On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: > A lot of elastic recheck this fall has been based on the ad hoc needs of the > moment, in between diving down into the race bugs that were uncovered by it. > This week away from it all helped provide a little perspective on what I > think we need to do to call it *done* (i.e. something akin to a 1.0 even > though we are CDing it). > > Here is my current thinking on the next major things that should happen. > Opinions welcomed. > > (These are roughly in implementation order based on urgency) > > = Split of web UI = > > The elastic recheck page is becoming a mismash of what was needed at the > time. I think what we really have emerging is: > * Overall Gate Health > * Known (to ER) Bugs > * Unknown (to ER) Bugs - more below > > I think the landing page should be Know Bugs, as that's where we want both > bug hunters to go to prioritize things, as well as where people looking for > known bugs should start. > > I think the overall Gate Health graphs should move to the zuul status page. > Possibly as part of the collection of graphs at the bottom. > > We should have a secondary page (maybe column?) of the un-fingerprinted > recheck bugs, largely to use as candidates for fingerprinting. This will let > us eventually take over /recheck. > > = Data Analysis / Graphs = > > I spent a bunch of time playing with pandas over break > (http://dague.net/2013/12/30/ipython-notebook-experiments/), it's kind of > awesome. It also made me rethink our approach to handling the data. > > I think the rolling average approach we were taking is more precise than > accurate. As these are statistical events they really need error bars. > Because when we have a quiet night, and 1 job fails at 6am in the morning, > the 100% failure rate it reflects in grenade needs to be quantified that it > was 1 of 1, not 50 of 50. > > So my feeling is we should move away from the point graphs we have, and > present these as weekly and daily failure rates (with graphs and error > bars). And slice those per job. My suggestion is that we do the actual > visualization with matplotlib because it's super easy to output that from > pandas data sets. > > Basically we'll be mining Elastic Search -> Pandas TimeSeries -> transforms > and analysis -> output tables and graphs. This is different enough from our > current jquery graphing that I want to get ACKs before doing a bunch of work > here and finding out people don't like it in reviews. > > Also in this process upgrade the metadata that we provide for each of those > bugs so it's a little more clear what you are looking at. > > = Take over of /recheck = > > There is still a bunch of useful data coming in on "recheck bug ####" data > which hasn't been curated into ER queries. I think the right thing to do is > treat these as a work queue of bugs we should be building patterns out of > (or completely invalidating). I've got a preliminary gerrit bulk query piece > of code that does this, which would remove the need of the daemon the way > that's currently happening. The gerrit queries are a little long right now, > but I think if we are only doing this on hourly cron, the additional load > will be negligible. > > This would get us into a single view, which I think would be more > informative than the one we currently have. > > = Categorize all the jobs = > > We need a bit of refactoring to let us comment on all the jobs (not just > tempest ones). Basically we assumed pep8 and docs don't fail in the gate at > the beginning. Turns out they do, and are good indicators of infra / > external factor bugs. They are a part of the story so we should put them in. > > = Multi Line Fingerprints = > > We've definitely found bugs where we never had a really satisfying single > line match, but we had some great matches if we could do multi line. > > We could do that in ER, however it will mean giving up logstash as our UI, > because those queries can't be done in logstash. So in order to do this > we'll really need to implement some tools - cli minimum, which will let us > easily test a bug. A custom web UI might be in order as well, though that's > going to be it's own chunk of work, that we'll need more volunteers for. > > This would put us in a place where we should have all the infrastructure to > track 90% of the race conditions, and talk about them in certainty as 1%, > 5%, 0.1% bugs. > > -Sean > > -- > Sean Dague > Samsung Research America > s...@dague.net / sean.da...@samsung.com > http://dague.net > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
This is great stuff. Out of curiousity is doing the graphing with pandas and ES vs graphite so that we can graph things in a more ad hoc fashion? Also, for the dashboard, Kibana3 does a lot more stuff than Kibana2 which we currently use. I have been meaning to get Kibana3 running alongside Kibana2 and I think it may be able to do multi line queries (I need to double check that but it has a lot more query and graphing capability). I think Kibana3 is worth looking into as well before we go too far down the road of custom UI. Clark _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev