From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Durgin Subject: Re: client/cluster compatibility testing Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:59:11 -0700 Message-ID: <5530229F.5020509@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46955 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751652AbbDPU7I (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:59:08 -0400 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D19A2C1F09 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 20:59:08 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sage Weil , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org On 04/16/2015 09:42 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > I think the simplest way to address this is to talk about compatibility in > terms of the upstream stable releases (firefly, hammer, etc.), and test > that compatibility with teuthology tests from ceph-qa-suite.git. We have > some basic inter-version client/cluster tests already in > suites/upgrade/client-upgrade. Currently these test new (version "x") > clients against a given release (dumpling, firefly). I think we just need > to add hammer to that mix, and then add a second set of tests that do the > reverse: test clients from a given release (dumpling, firefly, hammer) > against an arbitrary cluster version ("x"). The suites in suites/upgrade/$version-x do this, and use a mixed version cluster rather than a purely version x cluster. It seems like people would want that intra-cluster version coverage for smooth upgrades. Just need to add hammer-x there too (Yuri's renaming the client ones to be $version-client-x for less confusion). Also I think we'll want to start doing mixed-client-version tests, particularly for things like rbd's exclusive locking: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11405 Josh