Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV Helpdesk #45048] [linuxfoundation.org #45048] RE: [OPNFV] 2 questions on OPNFV docker repo

[cedric.olliv...@orange.com via RT]

Hello,

Yes, all the repos were created but several of them were dummy (the automated 
builds were not created).
I think all Dockerfiles were not published when Trevor initiated the 
repositories.

I fixed the dependencies. Now only functest-core is built when a new change is 
pushed.
All other images are built when a new opnfv/functest-core image is published.

Build.sh is up-to-date and can be used if you prefer select releng for building 
them.
https://git.opnfv.org/functest/tree/build.sh

I'm updating the wiki as well to stop referring to the temporarily repo.
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/functest/Run+Alpine+Functest+containers

Cédric

-Message d'origine-
De : Aric Gardner via RT [mailto:opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org] 
Envoyé : mercredi 30 août 2017 14:41
À : RICHOMME Morgan IMT/OLN
Cc : OLLIVIER Cédric IMT/OLN; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; 
tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org
Objet : Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV Helpdesk #45048] [linuxfoundation.org 
#45048] RE: [OPNFV] 2 questions on OPNFV docker repo

Hi Cedric.

I'm a bit confused. I thought Trevor took care of this. and checking I see all 
of your repos in the hub.
Is there something further that needs to be done?
Attached is a picture. dockerhub doesn't like copy paste.

-Aric


On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 7:32 AM, cedric.olliv...@orange.com via RT 
<opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> To be precise, I setup automated builds via Docker to allow testing our 
> Alpine containers during the development cycle via my public repository.
> I think they have been copied (badly partially for settings) for building the 
> official images (opnfv/functest-xxx) which is not mandatory for us.
> I agree we could build them via a Jenkins job and we have already written the 
> entry point as it was firstly introduced:
> https://git.opnfv.org/functest/tree/build.sh
>
> Here we simply ask for creating the remaining containers which are only 
> available in my repo and for fixing the possible issues in the current 
> building dependencies.
>   - components
>   - features
>   - vnf
>
> As the development is finished, we would like to switch to right containers 
> hosted by OPNFV.
>
> As Morgan highlighted, the current situation can easily create congestion.
> It works for ollivier because I sync my repo every hour and because I only 
> build containers for Functest.
>
> Cédric
>
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Fatih Degirmenci [mailto:fatih.degirme...@ericsson.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 30 août 2017 12:07
> À : RICHOMME Morgan IMT/OLN; Trevor Bramwell; 
> opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org
> Cc : OLLIVIER Cédric IMT/OLN; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Objet : Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV] 2 questions on OPNFV docker 
> repo
>
> Hi,
>
> About using docker hub for builds; I thought the docker builds would remain 
> on OPNFV Jenkins due to the limitation you highlighted below and the other 
> limitations/potential issues we summarized in earlier discussions. [1] I 
> might have missed to followup discussions that have happened during the 
> summer period so I'd be happy to catch up and read the reasons behind this.
>
> If you still think of moving to docker hub for builds, we need to think and 
> have a long term strategy rather than just moving builds to there and getting 
> paid service as it will limit our ability to improve how we are doing things 
> for test projects or projects that are building docker images.
>
> [1] 
> https://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2017-July/017177.
> html
>
> /Fatih
>
> On 2017-08-30, 11:43, "opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org on behalf 
> of morgan.richo...@orange.com" <opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org on 
> behalf of morgan.richo...@orange.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 2 pending questions regarding the way we are managing our docker 
> files
>
> 1) Cedric sent a mail 2 weeks ago ([OPNFV Helpdesk #42909] New Functest
> Docker repositories) in order to create new docker repositories:
> opnfv/functest-features, opnfv/functest-components and 
> opnfv/functest-vnf
>
> As it has not been done yet we are currently using Cedric's private
> docker repo (where he customized the different hook)
> ollivier/functest-components,  ollivier/functest-features and
> ollivier/functest-vnf and we referenced them in releng
>
> But, of course, it would make more sense to rely on official OPNFV
> docker...
>
> José asked Trevor B. to create the first repo (opnfv/functest-core,
> opnfv/functest-healthcheck and opnfv/functest-smoke) before he left in 
> PTO.
>
> Cedric asked for the new repo on this mail thread. Should we create a
> new ticket?
>

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV Helpdesk #45048] [linuxfoundation.org #45048] Re: [OPNFV] 2 questions on OPNFV docker repo

[ahot...@cisco.com via RT]

Few comments on this

  *   To Fatih’s point (also developed in the thread [1]) and t repeat myself, 
we need to converge on the issue of container versioning first before deciding 
on which toolchain to use (internal Jenkins build or dockerhub build server). 
From what I can see dockerhub builds may have some restrictions in the way you 
can tag your images, let’s just make sure it works with whatever versioning 
scheme we decide to use. We will get more and more containers built, if we 
don’t get versioning right it will be real hard to track artifacts to code 
commits
  *   I have not followed the thread but I’m curious to know why a container 
build order is needed (given that containers by design are independent of other 
containers at the build level)

Thanks

  Alec


From:  on behalf of 
"morgan.richo...@orange.com" 
Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:43 AM
To: Trevor Bramwell , 
"opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org" 
Cc: OLLIVIER Cédric IMT/OLN , 
"opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" 
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV] 2 questions on OPNFV docker repo

Hi,

2 pending questions regarding the way we are managing our docker files

1) Cedric sent a mail 2 weeks ago ([OPNFV Helpdesk #42909] New Functest
Docker repositories) in order to create new docker repositories:
opnfv/functest-features, opnfv/functest-components and opnfv/functest-vnf

As it has not been done yet we are currently using Cedric's private
docker repo (where he customized the different hook)
ollivier/functest-components,  ollivier/functest-features and
ollivier/functest-vnf and we referenced them in releng

But, of course, it would make more sense to rely on official OPNFV
docker...

José asked Trevor B. to create the first repo (opnfv/functest-core,
opnfv/functest-healthcheck and opnfv/functest-smoke) before he left in PTO.

Cedric asked for the new repo on this mail thread. Should we create a
new ticket?

BTW it seems that there is an issue on the hooks used for OPNFV docker
repos. Builds must be done in a precise order (core must be built prior
to any other built), which seems not the case on OPNFV docker hub.
Cedric detailed the issue and the fix (screenshots) in the same mail thread.

Any help will be welcome to reference official sources.

2) At the moment the Docker automated builds are used per gerrit merge
for all OPNFV projects. As we are using a basic account and the number
of docker produced within OPNFV is increasing there is a high risk of
congestion.

Could it be possible to migrate to an account allowing parallel builds
(https://hub.docker.com/billing-plans/).

The cost is reasonable, we could start with a Medium or Large one.

As docker management is transverse, widely used by testing projects, Who
should take the lead to ask for such change to the TSC? Releng? Infra
Group? Testig group?

Any comment welcome

/Morgan

_

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss


___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV Helpdesk #45048] [linuxfoundation.org #45048] RE: [OPNFV] 2 questions on OPNFV docker repo

[cedric.olliv...@orange.com via RT]

Hello,

To be precise, I setup automated builds via Docker to allow testing our Alpine 
containers during the development cycle via my public repository.
I think they have been copied (badly partially for settings) for building the 
official images (opnfv/functest-xxx) which is not mandatory for us.
I agree we could build them via a Jenkins job and we have already written the 
entry point as it was firstly introduced:
https://git.opnfv.org/functest/tree/build.sh

Here we simply ask for creating the remaining containers which are only 
available in my repo and for fixing the possible issues in the current building 
dependencies.
  - components
  - features
  - vnf

As the development is finished, we would like to switch to right containers 
hosted by OPNFV.

As Morgan highlighted, the current situation can easily create congestion.
It works for ollivier because I sync my repo every hour and because I only 
build containers for Functest.

Cédric

-Message d'origine-
De : Fatih Degirmenci [mailto:fatih.degirme...@ericsson.com] 
Envoyé : mercredi 30 août 2017 12:07
À : RICHOMME Morgan IMT/OLN; Trevor Bramwell; 
opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org
Cc : OLLIVIER Cédric IMT/OLN; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Objet : Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV] 2 questions on OPNFV docker repo

Hi,

About using docker hub for builds; I thought the docker builds would remain on 
OPNFV Jenkins due to the limitation you highlighted below and the other 
limitations/potential issues we summarized in earlier discussions. [1] I might 
have missed to followup discussions that have happened during the summer period 
so I'd be happy to catch up and read the reasons behind this.

If you still think of moving to docker hub for builds, we need to think and 
have a long term strategy rather than just moving builds to there and getting 
paid service as it will limit our ability to improve how we are doing things 
for test projects or projects that are building docker images.

[1] https://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2017-July/017177.html
 
/Fatih

On 2017-08-30, 11:43, "opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org on behalf of 
morgan.richo...@orange.com"  wrote:

Hi,

2 pending questions regarding the way we are managing our docker files

1) Cedric sent a mail 2 weeks ago ([OPNFV Helpdesk #42909] New Functest 
Docker repositories) in order to create new docker repositories: 
opnfv/functest-features, opnfv/functest-components and opnfv/functest-vnf

As it has not been done yet we are currently using Cedric's private 
docker repo (where he customized the different hook) 
ollivier/functest-components,  ollivier/functest-features and 
ollivier/functest-vnf and we referenced them in releng

But, of course, it would make more sense to rely on official OPNFV 
docker...

José asked Trevor B. to create the first repo (opnfv/functest-core, 
opnfv/functest-healthcheck and opnfv/functest-smoke) before he left in PTO.

Cedric asked for the new repo on this mail thread. Should we create a 
new ticket?

BTW it seems that there is an issue on the hooks used for OPNFV docker 
repos. Builds must be done in a precise order (core must be built prior 
to any other built), which seems not the case on OPNFV docker hub. 
Cedric detailed the issue and the fix (screenshots) in the same mail thread.

Any help will be welcome to reference official sources.

2) At the moment the Docker automated builds are used per gerrit merge 
for all OPNFV projects. As we are using a basic account and the number 
of docker produced within OPNFV is increasing there is a high risk of 
congestion.

Could it be possible to migrate to an account allowing parallel builds 
(https://hub.docker.com/billing-plans/).

The cost is reasonable, we could start with a Medium or Large one.

As docker management is transverse, widely used by testing projects, Who 
should take the lead to ask for such change to the TSC? Releng? Infra 
Group? Testig group?

Any comment welcome

/Morgan


_

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu 
ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV Helpdesk #45048] [linuxfoundation.org #45048] Re: [OPNFV] 2 questions on OPNFV docker repo

[fatih.degirme...@ericsson.com via RT]

Hi,

About using docker hub for builds; I thought the docker builds would remain on 
OPNFV Jenkins due to the limitation you highlighted below and the other 
limitations/potential issues we summarized in earlier discussions. [1]
I might have missed to followup discussions that have happened during the 
summer period so I'd be happy to catch up and read the reasons behind this.

If you still think of moving to docker hub for builds, we need to think and 
have a long term strategy rather than just moving builds to there and getting 
paid service as it will limit our ability to improve how we are doing things 
for test projects or projects that are building docker images.

[1] https://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2017-July/017177.html
 
/Fatih

On 2017-08-30, 11:43, "opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org on behalf of 
morgan.richo...@orange.com"  wrote:

Hi,

2 pending questions regarding the way we are managing our docker files

1) Cedric sent a mail 2 weeks ago ([OPNFV Helpdesk #42909] New Functest 
Docker repositories) in order to create new docker repositories: 
opnfv/functest-features, opnfv/functest-components and opnfv/functest-vnf

As it has not been done yet we are currently using Cedric's private 
docker repo (where he customized the different hook) 
ollivier/functest-components,  ollivier/functest-features and 
ollivier/functest-vnf and we referenced them in releng

But, of course, it would make more sense to rely on official OPNFV 
docker...

José asked Trevor B. to create the first repo (opnfv/functest-core, 
opnfv/functest-healthcheck and opnfv/functest-smoke) before he left in PTO.

Cedric asked for the new repo on this mail thread. Should we create a 
new ticket?

BTW it seems that there is an issue on the hooks used for OPNFV docker 
repos. Builds must be done in a precise order (core must be built prior 
to any other built), which seems not the case on OPNFV docker hub. 
Cedric detailed the issue and the fix (screenshots) in the same mail thread.

Any help will be welcome to reference official sources.

2) At the moment the Docker automated builds are used per gerrit merge 
for all OPNFV projects. As we are using a basic account and the number 
of docker produced within OPNFV is increasing there is a high risk of 
congestion.

Could it be possible to migrate to an account allowing parallel builds 
(https://hub.docker.com/billing-plans/).

The cost is reasonable, we could start with a Medium or Large one.

As docker management is transverse, widely used by testing projects, Who 
should take the lead to ask for such change to the TSC? Releng? Infra 
Group? Testig group?

Any comment welcome

/Morgan


_

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu 
ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and 
delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss



___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss