codehaus


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[tripleo][ci] container pulls failing


On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 9:20 AM Alex Schultz <aschultz at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:13 AM Emilien Macchi <emilien at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:27 PM Wesley Hayutin <whayutin at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> FYI...
> >>
> >> If you find your jobs are failing with an error similar to [1], you
> have been rate limited by docker.io via the upstream mirror system and
> have hit [2].  I've been discussing the issue w/ upstream infra, rdo-infra
> and a few CI engineers.
> >>
> >> There are a few ways to mitigate the issue however I don't see any of
> the options being completed very quickly so I'm asking for your patience
> while this issue is socialized and resolved.
> >>
> >> For full transparency we're considering the following options.
> >>
> >> 1. move off of docker.io to quay.io
> >
> >
> > quay.io also has API rate limit:
> > https://docs.quay.io/issues/429.html
> >
> > Now I'm not sure about how many requests per seconds one can do vs the
> other but this would need to be checked with the quay team before changing
> anything.
> > Also quay.io had its big downtimes as well, SLA needs to be considered.
> >
> >> 2. local container builds for each job in master, possibly ussuri
> >
> >
> > Not convinced.
> > You can look at CI logs:
> > - pulling / updating / pushing container images from docker.io to local
> registry takes ~10 min on standalone (OVH)
> > - building containers from scratch with updated repos and pushing them
> to local registry takes ~29 min on standalone (OVH).
> >
> >>
> >> 3. parent child jobs upstream where rpms and containers will be build
> and host artifacts for the child jobs
> >
> >
> > Yes, we need to investigate that.
> >
> >>
> >> 4. remove some portion of the upstream jobs to lower the impact we have
> on 3rd party infrastructure.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand this one, maybe you can give an example of
> what could be removed?
>
> We need to re-evaulate our use of scenarios (e.g. we have two
> scenario010's both are non-voting).  There's a reason we historically
> didn't want to add more jobs because of these types of resource
> constraints.  I think we've added new jobs recently and likely need to
> reduce what we run. Additionally we might want to look into reducing
> what we run on stable branches as well.
>

Oh... removing jobs (I thought we would remove some steps of the jobs).
Yes big +1, this should be a continuous goal when working on CI, and always
evaluating what we need vs what we run now.

We should look at:
1) services deployed in scenarios that aren't worth testing (e.g.
deprecated or unused things) (and deprecate the unused things)
2) jobs themselves (I don't have any example beside scenario010 but I'm
sure there are more).
-- 
Emilien Macchi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20200728/bf43f6b5/attachment.html>