openstack team mailing list archive

[Andy Smith <andyster@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Monty Taylor <mordred@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 06/07/2011 02:38 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
> > Thanks for the update Monty :)
>
> My pleasure as always. :)
>
> >      That's just testing API in a VM though, and doesn't get us to
> testing
> >     actual bare-metal deployment or integration testing. At Rackspace, we
> >     have some machines set aside at the moment, and have had others offer
> >     chunks of machines to test various combinations of things. At its
> heart,
> >     the abstract version of this looks fairly identical to the smoketests
> >     job - pxe boot machines, shove version to be tested on them, run
> tests.
> >     However, there are several moving bits on the best way to actually do
> >     the how. At the moment, the fine folks at rPath have a Jenkins
> >     installing and testing rPath OpenStack images, so Mihai and I are
> going
> >     to look at getting that setup ported to our Jenkins. However,
> although
> >     that will be an excellent test of code, as our main target platform
> is
> >     Ubuntu, we're also looking at doing a straight-up cobbler install
> using
> >     generated .debs.
> >
> >
> > Jesse and I had already gotten quite far along using chef to do the
> > provisioning of baremetal boxes once we'd pxe booted them into ubuntu,
> > it seems like chef or puppet (our current preference is chef) should be
> > used there as well instead of generated .debs.
>
> I have every intention of moving the current work that is running to be
> based on the chef work you did... but I do not view chef and .debs to be
> mutually exclusive options. The goal here is to be able to use chef to
> install and configure the official debs. If this is not possible, then
> there are fundamental flaws that must be fixed.
>
> > At the moment the two closest things to being "official" installations
> > for us (me? are the chef recipes and the nova.sh script (the nova.sh
> > script obviously being only targeted at testing and dev though), those
> > are what we use to verify that the system is functional and I think we'd
> > like to use chef or puppet for baremetal deployments as well.
> >
> > TL;DR: Can we focus on the chef recipes instead of on .debs?
>
> nova.sh is great for devs, but isn't really something I'd imagine would
> be used as the basis of a production deployment (which is kind of the
> point of doing post-install smoke testing)


(I'm pretty sure that is what I said above)


> And again, chef can happily
> install the software from the produced debs.
>
>
Agreed, I think, maybe we're just talking past each other, it sounded form
your email that you would be generating additional debs to handle the
install rather than continuing to use the existing debs (and related deb
generation process). If that is not the case and you instead to use the
packages mostly as they exist today then I think we're already agreeing.


> It's not really just about debs - for the rPath based testing backend,
> we'll obviously be testing RPMs. But in general, testing the packaged
> software that we ship is kind of important.
>
> To sum up: yes to using the chef recipes, no to "instead of".
>
> Monty
>
> >     In any case, this is the bit which is still in the
> >     planning and discussion phase, but so far all of the conversations
> I've
> >     had with folks have been great - and I'd love to get more folks
> involved
> >     in that (thus this email)
> >
> >     However- latent goal here is that whatever mechanism we're having
> >     Jenkins use to deploy OpenStack onto real hardware should be
> consumable
> >     and one that actual people might actually use - otherwise what the
> heck
> >     are we testing?
> >
> >     Additionally, as you may have surmised, it is also a goal to run as
> much
> >     of this as possible from the OpenStack Jenkins, because that way we
> can
> >     as a project choose to incorporate as much of the feedback/results of
> >     various forms of testing directly in to branch testing/approval as we
> >     want. For some things (spinning up 20 node OpenStack clusters) doing
> it
> >     on every merge proposal or giving all devs the ability to click a
> button
> >     and have it run on their branch will likely be overkill - but if it
> >     turns out not to be, it would be great to have the ability to do it.
> >
> >     End goal is to have:
> >      - publicly accessible and usable system for testing and build
> >     automation
> >      - resources that it uses to spin up clouds in order to test them are
> >     themselves usable by people to spin up clouds
> >      - tooling around this is done in a manner that makes us of and
> >     contributes back to existing projects (jenkins plugins, patches back
> to
> >     cobbler/orchestra/whatever)
> >
> >     If you didn't read my _other_ long email from a few moments ago,
> actual
> >     discussion of getting this done - and figuring out other people's
> >     needs/tools and how to integrate them - is hopefully happening next
> week
> >     right before the regular openstack-meeting. In the mean time, please
> >     either flame on right here in list, or ping me back personally.
> >
> >     Thanks everyone!
> >     Monty
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> >     Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >     <mailto:openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >     Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> >     More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
> >
>