[Ci-users] AltArch support in CI (status update)

On 25/07/17 17:45, Brian Stinson wrote:
> On Jul 14 16:25, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
<snip>
> 
> 
> A couple of us spoke about this the other day and decided that we would
> take the following approach to sizing VMs on altarch hardware: 
> 
> Our Openstack instance, CICO Cloud, has the following VM sizes
> available:
> 
>  Name   |  RAM | Disk | Ephemeral | VCPUs |
> --------+------+------+-----------+-------+
>  tiny   | 1940 |   10 | 0         |     1 |
>  small  | 3875 |   20 | 0         |     2 |
>  medium | 7750 |   40 | 0         |     4 |
> --------+------+------+-----------+-------+
> 
> We will duplicate the same sizes for Libvirt VMs on altarch hardware,
> but in order to take advantage of the incredible memory density on
> these machines, we'll be adding a few flavors for libvirt nodes -only-:
> 
>  Name         |  RAM  | Disk | Ephemeral | VCPUs |
> --------------+-------+------+-----------+-------+
>  lram.tiny    | 11444 |   10 | 0         |     4 |
>  lram.small   | 15258 |   20 | 0         |     8 |
>  xram.tiny    | 22888 |   10 | 0         |     4 |
>  xram.small   | 38750 |   20 | 0         |     8 |
>  xram.medium  | 77500 |   40 | 0         |    16 |
> --------------+-------+------+-----------+-------+
> 
> The aarch64 kit will allow: tiny,small,medium,lram.tiny,lram.small
> The ppc64le kit will allow: all that you see above
> 
> What I'd like from you all is comments about the {l,x}ram sizing. We
> have enough capacity to host quite a few of these VMs. Since this is
> easy to change and we haven't opened this up to users yet, I'll continue
> working on the provisioning side with this scheme in mind.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> --
> Brian 
> 

Well, I don't see why we should go "insane" with the xram.* flavors.
Actually in CI we only serve bare-metal nodes (as while it was mentioned
multiple times that there is CI cloud, CI users aren't able -yet- to
consume those instances, but that's another story) and forr bare-metal,
depending on which nodes/chassis they get back, it's either 16Gb or
32Gb. so my point is that we shouldn't go higher than that, at least for
the beginning.

I don't know when (for example) RDO will be able to test a deployment in
CI, but for sure they'll probably have other needs than vcpus/memory, as
they'll have a need for storage (and bigger than 40Gb ?)

-- 
Fabian Arrotin
The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/ci-users/attachments/20170726/6697500c/attachment-0001.sig>