[Ci-users] Duffy v2: Please send RFEs!

On Aug 24 13:23, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Ci-users mailing list
> Ci-users at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/ci-users

Implementation is something to discuss when we get to actually planning
the development. There's an RFE tracked: 
https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=13708