Hi, On 02/07/2015 01:39, Ivo Jimenez wrote:> Re-sending in plain text (original HTML message bounced) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ivo Jimenez" <ivo@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Loic Dachary" <ldachary@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 4:36:05 PM > Subject: Docker task for teuthology > > > Hi Loïc, > > I’m a summer intern working at Red Hat on a project to bring non-functional testing to Ceph [1]. Zack mentioned that you worked on having teuthology use containers to deploy ceph and run tests. I found your blog posts and corresponding branches. Would it be possible for you to share your experience and the reason why you stopped working on that? I did not stop working on it :-) It has been something I worked on the side as a proof of concept and also to learn the teuthology code base. I've recently spent more time on having the OpenStack backend working for real ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/6502 ) which leads to a series of changes that will eventually make it easier to implement the Docker backend. The reason for focusing on the OpenStack backend is that it scales where the Docker Backend can only run so many instances. > Also, if you have time, could you please take a look at the initial code additions [2] that I’m working on? Any feedback would me much appreciated. I did not know about https://github.com/signalfuse/maestro-ng, sound really interesting ! How is it different from https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes or https://github.com/projectatomic or https://coreos.com/ ? I've no experience in any of them. You're going in a direction I did not think about: adding a task instead of modifying teuthology itself. It's an interesting route and maybe better than the one I took which is to modify the lock/provision files, mostly, to create OpenStack machines instead of Downburst machines. I'm very interested to know if that works out. Modifying the internals of teuthology is more complicated and if your method works, it's likely to be simpler. I see you wrote tests which is much needed. I found that having integration tests is better than any kind of unit / functional testing because, in the end, most of teuthology work is to properly assemble and run bits and pieces that are external to it. In other words, without integration tests you cover only a fraction of the behavior even if you cover 100% of the LOC. Cheers > thanks! > > [1]: http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/wiki/Testing_-_non-functional_tests > [2]: https://github.com/ceph/teuthology/pull/558 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
