On 27/11/14 10:21, Duncan Thomas wrote: > I'd suggest starting by making it an extra job, so that it can be > monitored for a while for stability without affecting what is there.
we have to be careful here, adding an extra job for this is probably the safest option but tripleo CI resources are a constraint, for that reason I would add it to the HA job (which is currently non voting) and once its stable we should make it voting. > > I'd be supportive of making it the default HA job in the longer term as > long as the LVM code is still getting tested somewhere - LVM is still > the reference implementation in cinder and after discussion there was > strong resistance to changing that. We are and would continue to use lvm for our non ha jobs, If I understand it correctly the tripleo lvm support isn't HA so continuing to test it on our HA job doesn't achieve much. > > I've no strong opinions on the node layout, I'll leave that to more > knowledgable people to discuss. > > Is the ceph/tripleO code in a working state yet? Is there a guide to > using it? > > > On 26 November 2014 at 13:10, Giulio Fidente <gfide...@redhat.com > <mailto:gfide...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > hi there, > > while working on the TripleO cinder-ha spec meant to provide HA for > Cinder via Ceph , we wondered how to (if at all) test this in CI, > so we're looking for some feedback > > first of all, shall we make Cinder/Ceph the default for our > (currently non-voting) HA job? > (check-tripleo-ironic-__overcloud-precise-ha) > > current implementation (under review) should permit for the > deployment of both the Ceph monitors and Ceph OSDs on either > controllers, dedicated nodes, or to split them up so that only OSDs > are on dedicated nodes > > what would be the best scenario for CI? > > * a single additional node hosting a Ceph OSD with the Ceph monitors > deployed on all controllers (my preference is for this one) I would be happy with this so long as it didn't drastically increase the time to run the HA job. > > * a single additional node hosting a Ceph OSD and a Ceph monitor > > * no additional nodes with controllers also service as Ceph monitor > and Ceph OSD > > more scenarios? comments? Thanks for helping > > 1. > https://blueprints.launchpad.__net/tripleo/+spec/tripleo-__kilo-cinder-ha > <https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tripleo/+spec/tripleo-kilo-cinder-ha> > -- > Giulio Fidente > GPG KEY: 08D733BA > > _________________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStackemail@example.com.__org > <mailto:OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/__cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/__openstack-dev > <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev> > > > > > -- > Duncan Thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStackemail@example.com > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev