-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 105
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
integrate netobserv to reliability tests #798
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: memodi The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/cc @qiliRedHat |
Co-authored-by: Qiujie Li <81630527+qiliRedHat@users.noreply.github.com>
I can add lgtm after openshift-qe/ocp-qe-perfscale-ci#659 is merged and integration test is done |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@qiliRedHat do you want this to be separate config? I was thinking to have these tasks under standard reliability tasks and we'd have these checks run always.
Of course that also means we'd have to change netobserv operator would be installed by default for all reliability
runs and optionally exclude it, current implementation in start.sh is inverse, wdyt? this would be the initial idea had discuss so that netobserv could piggyback off your standard reliability runs.
If we have netobserv install by default, we'd need to up standard instance types or somehow have configuration that would accommodate Loki resource requirements, couple of questions here:
- Do you typically have infra nodes set up for reliability runs? if so, what are instance types of infra nodes? I can look if you can bring up that environment and I can see if Loki is able to fit on infra nodes.
- would you be willing to up the reliability run instance types to m5.2xlarge or m5.4xlarge?
Thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@memodi Reliability test has many test profiles, consider of the cost, I don't want to have noo on all profiles by default. Usually there is no infra nodes in reliability test. But reliability has the option to configure it with -i in start.sh, default size should be same as the worker, size can be configured.
If test it once (7 days) a release, I think we can do m5.2xlarge on one of the profiles.
/unhold |
rc_return = 1 | ||
elif rc == 1 and result == "": | ||
self.logger.info(f"Flowcollector is Ready.") | ||
rc_return = 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@memodi You can add an 'else' to cover the rest of the cases: rc == 1 and result != "", or rc !=1. And log the result to see what you can get.
rc_return = 1 | ||
elif rc == 1 and result == "": | ||
self.logger.info(f"Pods in ns ${ns} are healthy.") | ||
rc_return = 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same comment as above.
NETOBSERV-1874 integrate netobserv to reliability tests
dependent on openshift-qe/ocp-qe-perfscale-ci#659
Additionally, it adds new improvements and fixes some bugs: