Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

DNM: Multi-OS locking #1051

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

DNM: Multi-OS locking #1051

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

zmc
Copy link
Member

@zmc zmc commented Mar 21, 2017

I've been working on this for the last few days and it's close - but it needs more testing before it's merged.

zmc added 4 commits March 21, 2017 13:38
A little pre-overhaul refactor...

Signed-off-by: Zack Cerza <[email protected]>
Instead of either not specifying an OS type/version and just getting
what's available - or requesting the same OS type/version for all nodes
in the job, allow requesting arbitrary mixes of OSes.

The path forward is going to be replacing things like:
roles:
- ['osd.0', 'mon.a']
- ['osd.1', 'osd.2]
- ['client.0']

With things like:
nodes:
- os_type: ubuntu
  os_version: '16.04'
  roles: ['osd.0', 'mon.a']
- os_type: ubuntu
  os_version: '14.04'
  roles: ['osd.1', 'osd.2]
- os_type: centos
  os_version: '7.3'
  roles: ['client.0']

Signed-off-by: Zack Cerza <[email protected]>
We used to use the 'targets' object to make remotes to roles. This
worked fine before multi-OS locking, but broke down because of the
unordered nature of dicts.

Signed-off-by: Zack Cerza <[email protected]>
@zmc zmc force-pushed the wip-flex-locking branch from 9b8ee97 to e975f2d Compare March 21, 2017 19:40
assert 'targets' not in config, target_conflict_msg
if lock and 'roles' in config:
if 'nodes' in config:
log.warn(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should exit here, It would be a user error to have both and fix them to use only one format

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd be open to that

@kshtsk
Copy link
Contributor

kshtsk commented Jun 7, 2018

I would like to have a documentation update of how this feature looks from user point of view, 'node' format and use cases.

@smithfarm
Copy link
Contributor

If someone took over where @zmc left off and landed this feature, that would be a huge accomplishment IMO. This feature is sorely missing in teuthology.

@kshtsk
Copy link
Contributor

kshtsk commented Jun 23, 2020

@vasukulkarni @zmc I'm looking into this PR, did you have any suite for testing this already?

@batrick
Copy link
Member

batrick commented Jun 30, 2020

https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/43612#note-2

(agree with you @kshtsk )

@djgalloway djgalloway changed the base branch from master to main June 1, 2022 17:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants