On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Brian Stinson <brian@bstinson.com> wrote:

On Aug 22 16:24, Nigel Babu wrote:
> These are things I'd love to see fixed:
>
> * Request nodes in specific chasis, for instance, if we're trying to test
> performance and want a continuous baseline.

I'm -0 (but I'm pretty easily convinced :) on this, specifically because
we may not have the 'chassis' abstraction to select on if/when the
seamicros go away.

Your performance differences were in AMD vs. Intel, correct?

Indeed. If we classify the machines into different types, and we can request the same types, that works too. I believe it was also a difference of RAM as well.

> * Given that Duffy v2 is going to be open source, is there going to be a
> tiny focus on someone who's not CentOS CI being able to deploy it? (I'm
> happy to be involved to do this)

If you're interested, we certainly won't say no! It would be good to
have another installation to keep us 'honest' (so to speak) in making
sure we follow good practices.

There are times when I wished we had a Duffy like API for our machines which would create and destroy on request. Except we'd have VMs and not physical machines.

nigelb