dropping trusty

dropping trusty

[Sage Weil]

We're talking about dropping trusty support for mimic due to the old 
compiler (incomplete C++11), hassle of using an updated toolchain, general 
desire to stop supporting old stuff, and lack of user objections to 
dropping it in the next release.

We would continue to build trusty packages for luminous and older 
releases, just not mimic going forward.

My question is whether we should drop all of the trusty installs on smithi 
and focus testing on xenial and centos.  I haven't seen any trusty related 
failures in half a year.  There were some kernel-related issues 6+ months 
ago that are resolved, and there is a valgrind issue with xenial that is 
making us do valgrind only on centos, but otherwise I don't recall any 
other problems.  I think the likelihood of a trusty-specific regression on 
luminous/jewel is low.  Note that we can still do install and smoke 
testing on VMs to ensure the packages work; we just wouldn't stress test.

Does this seem reasonable?  If so, we could reimage the trusty hosts 
immediately, right?

Am I missing anything?

sage
 

Re: dropping trusty

[David Galloway]

On 11/30/2017 12:21 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> We're talking about dropping trusty support for mimic due to the old 
> compiler (incomplete C++11), hassle of using an updated toolchain, general 
> desire to stop supporting old stuff, and lack of user objections to 
> dropping it in the next release.
> 
> We would continue to build trusty packages for luminous and older 
> releases, just not mimic going forward.
> 
> My question is whether we should drop all of the trusty installs on smithi 
> and focus testing on xenial and centos.  I haven't seen any trusty related 
> failures in half a year.  There were some kernel-related issues 6+ months 
> ago that are resolved, and there is a valgrind issue with xenial that is 
> making us do valgrind only on centos, but otherwise I don't recall any 
> other problems.  I think the likelihood of a trusty-specific regression on 
> luminous/jewel is low.  Note that we can still do install and smoke 
> testing on VMs to ensure the packages work; we just wouldn't stress test.
> 
> Does this seem reasonable?  If so, we could reimage the trusty hosts 
> immediately, right?
> 
> Am I missing anything?
> 

Someone would need to prune through the qa dir and make sure nothing
relies on trusty for tests.  We've gotten into a bind recently with the
testing of FOG [1] where jobs are stuck in Waiting for a long time
(tying up workers) because jobs are requesting Trusty.  We got close to
having zero Trusty testnodes since the wip-fog branch has been reimaging
baremetal testnodes on every job.

But other than that, yes, I can reimage the Trusty testnodes.  Once FOG
is merged into teuthology master, we won't have to worry about this
anymore since jobs will automatically reimage machines based on what
distro they require.

[1] https://github.com/ceph/teuthology/compare/wip-fog

Re: [ceph-users] dropping trusty

[kefu chai]

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:55 AM, David Galloway <dgallowa@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/2017 12:21 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> We're talking about dropping trusty support for mimic due to the old
>> compiler (incomplete C++11), hassle of using an updated toolchain, general
>> desire to stop supporting old stuff, and lack of user objections to
>> dropping it in the next release.
>>
>> We would continue to build trusty packages for luminous and older
>> releases, just not mimic going forward.
>>
>> My question is whether we should drop all of the trusty installs on smithi
>> and focus testing on xenial and centos.  I haven't seen any trusty related
>> failures in half a year.  There were some kernel-related issues 6+ months
>> ago that are resolved, and there is a valgrind issue with xenial that is
>> making us do valgrind only on centos, but otherwise I don't recall any
>> other problems.  I think the likelihood of a trusty-specific regression on
>> luminous/jewel is low.  Note that we can still do install and smoke
>> testing on VMs to ensure the packages work; we just wouldn't stress test.
>>
>> Does this seem reasonable?  If so, we could reimage the trusty hosts
>> immediately, right?
>>
>> Am I missing anything?
>>
>
> Someone would need to prune through the qa dir and make sure nothing
> relies on trusty for tests.  We've gotten into a bind recently with the

David, thanks for point out the direction. i removed the references to trusty
and updated related bits in https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/19307.

> testing of FOG [1] where jobs are stuck in Waiting for a long time
> (tying up workers) because jobs are requesting Trusty.  We got close to
> having zero Trusty testnodes since the wip-fog branch has been reimaging
> baremetal testnodes on every job.
>
> But other than that, yes, I can reimage the Trusty testnodes.  Once FOG
> is merged into teuthology master, we won't have to worry about this
> anymore since jobs will automatically reimage machines based on what
> distro they require.

since https://github.com/ceph/teuthology/pull/1126 is merged, could you help
reimage the trusty test nodes?

>
> [1] https://github.com/ceph/teuthology/compare/wip-fog
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com



-- 
Regards
Kefu Chai

Re: [ceph-users] dropping trusty

[David Galloway]

On 12/04/2017 01:12 AM, kefu chai wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:55 AM, David Galloway <dgallowa@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 11/30/2017 12:21 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>>> We're talking about dropping trusty support for mimic due to the old
>>> compiler (incomplete C++11), hassle of using an updated toolchain, general
>>> desire to stop supporting old stuff, and lack of user objections to
>>> dropping it in the next release.
>>>
>>> We would continue to build trusty packages for luminous and older
>>> releases, just not mimic going forward.
>>>
>>> My question is whether we should drop all of the trusty installs on smithi
>>> and focus testing on xenial and centos.  I haven't seen any trusty related
>>> failures in half a year.  There were some kernel-related issues 6+ months
>>> ago that are resolved, and there is a valgrind issue with xenial that is
>>> making us do valgrind only on centos, but otherwise I don't recall any
>>> other problems.  I think the likelihood of a trusty-specific regression on
>>> luminous/jewel is low.  Note that we can still do install and smoke
>>> testing on VMs to ensure the packages work; we just wouldn't stress test.
>>>
>>> Does this seem reasonable?  If so, we could reimage the trusty hosts
>>> immediately, right?
>>>
>>> Am I missing anything?
>>>
>>
>> Someone would need to prune through the qa dir and make sure nothing
>> relies on trusty for tests.  We've gotten into a bind recently with the
> 
> David, thanks for point out the direction. i removed the references to trusty
> and updated related bits in https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/19307.
> 
>> testing of FOG [1] where jobs are stuck in Waiting for a long time
>> (tying up workers) because jobs are requesting Trusty.  We got close to
>> having zero Trusty testnodes since the wip-fog branch has been reimaging
>> baremetal testnodes on every job.
>>
>> But other than that, yes, I can reimage the Trusty testnodes.  Once FOG
>> is merged into teuthology master, we won't have to worry about this
>> anymore since jobs will automatically reimage machines based on what
>> distro they require.
> 
> since https://github.com/ceph/teuthology/pull/1126 is merged, could you help
> reimage the trusty test nodes?
> 

No need.  Since that's merged, all testnodes are automatically reimaged
on every job now :).  An e-mail to Sepia user list is forthcoming with
more details.

>>
>> [1] https://github.com/ceph/teuthology/compare/wip-fog

Re: dropping trusty

[kefu chai]

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:48 PM, David Galloway <dgallowa-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> On 12/04/2017 01:12 AM, kefu chai wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:55 AM, David Galloway <dgallowa-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> On 11/30/2017 12:21 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>> We're talking about dropping trusty support for mimic due to the old
>>>> compiler (incomplete C++11), hassle of using an updated toolchain, general
>>>> desire to stop supporting old stuff, and lack of user objections to
>>>> dropping it in the next release.
>>>>
>>>> We would continue to build trusty packages for luminous and older
>>>> releases, just not mimic going forward.
>>>>
>>>> My question is whether we should drop all of the trusty installs on smithi
>>>> and focus testing on xenial and centos.  I haven't seen any trusty related
>>>> failures in half a year.  There were some kernel-related issues 6+ months
>>>> ago that are resolved, and there is a valgrind issue with xenial that is
>>>> making us do valgrind only on centos, but otherwise I don't recall any
>>>> other problems.  I think the likelihood of a trusty-specific regression on
>>>> luminous/jewel is low.  Note that we can still do install and smoke
>>>> testing on VMs to ensure the packages work; we just wouldn't stress test.
>>>>
>>>> Does this seem reasonable?  If so, we could reimage the trusty hosts
>>>> immediately, right?
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing anything?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Someone would need to prune through the qa dir and make sure nothing
>>> relies on trusty for tests.  We've gotten into a bind recently with the
>>
>> David, thanks for point out the direction. i removed the references to trusty
>> and updated related bits in https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/19307.
>>
>>> testing of FOG [1] where jobs are stuck in Waiting for a long time
>>> (tying up workers) because jobs are requesting Trusty.  We got close to
>>> having zero Trusty testnodes since the wip-fog branch has been reimaging
>>> baremetal testnodes on every job.
>>>
>>> But other than that, yes, I can reimage the Trusty testnodes.  Once FOG
>>> is merged into teuthology master, we won't have to worry about this
>>> anymore since jobs will automatically reimage machines based on what
>>> distro they require.
>>
>> since https://github.com/ceph/teuthology/pull/1126 is merged, could you help
>> reimage the trusty test nodes?
>>
>
> No need.  Since that's merged, all testnodes are automatically reimaged
> on every job now :).  An e-mail to Sepia user list is forthcoming with
> more details.

awesome, thank you! love this!

>
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/ceph/teuthology/compare/wip-fog
>



-- 
Regards
Kefu Chai