On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Tommi Virtanen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:49:28PM -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > > To keep things from crossing boundaries, we label each group of hosts > > appropriate for one of these tests with a label specific to that purpose. > > (foo_loadtest_rack1, foo_loadtest_rack2, etc). This can be an atomic > group > > label but use of atomic groups for this is often overkill unless you need > to > > deal with frequently losing one or two machines and still being able to > run > > the test with "at least N from this group" rather than "exactly these N." > ... > > % atest job create -b foo_loadtest_rack1 -s -t foo_loadtest > > ... > > > > schedules a job to run on foo_loadtest_rack1. etc.. > > I don't see the jump in logic from that to coordinating both servers > and clients in one test, or controlling that I need 7 machines from > server pool and 20 from client pool. Can you elaborate? > Its not an ideal setup. We've been reserving server+client pools of machines together as one unit with no way of specifying different pairings of server and client sets. not very efficient. -gps
_______________________________________________ Autotest mailing list [email protected] http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest
