Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On Jun 14, 2014 11:12 AM, "Robert Collins" wrote: > > You know its bad when you can't sleep because you're redesigning gate > workflows in your head so I apologise that this email is perhaps > not as rational, nor as organised, as usual - but , . :) > > Obviously this is very important to

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On 16 Jun 2014 22:33, "Sean Dague" wrote: > > On 06/16/2014 04:33 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Robert Collins wrote: > >> [...] > >> C - If we can't make it harder to get races in, perhaps we can make it > >> easier to get races out. We have pretty solid emergent statistics from > >> every gate j

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Sean Dague wrote: >> >> On 06/13/2014 06:47 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Dan Prince > > > wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, 2014-06-12 a

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On 16 Jun 2014 20:33, "Thierry Carrez" wrote: > > Robert Collins wrote: > > [...] > > C - If we can't make it harder to get races in, perhaps we can make it > > easier to get races out. We have pretty solid emergent statistics from > > every gate job that is run as check. What if set a policy that

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 11:36 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > If someone can point me to a case where we've actually found this kind > of bug with tempest / devstack, that would be great. I've just *never* > seen it. I was the one that did most of the fixing for pg support in > Nova, and have helped other

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 06/13/2014 06:47 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Dan Prince > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 09:24 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 12, 2014 8:

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014, Sean Dague wrote: So if we can't evolve the system back towards health, we need to just cut a bunch of stuff off until we can. +1 This is kind of the crux of the biscuit. As things stand there's so much noise that it's far too easy to think and act like it is somebody else

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On 06/16/2014 04:33 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Robert Collins wrote: >> [...] >> C - If we can't make it harder to get races in, perhaps we can make it >> easier to get races out. We have pretty solid emergent statistics from >> every gate job that is run as check. What if set a policy that when a

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

Robert Collins wrote: > [...] > C - If we can't make it harder to get races in, perhaps we can make it > easier to get races out. We have pretty solid emergent statistics from > every gate job that is run as check. What if set a policy that when a > gate queue gets a race: > - put a zuul stop all

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

You know its bad when you can't sleep because you're redesigning gate workflows in your head so I apologise that this email is perhaps not as rational, nor as organised, as usual - but , . :) Obviously this is very important to address, and if we can come up with something systemic I'm goi

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On 06/13/2014 06:47 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Dan Prince > wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 09:24 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > On Jun 12, 2014 8:37 AM, "Sean Dague" > wrote: > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Dan Prince wrote: > On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 09:24 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > On Jun 12, 2014 8:37 AM, "Sean Dague" wrote: > > > > > > On 06/12/2014 10:38 AM, Mike Bayer wrote: > > > > > > > > On 6/12/14, 8:26 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jun 12 2

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On 06/13/2014 08:13 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 07:31 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: >> On 06/13/2014 02:36 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: >>> On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 22:10 -0400, Dan Prince wrote: On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 08:06 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > We're definitely deep into

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 07:31 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > On 06/13/2014 02:36 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 22:10 -0400, Dan Prince wrote: > >> On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 08:06 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > >>> We're definitely deep into capacity issues, so it's going to be time to > >>

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On 06/12/2014 10:10 PM, Dan Prince wrote: > On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 08:06 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: >> We're definitely deep into capacity issues, so it's going to be time to >> start making tougher decisions about things we decide aren't different >> enough to bother testing on every commit. > > In

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On 06/13/2014 02:36 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 22:10 -0400, Dan Prince wrote: >> On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 08:06 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: >>> We're definitely deep into capacity issues, so it's going to be time to >>> start making tougher decisions about things we decide aren't

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On 06/12/2014 10:18 PM, Dan Prince wrote: > On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 09:24 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote: >> >> On Jun 12, 2014 8:37 AM, "Sean Dague" wrote: >>> >>> On 06/12/2014 10:38 AM, Mike Bayer wrote: On 6/12/14, 8:26 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Sean Dague wrote: >>>

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 22:10 -0400, Dan Prince wrote: > On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 08:06 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > > We're definitely deep into capacity issues, so it's going to be time to > > start making tougher decisions about things we decide aren't different > > enough to bother testing on every co

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 09:24 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote: > > On Jun 12, 2014 8:37 AM, "Sean Dague" wrote: > > > > On 06/12/2014 10:38 AM, Mike Bayer wrote: > > > > > > On 6/12/14, 8:26 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > > >> On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Sean Dague wrote: > > >> > > >>> That's not cacthable in unit o

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On 6/12/2014 5:11 PM, Michael Still wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Sean Dague wrote: We're definitely deep into capacity issues, so it's going to be time to start making tougher decisions about things we decide aren't different enough to bother testing on every commit. I think one

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 08:06 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > We're definitely deep into capacity issues, so it's going to be time to > start making tougher decisions about things we decide aren't different > enough to bother testing on every commit. In order to save resources why not combine some of the

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Michael Still wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Sean Dague wrote: >> We're definitely deep into capacity issues, so it's going to be time to >> start making tougher decisions about things we decide aren't different >> enough to bother testing on every com

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > We're definitely deep into capacity issues, so it's going to be time to > start making tougher decisions about things we decide aren't different > enough to bother testing on every commit. I think one of the criticisms that could be made about

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On 06/12/2014 12:24 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: On Jun 12, 2014 8:37 AM, "Sean Dague" mailto:s...@dague.net>> wrote: > > On 06/12/2014 10:38 AM, Mike Bayer wrote: > > > > On 6/12/14, 8:26 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Sean Dague wrote: > >> > >>> That's not cacthable in uni

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

> If someone can point me to a case where we've actually found this kind > of bug with tempest / devstack, that would be great. I've just *never* > seen it. I was the one that did most of the fixing for pg support in > Nova, and have helped other projects as well, so I'm relatively familiar > with

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On 06/12/2014 01:22 PM, Tim Bell wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net] >> Sent: 12 June 2014 17:37 >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Po

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On 06/12/2014 09:36 AM, Sean Dague wrote: This is what I mean by functional testing. If we were directly hitting a real database on a set of in tree project tests, I think you could discover issues like this. Neutron was headed down that path. But if we're talking about a devstack / tempest run

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2014-06-12 08:15:46 -0700: > > On 6/12/2014 9:38 AM, Mike Bayer wrote: > > > > On 6/12/14, 8:26 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Sean Dague wrote: > >> > >>> That's not cacthable in unit or functional tests? > >> Not in an accurate manner

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

> -Original Message- > From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net] > Sent: 12 June 2014 17:37 > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in > the gate > ... > But

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 09:24:15AM -0700, Joe Gordon wrote: > On Jun 12, 2014 8:37 AM, "Sean Dague" wrote: > > > > On 06/12/2014 10:38 AM, Mike Bayer wrote: > > > > > > On 6/12/14, 8:26 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > > >> On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Sean Dague wrote: > > >> > > >>> That's not cacthable in un

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On 06/12/2014 08:36 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 06/12/2014 10:38 AM, Mike Bayer wrote: >> >> On 6/12/14, 8:26 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Sean Dague wrote: >>> That's not cacthable in unit or functional tests? >>> Not in an accurate manner, no. >>> Keeping jobs alive

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On Jun 12, 2014 8:37 AM, "Sean Dague" wrote: > > On 06/12/2014 10:38 AM, Mike Bayer wrote: > > > > On 6/12/14, 8:26 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Sean Dague wrote: > >> > >>> That's not cacthable in unit or functional tests? > >> Not in an accurate manner, no. > >> > >>> Keepi

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On 06/12/2014 10:38 AM, Mike Bayer wrote: > > On 6/12/14, 8:26 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Sean Dague wrote: >> >>> That's not cacthable in unit or functional tests? >> Not in an accurate manner, no. >> >>> Keeping jobs alive based on the theory that they might one day be usef

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On 6/12/2014 9:38 AM, Mike Bayer wrote: On 6/12/14, 8:26 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Sean Dague wrote: That's not cacthable in unit or functional tests? Not in an accurate manner, no. Keeping jobs alive based on the theory that they might one day be useful is something

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On 6/12/14, 8:26 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Sean Dague wrote: > >> That's not cacthable in unit or functional tests? > Not in an accurate manner, no. > >> Keeping jobs alive based on the theory that they might one day be useful >> is something we just don't have the liberty to

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Sean Dague wrote: > That's not cacthable in unit or functional tests? Not in an accurate manner, no. > Keeping jobs alive based on the theory that they might one day be useful > is something we just don't have the liberty to do any more. We've not > seen an idle node in zuul

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On 06/12/2014 08:15 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Sean Dague wrote: > >> However Monty brought up a good point at Summit, that MySQL has a strict >> mode. That should actually enforce the same strictness. > > I would vote -1 on that, simply because using PostgreSQL should be mor

Re: [openstack-dev] Gate proposal - drop Postgresql configurations in the gate

On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Sean Dague wrote: > However Monty brought up a good point at Summit, that MySQL has a strict > mode. That should actually enforce the same strictness. I would vote -1 on that, simply because using PostgreSQL should be more than that just doing strict SQL. For example, in Cei