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. > > > * 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/ci-users/attachments/20170823/2042e82b/attachment-0003.html>