely believe the third-party
> >>> CI route will be better for TripleO, but I'm not (yet) clear on what
> >>> tangible benefit you're receiving now that you lose by switching to
> >>> that model.
> >>>
> >>
> >> FWIW, I think third-party CI probably makes sense for TripleO.
> >> Practically speaking we are third-party CI right now - we run our own
> >> independent hardware infrastructure, we aren't multi-region, and we
> >> can't leave a vote on changes.  Since the first two aren't likely to
> >> change any time soon (although I believe it's still a long-term goal to
> >> get to a place where we can run in regular infra and just contribute our
> >> existing CI hardware to the general infra pool, but that's still a long
> >> way off), and moving to actual third-party CI would get us the ability
> >> to vote, I think it's worth pursuing.
> >>
> >> As an added bit of fun, we have a forced move of our CI hardware coming
> >> up in the relatively near future, and if we don't want to have multiple
> >> days (and possibly more, depending on how the move goes) of TripleO CI
> >> outage we're probably going to need to stand up a new environment in
> >> parallel anyway.  If we're doing that it might make sense to try hooking
> >> it in through the third-party infra instead of the way we do it today.
> >> Hopefully that would allow us to work out the kinks before the old
> >> environment goes away.
> >>
> >> Anyway, I'm sure we'll need a bunch more discussion about this, but I
> >> wanted to chime in with my two cents.
> >>
> > Do you have any ETA on when your outage would be?  Is it before or after the
> > summit in Austin?
> > 
> > Personally, I'm going to attend a few TripleO design session where ever
> > possible in Austin. It would be great to maybe have a fishbowl session about it.
> 
> It's after, but we'll only have a couple of months or so at that point
> to wrap everything up, so I suspect we'll need to have some basic plan
> in place before or we'll never be able to get hardware in time.  It may
> be too late already. :-/
> 
> Probably the first thing I need to do is follow up with people
> internally and find out if there's already a plan in place for this that
> I just don't know about.  That's entirely possible.

Agreed, it would be great to have the discussion in the public as much as
possible.  However, if moving to thirdparty CI, I can understand the need for
internal facing talks.