On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:40:39PM -0400, Wesley Hayutin wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Emilien Macchi <emil...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Paul Belanger <pabelan...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 06:54:27PM +0200, Sagi Shnaidman wrote: > > >> Hi, Paul > > >> I would say that real worthwhile try starts from "normal" priority, > > because > > >> we want to run promotion jobs more *often*, not more *rarely* which > > happens > > >> with low priority. > > >> In addition the initial idea in the first mail was running them each > > after > > >> other almost, not once a day like it happens now or with "low" priority. > > >> > > > As I've said, my main reluctance is is how the gate will react if we > > create a > > > new pipeline with the same priority as our check pipeline. I would much > > rather > > > since on caution, default to 'low', see how things react for a day / > > week / > > > month, then see what it would like like a normal. I want us to be > > caution about > > > adding a new pipeline, as it dynamically changes how our existing > > pipelines > > > function. > > > > > > Further more, this is actually a capacity issue for > > tripleo-test-cloud-rh1, > > > there currently too many jobs running for the amount of hardware. If > > these jobs > > > were running on our donated clouds, we could get away with a low priority > > > periodic pipeline. > > > > multinode jobs are running under donated clouds but as you know ovb not. > > We want to keep ovb jobs in our promotion pipeline because they bring > > high value to the tests (ironic, ipv6, ssl, probably more). > > > > Another alternative would be to reduce it to one ovb job (ironic with > > introspection + ipv6 + ssl at minimum) and use the 4 multinode jobs > > into the promotion pipeline -instead of the 3 ovb. > > > > I'm +1 on using one ovb jobs + 4 multinode jobs. > > > > > > current: 3 ovb jobs running every night > > proposal: 18 ovb jobs per day > > > > The addition will cost us 15 jobs into rh1 load. Would it be acceptable? > > > > > Now, allow me to propose another solution. > > > > > > RDO project has their own version of zuul, which has the ability to do > > periodic > > > pipelines. Since tripleo-test-cloud-rh2 is still around, and has OVB > > ability, I > > > would suggest configuring this promoting pipeline within RDO, as to not > > affect > > > the capacity of tripleo-test-cloud-rh1. This now means, you can > > continuously > > > enqueue jobs at a rate of 4 hours, priority shouldn't matter as you are > > the only > > > jobs running on tripleo-test-cloud-rh2, resulting in faster promotions. > > > > Using RDO would also be an option. I'm just not sure about our > > available resources, maybe other can reply on this one. > > > > The purpose of the periodic jobs are two fold. > 1. ensure the latest built packages work > 2. ensure the tripleo check gates continue to work with out error > > Running the promotion in review.rdoproject would not cover #2. The > rdoproject jobs > would be configured in slightly different ways from upstream tripleo. > Running the promotion > in ci.centos has the same issue. > Right, there is some leg work to use the images produced by opentack-infra in RDO, but that is straightforward. It would be the same build process that a 3rd party CI system does. It would be a matter of copying nodepool.yaml from openstack-infra/project-config, and (this is harder) using nodepool-builder to build the images. Today RDO does snapshot images.
> Using tripleo-testcloud-rh2 I think is fine. > > > > > > > This also make sense, as packaging is done in RDO, and you are > > triggering Centos > > > CI things as a result. > > > > Yes, it would make sense. Right now we have zero TripleO testing when > > doing changes in RDO packages (we only run packstack and puppet jobs > > which is not enough). Again, I think it's a problem of capacity here. > > > > We made a pass at getting multinode jobs running in RDO with tripleo. That > was > initially not very successful and we chose to instead focus on upstream. > We *do* > have it on our list to gate packages from RDO builds with tripleo. In the > short term > that gate will use rdocloud, in the long term we'd also like to gate w/ > multinode nodepool jobs in RDO. > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > >> Thanks > > >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Paul Belanger <pabelan...@redhat.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 03:42:32PM -0500, Ben Nemec wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On 03/13/2017 02:29 PM, Sagi Shnaidman wrote: > > >> > > > Hi, all > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I submitted a change: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/443964/ > > >> > > > but seems like it reached a point which requires an additional > > >> > discussion. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I had a few proposals, it's increasing period to 12 hours instead > > of 4 > > >> > > > for start, and to leave it in regular periodic *low* precedence. > > >> > > > I think we can start from 12 hours period to see how it goes, > > although > > >> > I > > >> > > > don't think that 4 only jobs will increase load on OVB cloud, it's > > >> > > > completely negligible comparing to current OVB capacity and load. > > >> > > > But making its precedence as "low" IMHO completely removes any > > sense > > >> > > > from this pipeline to be, because we already run > > experimental-tripleo > > >> > > > pipeline which this priority and it could reach timeouts like 7-14 > > >> > > > hours. So let's assume we ran periodic job, it's queued to run > > now 12 + > > >> > > > "low queue length" - about 20 and more hours. It's even worse than > > >> > usual > > >> > > > periodic job and definitely makes this change useless. > > >> > > > I'd like to notice as well that those periodic jobs unlike "usual" > > >> > > > periodic are used for repository promotion and their value are > > equal or > > >> > > > higher than check jobs, so it needs to run with "normal" or even > > "high" > > >> > > > precedence. > > >> > > > > >> > > Yeah, it makes no sense from an OVB perspective to add these as low > > >> > priority > > >> > > jobs. Once in a while we've managed to chew through the entire > > >> > experimental > > >> > > queue during the day, but with the containers job added it's very > > >> > unlikely > > >> > > that's going to happen anymore. Right now we have a 4.5 hour wait > > time > > >> > just > > >> > > for the check queue, then there's two hours of experimental jobs > > queued > > >> > up > > >> > > behind that. All of which means if we started a low priority > > periodic > > >> > job > > >> > > right now it probably wouldn't run until about midnight my time, > > which I > > >> > > think is when the regular periodic jobs run now. > > >> > > > > >> > Lets just give it a try? A 12 hour periodic job with low priority. > > There is > > >> > nothing saying we cannot iterate on this after a few days / weeks / > > months. > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Wesley Hayutin < > > whayu...@redhat.com > > >> > > > <mailto:whayu...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Jeremy Stanley < > > fu...@yuggoth.org > > >> > > > <mailto:fu...@yuggoth.org>> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On 2017-03-07 10:12:58 -0500 (-0500), Wesley Hayutin > > wrote: > > >> > > > > The TripleO team would like to initiate a conversation > > about > > >> > the > > >> > > > > possibility of creating a new pipeline in Openstack > > Infra to > > >> > allow > > >> > > > > a set of jobs to run periodically every four hours > > >> > > > [...] > > >> > > > > > >> > > > The request doesn't strike me as > > contentious/controversial. > > >> > Why not > > >> > > > just propose your addition to the zuul/layout.yaml file > > in the > > >> > > > openstack-infra/project-config repo and hash out any > > resulting > > >> > > > concerns via code review? > > >> > > > -- > > >> > > > Jeremy Stanley > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Sounds good to me. > > >> > > > We thought it would be nice to walk through it in an email > > first :) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > ______________________________ > > ______________________________ > > >> > ______________ > > >> > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage > > questions) > > >> > > > Unsubscribe: > > >> > > > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject: > > unsubscribe > > >> > > > <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject > > : > > >> > unsubscribe> > > >> > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > > >> > openstack-dev <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://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject: > > >> > unsubscribe> > > >> > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > > openstack-dev > > >> > > > <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > > openstack-dev > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- > > >> > > > Best regards > > >> > > > Sagi Shnaidman > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > >> > ______________ > > >> > > > 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 > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Best regards > > >> Sagi Shnaidman > > > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > ______________ > > >> 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > Emilien Macchi > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > 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
