On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 06:54:27PM +0200, Sagi Shnaidman wrote: > Hi, Paul > I would say that real worthwhile try starts from "normal" priority, because > we want to run promotion jobs more *often*, not more *rarely* which happens > with low priority. > In addition the initial idea in the first mail was running them each after > other almost, not once a day like it happens now or with "low" priority. > As I've said, my main reluctance is is how the gate will react if we create a new pipeline with the same priority as our check pipeline. I would much rather since on caution, default to 'low', see how things react for a day / week / month, then see what it would like like a normal. I want us to be caution about adding a new pipeline, as it dynamically changes how our existing pipelines function.
Further more, this is actually a capacity issue for tripleo-test-cloud-rh1, there currently too many jobs running for the amount of hardware. If these jobs were running on our donated clouds, we could get away with a low priority periodic pipeline. Now, allow me to propose another solution. RDO project has their own version of zuul, which has the ability to do periodic pipelines. Since tripleo-test-cloud-rh2 is still around, and has OVB ability, I would suggest configuring this promoting pipeline within RDO, as to not affect the capacity of tripleo-test-cloud-rh1. This now means, you can continuously enqueue jobs at a rate of 4 hours, priority shouldn't matter as you are the only jobs running on tripleo-test-cloud-rh2, resulting in faster promotions. This also make sense, as packaging is done in RDO, and you are triggering Centos CI things as a result. > Thanks > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Paul Belanger <pabelan...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 03:42:32PM -0500, Ben Nemec wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 03/13/2017 02:29 PM, Sagi Shnaidman wrote: > > > > Hi, all > > > > > > > > I submitted a change: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/443964/ > > > > but seems like it reached a point which requires an additional > > discussion. > > > > > > > > I had a few proposals, it's increasing period to 12 hours instead of 4 > > > > for start, and to leave it in regular periodic *low* precedence. > > > > I think we can start from 12 hours period to see how it goes, although > > I > > > > don't think that 4 only jobs will increase load on OVB cloud, it's > > > > completely negligible comparing to current OVB capacity and load. > > > > But making its precedence as "low" IMHO completely removes any sense > > > > from this pipeline to be, because we already run experimental-tripleo > > > > pipeline which this priority and it could reach timeouts like 7-14 > > > > hours. So let's assume we ran periodic job, it's queued to run now 12 + > > > > "low queue length" - about 20 and more hours. It's even worse than > > usual > > > > periodic job and definitely makes this change useless. > > > > I'd like to notice as well that those periodic jobs unlike "usual" > > > > periodic are used for repository promotion and their value are equal or > > > > higher than check jobs, so it needs to run with "normal" or even "high" > > > > precedence. > > > > > > Yeah, it makes no sense from an OVB perspective to add these as low > > priority > > > jobs. Once in a while we've managed to chew through the entire > > experimental > > > queue during the day, but with the containers job added it's very > > unlikely > > > that's going to happen anymore. Right now we have a 4.5 hour wait time > > just > > > for the check queue, then there's two hours of experimental jobs queued > > up > > > behind that. All of which means if we started a low priority periodic > > job > > > right now it probably wouldn't run until about midnight my time, which I > > > think is when the regular periodic jobs run now. > > > > > Lets just give it a try? A 12 hour periodic job with low priority. There is > > nothing saying we cannot iterate on this after a few days / weeks / months. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Wesley Hayutin <whayu...@redhat.com > > > > <mailto:whayu...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Jeremy Stanley <fu...@yuggoth.org > > > > <mailto:fu...@yuggoth.org>> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2017-03-07 10:12:58 -0500 (-0500), Wesley Hayutin wrote: > > > > > The TripleO team would like to initiate a conversation about > > the > > > > > possibility of creating a new pipeline in Openstack Infra to > > allow > > > > > a set of jobs to run periodically every four hours > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > The request doesn't strike me as contentious/controversial. > > Why not > > > > just propose your addition to the zuul/layout.yaml file in the > > > > openstack-infra/project-config repo and hash out any resulting > > > > concerns via code review? > > > > -- > > > > Jeremy Stanley > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good to me. > > > > We thought it would be nice to walk through it in an email first :) > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > ______________ > > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > > > Unsubscribe: > > > > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > > > > <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject: > > unsubscribe> > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > > openstack-dev <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://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject: > > unsubscribe> > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards > > > > Sagi Shnaidman > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > ______________ > > > > 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 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 > > > > > > -- > Best regards > Sagi Shnaidman > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
