On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Deepak Shetty <dpkshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Deepak Shetty <dpkshe...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Deepak Shetty <dpkshe...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Jeremy Stanley <fu...@yuggoth.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-02-25 17:02:34 +0530 (+0530), Deepak Shetty wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> > Run 2) We removed glusterfs backend, so Cinder was configured with >>>> > the default storage backend i.e. LVM. We re-created the OOM here >>>> > too >>>> > >>>> > So that proves that glusterfs doesn't cause it, as its happening >>>> > without glusterfs too. >>>> >>>> Well, if you re-ran the job on the same VM then the second result is >>>> potentially contaminated. Luckily this hypothesis can be confirmed >>>> by running the second test on a fresh VM in Rackspace. >>>> >>> >>> Maybe true, but we did the same on hpcloud provider VM too and both time >>> it ran successfully with glusterfs as the cinder backend. Also before >>> starting >>> the 2nd run, we did unstack and saw that free memory did go back to 5G+ >>> and then re-invoked your script, I believe the contamination could >>> result in some >>> additional testcase failures (which we did see) but shouldn't be related >>> to >>> whether system can OOM or not, since thats a runtime thing. >>> >>> I see that the VM is up again. We will execute the 2nd run afresh now >>> and update >>> here. >>> >> >> Ran tempest with configured with default backend i.e. LVM and was able to >> recreate >> the OOM issue, so running tempest without gluster against a fresh VM >> reliably >> recreates the OOM issue, snip below from syslog. >> >> Feb 25 16:58:37 devstack-centos7-rax-dfw-979654 kernel: glance-api >> invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x201da, order=0, oom_score_adj=0 >> >> Had a discussion with clarkb on IRC and given that F20 is discontinued, >> F21 has issues with tempest (under debug by ianw) >> and centos7 also has issues on rax (as evident from this thread), the >> only option left is to go with ubuntu based CI job, which >> BharatK is working on now. >> > > Quick Update: > > Cinder-GlusterFS CI job on ubuntu was added ( > https://review.openstack.org/159217) > > We ran it 3 times against our stackforge repo patch @ > https://review.openstack.org/159711 > and it works fine (2 testcase failures, which are expected and we're > working towards fixing them) > > For the logs of the 3 experimental runs, look @ > > http://logs.openstack.org/11/159711/1/experimental/gate-tempest-dsvm-full-glusterfs/ > > Of the 3 jobs, 1 was schedued on rax and 2 on hpcloud, so its working > nicely across > the different cloud providers. > Clarkb, Fungi, Given that the ubuntu job is stable, I would like to propose to add it as experimental to the openstack cinder while we work on fixing the 2 failed test cases in parallel thanx, deepak
__________________________________________________________________________ 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