On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Steven Hardy <sha...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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. > > To be fair, we discussed this on IRC yesterday, everyone agreed infra > supported docker cache/registry was a great idea, but you said there was no > known timeline for it actually getting done. > > So while we all want to see that happen, and potentially help out with the > effort, we're also trying to mitigate the fact that work isn't done by > working around it in our OVB environment. > > FWIW I think we absolutely need multinode container jobs, e.g using infra > resources, as that has worked out great for our puppet based CI, but we > really need to work out how to optimize the container download speed in > that environment before that will work well AFAIK. > Gabriele has started working on this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/454152/ > > You referenced https://review.openstack.org/#/c/447524/ in your other > reply, which AFAICS is a spec about publishing to dockerhub, which sounds > great, but we have the opposite problem, we need to consume those published > images during our CI runs, and currently downloading images takes too long. > So we ideally need some sort of local registry/pull-through-cache that > speeds up that process. > > How can we move forward here, is there anyone on the infra side we can work > with to discuss further? > > Thanks! > > Steve > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
