On 19/06/18 11:08, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
> On 16/06/18 08:39, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> While investigating the hardware issue we had on one Seamicro chassis in
>> the last days (see previous thread), we lost another one (completely at
>> this point) during the night, so I have disabled all those ones too. (so
>> that means 64 bare-metal nodes less in the pool)
>>
>> I'll create ticket with DC to see if that's possible to investigate the
>> issue, and I'll keep the list informed about the status.
>>
>> Thanks for your comprehending,
>>
>
> Just to let you know that we're still waiting on some input from DC
> about that unreachable Seamicro chassis (Pufty) and so I can't even give
> you any ETA on this.
>
> OTOH, we were able to get the previous chassis (Gusty) back online, and
> I did some parallel reinstalls during the whole week-end and yesterday,
> and it seems only one compute card (out of 64) has really a problem, so
> that specific node/card is isolated now and I put that chassis back in
> action in the duffy pool (so nodes were reinstalled, and I see some were
> even deployed for some CI projects today already)
>
> More informations about the Pufty chassis when I'll have something to report
>

[update]That "Pufty" chassis is now back online, but under investigation.
We're "stress-testing" it during week-end to see if it's working as it
should (multiple reinstalls in parallels) and if that's ok, we'll add it
back in the CI nodes pool

Cheers,
--
Fabian Arrotin
The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org
gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab

_______________________________________________
Ci-users mailing list
Ci-users@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/ci-users