I had to put the patch back on WIP because yesterday a bug causing a 100% failure rate slipped in. It should be an easy fix, and I'm already working on it. Situations like this, exemplified by [1] are a bit frustrating for all the people working on improving neutron quality. Now, if you allow me a little rant, as Neutron is receiving a lot of attention for all the ongoing discussion regarding this group policy stuff, would it be possible for us to receive a bit of attention to ensure both the full job and the grenade one are switched to voting before the juno-3 review crunch.
We've already had the attention of the QA team, it would probably good if we could get the attention of the infra core team to ensure: 1) the jobs are also deemed by them stable enough to be switched to voting 2) the relevant patches for openstack-infra/config are reviewed Regards, Salvatore [1] http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJtZXNzYWdlOlwie3UnbWVzc2FnZSc6IHUnRmxvYXRpbmcgaXAgcG9vbCBub3QgZm91bmQuJywgdSdjb2RlJzogNDAwfVwiIEFORCBidWlsZF9uYW1lOlwiY2hlY2stdGVtcGVzdC1kc3ZtLW5ldXRyb24tZnVsbFwiIEFORCBidWlsZF9icmFuY2g6XCJtYXN0ZXJcIiIsImZpZWxkcyI6W10sIm9mZnNldCI6MCwidGltZWZyYW1lIjoiMTcyODAwIiwiZ3JhcGhtb2RlIjoiY291bnQiLCJ0aW1lIjp7InVzZXJfaW50ZXJ2YWwiOjB9LCJzdGFtcCI6MTQwNzQwMDExMDIwNywibW9kZSI6IiIsImFuYWx5emVfZmllbGQiOiIifQ== On 23 July 2014 14:59, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 02:40:02PM +0200, Salvatore Orlando wrote: > > Here I am again bothering you with the state of the full job for Neutron. > > > > The patch for fixing an issue in nova's server external events extension > > merged yesterday [1] > > We do not have yet enough data points to make a reliable assessment, but > of > > out 37 runs since the patch merged, we had "only" 5 failures, which puts > > the failure rate at about 13% > > > > This is ugly compared with the current failure rate of the smoketest > (3%). > > However, I think it is good enough to start making the full job voting at > > least for neutron patches. > > Once we'll be able to bring down failure rate to anything around 5%, we > can > > then enable the job everywhere. > > I think that sounds like a good plan. I'm also curious how the failure > rates > compare to the other non-neutron jobs, that might be a useful comparison > too > for deciding when to flip the switch everywhere. > > > > > As much as I hate asymmetric gating, I think this is a good compromise > for > > avoiding developers working on other projects are badly affected by the > > higher failure rate in the neutron full job. > > So we discussed this during the project meeting a couple of weeks ago [3] > and > there was a general agreement that doing it asymmetrically at first would > be > better. Everyone should be wary of the potential harms with doing it > asymmetrically and I think priority will be given to fixing issues that > block > the neutron gate should they arise. > > > I will therefore resume work on [2] and remove the WIP status as soon as > I > > can confirm a failure rate below 15% with more data points. > > > > Thanks for keeping on top of this Salvatore. It'll be good to finally be at > least partially gating with a parallel job. > > -Matt Treinish > > > > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103865/ > > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88289/ > [3] > http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2014/project.2014-07-08-21.03.log.html#l-28 > > > > > > > On 10 July 2014 11:49, Salvatore Orlando <sorla...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 July 2014 11:27, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > >> Hash: SHA512 > > >> > > >> On 10/07/14 11:07, Salvatore Orlando wrote: > > >> > The patch for bug 1329564 [1] merged about 11 hours ago. From [2] > > >> > it seems there has been an improvement on the failure rate, which > > >> > seem to have dropped to 25% from over 40%. Still, since the patch > > >> > merged there have been 11 failures already in the full job out of > > >> > 42 jobs executed in total. Of these 11 failures: - 3 were due to > > >> > problems in the patches being tested - 1 had the same root cause as > > >> > bug 1329564. Indeed the related job started before the patch merged > > >> > but finished after. So this failure "doesn't count". - 1 was for an > > >> > issue introduced about a week ago which actually causing a lot of > > >> > failures in the full job [3]. Fix should be easy for it; however > > >> > given the nature of the test we might even skip it while it's > > >> > fixed. - 3 were for bug 1333654 [4]; for this bug discussion is > > >> > going on on gerrit regarding the most suitable approach. - 3 were > > >> > for lock wait timeout errors. Several people in the community are > > >> > already working on them. I hope this will raise the profile of this > > >> > issue (maybe some might think it's just a corner case as it rarely > > >> > causes failures in smoke jobs, whereas the truth is that error > > >> > occurs but it does not cause job failure because the jobs isn't > > >> > parallel). > > >> > > >> Can you give directions on where to find those lock timeout failures? > > >> I'd like to check logs to see whether they have the same nature as > > >> most other failures (e.g. improper yield under transaction). > > >> > > > > > > This logstash query will give you all occurences of lock wait timeout > > > issues: message:"(OperationalError) (1205, 'Lock wait timeout > exceeded; try > > > restarting transaction')" AND tags:"screen-q-svc.txt" > > > > > > The fact that in most cases the build succeeds anyway is misleading, > > > because in many cases these errors occur in RPC handling between > agents and > > > servers, and therefore are not detected by tempest. The neutron full > job, > > > which is parallel, increases their occurrence because of parallelism - > and > > > since API request too occur concurrently it also yields a higher > tempest > > > build failure rate. > > > > > > However, as I argued in the past the "lock wait timeout" error should > > > always be treated as an error condition. > > > Eugene has already classified lock wait timeout failures and filed bugs > > > for them a few weeks ago. > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Summarizing, I think time is not yet ripe to enable the full job; > > >> > once bug 1333654 is fixed, we should go for it. AFAIK there is no > > >> > way for working around it in gate tests other than disabling > > >> > nova/neutron event reporting, which I guess we don't want to do. > > >> > > > >> > Salvatore > > >> > > > >> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105239 [2] > > >> > > > >> > http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJidWlsZF9zdGF0dXM6RkFJTFVSRSBBTkQgbWVzc2FnZTpcIkZpbmlzaGVkOiBGQUlMVVJFXCIgQU5EIGJ1aWxkX25hbWU6XCJjaGVjay10ZW1wZXN0LWRzdm0tbmV1dHJvbi1mdWxsXCIgQU5EIGJ1aWxkX2JyYW5jaDpcIm1hc3RlclwiIiwiZmllbGRzIjpbXSwib2Zmc2V0IjowLCJ0aW1lZnJhbWUiOiIxNzI4MDAiLCJncmFwaG1vZGUiOiJjb3VudCIsInRpbWUiOnsiZnJvbSI6IjIwMTQtMDctMTBUMDA6MjQ6NTcrMDA6MDAiLCJ0byI6IjIwMTQtMDctMTBUMDg6MjQ6NTMrMDA6MDAiLCJ1c2VyX2ludGVydmFsIjoiMCJ9LCJzdGFtcCI6MTQwNDk4MjU2MjM2OCwibW9kZSI6IiIsImFuYWx5emVfZmllbGQiOiIifQ== > > >> > > > >> > > > >> [3] > > >> > > > >> > http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJtZXNzYWdlOlwiSFRUUEJhZFJlcXVlc3Q6IFVucmVjb2duaXplZCBhdHRyaWJ1dGUocykgJ21lbWJlciwgdmlwLCBwb29sLCBoZWFsdGhfbW9uaXRvcidcIiBBTkQgdGFnczpcInNjcmVlbi1xLXN2Yy50eHRcIiIsImZpZWxkcyI6W10sIm9mZnNldCI6MCwidGltZWZyYW1lIjoiY3VzdG9tIiwiZ3JhcGhtb2RlIjoiY291bnQiLCJ0aW1lIjp7ImZyb20iOiIyMDE0LTA3LTAxVDA4OjU5OjAxKzAwOjAwIiwidG8iOiIyMDE0LTA3LTEwVDA4OjU5OjAxKzAwOjAwIiwidXNlcl9pbnRlcnZhbCI6IjAifSwic3RhbXAiOjE0MDQ5ODI3OTc3ODAsIm1vZGUiOiIiLCJhbmFseXplX2ZpZWxkIjoiIn0= > > >> > > > >> > > > >> [4] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1333654 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On 2 July 2014 17:57, Salvatore Orlando <sorla...@nicira.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Hi again, > > >> >> > > >> >> From my analysis most of the failures affecting the neutron full > > >> >> job are because of bugs [1] and [2] for which patch [3] and [4] > > >> >> have been proposed. Both patches address the nova side of the > > >> >> neutron/nova notification system for vif plugging. It is worth > > >> >> noting that these bugs did manifest only in the neutron full job > > >> >> not because of its "full" nature, but because of its "parallel" > > >> >> nature. > > >> >> > > >> >> Openstackers with a good memory will probably remember we fixed > > >> >> the parallel job back in January, before the massive "kernel bug" > > >> >> gate outage [5]. However, since parallel testing was > > >> >> unfortunately never enabled on the smoke job we run on the gate, > > >> >> we allowed new bugs to slip in. For this reason I would recommend > > >> >> the following: - once patches [3] and [4] have been reviewed and > > >> >> merge, re-assess neutron full job failure rate over a period of > > >> >> 48 hours (72 if the period includes at least 24 hours within a > > >> >> weekend - GMT time) - turn neutron full job to voting if the > > >> >> previous step reveals a failure rate below 10%, otherwise go back > > >> >> to the drawing board > > >> >> > > >> >> In my opinion whether the full job should be enabled in an > > >> >> asymmetric fashion or not should be a decision for the QA and > > >> >> Infra teams. Once the full job is made voting there will > > >> >> inevitably be a higher failure rate. An asymmetric gate will not > > >> >> cause backlogs on other projects, so less angry people, but as > > >> >> Matt said it will still allow other bugs to slip in. Personally > > >> >> I'm ok either way. > > >> >> > > >> >> The reason why we're expecting a higher failure rate on the full > > >> >> job is that we have already observed that some "known" bugs, such > > >> >> as the various lock timeout issues affecting neutron tend to show > > >> >> with a higher frequency on the full job because of its parallel > > >> >> nature. > > >> >> > > >> >> Salvatore > > >> >> > > >> >> [1] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1329546 [2] > > >> >> https://launchpad.net/bugs/1333654 [3] > > >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/99182/ [4] > > >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103865/ [5] > > >> >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1273386 > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> On 25 June 2014 23:38, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 02:14:16PM +0200, Salvatore Orlando > > >> >>> wrote: > > >> >>>> There is a long standing patch [1] for enabling the neutron > > >> >>>> full job. Little before the Icehouse release date, when we > > >> >>>> first pushed this, the neutron full job had a failure rate of > > >> >>>> less than 10%. However, since has come by, and perceived > > >> >>>> failure rates were higher, we ran again this analysis. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> So I'm not exactly a fan of having the gates be asymmetrical. > > >> >>> It's very easy for breaks to slip in blocking the neutron gate > > >> >>> if it's not voting everywhere. Especially because I think most > > >> >>> people have been trained to ignore the full job because it's > > >> >>> been nonvoting for so long. Is there a particular reason we > > >> >>> just don't switch everything all at once? I think having a > > >> >>> little bit of friction everywhere during the migration is fine. > > >> >>> Especially if we do it way before a milestone. (as opposed to > > >> >>> the original parallel switch which was right before H-3) > > >> >>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Here are the findings in a nutshell. 1) If we were to enable > > >> >>>> the job today we might expect about a 3-fold increase in > > >> >>>> neutron job failures when compared with the smoke test. > > >> >>> This is > > >> >>>> unfortunately not acceptable and we therefore need to > > >> >>>> identify and fix > > >> >>> the > > >> >>>> issues causing the additional failure rate. 2) However this > > >> >>>> also puts us in a position where if we wait until the failure > > >> >>>> rate drops under a given threshold we might end up chasing a > > >> >>> moving > > >> >>>> target as new issues might be introduced at any time since > > >> >>>> the job is > > >> >>> not > > >> >>>> voting. 3) When it comes to evaluating failure rates for a > > >> >>>> non voting job, > > >> >>> taking > > >> >>>> the rough numbers does not mean anything, as that will take > > >> >>>> in account patches 'in progress' which end up failing the > > >> >>>> tests because of > > >> >>> problems in > > >> >>>> the patch themselves. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Well, that was pretty much a lot for a "nutshell"; however if > > >> >>>> you're not yet bored to death please go on reading. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> The data in this post are a bit skewed because of a rise in > > >> >>>> neutron job failures in the past 36 hours. However, this rise > > >> >>>> affects both the full > > >> >>> and > > >> >>>> the smoke job so it does not invalidate what we say here. The > > >> >>>> results > > >> >>> shown > > >> >>>> below are representative of the gate status 12 hours ago. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> - Neutron smoke job failure rates (all queues) 24 hours: > > >> >>>> 22.4% 48 hours: 19.3% 7 days: 8.96% - Neutron smoke job > > >> >>>> failure rates (gate queue only): 24 hours: 10.41% 48 hours: > > >> >>>> 10.20% 7 days: 3.53% - Neutron full job failure rate (check > > >> >>>> queue only as it's non voting): 24 hours: 31.54% 48 hours: > > >> >>>> 28.87% 7 days: 25.73% > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Check/Gate Ratio between neutron smoke failures 24 hours: > > >> >>>> 2.15 48 hours: 1.89 7 days: 2.53 > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Estimated job failure rate for neutron full job if it were to > > >> >>>> run in the gate: 24 hours: 14.67% 48 hours: 15.27% 7 days: > > >> >>>> 10.16% > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> The numbers are therefore not terrible, but definitely not > > >> >>>> good enough; looking at the last 7 days the full job will > > >> >>>> have a failure rate about 3 times higher than the smoke job. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> We then took, as it's usual for us when we do this kind of > > >> >>>> evaluation, a window with a reasonable number of failures (41 > > >> >>>> in our case), and > > >> >>> analysed > > >> >>>> them in detail. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Of these 41 failures 17 were excluded because of infra > > >> >>>> problems, patches 'in progress', or other transient failures; > > >> >>>> considering that over the > > >> >>> same > > >> >>>> period of time 160 full job runs succeeded this would leave > > >> >>>> us with 24 failures on 184 run, and therefore a failure rate > > >> >>>> of 13.04%, which not > > >> >>> far > > >> >>>> from the estimate. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Let's consider now these 24 'real' falures: A) 2 were for > > >> >>>> the SSH timeout (8.33% of failures, 1.08% of total full > > >> >>> job > > >> >>>> runs). These specific failure is being analyzed to see if a > > >> >>>> specific fingerprint can be found B) 2 (8.33% of failures, > > >> >>>> 1.08% of total full job runs) were for a > > >> >>> failure > > >> >>>> in test load balancer basic, which is actually a test design > > >> >>>> issue and > > >> >>> is > > >> >>>> already being addressed [2] C) 7 (29.16% of failures, 3.81% > > >> >>>> of total full job runs) were for an > > >> >>> issue > > >> >>>> while resizing a server, which has been already spotted and > > >> >>>> has a bug in progress [3] D) 5 (20.83% of failures, 2.72% of > > >> >>>> total full job runs) manifested as a failure in > > >> >>>> test_server_address; however the actual root cause was being > > >> >>>> masked by [4]. A bug has been filed [5]; this is the most > > >> >>>> worrying one > > >> >>> in > > >> >>>> my opinion as there are many cases where the fault happens > > >> >>>> but does not trigger a failure because of the way tempest > > >> >>>> tests are designed. E) 6 are because of our friend lock wait > > >> >>>> timeout. This was initially > > >> >>> filed > > >> >>>> as [6] but since then we've closed it to file more detailed > > >> >>>> bug reports > > >> >>> as > > >> >>>> the lock wait timeout can manifest in various places; Eugene > > >> >>>> is leading > > >> >>> the > > >> >>>> effort on this problem with Kevin B. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Summarizing the only failure modes specific to the full job > > >> >>>> seem to be > > >> >>> C & > > >> >>>> D. If we were able to fix those we should reasonably expect a > > >> >>>> failure > > >> >>> rate > > >> >>>> of about 6.5%. That's still almost twice as the smoke job, > > >> >>>> but I deem it acceptable for two reasons: 1- by voting, we > > >> >>>> will avoid new bugs affecting the full job from being > > >> >>>> introduced. it is worth reminding people that any bug > > >> >>>> affecting the full job is likely to affect production > > >> >>>> environments > > >> >>> > > >> >>> +1, this is a very good point. > > >> >>> > > >> >>>> 2- patches failing in the gate will spur neutron developers > > >> >>>> to quickly > > >> >>> find > > >> >>>> a fix. Patches failing a non voting job will cause some > > >> >>>> neutron core > > >> >>> team > > >> >>>> members to write long and boring posts to the mailing list. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Well, you can always hope. :) But, in my experience the error > > >> >>> is often fixed quickly but the lesson isn't learned, so it will > > >> >>> just happen again. That's why I think we should just grit our > > >> >>> teeth and turn it on everywhere. > > >> >>> > > >> >>>> Salvatore > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88289/ [2] > > >> >>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98065/ [3] > > >> >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1329546 [4] > > >> >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/tempest/+bug/1332414 [5] > > >> >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1333654 [5] > > >> >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1283522 > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Very cool, thanks for the update Salvatore. I'm very excited to > > >> >>> get this voting. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> -Matt Treinish > > >> >>> > > >> >>> _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev > > >> >>> mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > >> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev > > >> > mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > >> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > >> > > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > >> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) > > >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > >> > > >> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTvlxzAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57FJ8H/i+gPR/VZuWFvkOu7pNTHuSj > > >> 8iSA1LJRGe7I9185Gbh22fVzGlahqDpB2hCJjKtWIcL/ml/pgSNGzafB/DhqUUlL > > >> 4GT1UUHptqlKaNX9GLl9I/bknUBEtpwg3hSBivVdCkRYiVwfX86a2ZeeHaCAONwY > > >> ykhiNgoXhR6mr8oEJEIvtjnTDlodR+1dcEq+Nchf/6Fzd8J29dI2Qu38JkweK/qP > > >> m6koPdKSJFzrneOWMCW0Dta6yBKjb3bMCNJUVO/KSGg+MRuSmrufOmLCW5JFu95S > > >> DWIQSTWs3A+dSy9+xuByClQP9kDpG3aUXxW6uRu5UshHMAF5vLATmdCdK4kBiBY= > > >> =K9qm > > >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > > >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > >> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
