On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 09:24 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote: > > On Jun 12, 2014 8:37 AM, "Sean Dague" <s...@dague.net> wrote: > > > > On 06/12/2014 10:38 AM, Mike Bayer wrote: > > > > > > On 6/12/14, 8:26 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > > >> On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Sean Dague wrote: > > >> > > >>> That's not cacthable in unit or functional tests? > > >> Not in an accurate manner, no. > > >> > > >>> Keeping jobs alive based on the theory that they might one day > be useful > > >>> is something we just don't have the liberty to do any more. > We've not > > >>> seen an idle node in zuul in 2 days... and we're only at j-1. > j-3 will > > >>> be at least +50% of this load. > > >> Sure, I'm not saying we don't have a problem. I'm just saying > it's not a > > >> good solution to fix that problem IMHO. > > > > > > Just my 2c without having a full understanding of all of > OpenStack's CI > > > environment, Postgresql is definitely different enough that MySQL > > > "strict mode" could still allow issues to slip through quite > easily, and > > > also as far as capacity issues, this might be longer term but I'm > hoping > > > to get database-related tests to be lots faster if we can move to > a > > > model that spends much less time creating databases and schemas. > > > > This is what I mean by functional testing. If we were directly > hitting a > > real database on a set of in tree project tests, I think you could > > discover issues like this. Neutron was headed down that path. > > > > But if we're talking about a devstack / tempest run, it's not really > > applicable. > > > > If someone can point me to a case where we've actually found this > kind > > of bug with tempest / devstack, that would be great. I've just > *never* > > seen it. I was the one that did most of the fixing for pg support in > > Nova, and have helped other projects as well, so I'm relatively > familiar > > with the kinds of fails we can discover. The ones that Julien > pointed > > really aren't likely to be exposed in our current system. > > > > Which is why I think we're mostly just burning cycles on the > existing > > approach for no gain. > > Given all the points made above, I think dropping PostgreSQL is the > right choice; if only we had infinite cloud that would be another > story. > > What about converting one of our existing jobs (grenade partial ncpu, > large ops, regular grenade, tempest with nova network etc.) Into a > PostgreSQL only job? We could get some level of PostgreSQL testing > without any additional jobs, although this is tradeoff obviously.
I'd be fine with this tradeoff if it allows us to keep PostgreSQL in the mix. > > > > > -Sean > > > > -- > > Sean Dague > > http://dague.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
