On 08/20/2014 07:35 PM, Gregory Haynes wrote:
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.

I don't see why we should wait for tempest being add too before introducing the node kill step.

I understand to have a view of the overall status tempest is the tool we need, but today we rely on small, short, scenario: we boot a guest from a volume and assign it a float

I think we can continue to rely on this and also introduce the node kill step, without interfering with the work needed to put tempest in the cycle.

--
Giulio Fidente
GPG KEY: 08D733BA

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

Reply via email to