> Eoghan,
> 
> Nice work on this. I think that first of all this job should be run on every
> patch for some period of time (not only in experimental pipe)
> 
> By the way, If you would like we can help from Rally side.
> We are running benchmarks on every patch in it's gates. Ceilometer is fully
> turned on in these jobs, so we can be first adopters and switch to mongodb.

Hi Boris,

Excellent, that additional coverage would certainly be helpful.

Though in terms of the performance characteristics reported by
Rally, I'm guessing we wouldn't see much change, given the faster
metering store access would all be happening asynchronously to
the paths measured by Rally, amiright?

Cheers,
Eoghan

> This will ensure that everything works stable even under load, and i hope
> convince people to switch integrate gate to mongo.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Boris Pavlovic
> 
> 
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Eoghan Glynn < egl...@redhat.com > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> Dina Belova has recently landed some infra patches[1,2] to create
> an experimental mongodb-based Tempest job. This effectively just
> overrides the ceilometer storage backend config so that mongodb
> is used instead of sql-alchemy. The new job has been running
> happily for a few days so I'd like now to consider the path
> forwards with this.
> 
> One of our Juno goals under the TC gap analysis was to more fully
> gate against mongodb, given that this is the storage backend
> recommended/supported by many distros. The sql-alchemy backend,
> on the other hand, is more suited for proofs of concept or small
> deployments. However up to now we've been hampered from reflecting
> that reality in the gate, due to the gate being stuck on Precise
> for a long time, as befits LTS, and the version of mongodb needed
> by ceilometer (i.e. 2.4) effectively unavailable on that Ubuntu
> release (in fact it was limited to 2.0.4).
> 
> So the orientation towards gating on sql-alchemy was mostly
> driven by legacy issues in the gate's usage of Precise, as
> opposed to this being considered the most logical basket in
> which to put all our testing eggs.
> 
> However, we're now finally in the brave new world of Trusty :)
> So I would like to make the long-delayed change over soon.
> 
> This would involve transposing the roles of sql-alchemy and
> mongodb in the gate - the mongodb variant becomes the "blessed"
> job run by default, whereas the sql-alchemy based job to
> relegated to the second tier.
> 
> So my questions are:
> 
> (a) would the QA side of the house be agreeable to this switch?
> 
> and:
> 
> (b) how long would the mongodb job need to be stable in this
> experimental mode before we pull the trigger on swicthing?
> 
> If the answer to (a) is yes, we can get infra patches proposed
> early next week to make the swap.
> 
> Cheers,
> Eoghan
> 
> [1]
> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack-infra/config+branch:master+topic:ceilometer-mongodb-job,n,z
> [2]
> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack-infra/devstack-gate+branch:master+topic:ceilometer-backend,n,z
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to