On 13/06/17 13:00, Ben Nemec wrote:
On 06/12/2017 03:53 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 12/06/17 16:21, Steven Hardy wrote:
I think we wanted to move to convergence anyway so I don't see a
problem
with this. I know there was some discussion about starting to test
with
convergence in tripleo-ci, does anyone know what, if anything,
happened with
that?
There's an experimental job that runs only on the heat repo
(gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-nonha-convergence)
But yeah now seems like a good time to get something running more
regularly in tripleo-ci.
+1, there's no reason not to run a non-voting job against tripleo itself
at this point IMHO. That would allow me to start tracking the memory use
over time.
Do you have a strong preference multinode vs. ovb? I would tend to
think we want this to be ovb since multinode stubs out a bunch of stuff,
but at the same time ovb capacity is limited. It's better* now that
we've basically halved our ovb ci coverage so we could probably get away
with adding a job to a specific repo though (t-h-t seems logical for
this purpose).
The job I've been tracking memory usage on against t-h-t was
tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-nonha... which I see no longer exists (doh!). So
I guess we can pick whatever it makes sense to track over the long term.
We want something fairly representative, so that we can be confident to
flip the switch early in Queens development. I don't think it especially
matters whether we're using baremetal servers or VMs though... that
should be fairly transparent to Heat.
cheers,
Zane.
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
