On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:07:24PM -0400, Paul Belanger wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:56:59AM +1300, Steve Baker wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Emilien Macchi <emil...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On 23/03/17 16:24 +0100, Martin André wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Dan Prince <dpri...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 13:35 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On 22/03/17 13:32 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote: > > > >>>> > On 21/03/17 23:15 -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote: > > > >>>> > > Hey, > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > I've noticed that container jobs look pretty unstable lately; to > > > >>>> > > me, > > > >>>> > > it sounds like a timeout: > > > >>>> > > http://logs.openstack.org/19/447319/2/check-tripleo/gate-tripleo- > > > >>>> > > ci-centos-7-ovb-containers-oooq-nv/bca496a/console.html#_2017-03- > > > >>>> > > 22_00_08_55_358973 > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > There are different hypothesis on what is going on here. Some > > > >>>> > patches have > > > >>>> > landed to improve the write performance on containers by using > > > >>>> > hostpath mounts > > > >>>> > but we think the real slowness is coming from the images download. > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > This said, this is still under investigation and the containers > > > >>>> > squad will > > > >>>> > report back as soon as there are new findings. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Also, to be more precise, Martin André is looking into this. He also > > > >>>> fixed the > > > >>>> gate in the last 2 weeks. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> I spoke w/ Martin on IRC. He seems to think this is the cause of some > > > >>> of the failures: > > > >>> > > > >>> http://logs.openstack.org/32/446432/1/check-tripleo/gate- > > > tripleo-ci-cen > > > >>> tos-7-ovb-containers-oooq-nv/543bc80/logs/oooq/overcloud-controller- > > > >>> 0/var/log/extra/docker/containers/heat_engine/log/heat/heat- > > > >>> engine.log.txt.gz#_2017-03-21_20_26_29_697 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Looks like Heat isn't able to create Nova instances in the overcloud > > > >>> due to "Host 'overcloud-novacompute-0' is not mapped to any cell'. > > > >>> This > > > >>> means our cells initialization code for containers may not be quite > > > >>> right... or there is a race somewhere. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Here are some findings. I've looked at time measures from CI for > > > >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/448533/ which provided the most > > > >> recent results: > > > >> > > > >> * gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-ha [1] > > > >> undercloud install: 23 > > > >> overcloud deploy: 72 > > > >> total time: 125 > > > >> * gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-nonha [2] > > > >> undercloud install: 25 > > > >> overcloud deploy: 48 > > > >> total time: 122 > > > >> * gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-updates [3] > > > >> undercloud install: 24 > > > >> overcloud deploy: 57 > > > >> total time: 152 > > > >> * gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-containers-oooq-nv [4] > > > >> undercloud install: 28 > > > >> overcloud deploy: 48 > > > >> total time: 165 (timeout) > > > >> > > > >> Looking at the undercloud & overcloud install times, the most task > > > >> consuming tasks, the containers job isn't doing that bad compared to > > > >> other OVB jobs. But looking closer I could see that: > > > >> - the containers job pulls docker images from dockerhub, this process > > > >> takes roughly 18 min. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can optimize this a bit by having the script that populates > > > the > > > > local > > > > registry in the overcloud job to run in parallel. The docker daemon can > > > do > > > > multiple pulls w/o problems. > > > > > > > >> - the overcloud validate task takes 10 min more than it should because > > > >> of the bug Dan mentioned (a fix is in the queue at > > > >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/448575/) > > > > > > > > > > > > +A > > > > > > > >> - the postci takes a long time with quickstart, 13 min (4 min alone > > > >> spent on docker log collection) whereas it takes only 3 min when using > > > >> tripleo.sh > > > > > > > > > > > > mmh, does this have anything to do with ansible being in between? Or is > > > that > > > > time specifically for the part that gets the logs? > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Adding all these numbers, we're at about 40 min of additional time for > > > >> oooq containers job which is enough to cross the CI job limit. > > > >> > > > >> There is certainly a lot of room for optimization here and there and > > > >> I'll explore how we can speed up the containers CI job over the next > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for the update. The time break down is fantastic, > > > > Flavio > > > > > > TBH the problem is far from being solved: > > > > > > 1. Click on https://status-tripleoci.rhcloud.com/ > > > 2. Select gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-containers-oooq-nv > > > > > > Container job has been failing more than 55% of the time. > > > > > > As a reference, > > > gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-nonha has 90% of success. > > > gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-ha has 64% of success. > > > > > > It clearly means the ovb-containers job was and is not ready to be run > > > in the check pipeline, it's not reliable enough. > > > > > > The current queue time in TripleO OVB is 11 hours. This is not > > > acceptable for TripleO developers and we need a short term solution, > > > which is disabling this job from the check pipeline: > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/451546/ > > > > > > > > Yes, given resource constraints I don't see an alternative in the short > > term. > > > > > > > On the long-term, we need to: > > > > > > - Stabilize ovb-containers which is AFIK already WIP by Martin (kudos > > > to him). My hope is Martin gets enough help from Container squad to > > > work on this topic. > > > - Remove ovb-nonha scenario from the check pipeline - and probably > > > keep it periodic. Dan Prince started some work on it: > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/449791/ and > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/449785/ - but not much progress on it > > > in the recent days. > > > - Engage some work on getting multinode-scenario(001,002,003,004) jobs > > > for containers, so we don't need much OVB jobs (only one probably) for > > > container scenarios. > > > > > > > > Another work item in progress which should help with the stability of the > > ovb containers job is Dan has set up a docker-distribution based registry > > on a node in rhcloud. Once jobs are pulling images from this there should > > be less timeouts due to image pull speed. > > > Before we go and stand up private infrastructure for tripleo to depend on, can > we please work on solving this is for all openstack projects upstream? We do > want to run regional mirrors for docker things, however we need to address > issues on how to integration this with AFS. > > We are trying to break the cycle of tripleo standing up private infrastructure > and consume more community based. So far we are making good progress, however > I > would see this effort a step backwards, not forward. > I pushed send too quickly, we have a docker-publisher spec currently open[1]. Much of this effort would apply to it.
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/447524/ > > > > > I know everyone is busy by working on container support in composable > > > services, but we might assign more resources on CI work here, > > > otherwise I'm not sure how we're going to stabilize the CI. > > > > > > Any feedback is very welcome. > > > > > > > > > > >> weeks. > > > >> > > > >> Martin > > > >> > > > >> [1] > > > >> http://logs.openstack.org/33/448533/2/check-tripleo/gate- > > > tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-ha/d2c1b16/ > > > >> [2] > > > >> http://logs.openstack.org/33/448533/2/check-tripleo/gate- > > > tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-nonha/d6df760/ > > > >> [3] > > > >> http://logs.openstack.org/33/448533/2/check-tripleo/gate- > > > tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-updates/3b1f795/ > > > >> [4] > > > >> http://logs.openstack.org/33/448533/2/check-tripleo/gate- > > > tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-containers-oooq-nv/b816f20/ > > > >> > > > >>> Dan > > > >>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Flavio > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> _____________________________________________________________________ > > > >>>> _____ > > > >>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > > >>>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubs > > > >>>> cribe > > > >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > > > ______________ > > > >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > > >>> Unsubscribe: > > > >>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > > > >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > > ______________ > > > >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > > >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject: > > > unsubscribe > > > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > @flaper87 > > > > Flavio Percoco > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > ______________ > > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > > > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject: > > > unsubscribe > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Emilien Macchi > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev