On 5 August 2016 at 10:21, Sean Dague <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/05/2016 11:34 AM, Armando M. wrote: > > > > > > On 5 August 2016 at 05:59, Sean Dague <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On 08/04/2016 09:15 PM, Armando M. wrote: > > > So glad we are finally within the grasp of this! > > > > > > I posted [1], just to err on the side of caution and get the > opportunity > > > to see how other gate jobs for Neutron might be affected by this > change. > > > > > > Are there any devstack-gate changes lined up too that we should be > aware of? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Armando > > > > > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/351450/ > > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/351450/> > > > > Nothing at this point. devstack-gate bypasses the service defaults in > > devstack, so it doesn't impact that at all. Over time we'll want to > make > > neutron the default choice for all devstack-gate setups, and > nova-net to > > be the exception. But that actually can all be fully orthoginal to > this > > change. > > > > > > Ack > > > > > > The experimental results don't quite look in yet, it looks like one > test > > is failing on dvr (which is the one that tests for cross tenant > > connectivity) - > > http://logs.openstack.org/50/350750/5/experimental/gate- > tempest-dsvm-neutron-dvr/4958140/ > > <http://logs.openstack.org/50/350750/5/experimental/gate- > tempest-dsvm-neutron-dvr/4958140/> > > > > That test has been pretty twitchy during this patch series, and it's > > quite complex, so figuring out exactly why it's impacted here is a > bit > > beyond me atm. I think we need to decide if that is going to get > deeper > > inspection, we live with the fails, or we disable the test for now > so we > > can move forward and get this out to everyone. > > > > > > Looking at the health trend for DVR [1], the test hasn't failed in a > > while, so I wonder if this is induced by the proposed switch, even > > though I can't correlate it just yet (still waiting for caffeine to kick > > in). Perhaps we can give ourselves today to look into it and pull the > > trigger for 351450 <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/351450/> on Monday? > > > > [1] http://status.openstack.org/openstack-health/#/job/gate- > tempest-dsvm-neutron-dvr > > The only functional difference in the new code that happens in the gate > is the iptables rule: > > local default_dev="" > default_dev=$(ip route | grep ^default | awk '{print $5}') > sudo iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o $default_dev -s > $FLOATING_RANGE -j MASQUERADE > > That's the thing to consider. It is the bit that's a little janky, but > it was the best idea we had for making things act like we expect > otherwise on the single node environment (especially guests being able > to egress). It's worth noting, we never seem to test guest egress in the > gate (at least not that I could find), so this is something that might > just never have been working the way we expected. >
Latest run showed that the single node passed the test [1] (though it failed on bug [2] for which we have a fix in place [3]). However the multi-node failed on the same again [4]. I'll keep on digging... [1] http://logs.openstack.org/50/350750/5/experimental/gate-tempest-dsvm-neutron-dvr/85f8633/logs/testr_results.html.gz [2] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1609693 [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/340659/ [4] http://logs.openstack.org/50/350750/5/experimental/gate-tempest-dsvm-neutron-dvr-multinode-full/8d9ac8f/logs/testr_results.html.gz > -Sean > > -- > Sean Dague > http://dague.net > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
