devstack

Bug #1225664
Comment #3

Comment 3 for bug 1225664

Revision history for this message

Jeremy Stanley (fungi) wrote on 2013-09-16: Re: tempest.api.volume.test_volumes_actions.VolumesActionsTestXML flakey failure

The last time adjusting SWIFT_LOOPBACK_DISK_SIZE came up and we put that in devstack-gate, there was a post-facto discussion that we really should have increased the default value in devstack instead. Quoting from #openstack-infra...

[...]
> 2013-06-25 00:19:10 <openstackgerrit> A change was merged to
> openstack-infra/devstack-gate: Extends SWIFT loopback device size
> to 2G https://review.openstack.org/34102
> 2013-06-25 00:26:32 <jeblair> fungi, mordred: ^ is that referring to a
> devstack exercise or tempest test?
> 2013-06-25 00:28:46 <jeblair> fungi, mordred: tempest, it looks like.
> did you consider adding that to devstack instead of devstack-gate?
> 2013-06-25 00:40:02 <fungi> jeblair: yes, there was some debate as to
> whether doing that in d-g to accommodate tempest on our slaves vs
> as a default in devstack was a more appropriate solution. i didn't
> know which would be preferred, so i just suggested getting
> something up for review as a conversation starter
> 2013-06-25 00:41:09 <jeblair> fungi: looks like the conversation's over.
> 2013-06-25 00:41:42 <jeblair> my preference is for devstack to have
> sensible defaults, so that people actually stand a chance of being
> able to run tests without using the gate configuration.
> 2013-06-25 00:42:34 <fungi> well, there's nothing stopping devstack
> from upping its default, at which our setting in d-g is redundant.
> but understood. if devstack is intended as a reference platform
> to run tempest on then it makes sense to accommodate
> tempest there instead of in d-g
> 2013-06-25 00:43:29 <jeblair> fungi: yeah, but i'm guessing no one has
> suggested increasing it in devstack, which makes this just more
> permacruft in devstack-gate.
> 2013-06-25 00:47:14 <fungi> well, i suggested both but said i didn't
> know which was preferred, and that was the path the author
> took. i will definitely push to satisfy tempest needs in devstack
> instead of in devstack-gate from now on
> 2013-06-25 00:48:19 <fungi> especially if the goal is to have devstack
> defaults suitable for running tempest out of the box
[...]

Based on that discussion, I think we should probably consider removing the override from devstack-gate entirely and punt this bug to devstack instead.

[...]
> 2013-06-25 00:19:10 <openstackgerrit> A change was merged to
>     openstack-infra/devstack-gate: Extends SWIFT loopback device size
>     to 2G  https://review.openstack.org/34102
> 2013-06-25 00:26:32 <jeblair> fungi, mordred: ^ is that referring to a
>     devstack exercise or tempest test?
> 2013-06-25 00:28:46 <jeblair> fungi, mordred: tempest, it looks like.
>     did you consider adding that to devstack instead of devstack-gate?
> 2013-06-25 00:40:02 <fungi> jeblair: yes, there was some debate as to
>     whether doing that in d-g to accommodate tempest on our slaves vs
>     as a default in devstack was a more appropriate solution. i didn't
>     know which would be preferred, so i just suggested getting
>     something up for review as a conversation starter
> 2013-06-25 00:41:09 <jeblair> fungi: looks like the conversation's over.
> 2013-06-25 00:41:42 <jeblair> my preference is for devstack to have
>     sensible defaults, so that people actually stand a chance of being
>     able to run tests without using the gate configuration.
> 2013-06-25 00:42:34 <fungi> well, there's nothing stopping devstack
>     from upping its default, at which our setting in d-g is redundant.
>     but understood. if devstack is intended as a reference platform
>     to run tempest on then it makes sense to accommodate
>     tempest there instead of in d-g
> 2013-06-25 00:43:29 <jeblair> fungi: yeah, but i'm guessing no one has
>     suggested increasing it in devstack, which makes this just more
>     permacruft in devstack-gate.
> 2013-06-25 00:47:14 <fungi> well, i suggested both but said i didn't
>     know which was preferred, and that was the path the author
>     took. i will definitely push to satisfy tempest needs in devstack
>     instead of in devstack-gate from now on
> 2013-06-25 00:48:19 <fungi> especially if the goal is to have devstack
>     defaults suitable for running tempest out of the box
[...]

Based on that discussion, I think we should probably consider removing the override from devstack-gate entirely and punt this bug to devstack instead.