On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Emilien Macchi <emil...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Emilien Macchi <emil...@redhat.com> wrote: >> So far in my testing I found 2 issues: >> >> - IPv6 + TLS doesn't work in tripleo-ci, certificates aren't good >> (expected). We might need to generate new ones, I'll take a look >> myself probably. >> >> http://logs.openstack.org/18/522618/2/check-tripleo/tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-ha-oooq-ipv6/d21046c/logs/undercloud/home/zuul/overcloud_deploy_post.log.txt.gz#_2017-11-23_20_59_28 > > I just found out there is a test-environments/enable-tls-ipv6.yaml - > beautiful. Problem solved I guess. > >> - Running Tempest on OVB jobs with TLS doesn't work for me yet: >> >> http://logs.openstack.org/10/522310/6/check-tripleo/tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-ha-oooq/ad6c2c1/logs/undercloud/home/zuul/tempest_output.log.txt.gz#_2017-11-23_21_03_57 >> Any help on that one is welcome
I sent https://review.openstack.org/522677 which I think is the way to go, any feedback is welcome. >> Thanks, >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Emilien Macchi <emil...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> I forgot to add an ongoing effort to reduce number of services >>> deployed on ovb jobs at a strict minimum: >>> https://review.openstack.org/522310 >>> So we hope to run the job faster and more efficiently. Our scenarios >>> already cover services like Cinder, Heat and Swift. We don't need them >>> anymore on OVB. >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Emilien Macchi <emil...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> Queens's main theme is stabilization. >>>> That's what we're currently working on in our CI, see which areas we >>>> can consolidate and stabilize so we can continue to scale TripleO >>>> development. >>>> >>>> One of the challenges that we had in the last years was the high >>>> demand of OVB jobs versus the capacity. >>>> To address that, we recently decided to remove ovb-nonha. It was a good >>>> start. >>>> >>>> Now we have: >>>> - ovb-ha which test introspection, Pacemaker, TLS, net-iso (multi-nics) >>>> - ovb-containers which tested a containerized overcloud >>>> - ovb-1ctlr_1comp_1ceph-featureset024: which was renamed from >>>> ovb-updates and is supposed to test ipv6 overcloud, stack updates & >>>> ceph. It doesn't test stack updates (since the switch to >>>> tripleo-quickstart), and Ceph is already extensively tested in >>>> multinode scenario001/004 jobs. >>>> >>>> That said, I think we can consolidate the OVB jobs in 2: >>>> >>>> - keep ovb-ha and containerize it in Queens and beyond: it was already >>>> approved and change is being applied now: >>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/522293/ >>>> indeed, we decided as a community that we would stop supporting >>>> non-containerized overclouds in Queens and beyond. >>>> - remove ovb-containers in Queens and beyond: useless now, since we >>>> have ovb-ha containerized: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/522579/ >>>> - Remove ovb-1ctlr_1comp_1ceph-featureset024 and create ovb-ha-ipv6: >>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/522618/ >>>> indeed, ceph is already well tested in scenarios, ipv6 would be >>>> tested in ovb-ha-ipv6. >>>> for overcloud updates, I haven't seen the feature in quickstart but >>>> I might have missed something (any help here is welcome). >>>> >>>> At the end, we should end up with 2 OVB jobs: >>>> - ovb-ha (could be renamed in ovb-ha-ipv4 if that helps) >>>> - ovb-ha-ipv6 >>>> >>>> Both would test the things that can't be tested by multinode: >>>> - Nova / Ironic / Mistral workflow >>>> - Introspection >>>> - TLS >>>> - Network Isolation >>>> - IPv6 for the ovb-ha-ipv6 >>>> - Containerized overcloud >>>> >>>> As a result, we have more coverage (except for stack updates but it >>>> needs to be addressed in quickstart first) and less jobs, so less >>>> resources consumed. >>>> >>>> Any feedback on this plan is more than welcome, >>>> -- >>>> Emilien Macchi >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Emilien Macchi >> >> >> >> -- >> Emilien Macchi > > > > -- > Emilien Macchi -- 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
