Hi Egor,
Do we need to add a cinder volume to the master nodes for Kubernetes as
well? We did not run Docker on the master node before so the volume was
not needed.
Ton Ngo,
From: Hongbin Lu <[email protected]>
To: Egor Guz <[email protected]>, OpenStack Development Mailing
List <[email protected]>
Date: 01/18/2016 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Temporarily remove swarm func test
from gate
Hi Egor,
Thanks for investigating on the issue. I will review the patch. Agreed. We
can definitely enable the swarm tests if everything works fine.
Best regards,
Hongbin
-----Original Message-----
From: Egor Guz [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: January-18-16 2:42 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Cc: Hongbin Lu
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Temporarily remove swarm func test
from gate
Hongbin,
I did some digging and found that docker storage driver wasn’t configured
correctly at agent nodes.
Also it looks like Atomic folks recommend use deicated volumes for
DeviceMapper (
http://www.projectatomic.io/blog/2015/06/notes-on-fedora-centos-and-docker-storage-drivers/
).
So added Cinder volume for the master as well (I tried create volumes at
local storage, but it’s not even enough space for 1G volume).
Please take a look at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/267996, did around
~12 gates run and got only 2 failures (tests cannot connect to master, but
all containers logs looks alrignt. e.g.
http://logs.openstack.org/96/267996/3/check/gate-functional-dsvm-magnum-swarm/d8d855b/console.html#_2016-01-18_04_31_17_312
), we have similar error rates with Kub. So after merging this code we can
try to enable voting for Swarm tests, thoughts?
—
Egor
On Jan 8, 2016, at 12:01, Hongbin Lu <[email protected]<
mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
There are other symptoms as well, which I have no idea without a deep dip.
-----Original Message-----
From: Egor Guz [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: January-08-16 2:14 PM
To: [email protected]<
mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: Hongbin Lu
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Temporarily remove swarm func test
from gate
Hongbin,
I belive most failures are related to containers tests. Maybe we should
comment only them out and keep Swarm cluster provisioning.
Thoughts?
—
Egor
On Jan 8, 2016, at 06:37, Hongbin Lu <[email protected]<
mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Done: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/264998/
Best regards,
Hongbin
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Otto [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: January-07-16 10:19 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Temporarily remove swarm func test
from gate
Hongbin,
I’m not aware of any viable options besides using a nonvoting gate job. Are
there other alternatives to consider? If not, let’s proceed with that
approach.
Adrian
On Jan 7, 2016, at 3:34 PM, Hongbin Lu <[email protected]<
mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Clark,
That is true. The check pipeline must pass in order to enter the gate
pipeline. Here is the problem we are facing. A patch that was able to pass
the check pipeline is blocked in gate pipeline, due to the instability of
the test. The removal of unstable test from gate pipeline aims to unblock
the patches that already passed the check.
An alternative is to remove the unstable test from check pipeline as well
or mark it as non-voting test. If that is what the team prefers, I will
adjust the review accordingly.
Best regards,
Honbgin
-----Original Message-----
From: Clark Boylan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: January-07-16 6:04 PM
To: [email protected]<
mailto:[email protected]><
mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Temporarily remove swarm func test
from gate
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 02:59 PM, Hongbin Lu wrote:
Hi folks,
It looks the swarm func test is currently unstable, which negatively
impacts the patch submission workflow. I proposed to remove it from Jenkins
gate (but keep it in Jenkins check), until it becomes stable.
Please find the details in the review
(https://review.openstack.org/#/c/264998/) and let me know if you have any
concern.
Removing it from gate but not from check doesn't necessarily help much
because you can only enter the gate pipeline once the change has a +1 from
Jenkins. Jenkins applies the +1 after check tests pass.
Clark
______________________________________________________________________
____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
[email protected]<
mailto:[email protected]><
mailto:[email protected]>?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
______________________________________________________________________
____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]<
mailto:[email protected]>?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
