[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [rdo-list] Replacing the tripleo-quickstart HA job with a single controller pacemaker job

On 30/06/2016 20:46, John Trowbridge wrote:
> Howdy folks,
> Just wanted to give a heads up that I plan to replace the
> "high-availability" tripleo-quickstart job in the CI promotion
> pipeline[1], with a job with a lower footprint. In CI, we get a virthost
> with 32G of RAM and a mediocre CPU. It is really hard to fit 5 really
> active VMs on that, and we have never had the HA job stable enough to
> use as a gate for that reason.
> Instead, we will test the pacemaker code path in tripleo by using a
> single controller setup with pacemaker enabled. We were never actually
> testing HA (ie failover scenarios) in the current job, so this should be
> a pretty minimal loss in coverage.
> Since this allows us to drop two CPU intensive nodes from the deploy, we
> can add a ceph node to that job. This will end up with more code
> coverage then the current HA job, and will hopefully will end up being
> stable enough to use as a gate as well.
> Longer term, it would be good to restore an actual HA job, maybe even
> adding some failure scenario tests to the job. I have a couple of ideas
> about how we could do this, but none are feasible in the short term.
> 1. Use pre-existing servers for deploying[2]
> This would allow running the HA job against any cloud, where we could
> size the nodes appropriately to make the job stable.
> 2. Use an OVB cloud for the HA job.
> Soon we should have an OVB (openstack virtual baremetal) cloud to run
> tests in. OVB would have all of the benefits of the solution above
> (unrestricted VM size), and would also provide us a way to test Ironic
> in a more realistic way since it mocks IPMI rather than our current
> method of using a fake ironic driver (which just does virsh commands
> over SSH).
> 3. Add a feature to tripleo-quickstart to bridge multiple virthosts
> If we could deploy our virtual machines across 2 different hosts, we
> would then have much more room to deploy the HA job.
> If anyone has some better ideas, they are very welcome!

Hi John,
No better ideas here, I just want to add that all the work I've done in
the last months about roles (ansible-role-tripleo-baremetal-undercloud)
was made for having a physical environment in which test HA scenarios
(using ansible-role-tripleo-overcloud-validate-ha).
Not much of this is in place at the moment (in particular for the HA
validation), since I got a lot of connected patches merged just
yesterday, but I think we are on a good track.

Raoul Scarazzini
rasca redhat com

> -- trown
> [1] https://ci.centos.org/view/rdo/view/promotion-pipeline/
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/324777/
> _______________________________________________
> rdo-list mailing list
> rdo-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
> To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe redhat com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]