Open Stack

On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 05:07:45AM +0000, Michael Still wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Joshua Hesketh <joshua.hesketh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:44 AM, James E. Blair <corvus at inaugust.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On the subject of clearing the cache more often, I think we may not want
> >> to wipe out the cache more often than we do now -- in fact, I think we
> >> may want to look into ways to keep from doing even that, because
> >> whenever we reload now, Zuul slows down considerably as it has to query
> >> Gerrit again for all of the data previously in its cache.
> >>
> >
> > I can see a lot of 3rd parties or simpler CI's not needing to reload zuul
> > very often so this cache would never get cleared. Perhaps cached objects
> > should have an expiry time (of a day or so) and can be cleaned up
> > periodically? Additionally if clearing the cache on a reload is causing
> > pain maybe we should move the cache into the scheduler and keep it between
> > reloads?
> >
> 
> Do you guys use oslo at all? I ask because the olso memcache stuff does
> exactly this, so it should be trivial to implement if you don't mind
> depending on oslo.
> 
So, I was thinking about this the other day, what would be needed to make
zuul-server more redundant.  Since we can scale out merges, why not the server
part too.  This should help mitigate issues (eg: memory leaks, crash).

I was thinking something like memcache / redis / some other tool to externalize
queues would be needed.  But obviously, this adds additional overhead to running
zuul.

It would be interesting to see if ansible-launchers could be scaled out too over
multiple hosts. Since we'd be pushing more SSH connections from zuul now.

> Hope this helps,
> Michael
> 
> -- 
> Rackspace Australia

> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-Infra mailing list
> OpenStack-Infra at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra