Re: [openstack-dev] [octavia] Multi-node controller testing

[Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo]

I just found this one created recently, and I will try to build on top of it:

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/371807/12



On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
 wrote:
> Refloating this thread.
>
> I posted this rfe/bug [1], and I'm planning to come up with an
> experimental job that triggers one of the basic neutron/lbaas tests
> with octavia.
>
> I wonder if even picking up the scenario one for now could make sense,
> it's not very stable at the moment, but may be spreading the load of
> VM creations between two compute nodes could, may be, ease it ?
>
> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/octavia/+bug/1628481
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Roman Vasilets  
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>   "need to have something (tempest-plugin) to make sure that integration
>> works with nova & neutron" - Its easy to write scenarios that will test that
>> octavia works with nova and neutron
>>   "I guess rally is more suited to make sure that things work at scale, to
>> uncover any sort of race conditions (This would be specially beneficial in
>> multinode controllers)" - Rally is suitable for many kind of tests=)
>> Especially for testing at scale! If you have any question how to use Rally
>> feel free to ask Rally team!
>>
>> - Best regards, Roman Vasylets. Rally team member
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Stephen Balukoff 
>>> wrote:
>>> > Miguel--
>>> >
>>> > There have been a number of tempest patches in the review queue for a
>>> > long
>>> > time now, but I think the reason they're not getting attention is that
>>> > we
>>> > don't want to have to import a massive amount of tempest code into our
>>> > repository (which will become stale and need hot-fixing, as has happened
>>> > with neutron-lbaas on many occasions), and it appears tempest-lib
>>> > doesn't
>>> > yet support all the stuff we would need to do with it.
>>>
>>> I guess you mean [1]
>>>
>>>
>>> > People have suggested Rally, but so far nobody has come forth with code,
>>> > or
>>> > a strong desire to push it through.
>>>
>>> I guess rally is more suited to make sure that things work at scale,
>>> to uncover any sort of race conditions (This would be specially
>>> beneficial in multinode controllers).
>>>
>>> But I understand (I can be wrong) that we still need to have something
>>> (tempest-plugin) to make sure that integration works with nova &
>>> neutron. I'm going to check those patches to see what was the
>>> discussion and issues over there (I see this one [1] to start with,
>>> which is probably the most important)
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/octavia+branch:master+topic:octavia_basic_lb_scenario
>>>
>>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/172199/66..75/.testr.conf
>>>
>>>
>>> > Stephen
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
>>> >  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Kosnik, Lubosz
>>> >> 
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > Great work with that multi-node setup Miguel.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks, I have to get my hands dirtier with octavia, it's just a tiny
>>> >> thing.
>>> >>
>>> >> > About that multinode Infra is supporting two nodes setup used
>>> >> > currently
>>> >> > by grenade jobs but in my opinion we don’t have any tests which can
>>> >> > cover
>>> >> > that type of testing. We’re still struggling with selecting proper
>>> >> > tool to
>>> >> > test Octavia from integration/functional perspective so probably it’s
>>> >> > too
>>> >> > early to make it happen.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Well, any current tests we run should pass equally well in a multi
>>> >> node controller, and that's the point, that, regardless of the
>>> >> deployment architecture the behaviour shall not change at all. We may
>>> >> not need any specific test.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> > Maybe it’s great start to finally make some decision about testing
>>> >> > tools
>>> >> > and there will be a lot of work for you after that also with setting
>>> >> > up an
>>> >> > infra multi-node job for that.
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm not fully aware of what are we running today for octavia, so if
>>> >> you can give me some pointers about where are those jobs configured,
>>> >> and what do they target, it could be a start, to provide feedback.
>>> >>
>>> >> What are the current options/tools we're considering?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Cheers,
>>> >> > Lubosz Kosnik
>>> >> > Cloud Software Engineer OSIC
>>> >> > lubosz.kos...@intel.com
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> On Aug 8, 2016, at 7:04 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
>>> >> >>  wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Recently, I sent a series of patches [1] to make it easier for
>>> >> >> developers to deploy a multi node octavia controller with
>>> >> >> n_controllers x [api, cw, hm, hk] with an haproxy in front of the
>>> >> >> 

Re: [openstack-dev] [octavia] Multi-node controller testing

[Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo]

Refloating this thread.

I posted this rfe/bug [1], and I'm planning to come up with an
experimental job that triggers one of the basic neutron/lbaas tests
with octavia.

I wonder if even picking up the scenario one for now could make sense,
it's not very stable at the moment, but may be spreading the load of
VM creations between two compute nodes could, may be, ease it ?

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/octavia/+bug/1628481

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Roman Vasilets  wrote:
> Hi,
>   "need to have something (tempest-plugin) to make sure that integration
> works with nova & neutron" - Its easy to write scenarios that will test that
> octavia works with nova and neutron
>   "I guess rally is more suited to make sure that things work at scale, to
> uncover any sort of race conditions (This would be specially beneficial in
> multinode controllers)" - Rally is suitable for many kind of tests=)
> Especially for testing at scale! If you have any question how to use Rally
> feel free to ask Rally team!
>
> - Best regards, Roman Vasylets. Rally team member
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
>  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Stephen Balukoff 
>> wrote:
>> > Miguel--
>> >
>> > There have been a number of tempest patches in the review queue for a
>> > long
>> > time now, but I think the reason they're not getting attention is that
>> > we
>> > don't want to have to import a massive amount of tempest code into our
>> > repository (which will become stale and need hot-fixing, as has happened
>> > with neutron-lbaas on many occasions), and it appears tempest-lib
>> > doesn't
>> > yet support all the stuff we would need to do with it.
>>
>> I guess you mean [1]
>>
>>
>> > People have suggested Rally, but so far nobody has come forth with code,
>> > or
>> > a strong desire to push it through.
>>
>> I guess rally is more suited to make sure that things work at scale,
>> to uncover any sort of race conditions (This would be specially
>> beneficial in multinode controllers).
>>
>> But I understand (I can be wrong) that we still need to have something
>> (tempest-plugin) to make sure that integration works with nova &
>> neutron. I'm going to check those patches to see what was the
>> discussion and issues over there (I see this one [1] to start with,
>> which is probably the most important)
>>
>> [1]
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/octavia+branch:master+topic:octavia_basic_lb_scenario
>>
>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/172199/66..75/.testr.conf
>>
>>
>> > Stephen
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Kosnik, Lubosz
>> >> 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Great work with that multi-node setup Miguel.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks, I have to get my hands dirtier with octavia, it's just a tiny
>> >> thing.
>> >>
>> >> > About that multinode Infra is supporting two nodes setup used
>> >> > currently
>> >> > by grenade jobs but in my opinion we don’t have any tests which can
>> >> > cover
>> >> > that type of testing. We’re still struggling with selecting proper
>> >> > tool to
>> >> > test Octavia from integration/functional perspective so probably it’s
>> >> > too
>> >> > early to make it happen.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Well, any current tests we run should pass equally well in a multi
>> >> node controller, and that's the point, that, regardless of the
>> >> deployment architecture the behaviour shall not change at all. We may
>> >> not need any specific test.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Maybe it’s great start to finally make some decision about testing
>> >> > tools
>> >> > and there will be a lot of work for you after that also with setting
>> >> > up an
>> >> > infra multi-node job for that.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not fully aware of what are we running today for octavia, so if
>> >> you can give me some pointers about where are those jobs configured,
>> >> and what do they target, it could be a start, to provide feedback.
>> >>
>> >> What are the current options/tools we're considering?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Cheers,
>> >> > Lubosz Kosnik
>> >> > Cloud Software Engineer OSIC
>> >> > lubosz.kos...@intel.com
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Aug 8, 2016, at 7:04 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Recently, I sent a series of patches [1] to make it easier for
>> >> >> developers to deploy a multi node octavia controller with
>> >> >> n_controllers x [api, cw, hm, hk] with an haproxy in front of the
>> >> >> API.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Since this is the way the service is designed to work (with
>> >> >> horizontal
>> >> >> scalability in mind), and we want to have a good guarantee that any
>> >> >> bug related to such configuration is found early, and addressed, I
>> >> >> was
>> >> >> thinking that an extra job that runs a two node controller
>> >> >> 

Re: [openstack-dev] [octavia] Multi-node controller testing

[Roman Vasilets]

Hi,
  "need to have something (tempest-plugin) to make sure that integration
works with nova & neutron" - Its easy to write scenarios that will test
that octavia works with nova and neutron
  "I guess rally is more suited to make sure that things work at scale, to
uncover any sort of race conditions (This would be specially beneficial in
multinode controllers)" - Rally is suitable for many kind of tests=)
Especially for testing at scale! If you have any question how to use Rally
feel free to ask Rally team!

- Best regards, Roman Vasylets. Rally team member

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <
majop...@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Stephen Balukoff 
> wrote:
> > Miguel--
> >
> > There have been a number of tempest patches in the review queue for a
> long
> > time now, but I think the reason they're not getting attention is that we
> > don't want to have to import a massive amount of tempest code into our
> > repository (which will become stale and need hot-fixing, as has happened
> > with neutron-lbaas on many occasions), and it appears tempest-lib doesn't
> > yet support all the stuff we would need to do with it.
>
> I guess you mean [1]
>
>
> > People have suggested Rally, but so far nobody has come forth with code,
> or
> > a strong desire to push it through.
>
> I guess rally is more suited to make sure that things work at scale,
> to uncover any sort of race conditions (This would be specially
> beneficial in multinode controllers).
>
> But I understand (I can be wrong) that we still need to have something
> (tempest-plugin) to make sure that integration works with nova &
> neutron. I'm going to check those patches to see what was the
> discussion and issues over there (I see this one [1] to start with,
> which is probably the most important)
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:
> openstack/octavia+branch:master+topic:octavia_basic_lb_scenario
>
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/172199/66..75/.testr.conf
>
>
> > Stephen
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Kosnik, Lubosz  >
> >> wrote:
> >> > Great work with that multi-node setup Miguel.
> >>
> >> Thanks, I have to get my hands dirtier with octavia, it's just a tiny
> >> thing.
> >>
> >> > About that multinode Infra is supporting two nodes setup used
> currently
> >> > by grenade jobs but in my opinion we don’t have any tests which can
> cover
> >> > that type of testing. We’re still struggling with selecting proper
> tool to
> >> > test Octavia from integration/functional perspective so probably it’s
> too
> >> > early to make it happen.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, any current tests we run should pass equally well in a multi
> >> node controller, and that's the point, that, regardless of the
> >> deployment architecture the behaviour shall not change at all. We may
> >> not need any specific test.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Maybe it’s great start to finally make some decision about testing
> tools
> >> > and there will be a lot of work for you after that also with setting
> up an
> >> > infra multi-node job for that.
> >>
> >> I'm not fully aware of what are we running today for octavia, so if
> >> you can give me some pointers about where are those jobs configured,
> >> and what do they target, it could be a start, to provide feedback.
> >>
> >> What are the current options/tools we're considering?
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Lubosz Kosnik
> >> > Cloud Software Engineer OSIC
> >> > lubosz.kos...@intel.com
> >> >
> >> >> On Aug 8, 2016, at 7:04 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Recently, I sent a series of patches [1] to make it easier for
> >> >> developers to deploy a multi node octavia controller with
> >> >> n_controllers x [api, cw, hm, hk] with an haproxy in front of the
> API.
> >> >>
> >> >> Since this is the way the service is designed to work (with
> horizontal
> >> >> scalability in mind), and we want to have a good guarantee that any
> >> >> bug related to such configuration is found early, and addressed, I
> was
> >> >> thinking that an extra job that runs a two node controller deployment
> >> >> could be beneficial for the project.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> If we all believe it makes sense, I would be willing to take on this
> >> >> work but I'd probably need some pointers and light help, since I've
> >> >> never dealt with setting up or modifying existing jobs.
> >> >>
> >> >> How does this sound?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> [1]
> >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:
> openstack/octavia+branch:master+topic:multinode-devstack
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 
> __
> >> >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >> >> Unsubscribe:
> >> >> 

Re: [openstack-dev] [octavia] Multi-node controller testing

[Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Stephen Balukoff  wrote:
> Miguel--
>
> There have been a number of tempest patches in the review queue for a long
> time now, but I think the reason they're not getting attention is that we
> don't want to have to import a massive amount of tempest code into our
> repository (which will become stale and need hot-fixing, as has happened
> with neutron-lbaas on many occasions), and it appears tempest-lib doesn't
> yet support all the stuff we would need to do with it.

I guess you mean [1]


> People have suggested Rally, but so far nobody has come forth with code, or
> a strong desire to push it through.

I guess rally is more suited to make sure that things work at scale,
to uncover any sort of race conditions (This would be specially
beneficial in multinode controllers).

But I understand (I can be wrong) that we still need to have something
(tempest-plugin) to make sure that integration works with nova &
neutron. I'm going to check those patches to see what was the
discussion and issues over there (I see this one [1] to start with,
which is probably the most important)

[1] 
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/octavia+branch:master+topic:octavia_basic_lb_scenario

[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/172199/66..75/.testr.conf


> Stephen
>
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
>  wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Kosnik, Lubosz 
>> wrote:
>> > Great work with that multi-node setup Miguel.
>>
>> Thanks, I have to get my hands dirtier with octavia, it's just a tiny
>> thing.
>>
>> > About that multinode Infra is supporting two nodes setup used currently
>> > by grenade jobs but in my opinion we don’t have any tests which can cover
>> > that type of testing. We’re still struggling with selecting proper tool to
>> > test Octavia from integration/functional perspective so probably it’s too
>> > early to make it happen.
>>
>>
>> Well, any current tests we run should pass equally well in a multi
>> node controller, and that's the point, that, regardless of the
>> deployment architecture the behaviour shall not change at all. We may
>> not need any specific test.
>>
>>
>> > Maybe it’s great start to finally make some decision about testing tools
>> > and there will be a lot of work for you after that also with setting up an
>> > infra multi-node job for that.
>>
>> I'm not fully aware of what are we running today for octavia, so if
>> you can give me some pointers about where are those jobs configured,
>> and what do they target, it could be a start, to provide feedback.
>>
>> What are the current options/tools we're considering?
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Lubosz Kosnik
>> > Cloud Software Engineer OSIC
>> > lubosz.kos...@intel.com
>> >
>> >> On Aug 8, 2016, at 7:04 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Recently, I sent a series of patches [1] to make it easier for
>> >> developers to deploy a multi node octavia controller with
>> >> n_controllers x [api, cw, hm, hk] with an haproxy in front of the API.
>> >>
>> >> Since this is the way the service is designed to work (with horizontal
>> >> scalability in mind), and we want to have a good guarantee that any
>> >> bug related to such configuration is found early, and addressed, I was
>> >> thinking that an extra job that runs a two node controller deployment
>> >> could be beneficial for the project.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If we all believe it makes sense, I would be willing to take on this
>> >> work but I'd probably need some pointers and light help, since I've
>> >> never dealt with setting up or modifying existing jobs.
>> >>
>> >> How does this sound?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [1]
>> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/octavia+branch:master+topic:multinode-devstack
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> __
>> >> 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
>> >
>> >
>> > __
>> > 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
>>
>> __
>> 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
>
>
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [openstack-dev] [octavia] Multi-node controller testing

[Stephen Balukoff]

Miguel--

There have been a number of tempest patches in the review queue for a long
time now, but I think the reason they're not getting attention is that we
don't want to have to import a massive amount of tempest code into our
repository (which will become stale and need hot-fixing, as has happened
with neutron-lbaas on many occasions), and it appears tempest-lib doesn't
yet support all the stuff we would need to do with it.

People have suggested Rally, but so far nobody has come forth with code, or
a strong desire to push it through.

Stephen

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Kosnik, Lubosz 
> wrote:
> > Great work with that multi-node setup Miguel.
>
> Thanks, I have to get my hands dirtier with octavia, it's just a tiny
> thing.
>
> > About that multinode Infra is supporting two nodes setup used currently
> by grenade jobs but in my opinion we don’t have any tests which can cover
> that type of testing. We’re still struggling with selecting proper tool to
> test Octavia from integration/functional perspective so probably it’s too
> early to make it happen.
>
>
> Well, any current tests we run should pass equally well in a multi
> node controller, and that's the point, that, regardless of the
> deployment architecture the behaviour shall not change at all. We may
> not need any specific test.
>
>
> > Maybe it’s great start to finally make some decision about testing tools
> and there will be a lot of work for you after that also with setting up an
> infra multi-node job for that.
>
> I'm not fully aware of what are we running today for octavia, so if
> you can give me some pointers about where are those jobs configured,
> and what do they target, it could be a start, to provide feedback.
>
> What are the current options/tools we're considering?
>
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Lubosz Kosnik
> > Cloud Software Engineer OSIC
> > lubosz.kos...@intel.com
> >
> >> On Aug 8, 2016, at 7:04 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <
> majop...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Recently, I sent a series of patches [1] to make it easier for
> >> developers to deploy a multi node octavia controller with
> >> n_controllers x [api, cw, hm, hk] with an haproxy in front of the API.
> >>
> >> Since this is the way the service is designed to work (with horizontal
> >> scalability in mind), and we want to have a good guarantee that any
> >> bug related to such configuration is found early, and addressed, I was
> >> thinking that an extra job that runs a two node controller deployment
> >> could be beneficial for the project.
> >>
> >>
> >> If we all believe it makes sense, I would be willing to take on this
> >> work but I'd probably need some pointers and light help, since I've
> >> never dealt with setting up or modifying existing jobs.
> >>
> >> How does this sound?
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:
> openstack/octavia+branch:master+topic:multinode-devstack
> >>
> >> 
> __
> >> 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
> >
> > 
> __
> > 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
>
> __
> 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
>
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [octavia] Multi-node controller testing

[Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo]

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Kosnik, Lubosz  wrote:
> Great work with that multi-node setup Miguel.

Thanks, I have to get my hands dirtier with octavia, it's just a tiny thing.

> About that multinode Infra is supporting two nodes setup used currently by 
> grenade jobs but in my opinion we don’t have any tests which can cover that 
> type of testing. We’re still struggling with selecting proper tool to test 
> Octavia from integration/functional perspective so probably it’s too early to 
> make it happen.


Well, any current tests we run should pass equally well in a multi
node controller, and that's the point, that, regardless of the
deployment architecture the behaviour shall not change at all. We may
not need any specific test.


> Maybe it’s great start to finally make some decision about testing tools and 
> there will be a lot of work for you after that also with setting up an infra 
> multi-node job for that.

I'm not fully aware of what are we running today for octavia, so if
you can give me some pointers about where are those jobs configured,
and what do they target, it could be a start, to provide feedback.

What are the current options/tools we're considering?


>
> Cheers,
> Lubosz Kosnik
> Cloud Software Engineer OSIC
> lubosz.kos...@intel.com
>
>> On Aug 8, 2016, at 7:04 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Recently, I sent a series of patches [1] to make it easier for
>> developers to deploy a multi node octavia controller with
>> n_controllers x [api, cw, hm, hk] with an haproxy in front of the API.
>>
>> Since this is the way the service is designed to work (with horizontal
>> scalability in mind), and we want to have a good guarantee that any
>> bug related to such configuration is found early, and addressed, I was
>> thinking that an extra job that runs a two node controller deployment
>> could be beneficial for the project.
>>
>>
>> If we all believe it makes sense, I would be willing to take on this
>> work but I'd probably need some pointers and light help, since I've
>> never dealt with setting up or modifying existing jobs.
>>
>> How does this sound?
>>
>>
>> [1] 
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/octavia+branch:master+topic:multinode-devstack
>>
>> __
>> 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
>
> __
> 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

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [octavia] Multi-node controller testing

[Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo]

Thank you!! :)

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Michael Johnson  wrote:
> Miguel,
>
> Thank you for your work here.  I would support an effort to setup a
> multi-node gate job.
>
> Michael
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
>  wrote:
>> Recently, I sent a series of patches [1] to make it easier for
>> developers to deploy a multi node octavia controller with
>> n_controllers x [api, cw, hm, hk] with an haproxy in front of the API.
>>
>> Since this is the way the service is designed to work (with horizontal
>> scalability in mind), and we want to have a good guarantee that any
>> bug related to such configuration is found early, and addressed, I was
>> thinking that an extra job that runs a two node controller deployment
>> could be beneficial for the project.
>>
>>
>> If we all believe it makes sense, I would be willing to take on this
>> work but I'd probably need some pointers and light help, since I've
>> never dealt with setting up or modifying existing jobs.
>>
>> How does this sound?
>>
>>
>> [1] 
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/octavia+branch:master+topic:multinode-devstack
>>
>> __
>> 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
>
> __
> 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

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [octavia] Multi-node controller testing

[Michael Johnson]

Miguel,

Thank you for your work here.  I would support an effort to setup a
multi-node gate job.

Michael


On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
 wrote:
> Recently, I sent a series of patches [1] to make it easier for
> developers to deploy a multi node octavia controller with
> n_controllers x [api, cw, hm, hk] with an haproxy in front of the API.
>
> Since this is the way the service is designed to work (with horizontal
> scalability in mind), and we want to have a good guarantee that any
> bug related to such configuration is found early, and addressed, I was
> thinking that an extra job that runs a two node controller deployment
> could be beneficial for the project.
>
>
> If we all believe it makes sense, I would be willing to take on this
> work but I'd probably need some pointers and light help, since I've
> never dealt with setting up or modifying existing jobs.
>
> How does this sound?
>
>
> [1] 
> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/octavia+branch:master+topic:multinode-devstack
>
> __
> 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

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [octavia] Multi-node controller testing

[Kosnik, Lubosz]

Great work with that multi-node setup Miguel.
About that multinode Infra is supporting two nodes setup used currently by 
grenade jobs but in my opinion we don’t have any tests which can cover that 
type of testing. We’re still struggling with selecting proper tool to test 
Octavia from integration/functional perspective so probably it’s too early to 
make it happen.
Maybe it’s great start to finally make some decision about testing tools and 
there will be a lot of work for you after that also with setting up an infra 
multi-node job for that.

Cheers,
Lubosz Kosnik
Cloud Software Engineer OSIC
lubosz.kos...@intel.com

> On Aug 8, 2016, at 7:04 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo  
> wrote:
> 
> Recently, I sent a series of patches [1] to make it easier for
> developers to deploy a multi node octavia controller with
> n_controllers x [api, cw, hm, hk] with an haproxy in front of the API.
> 
> Since this is the way the service is designed to work (with horizontal
> scalability in mind), and we want to have a good guarantee that any
> bug related to such configuration is found early, and addressed, I was
> thinking that an extra job that runs a two node controller deployment
> could be beneficial for the project.
> 
> 
> If we all believe it makes sense, I would be willing to take on this
> work but I'd probably need some pointers and light help, since I've
> never dealt with setting up or modifying existing jobs.
> 
> How does this sound?
> 
> 
> [1] 
> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/octavia+branch:master+topic:multinode-devstack
> 
> __
> 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

__
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

[openstack-dev] [octavia] Multi-node controller testing

[Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo]

Recently, I sent a series of patches [1] to make it easier for
developers to deploy a multi node octavia controller with
n_controllers x [api, cw, hm, hk] with an haproxy in front of the API.

Since this is the way the service is designed to work (with horizontal
scalability in mind), and we want to have a good guarantee that any
bug related to such configuration is found early, and addressed, I was
thinking that an extra job that runs a two node controller deployment
could be beneficial for the project.


If we all believe it makes sense, I would be willing to take on this
work but I'd probably need some pointers and light help, since I've
never dealt with setting up or modifying existing jobs.

How does this sound?


[1] 
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/octavia+branch:master+topic:multinode-devstack

__
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