Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal to change integrated neutron grenade gate job to multi-node

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2017-07-18 12:05:24 -0700 (-0700), Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> I don't see any issue with it, but it would be great to hear from
> infra. They may have their reservations because the change may
> somewhat raise pressure on the number of nodes (that being said, there
> are some savings too for projects that currently run both versions of
> the job at the same time - one via integrated gate and another
> project-specific).

As an Infra contributor (not speaking for the rest of the team) I
don't see any problem with the suggestion as long as the job is
sufficiently stable for all projects involved. For pressure on our
quota, I don't think there's a good way to know what the impact will
be without going ahead and trying.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal to change integrated neutron grenade gate job to multi-node

[Ihar Hrachyshka]

I don't see any issue with it, but it would be great to hear from
infra. They may have their reservations because the change may
somewhat raise pressure on the number of nodes (that being said, there
are some savings too for projects that currently run both versions of
the job at the same time - one via integrated gate and another
project-specific).

Ihar

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Brian Haley  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While looking at ways to reduce the number of jobs we run in the Neutron
> gate, I found we ran two very similar jobs for some projects:
>
> gate-grenade-dsvm-neutron-ubuntu-xenial (single-node job)
> gate-grenade-dsvm-neutron-multinode-ubuntu-xenial (2-node job)
>
> We talked about this in the Neutron CI meeting this week [1] and felt it
> best to remove the single-node job and just run the multi-node job, mostly
> because it more mimics a "real" Neutron deployment where there are separate
> controller and compute nodes.  Looking at the Neutron grafana dashboard [2]
> the two jobs have about the same failure rate in the gate (~0), so I don't
> think there will be any problems with the switch.
>
> This has an impact on the integrated gate since it currently runs the
> single-node job, so I wanted ot get thoughts on any issues they'd have with
> this change [3].
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Brian
>
> [1]
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/neutron_ci/2017/neutron_ci.2017-07-11-16.00.log.html#l-112
> [3] http://grafana.openstack.org/dashboard/db/neutron-failure-rate
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/483600/
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

[openstack-dev] [all] Proposal to change integrated neutron grenade gate job to multi-node

[Brian Haley]

Hi,

While looking at ways to reduce the number of jobs we run in the Neutron 
gate, I found we ran two very similar jobs for some projects:


gate-grenade-dsvm-neutron-ubuntu-xenial (single-node job)
gate-grenade-dsvm-neutron-multinode-ubuntu-xenial (2-node job)

We talked about this in the Neutron CI meeting this week [1] and felt it 
best to remove the single-node job and just run the multi-node job, 
mostly because it more mimics a "real" Neutron deployment where there 
are separate controller and compute nodes.  Looking at the Neutron 
grafana dashboard [2] the two jobs have about the same failure rate in 
the gate (~0), so I don't think there will be any problems with the switch.


This has an impact on the integrated gate since it currently runs the 
single-node job, so I wanted ot get thoughts on any issues they'd have 
with this change [3].


Thanks,

-Brian

[1] 
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/neutron_ci/2017/neutron_ci.2017-07-11-16.00.log.html#l-112

[3] http://grafana.openstack.org/dashboard/db/neutron-failure-rate
[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/483600/

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev