Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [CI] Cinder/Ceph CI setup

2014-12-02 Thread Ben Nemec 
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 > > 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
>> 
>> -- 
>> Giulio Fidente
>> GPG KEY: 08D733BA
>>
>> _
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.__org
>> 
>> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [CI] Cinder/Ceph CI setup

2014-12-02 Thread Giulio Fidente 

On 11/27/2014 02:23 PM, 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.



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?


hi guys, thanks for replying

I just wanted to add here a link to the blueprint so you can keep track 
of development [1]


all the code to make it happen (except the actual CI job config changes) 
is up for review now so feedback and reviews are indeed appreciated :)


1. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tripleo/+spec/tripleo-kilo-cinder-ha
--
Giulio Fidente
GPG KEY: 08D733BA

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [CI] Cinder/Ceph CI setup

2014-11-27 Thread Derek Higgins 
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.

> 
> 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  > 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
> 
> -- 
> Giulio Fidente
> GPG KEY: 08D733BA
> 
> _
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.__org
> 
> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [CI] Cinder/Ceph CI setup

2014-11-27 Thread Duncan Thomas 
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.

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.

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  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)
>
> * 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
> --
> Giulio Fidente
> GPG KEY: 08D733BA
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> 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] [TripleO] [CI] Cinder/Ceph CI setup

2014-11-26 Thread Giulio Fidente 

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)


* 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
--
Giulio Fidente
GPG KEY: 08D733BA

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev