Just FYI, this is a new test introduced in
https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/78802/.
It might also be a bug in the test itself, so adding the test author.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Barak Korren wrote:
> Test failed: [ 004_basic_sanity.template_update ]
>
> Link to suspected patches:
> https://g
Hello,
current VDSM ping verb has a problem - it confirms network
connectivity as a side-effect. After Engine calls setupNetwork it
pings VDSM host to confirm that external network connectivity is not
broken. This prohibits other users to call ping from localhost since
it would confirm connectivit
Still someone could call conirmConnectivity, no? so the state isn't guarded
from localhost tinkering anyhow. If you really need a solution you can
acuire a token for this operation by setupNetworks, and confirm
connectivity with this token passed back.
I'm not sure about the severity of the proble
Hi, we'd like to test cluster compatibility version upgrades in OST and
we're thinking whether there is a good way to do that without putting
much burden on OST. We want to test that the cluster updates without
errors, as well as the VMs in it.
A safe way would be to create a new data center for
On 7 August 2017 at 18:00, Milan Zamazal wrote:
>
> We could also make a separate test suite for that test, but is it
> desirable and would anybody run it regularly?
>
> So what do you recommend as a good way to test cluster compatibility
> version upgrades?
Maybe we could add this to the upgrade
As Barak said, I think it's a good idea to try and extend the current
upgrade suites.
As the upgrade suites are already running in parallel (on different hosts)
with the basic_suite (and currently the upgrade suite is much faster than
the basic suite), we might end up with the same run time as the
Daniel Belenky writes:
> As Barak said, I think it's a good idea to try and extend the current
> upgrade suites.
> As the upgrade suites are already running in parallel (on different hosts)
> with the basic_suite (and currently the upgrade suite is much faster than
> the basic suite), we might e
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:28 PM Roy Golan wrote:
> Still someone could call conirmConnectivity, no? so the state isn't
> guarded from localhost tinkering anyhow. If you really need a solution you
> can acuire a token for this operation by setupNetworks, and confirm
> connectivity with this token p
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Nir Soffer wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:28 PM Roy Golan wrote:
>
>> Still someone could call conirmConnectivity, no? so the state isn't
>> guarded from localhost tinkering anyhow. If you really need a solution you
>> can acuire a token for this operation by
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Roy Golan wrote:
> Still someone could call conirmConnectivity, no? so the state isn't
> guarded from localhost tinkering anyhow. If you really need a solution you
> can acuire a token for this operation by setupNetworks, and confirm
> connectivity with this token
10 matches
Mail list logo