15:00:25 #startmeeting third-party 15:00:26 Meeting started Mon Mar 13 15:00:25 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is lennyb. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:28 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:00:30 Hello 15:00:31 The meeting name has been set to 'third_party' 15:00:54 Hello 15:01:08 hi mptacekx 15:01:21 hi lennyb, how it's going ? 15:01:33 o/ 15:02:03 well, it's already 5pm here, so it's going pretty good :) 15:02:06 hi pots 15:02:17 I have two topics to discuss today, one is a kind of problem sharing and the other one is a kind of request for help :-) 15:02:24 I have an issue with the jenkins nd nodepool 15:02:35 I see that sometimes Jenkins starts job on the VM, that was already used and currently 'deleting' by the nodepool. I've added quiet-period to the job, but it still annoying. 15:02:36 hi 15:02:43 hello asselin_ 15:03:02 lennyb i have the same issue 15:03:09 o/ 15:03:21 pots, any ideas how to solve it? 15:03:25 lennyb: nodepool should delete the node after it's finished with the first job run 15:03:27 does the quiet-period work? 15:03:48 pots, it works fine, I hate spending 30sec in each job 15:04:08 there's supposed to be a trigger that takes the node offline...in zuul 15:04:36 where's the quiet-period documented? 15:04:54 http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/project-config-example/tree/zuul/openstack_functions.py#n32 15:05:09 http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/project-config-example/tree/zuul/layout.yaml#n58 15:05:19 pots,https://docs.openstack.org/infra/jenkins-job-builder/definition.html 15:05:32 asselin_, thanks 15:05:55 lennyb: ah, thanks 15:06:14 pots, I will try asselin_ suggestion, seems like the correct one. 15:06:47 is anyone from you running ci infra (zuul, nodepool) on xenial ? 15:06:56 anything else on this topic, before going to mptacekx? 15:07:20 mptacekx: I never switched from trusty 15:07:34 me 2 15:07:35 i am running trusty but about to try xenial 15:07:43 mptacekx: I'll probably go to xenial with zuul v3 switch 15:07:53 mptaceks, me neither. What is the issue with xenial? 15:08:08 we're running mitaka cloud on trusty for intel-nfv-ci, but we want to upgrade to newton and see some strange stuff by having newton kolla cloud on trusty 15:08:27 for ci infra deployment we're using https://github.com/openstack-infra/puppet-openstackci but it looks like there is no xenial support yet 15:09:10 the tricky part is how to deploy zuul, nodepool, jenkins, all together in some smart way 15:09:19 mptacekx, yeah, I don't think upstream has 'upgraded' yet. 15:09:34 mtreinish, there's a single_node_ci class that does exactly that 15:09:55 http://git.gozer.hpcloud.net/cgit/openstack-infra/puppet-openstackci/tree/manifests/single_node_ci.pp 15:10:02 mptacekx, I mean ^^ 15:10:15 asselin_: correct, we used this one 15:10:50 but trusty is mentioned in https://github.com/openstack-infra/puppet-openstackci/blob/master/doc/source/third_party_ci.rst 15:11:18 mptacekx, yeah, that was what it was developed/tested on 15:11:41 and some modules like mysql can't work with systemd 15:11:43 ESC[1;31mError: /Stage[main]/Mysql::Server::Service/Service[mysqld]: Provider upstart is not functional on this hostESC[0m 15:12:23 isn't mitaka eol 09/17 ? if not xenial, are all of you using mitaka cloud still ? 15:12:58 mptacekx, we use cloud based on RDO latest 15:13:02 we are using mitaka. Nothing wrong with using something eol for internal cloud 15:13:08 mptacekx, that is a separate issue....the ci infrastructure runs on it's own images...trusty, centos 7, etc....as long as the cloud can provide the requested OS. 15:13:24 upgrading to new openstack is an ordeal that can span for 6 month 15:13:25 s 15:14:15 mmedvede, it took me only few days to bring up new CI + cloud based on RDO 15:14:33 if I got you properly guys, it's better to stay on mitaka/trusty in coming months and upgrade to newton/xenial in another couple of months ? 15:14:39 lennyb: bringing up != maintaining/upgrading 15:15:41 mptacekx: I think you might be mixing up provider cloud with CI infrastructure images 15:15:45 mptacekx, no....these are 2 different things 15:15:48 mmedvede, correct, but you do you must to upgrade? 15:15:48 mptacekx: they are normally decoupled 15:15:58 mptacekx: so upgrading one should be independent of the other 15:16:15 mmedvede, +1 15:17:09 you can run your ci infrastruction on any cloud that provides trusty image...doesn't have to be openstack. It can also run on baremetal. 15:17:11 mmedvede: If I got your point, we should be able to run newton cloud in kolla containers (controller) and having collocated zuul infra on trusty host ? 15:17:34 mptacekx: e.g. we have Mitaka dev cloud that we use to run our devstack VMs for testing. It would stay Mitaka for awhile. But we can run xenial infrastructure, or newer, on top of that cloud 15:18:37 mptacekx: maybe with containers it is different. With VMs there is no strong coupling on OpenStack version 15:18:58 I need to leave early today 15:19:03 mmedvede: I understand that I can run any image inside our ci cloud, my concern is whether I can reliably run newton kolla cloud on trusty if there is no known way how to deploy ci infra on xenial 15:19:12 asselin_, thanks for coming 15:21:11 mptacekx: so why do you need CI infra on Xenial to be able to run newton kolla cloud? How is CI infra OS (e.g. what os zuul /nodepool runs on) affects your ability to run kolla? 15:21:36 and where is that newton kolla cloud? I am a bit confused :) 15:21:39 mmedvede: we're collocating ci infra & ci cloud controller 15:21:59 oh 15:22:13 yes, than you are coupled 15:22:28 I know better word :-) 15:23:04 mptacekx, can you bring new VM for CI only 15:23:44 we might consider this option if it's broadly used in other setups .... 15:24:03 IMHO it easier to maintain 15:24:23 we have cloud with VMs, when 1 of them is CI 15:24:39 and others are nodepool vms for jenkins 15:25:45 what about having CI infra (zuul, nodepool, jenkins) running on single VM, and cloud controller on another or even baremetal ... 15:25:53 mptacekx: building CI infra and your cloud controller inside the same server (without containers/VMs) would bring problems. Usually you want separation 15:26:08 mptacekx: +1, you can have zuul/nodepool/jenkins in VM 15:26:58 thanks a lot, I think it's fully answering my question 15:27:21 mptacekx, anything else you wanted to discuss? 15:27:52 lennyb: just a single topic, we faced some issue last week on devstack 15:27:54 https://bugs.launchpad.net/devstack/+bug/1671144 15:27:54 Launchpad bug 1671144 in devstack "test-requirements are wrongly installed system-wide" [Undecided,In progress] - Assigned to Radek Zetik (radekx-zetik) 15:28:32 and we're providing fix for that in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/444788/, it's FYI in this round if someone else is also affected 15:28:47 mptacekx, thanks for bringing this up. 15:29:30 btw, asselin_ proposal regarding single-node-use will not work for us, since zuul triggers multijob :( 15:30:16 mptacekx, mmedvede, pots anything else you would like to discuss? 15:30:48 is there a list of pinned versions somewhere that are recommended with puppet-openstackci? 15:31:03 e.g. should zuul be pinned? 15:31:22 lennyb: thanks, nothing from my side 15:32:03 pots: zuul should be pinned, not sure if it is documented 15:32:32 or nodepool? neither of these were pinned when i installed a new CI a few weeks ago 15:32:43 can you recommend any values? 15:32:47 pots, this is what we use http://paste.openstack.org/show/602521/ 15:33:07 thanks, i'll try those 15:33:31 pots: https://github.com/openstack-infra/puppet-openstackci/blob/master/contrib/single_node_ci_data.yaml 15:33:43 that's it for me 15:33:48 nodepool, zuul, jjb are pinned there 15:34:31 p.s. we succeed to use common CI on internal project ( had to modify few things locally ) 15:35:17 If there is nothing more to discuss, I wish you all the best and see you next week. 15:35:24 thanks lennyb 15:35:25 thanks everybody! 15:35:45 #endmeeting