[Ci-users] Duffy v2: Please send RFEs!
Karanbir Singh
mail-lists at karan.orgThu Aug 24 12:23:21 UTC 2017
- Previous message: [Ci-users] Duffy v2: Please send RFEs!
- Next message: [Ci-users] Duffy v2: Please send RFEs!
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 23/08/17 23:51, Murilo Opsfelder Araújo wrote: > On 08/22/2017 06:26 AM, Niels de Vos wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 09:55:46PM -0500, Brian Stinson wrote: >>> Hi Folks, >>> >>> You're likely familiar with our node provisioner Duffy >>> (https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/CI/Duffy). >>> >>> In order to support new features, and encourage interested folks to >>> participate in development with us, we are gathering requirements to get >>> started soon on Duffy Version 2. Duffy2 will be developed with an OSS >>> license, and posted in a public repository. >>> >>> Some of you have pending RFEs that we'll deal with during development: >>> - Support Fedora Images (https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=13626) >>> - Support for cloud VMs in cloud.ci.centos.org >>> - Support for VLAN Isolation on the Seamicro hardware >>> - Support for extending an existing session >>> (https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=9773) >>> >>> If you have a feature request for us to track let's talk about it here. >> >> It would be helpful to have an option for keeping extras disks (or a >> partition) available for free-to-use storage. This can help testing >> features in Gluster (and probably Ceph) that require a block device. We >> currently work around that with disk-images/losetup kind of approaches, >> but it is definitely not how actual deployments are expected to be done. >> >> Thanks, >> Niels > This feature would also be handy to test partition programs, e.g., > blivet and friends. > > Allowing user to specify disk features, for example, block size (512 vs. > 4096 bytes) and capacity (1G vs. 10G) would also be nice to have. > ofcourse, with a little bit of gymnastics, you can already do this today :) what would be good to see described, and maybe something for Brian, is to get the workflow documented for something like this. How I am seeing this now is that its a case of a custom ks used at deploy time, which in turn is from a different call ( eg. not a /node/get ), and comes with a latency question ( ~ 5 min to 10 min ). What needs working out is how the session management is then done. maybe something like this : - session is allocated at the time a call is made ( with no hosts attached ) - machine(s0 are provisioned - session is populated at the duffy end, with the client ( user / cico_client etc ) needing to poll for details, say every 60 seconds. does that sound about right ? -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
- Previous message: [Ci-users] Duffy v2: Please send RFEs!
- Next message: [Ci-users] Duffy v2: Please send RFEs!
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CI-users mailing list