On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Alex Schultz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Wesley Hayutin <[email protected]> wrote: >> Greetings, >> >> Just wanted to share some progress with the containerized undercloud work. >> Ian pushed some of the patches along and we now have a successful undercloud >> install with containers. >> >> The initial undercloud install works [1] >> The idempotency check failed where we reinstall the undercloud [2] >> >> Question: Do we expect the reinstallation to work at this point? Should the >> check be turned off? > > So I would say for the undercloud-container's job it's not required at > this point but for the main undercloud job yes it is required and > should not be disabled. This is expected functionality that must be > replicated in the containers version in order to make the switch. The > original ask that I had was that from an operator perspective the > containerized install works exactly like the non-containerized > undercloud. > >> >> I will try it w/o the idempotency check, I suspect I will run into errors in >> a full run with an overcloud deployment. I ran into issues weeks ago. I >> suspect if we do hit something it will be CI related as Dan Price has been >> deploying the overcloud for a while now. Dan I may need to review your >> latest doit.sh scripts to check for diffs in the CI. >> > > What I would propose is switching the undercloud-containers job to use > the 'openstack undercloud install --use-heat' command and we switch > that to non-voting and see how it performs. Originally when we
Oops s/non-voting/voting/. I would like that job voting but I know we've seen failure issues in comparison with the instack-undercloud job. That however might be related to the number of times we run the undercloud-containers job (on all THT patches) than the instack jobs (just puppet-tripleo and instack-undercloud). So we really need to understand the passing numbers. > discussed this I wanted that job voting my milestone 1. Milestone 2 is > next week so I'm very concerned at the state of this feature. Do we > have updates and upgrades with the containerized undercloud being > tested anywhere in CI? That was one of items that I had mentioned[0] > as a requirement to do the switch during the queens cycle. What I > would really like to see is that we get those stable and then we can > work on actually testing overcloud deploys and the various scenarios > with the containerized undercloud. If we update oooq to support > adding the --use-heat flag it would make testing all the scenarios > fairly trivial with a single patch and we would be able to see where > there are issues. > > Thanks, > -Alex > > [0] > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-October/123065.html > > >> Thanks >> >> >> [1] >> http://logs.openstack.org/18/518118/6/check/tripleo-ci-centos-7-undercloud-oooq/73115d6/logs/undercloud/home/zuul/undercloud_install.log.txt.gz >> [2] >> http://logs.openstack.org/18/518118/6/check/tripleo-ci-centos-7-undercloud-oooq/73115d6/logs/undercloud/home/zuul/undercloud_reinstall.log.txt.gz#_2017-11-30_19_51_26 >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
