On 09/04/2014 09:21 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 03:07:24PM +0200, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
>> On 09/04/2014 02:31 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>>> On 09/04/2014 07:58 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
>>>> Hi team,
>>>>
>>>> I am requesting the exception for the feature from the subject (find
>>>> specs at [1] and outstanding changes at [2]).
>>>>
>>>> Some reasons why we may want to grant it:
>>>>
>>>> First of all all patches have been approved in time and just lost the
>>>> gate race.
>>>>
>>>> Rejecting it makes little sense really, as it has been commented on by a
>>>> good chunk of the core team, most of the invasive stuff (db migrations
>>>> for example) has already merged, and the few parts that may seem
>>>> contentious have either been discussed and agreed upon [3], or can
>>>> easily be addressed in subsequent bug fixes.
>>>>
>>>> It would be very beneficial to merge it so that we actually get real
>>>> testing on the feature ASAP (scheduling features are not tested in the
>>>> gate so we need to rely on downstream/3rd party/user testing for those).
>>>
>>> This statement bugs me. It seems kind of backwards to say we should
>>> merge a thing that we don't have a good upstream test plan on and put it
>>> in a release so that the testing will happen only in the downstream case.
>>>
>>
>> The objective reality is that many other things have not had upstream
>> testing for a long time (anything that requires more than 1 compute node
>> in Nova for example, and any scheduling feature - as I mention clearly
>> above), so not sure how that is backwards from any reasonable point.
> 
> More critically with NUMA feature, AFAIK, there is no public cloud in
> existance which exposes NUMA to the guest. So unless someone is willing
> to pay for 100's of bare metal servers to run tempest on, I don't know
> of any infrastructure on which we can test NUMA today.
> 
> Of course once we include NUMA features in Nova and release Nova, then
> the Rackspace and/or HP clouds will be in a position to start considering
> how & when they might expose NUMA features for instances they host. So by
> including it in Nova today, we would be helping move towards a future
> where we will be able to run tempest against NUMA features.
> 
> Blocking NUMA from Nova for lack of automated testing will leave us trapped
> in a chicken and egg scenario, potentially forever. That's not in anyones
> best interests IMHO

The spec specifically calls out the scheduler piece being the part that
probably most needs to be tested, especially at large scales here. Those
pieces don't need Tempest to test them, they need more solid functional
tests around the scheduler under those circumstances.

There are interesting (and not all that difficult) ways to do this given
the resources we have, which don't seem to be being explored, which is
my concern.

        -Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

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

Reply via email to