-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/21/2014 12:32 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Both of those options are costly in terms of node consumption. That > said I think it doesn't really make sense to build a 100-long gate > queue and assigning resources to that, when we know for > almost-certain there is no way that 100th test will end up being > significant. The gate queue could be 25-50 deep and work the same. > The changes at the top of the queue are the ones that matter and > which should be given extra resources and parallel testing.
On that note, one of the issues seems to be thrashing with our pool of nodes. One thought for a seemingly simple change was to just put a hard cap on how many changes on the gate queue get nodes allocated to them at any given time so that the impact of a gate reset is lower. - -- Russell Bryant -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlLevdMACgkQFg9ft4s9SAaCIACfeArK8MvxDxgVj1SlCynBgsR9 2scAnirrOXJjVB1xcvfojGkZ3tF0zX+y =YCgX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
