On 11/27/2014 07:23 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: > On 27/11/14 10:21, Duncan Thomas wrote: >> I'd suggest starting by making it an extra job, so that it can be >> monitored for a while for stability without affecting what is there. > > we have to be careful here, adding an extra job for this is probably the > safest option but tripleo CI resources are a constraint, for that reason > I would add it to the HA job (which is currently non voting) and once > its stable we should make it voting.
The only problem is that the HA job has been non-voting for so long that I don't think anyone pays attention to it. That said, I don't have a better suggestion because it makes no sense to run a Cinder HA job in a non-HA CI run, so I guess until HA CI is fixed we're kind of stuck. So +1 to making this the default in HA jobs. > >> >> I'd be supportive of making it the default HA job in the longer term as >> long as the LVM code is still getting tested somewhere - LVM is still >> the reference implementation in cinder and after discussion there was >> strong resistance to changing that. > We are and would continue to use lvm for our non ha jobs, If I > understand it correctly the tripleo lvm support isn't HA so continuing > to test it on our HA job doesn't achieve much. > >> >> I've no strong opinions on the node layout, I'll leave that to more >> knowledgable people to discuss. >> >> Is the ceph/tripleO code in a working state yet? Is there a guide to >> using it? >> >> >> On 26 November 2014 at 13:10, Giulio Fidente <gfide...@redhat.com >> <mailto:gfide...@redhat.com>> wrote: >> >> hi there, >> >> while working on the TripleO cinder-ha spec meant to provide HA for >> Cinder via Ceph [1], we wondered how to (if at all) test this in CI, >> so we're looking for some feedback >> >> first of all, shall we make Cinder/Ceph the default for our >> (currently non-voting) HA job? >> (check-tripleo-ironic-__overcloud-precise-ha) >> >> current implementation (under review) should permit for the >> deployment of both the Ceph monitors and Ceph OSDs on either >> controllers, dedicated nodes, or to split them up so that only OSDs >> are on dedicated nodes >> >> what would be the best scenario for CI? >> >> * a single additional node hosting a Ceph OSD with the Ceph monitors >> deployed on all controllers (my preference is for this one) > > I would be happy with this so long as it didn't drastically increase the > time to run the HA job. > >> >> * a single additional node hosting a Ceph OSD and a Ceph monitor >> >> * no additional nodes with controllers also service as Ceph monitor >> and Ceph OSD >> >> more scenarios? comments? Thanks for helping >> >> 1. >> https://blueprints.launchpad.__net/tripleo/+spec/tripleo-__kilo-cinder-ha >> <https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tripleo/+spec/tripleo-kilo-cinder-ha> >> -- >> Giulio Fidente >> GPG KEY: 08D733BA >> >> _________________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.__org >> <mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> http://lists.openstack.org/__cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/__openstack-dev >> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Duncan Thomas >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
