Best regards,
Boris Pavlovic
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Boris Pavlovic <bo...@pavlovic.me
<mailto:bo...@pavlovic.me>> wrote:
Hi Sean,
I appreciate you valuing Rally so highly as to suggesting it
should join the QA program. It is a great vote of confidence for
me. While I believe that Rally and Tempest will always work
closely together, the intended utility and the direction of where
we are planing to take Rally will not be compatible with the
direction of where I think the QA program is going. Please let me
explain in more details below.
Tempest is a collection of Functional and Performance Tests which
is used by the developers to improve the quality of the OpenStack
code.
Rally on the other hand, is envisioned as a Tool that is going to
be run by the cloud operators in order to measure, tune and
continuously improve the performance of an OpenStack cloud.
Moreover, we have an SLA module that allows the Operator to
define what constitutes an acceptable level of performance and a
profiler that would provide both the user and the developer the
diagnostic set of performance data. Finally, Rally is designed to
run on production clouds and to be integrated as a Horizon plugin.
In the future, we envision integrating Rally with other services
(e.g. Logging as a Service, Satori, Rubick, and other
operator-targeted services). I believe that this is not the
direction compatible with the mission of the the QA program .
Before applying for a new Performance and Scalability program, we
have thought that the best existing program that Rally could be a
part of now and in the future is the Telemetry program. We have
discussed with Eoghan Glynn the idea of extending the scope of its
mission to include other operator related projects and include
Rally to it. Eoghan liked the idea in general but felt that
Ceilometer currently has too much on its plate and was not in a
position to merge in a new project. However, I can still see the
two programs maturing and potentially becoming one down the road.
Now, regarding the point that you make of Rally and Tempest doing
some duplicate work. I completely agree with you that we should
avoid it as much as possible and we should stay in close
communication to make sure that duplicate requirements are only
implemented once.
Following our earlier discussion, Rally is now using Tempest for
those benchmarks that do not require special complex environments,
we also encapsulated and automated Tempest usage to make it more
accessible for the Operators (here is the Blog documenting it --
http://www.mirantis.com/blog/rally-openstack-tempest-testing-made-simpler/).
We would like to further continue to de-duplicate the work inside
Tempest and Rally. We made some joint design decisions in Atlanta
to transfer some of the Integration code from Rally to Tempest,
resulting in the work performed by Andrew Kurilin
(https://review.openstack.org/#/c/94473/). I would encourage and
welcome more of such cooperation in the future.
I trust that this addresses most of your concerns and please do
not hesitate to bring up more questions and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Boris
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net
<mailto:s...@dague.net>> wrote:
On 07/26/2014 05:51 PM, Hayes, Graham wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 12:18 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 07/22/2014 11:58 AM, David Kranz wrote:
>>> On 07/22/2014 10:44 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>>>> Honestly, I'm really not sure I see this as a different
program, but is
>>>> really something that should be folded into the QA
program. I feel like
>>>> a top level effort like this is going to lead to a lot of
duplication in
>>>> the data analysis that's currently going on, as well as
functionality
>>>> for better load driver UX.
>>>>
>>>> -Sean
>>> +1
>>> It will also lead to pointless discussions/arguments about
which
>>> activities are part of "QA" and which are part of
>>> "Performance and Scalability Testing".
>
> I think that those discussions will still take place, it
will just be on
> a per repository basis, instead of a per program one.
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Right, 100% agreed. Rally would remain with it's own repo +
review team,
>> just like grenade.
>>
>> -Sean
>>
>
> Is the concept of a separate review team not the point of a
program?
>
> In the the thread from Designate's Incubation request
Thierry said [1]:
>
>> "Programs" just let us bless goals and teams and let them
organize
>> code however they want, with contribution to any code repo
under that
>> umbrella being considered "official" and ATC-status-granting.
>
> I do think that this is something that needs to be clarified
by the TC -
> Rally could not get a PTL if they were part of the QA
project, but every
> time we get a program request, the same discussion happens.
>
> I think that mission statements can be edited to fit new
programs as
> they occur, and that it is more important to let teams that
have been
> working closely together to stay as a distinct group.
My big concern here is that many of the things that these
efforts have
been doing are things we actually want much closer to the
base. For
instance, metrics on Tempest runs.
When Rally was first created it had it's own load generator.
It took a
ton of effort to keep the team from duplicating that and
instead just
use some subset of Tempest. Then when measuring showed up, we
actually
said that is something that would be great in Tempest, so
whoever ran
it, be it for Testing, Monitoring, or Performance gathering,
would have
access to that data. But the Rally team went off in a corner
and did it
otherwise. That's caused the QA team to have to go and redo
this work
from scratch with subunit2sql, in a way that can be consumed
by multiple
efforts.
So I'm generally -1 to this being a separate effort on the
basis that so
far the team has decided to stay in their own sandbox instead of
participating actively where many of us thing the functions
should be
added. I also think this isn't like Designate, because this isn't
intended to be part of the integrated release.
Of course you could decide to slice up the universe in a
completely
different way, but we have toolchains today, which I think the
focus
should be on participating there.
-Sean
--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
<mailto: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
