makes sense to me. thanks for concise update and tracking this. On 10/02/2016 7:59 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > +1 from me > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 02/10/2016 07:33 AM, Sean Dague wrote: >>> >>> The largeops tests at this point are mostly finding out that some of our >>> new cloud providers are slow - http://tinyurl.com/j5u4nf5 >>> >>> This is fundamentally a performance test, with timings having been tuned >>> to pass 98% of the time on two clouds that were very predictable in >>> performance. We're now running on 4 clouds, and the variance between >>> them all, and between every run on each can be as much as a factor of 2. >>> >>> We could just bump all the timeouts again, but that's basically the same >>> thing as dropping them. >>> >>> These tests are not instrumented in a way that any real solution can be >>> addressed in most cases. Tests without a path forward, that are failing >>> good patches a lot, are very much the kind of thing we should remove >>> from the system. >> >> >> +1 from me. >> >> -jay >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > >
-- gord __________________________________________________________________________ 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
