On May 29, 2012, at 6:46 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 05/29/2012 07:28 PM, Daryl Walleck wrote: Well, if by complete failure you mean not configured, you're correct. :-) The cleanup solution has several parallel solutions in progress, and should be a coding standard going forward.
Perhaps, but I haven't seen any of those... Actually, there's a few * My proposal, never was accepted - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/5544/ * Your base class proposal, which uses a similar methodology - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7069/ * As well as several proposals by Rohit - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/7543/2 There's many solutions to this problem, and I'm open to whatever folks feel comfortable with. I know this is something everyone wants, and it's a relatively easy problem to solve. I'd rather not force a solution in as I know there's been some discussion about how this should be handled, so the best path would be to push this into the agenda for this week's meeting and try to come to a solution everyone can agree on. > The quotas issue is a matter of configuration the devstack environment. This is a matter of if we should expect Tempest to pass out of the box with any Devstack configuration, which may not be realistic. I know there was an issue not too far back where some tests related to volumes would not pass with the default Devstack config because there wasn't enough space allocated for volumes. However, I think we should be able to make some sensible default suggestions that should run in most "basic" environments. The quotas != rate-limiting. Default quotas for Compute API resources came from Rackspace Cloud Servers, IIRC, and so they represent a "basic environment" pretty well, I'd say. That said, I do think that setting quotas higher for users used in tempest makes sense. Quotas may not equal rate limiting, but the fact that they are not currently easily configurable (you can drop an entry in the quotas table, but an API implementation would be much preferable) is a limitation of the API we have, which I believe I've heard movement around adding that capability. A cap of 10 servers is fine, it just adds an extra limitation if one is trying to optimize their tests for speed. At the development conference we had a discussion about how best to proceed with parallel execution. The general consensus was: * Switching to py.test isn't a popular idea * Folks would rather improve nose's parallel capabilities than develop another solution I haven't tinkered with nose in the last few weeks, but I think it may be possible to simply run the Tempest with py.test without any modifications. This still wouldn't be a popular solution regardless, so let's go back to the problem we are trying to solve. I think we can all agree that we would like a series of decisive smoke tests that run in what is perceived to be a reasonable amount of time. So what is the bar we're trying to reach? My personal feelings is that the 10-15 minute range is more than reasonable using a full Linux distro, which means with Cirros we should be able to squeak by under the 10 minute mark. I'd agree with that, yep. Unfortunately, Tempest is taking more than 3200 seconds to complete now on some of the node providers. :( By node providers, I'm assuming you're referring to the OpenStack CI environment? I ask again, what do you think acceptable execution times are? With ubuntu and several other full Linux OSes, the best I've seen is 15 minute smoke tests and 40-ish minute full regression runs, which in my case is within my pain threshold. In terms of actions, we've paid the majority of the time price for testing scenarios. The additional tests I'm adding (such as the SSH code) don't add significant time to tests, but keep adding value. The same can be said of checking for events that should be generated on server actions, and other side effects that take minimal time to run. As we start to move in that direction, test classes will become more streamlined/optimized. The test class I added with the initial SSH tests is a good example of this, and I'd be more than glad to share some other examples of how we can do more with less. Eventually these types of optimizations can grow into our coding standards. What's everyone else's feelings on smoke test pain point times? I think getting a sense of that will make any further decisions a bit more clear. Regardless of what length of time we say, I still think we need to get parallel execution working properly (with the existing --processes option in nosetest's multiprocessing plugin). Agreed. I think like we talked about at the conference, I think this discussion and the overall discussion on optimization would probably be better handled in a Skype meeting where we can all discuss this in real time. I'm free every day this week save Friday. Daryl
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-qa-team Post to : openstack-qa-team@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-qa-team More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
