On Aug 23 08:46, Nigel Babu wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Brian Stinson <brian at 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. For the Seamicros, we should be homogenous on RAM now (our less-dense chassis is now a test system). Tracking ticket: https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=13709 > > > > > > > * 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. Cool, what type of VMs are you looking at? For duffy we're targeting libvirt (temporarily), and openstack (longer term).