Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] scenario006 conflict
On 19 July 2017 at 17:02, Derek Higgins wrote: > On 17 July 2017 at 15:56, Derek Higgins wrote: >> On 17 July 2017 at 15:37, Emilien Macchi wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote: On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:55 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: > On 12 July 2017 at 22:33, Emilien Macchi wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Emilien Macchi >> wrote: >> [...] >>> Derek, it seems like you want to deploy Ironic on scenario006 >>> (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802). I was wondering how it >>> would work with multinode jobs. >> >> Derek, I also would like to point out that >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802 is missing the environment >> file for non-containerized deployments & and also the pingtest file. >> Just for the record, if we can have it before the job moves in gate. > > I knew I had left out the ping test file, this is the next step but I > can create a noop one for now if you'd like? Please create a basic pingtest with common things we have in other scenarios. > Is the non-containerized deployments a requirement? Until we stop supporting non-containerized deployments, I would say yes. >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> Emilien Macchi So if you create a libvirt domain, would it be possible to do it on scenario004 for example and keep coverage for other services that are already on scenario004? It would avoid to consume a scenario just for Ironic. If not possible, then talk with Flavio and one of you will have to prepare scenario007 or 0008, depending where Numans is in his progress to have OVN coverage as well. >>> >>> I haven't seen much resolution / answers about it. We still have the >>> conflict right now and open questions. >>> >>> Derek, Flavio - let's solve this one this week if we can. >> Yes, I'll be looking into using scenario004 this week. I was traveling >> last week so wasn't looking at it. > > I'm not sure if this is what you had intended but I believe to do > this(i.e. test the nova ironic driver) we we'll > need to swap out the nova libvirt driver for the ironic one. I think > this is ok as the libvirt driver has coverage > in other scenarios. > > Because there are no virtual BMC's setup yet on the controller I also > have to remove the instance creation, > but if merged I'll next work on adding these now. So I'm think > something like this > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485261/ Quick update here, after talking to Emilien about this, I'll add to this patch to set up VirtualBMC instances and not remove instance creation. So it continues to test a ceph backed glance. > >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -- >>> Emilien Macchi __ 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] [tripleo] scenario006 conflict
On 17 July 2017 at 15:56, Derek Higgins wrote: > On 17 July 2017 at 15:37, Emilien Macchi wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:55 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: On 12 July 2017 at 22:33, Emilien Macchi wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Emilien Macchi > wrote: > [...] >> Derek, it seems like you want to deploy Ironic on scenario006 >> (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802). I was wondering how it >> would work with multinode jobs. > > Derek, I also would like to point out that > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802 is missing the environment > file for non-containerized deployments & and also the pingtest file. > Just for the record, if we can have it before the job moves in gate. I knew I had left out the ping test file, this is the next step but I can create a noop one for now if you'd like? >>> >>> Please create a basic pingtest with common things we have in other >>> scenarios. >>> Is the non-containerized deployments a requirement? >>> >>> Until we stop supporting non-containerized deployments, I would say yes. >>> > > Thanks, > -- > Emilien Macchi >>> >>> So if you create a libvirt domain, would it be possible to do it on >>> scenario004 for example and keep coverage for other services that are >>> already on scenario004? It would avoid to consume a scenario just for >>> Ironic. If not possible, then talk with Flavio and one of you will >>> have to prepare scenario007 or 0008, depending where Numans is in his >>> progress to have OVN coverage as well. >> >> I haven't seen much resolution / answers about it. We still have the >> conflict right now and open questions. >> >> Derek, Flavio - let's solve this one this week if we can. > Yes, I'll be looking into using scenario004 this week. I was traveling > last week so wasn't looking at it. I'm not sure if this is what you had intended but I believe to do this(i.e. test the nova ironic driver) we we'll need to swap out the nova libvirt driver for the ironic one. I think this is ok as the libvirt driver has coverage in other scenarios. Because there are no virtual BMC's setup yet on the controller I also have to remove the instance creation, but if merged I'll next work on adding these now. So I'm think something like this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485261/ > >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> Emilien Macchi __ 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] [tripleo] scenario006 conflict
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Michele Baldessari wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:23:25PM -0700, Emilien Macchi wrote: >> Hey folks, >> >> Derek, it seems like you want to deploy Ironic on scenario006 >> (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802). I was wondering how it >> would work with multinode jobs. >> Also, Flavio would like to test k8s on scenario006: >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471759/ . To avoid having too much >> scenarios and complexity, I think if ironic tests can be done on a >> 2nodes job, then we can deploy ironic on scenario004 maybe. If not, >> then please give the requirements so we can see how to structure it. >> >> For Flavio's need, I think we need a dedicated scenario for now, since >> he's not going to deploy any OpenStack service on the overcloud for >> now, just k8s. >> >> Thanks for letting us know the plans, so we can keep the scenarios in >> good shape. >> Note: Numans also wants to test OVN and I suggested to create >> scenario007 (since we can't deploy OVN before Pike, so upgrades >> wouldn't work). >> Note2: it seems like efforts done to test complex HA architectures >> weren't finished in scenario005 - Michele: any thoughts on this one? >> should we remove it now or do we expect it working one day? > > I'm a bit on the fence on this. On one side I'd love to resurrect it > and try and complete it (previous attempts were failing due to unrelated > issues and we never circled back to it). What we could do is catch two > birds with one stone: namely use scenario005 for both OVN and more > complex HA. As long as we deploy a node which hosts OVN in a dedicate > role (be it via full pacemaker or pacemaker remote) we are exercising > both OVN *and* the composable HA work. > > What do you think? Does that sound feasible? Yes but warnings: * scenario005 is a 4nodes deployments in OpenStack Infra, it takes quite a lot of CI resources. * we would like to run the scenario which has OVN into openstack/networking-ovn gate. So I'm not sure this is really efficient. Scenario005 was created to be run when touching pacemaker files in THT / puppet-tripleo and test composable HA. Adding OVN to the stack is fine, but it also means the job would run much more often (every time we patch OVN files in TripleO and also for every patch in openstack/networking-ovn) - do we really want that? > cheers, > Michele > -- > Michele Baldessari > Email: > C2A5 9DA3 9961 4FFB E01B D0BC DDD4 DCCB 7515 5C6D -- Emilien Macchi __ 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] [tripleo] scenario006 conflict
On 17/07/17 15:56 +0100, Derek Higgins wrote: On 17 July 2017 at 15:37, Emilien Macchi wrote: On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote: On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:55 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: On 12 July 2017 at 22:33, Emilien Macchi wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: [...] Derek, it seems like you want to deploy Ironic on scenario006 (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802). I was wondering how it would work with multinode jobs. Derek, I also would like to point out that https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802 is missing the environment file for non-containerized deployments & and also the pingtest file. Just for the record, if we can have it before the job moves in gate. I knew I had left out the ping test file, this is the next step but I can create a noop one for now if you'd like? Please create a basic pingtest with common things we have in other scenarios. Is the non-containerized deployments a requirement? Until we stop supporting non-containerized deployments, I would say yes. Thanks, -- Emilien Macchi So if you create a libvirt domain, would it be possible to do it on scenario004 for example and keep coverage for other services that are already on scenario004? It would avoid to consume a scenario just for Ironic. If not possible, then talk with Flavio and one of you will have to prepare scenario007 or 0008, depending where Numans is in his progress to have OVN coverage as well. I haven't seen much resolution / answers about it. We still have the conflict right now and open questions. Derek, Flavio - let's solve this one this week if we can. Yes, I'll be looking into using scenario004 this week. I was traveling last week so wasn't looking at it. Awesome! Thanks, Derek. Flavio -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco signature.asc Description: PGP 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] [tripleo] scenario006 conflict
On 17 July 2017 at 15:37, Emilien Macchi wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:55 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: >>> On 12 July 2017 at 22:33, Emilien Macchi wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: [...] > Derek, it seems like you want to deploy Ironic on scenario006 > (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802). I was wondering how it > would work with multinode jobs. Derek, I also would like to point out that https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802 is missing the environment file for non-containerized deployments & and also the pingtest file. Just for the record, if we can have it before the job moves in gate. >>> >>> I knew I had left out the ping test file, this is the next step but I >>> can create a noop one for now if you'd like? >> >> Please create a basic pingtest with common things we have in other scenarios. >> >>> Is the non-containerized deployments a requirement? >> >> Until we stop supporting non-containerized deployments, I would say yes. >> Thanks, -- Emilien Macchi >> >> So if you create a libvirt domain, would it be possible to do it on >> scenario004 for example and keep coverage for other services that are >> already on scenario004? It would avoid to consume a scenario just for >> Ironic. If not possible, then talk with Flavio and one of you will >> have to prepare scenario007 or 0008, depending where Numans is in his >> progress to have OVN coverage as well. > > I haven't seen much resolution / answers about it. We still have the > conflict right now and open questions. > > Derek, Flavio - let's solve this one this week if we can. Yes, I'll be looking into using scenario004 this week. I was traveling last week so wasn't looking at it. > > Thanks, > -- > Emilien Macchi __ 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] [tripleo] scenario006 conflict
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:55 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: >> On 12 July 2017 at 22:33, Emilien Macchi wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: >>> [...] Derek, it seems like you want to deploy Ironic on scenario006 (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802). I was wondering how it would work with multinode jobs. >>> >>> Derek, I also would like to point out that >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802 is missing the environment >>> file for non-containerized deployments & and also the pingtest file. >>> Just for the record, if we can have it before the job moves in gate. >> >> I knew I had left out the ping test file, this is the next step but I >> can create a noop one for now if you'd like? > > Please create a basic pingtest with common things we have in other scenarios. > >> Is the non-containerized deployments a requirement? > > Until we stop supporting non-containerized deployments, I would say yes. > >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -- >>> Emilien Macchi > > So if you create a libvirt domain, would it be possible to do it on > scenario004 for example and keep coverage for other services that are > already on scenario004? It would avoid to consume a scenario just for > Ironic. If not possible, then talk with Flavio and one of you will > have to prepare scenario007 or 0008, depending where Numans is in his > progress to have OVN coverage as well. I haven't seen much resolution / answers about it. We still have the conflict right now and open questions. Derek, Flavio - let's solve this one this week if we can. Thanks, -- Emilien Macchi __ 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] [tripleo] scenario006 conflict
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:55 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: > On 12 July 2017 at 22:33, Emilien Macchi wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: >> [...] >>> Derek, it seems like you want to deploy Ironic on scenario006 >>> (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802). I was wondering how it >>> would work with multinode jobs. >> >> Derek, I also would like to point out that >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802 is missing the environment >> file for non-containerized deployments & and also the pingtest file. >> Just for the record, if we can have it before the job moves in gate. > > I knew I had left out the ping test file, this is the next step but I > can create a noop one for now if you'd like? Please create a basic pingtest with common things we have in other scenarios. > Is the non-containerized deployments a requirement? Until we stop supporting non-containerized deployments, I would say yes. >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> Emilien Macchi So if you create a libvirt domain, would it be possible to do it on scenario004 for example and keep coverage for other services that are already on scenario004? It would avoid to consume a scenario just for Ironic. If not possible, then talk with Flavio and one of you will have to prepare scenario007 or 0008, depending where Numans is in his progress to have OVN coverage as well. Thanks, -- Emilien Macchi __ 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] [tripleo] scenario006 conflict
On 12 July 2017 at 22:33, Emilien Macchi wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > [...] >> Derek, it seems like you want to deploy Ironic on scenario006 >> (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802). I was wondering how it >> would work with multinode jobs. > > Derek, I also would like to point out that > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802 is missing the environment > file for non-containerized deployments & and also the pingtest file. > Just for the record, if we can have it before the job moves in gate. I knew I had left out the ping test file, this is the next step but I can create a noop one for now if you'd like? Is the non-containerized deployments a requirement? > > Thanks, > -- > Emilien Macchi __ 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] [tripleo] scenario006 conflict
On 12 July 2017 at 22:23, Emilien Macchi wrote: > Hey folks, > > Derek, it seems like you want to deploy Ironic on scenario006 > (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802). I was wondering how it > would work with multinode jobs. The idea was that we would create a libvirt domain on the overcloud controller that Ironic could then control with VirtualBMC. But for the moment the job only installs Ironic and I was going to build onto it from there. > Also, Flavio would like to test k8s on scenario006: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471759/ . To avoid having too much > scenarios and complexity, I think if ironic tests can be done on a > 2nodes job, then we can deploy ironic on scenario004 maybe. If not, > then please give the requirements so we can see how to structure it. I'll take look and see whats possible > > For Flavio's need, I think we need a dedicated scenario for now, since > he's not going to deploy any OpenStack service on the overcloud for > now, just k8s. > > Thanks for letting us know the plans, so we can keep the scenarios in > good shape. > Note: Numans also wants to test OVN and I suggested to create > scenario007 (since we can't deploy OVN before Pike, so upgrades > wouldn't work). > Note2: it seems like efforts done to test complex HA architectures > weren't finished in scenario005 - Michele: any thoughts on this one? > should we remove it now or do we expect it working one day? > > > Thanks, > -- > Emilien Macchi __ 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] [tripleo] scenario006 conflict
On 12/07/17 14:23 -0700, Emilien Macchi wrote: Hey folks, Derek, it seems like you want to deploy Ironic on scenario006 (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802). I was wondering how it would work with multinode jobs. Also, Flavio would like to test k8s on scenario006: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471759/ . To avoid having too much scenarios and complexity, I think if ironic tests can be done on a 2nodes job, then we can deploy ironic on scenario004 maybe. If not, then please give the requirements so we can see how to structure it. For Flavio's need, I think we need a dedicated scenario for now, since he's not going to deploy any OpenStack service on the overcloud for now, just k8s. True, this is the plan for now. However, I don't think deploying other services in the overcloud is going to affect what I'm doing now. Ultimately, I'll start moving the services onto Kubernetes as soon as the rest of the work starts to shape out. Thanks for the email, Flavio -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco signature.asc Description: PGP 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] [tripleo] scenario006 conflict
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: [...] > Derek, it seems like you want to deploy Ironic on scenario006 > (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802). I was wondering how it > would work with multinode jobs. Derek, I also would like to point out that https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802 is missing the environment file for non-containerized deployments & and also the pingtest file. Just for the record, if we can have it before the job moves in gate. Thanks, -- Emilien Macchi __ 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] [tripleo] scenario006 conflict
Hey folks, Derek, it seems like you want to deploy Ironic on scenario006 (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474802). I was wondering how it would work with multinode jobs. Also, Flavio would like to test k8s on scenario006: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471759/ . To avoid having too much scenarios and complexity, I think if ironic tests can be done on a 2nodes job, then we can deploy ironic on scenario004 maybe. If not, then please give the requirements so we can see how to structure it. For Flavio's need, I think we need a dedicated scenario for now, since he's not going to deploy any OpenStack service on the overcloud for now, just k8s. Thanks for letting us know the plans, so we can keep the scenarios in good shape. Note: Numans also wants to test OVN and I suggested to create scenario007 (since we can't deploy OVN before Pike, so upgrades wouldn't work). Note2: it seems like efforts done to test complex HA architectures weren't finished in scenario005 - Michele: any thoughts on this one? should we remove it now or do we expect it working one day? Thanks, -- Emilien Macchi __ 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
