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