Excerpts from Derek Higgins's message of 2014-08-20 09:06:48 +0000:
> On 19/08/14 20:58, Gregory Haynes wrote:
> > Excerpts from Giulio Fidente's message of 2014-08-19 12:07:53 +0000:
> >> One last comment, maybe a bit OT but I'm raising it here to see what is 
> >> the other people opinion: how about we modify the -ha job so that at 
> >> some point we actually kill one of the controllers and spawn a second 
> >> user image?
> > 
> > I think this is a great long term goal, but IMO performing an update
> > isnt really the type of verification we want for this kind of test. We
> > really should have some minimal tempest testing in place first so we can
> > verify that when these types of failures occur our cloud remains in a
> > functioning state.
> 
> Greg, you said "performing an update" did you mean "killing a controller
> node" ?
> 
> if so I agree, verifying our cloud is still in a working order with
> tempest would get us more coverage then spawning a node. So once we have
> tempest in place we can add a test to kill a controller node.
> 

Ah, I misread the original message a bit, but sounds like were all on
the same page.

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to