On 03/17/2016 01:13 PM, Paul Belanger wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:59:22AM -0500, Ben Nemec wrote: >> On 03/10/2016 05:24 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >>> On 2016-03-10 16:09:44 -0500 (-0500), Dan Prince wrote: >>>> This seems to be the week people want to pile it on TripleO. Talking >>>> about upstream is great but I suppose I'd rather debate major changes >>>> after we branch Mitaka. :/ >>> [...] >>> >>> I didn't mean to pile on TripleO, nor did I intend to imply this was >>> something which should happen ASAP (or even necessarily at all), but >>> I do want to better understand what actual benefit is currently >>> derived from this implementation vs. a more typical third-party CI >>> (which lots of projects are doing when they find their testing needs >>> are not met by the constraints of our generic test infrastructure). >>> >>>> With regards to Jenkins restarts I think it is understood that our job >>>> times are long. How often do you find infra needs to restart Jenkins? >>> >>> We're restarting all 8 of our production Jenkins masters weekly at a >>> minimum, but generally more often when things are busy (2-3 times a >>> week). For many months we've been struggling with a thread leak for >>> which their development team has not seen as a priority to even >>> triage our bug report effectively. At this point I think we've >>> mostly given up on expecting it to be solved by anything other than >>> our upcoming migration off of Jenkins, but that's another topic >>> altogether. >>> >>>> And regardless of that what if we just said we didn't mind the >>>> destructiveness of losing a few jobs now and then (until our job >>>> times are under the line... say 1.5 hours or so). To be clear I'd >>>> be fine with infra pulling the rug on running jobs if this is the >>>> root cause of the long running jobs in TripleO. >>> >>> For manual Jenkins restarts this is probably doable (if additional >>> hassle), but I don't know whether that's something we can easily >>> shoehorn into our orchestrated/automated restarts. >>> >>>> I think the "benefits are minimal" is bit of an overstatement. The >>>> initial vision for TripleO CI stands and I would still like to see >>>> individual projects entertain the option to use us in their gates. >>> [...] >>> >>> This is what I'd like to delve deeper into. The current >>> implementation isn't providing you with any mechanism to prevent >>> changes which fail jobs running in the tripleo-test cloud from >>> merging to your repos, is it? You're still having to manually >>> inspect the job results posted by it? How is that particularly >>> different from relying on third-party CI integration? >>> >>> As for other projects making use of the same jobs, right now the >>> only convenience I'm aware of is that they can add check-tripleo >>> pipeline jobs in our Zuul layout file instead of having you add it >>> to yours (which could itself reside in a Git repo under your >>> control, giving you even more flexibility over those choices). In >>> fact, with a third-party CI using its own separate Gerrit account, >>> you would be able to leave clear -1/+1 votes on check results which >>> is not possible with the present solution. >>> >>> So anyway, I'm not saying that I definitely believe the third-party >>> CI route will be better for TripleO, but I'm not (yet) clear on what >>> tangible benefit you're receiving now that you lose by switching to >>> that model. >>> >> >> FWIW, I think third-party CI probably makes sense for TripleO. >> Practically speaking we are third-party CI right now - we run our own >> independent hardware infrastructure, we aren't multi-region, and we >> can't leave a vote on changes. Since the first two aren't likely to >> change any time soon (although I believe it's still a long-term goal to >> get to a place where we can run in regular infra and just contribute our >> existing CI hardware to the general infra pool, but that's still a long >> way off), and moving to actual third-party CI would get us the ability >> to vote, I think it's worth pursuing. >> >> As an added bit of fun, we have a forced move of our CI hardware coming >> up in the relatively near future, and if we don't want to have multiple >> days (and possibly more, depending on how the move goes) of TripleO CI >> outage we're probably going to need to stand up a new environment in >> parallel anyway. If we're doing that it might make sense to try hooking >> it in through the third-party infra instead of the way we do it today. >> Hopefully that would allow us to work out the kinks before the old >> environment goes away. >> >> Anyway, I'm sure we'll need a bunch more discussion about this, but I >> wanted to chime in with my two cents. >> > Do you have any ETA on when your outage would be? Is it before or after the > summit in Austin? > > Personally, I'm going to attend a few TripleO design session where ever > possible in Austin. It would be great to maybe have a fishbowl session about > it.
It's after, but we'll only have a couple of months or so at that point to wrap everything up, so I suspect we'll need to have some basic plan in place before or we'll never be able to get hardware in time. It may be too late already. :-/ Probably the first thing I need to do is follow up with people internally and find out if there's already a plan in place for this that I just don't know about. That's entirely possible. __________________________________________________________________________ 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
