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 _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |