On Aug 9, 2014 4:22 AM, "Eoghan Glynn" <egl...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Hi Folks, > > Dina Belova has recently landed some infra patches[1,2] to create > an experimental mongodb-based Tempest job. This effectively just > overrides the ceilometer storage backend config so that mongodb > is used instead of sql-alchemy. The new job has been running > happily for a few days so I'd like now to consider the path > forwards with this. > > One of our Juno goals under the TC gap analysis was to more fully > gate against mongodb, given that this is the storage backend > recommended/supported by many distros. The sql-alchemy backend, > on the other hand, is more suited for proofs of concept or small > deployments. However up to now we've been hampered from reflecting > that reality in the gate, due to the gate being stuck on Precise > for a long time, as befits LTS, and the version of mongodb needed > by ceilometer (i.e. 2.4) effectively unavailable on that Ubuntu > release (in fact it was limited to 2.0.4). > > So the orientation towards gating on sql-alchemy was mostly > driven by legacy issues in the gate's usage of Precise, as > opposed to this being considered the most logical basket in > which to put all our testing eggs. > > However, we're now finally in the brave new world of Trusty :) > So I would like to make the long-delayed change over soon. > > This would involve transposing the roles of sql-alchemy and > mongodb in the gate - the mongodb variant becomes the "blessed" > job run by default, whereas the sql-alchemy based job to > relegated to the second tier. > > So my questions are: > > (a) would the QA side of the house be agreeable to this switch? > > and: > > (b) how long would the mongodb job need to be stable in this > experimental mode before we pull the trigger on swicthing? > > If the answer to (a) is yes, we can get infra patches proposed > early next week to make the swap. > > Cheers, > Eoghan > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack-infra/config+branch:master+topic:ceilometer-mongodb-job,n,z > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack-infra/devstack-gate+branch:master+topic:ceilometer-backend,n,z >
My interpretation of the gap analysis [1] is merely that you have coverage, not that you switch to it and relegate the SQLAlchemy tests to second chair. I believe that's a dangerous departure from current standards. A dependency on mongodb, due to it's AGPL license, and lack of sufficient support for a non-AGPL storage back end, has consistently been raised as a blocking issue for Marconi. [2] -Deva [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee/Ceilometer_Gap_Coverage [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/030510.html is a very articulate example of this objection
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
