cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Will Stevens <>
Subject Re: Important Pending Items
Date Mon, 29 Feb 2016 21:51:31 GMT
@Paul and @Bharat, thank you for the quality write-ups on this topic.

re:Paul's Details:
I share a lot of your thoughts on this.  The hypervisor in hypervisor setup
with the ability to test multiple environments is also core to my
thinking.  I can't find any details on Trillian, other than what is in this
thread.  Is it open source and freely available?  This is being developed
at ShapeBlue?

re:Bharat's Details:
This seems like it is the most likely candidate for being able to offer
value in the short term.  Thank you for the work documenting it and making
the source available.  I still need to review the code.  This approach will
take quite a bit of work get setup initially, but once setup, it looks like
it will do the trick.  By using only freely available software makes it
more accessible than some options which have been suggested in the past.

My thoughts on the topic:
- I think it is important that the CI can test all the different
hypervisors and any hardware integrations available in the environment.
- Ideally the CI tool would be easily distributed and installed at multiple
sites.  Every company who depends on ACS will have their own configuration,
hardware and mission critical features.  If the CI can be distributed (as
independent installs), it will reduce the load on any specific site and it
will enable companies who have specific hardware in their direct path to
success the ability to validate their use case.
- I think a standardized CI output is also important.  Ideally the summary
of the CI run would be posted back to the PR thread.  I think it is also
important to push the detailed logs to a central location so others can
review them.  Ideally, links to the detailed logs would also be pushed to
the PR thread.
- I think there should be multiple tiers of testing.  Basic simulator
testing and full runs.  We may be able to setup simulator testing using a
Docker container.  I think @pdion891 has put some work into this that I may
be able to build on.
- I think it is probably too ambitious to do CI on every PR before merge,
but ideally we would  We may have to only CI the master branch for now and
revert any PR that causes it to fail.

I have been digging into this quite a bit today.  I will continue working
on this as it is very important to me for the 4.9 release.  I would like to
setup a CI environment locally as well to help validate and contribute to
the effort.  I have some hardware I can throw at this, so I will be working
to get something setup to start testing ASAP.

If I can work off either (or both) of your work, I would appreciate it.


Lead Developer

*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w *|* tw @CloudOps_

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Bharat Kumar <>

> Hi Paul,
> The goals and functionality of the CI on which we are working are the same
> (please review the FS<
> ), The difference being the method of implementation. We are not using
> nested virtualisation to create test environments. The work on CI began
> long back but unfortunately due to other priorities we could not work on a
> continuous basis and bring it to completion.
> I agree that we should come to a consensus on what the community wants
> from the CI. IMHO the basic and immediate requirement would be to have a
> stable system to test the PRs and post results. Once we have this, we can
> talk about providing test setups to the community and next steps. I think
> the availability of hardware has been a big hurdle (even if we use
> virtualisation).
> Instead of working independently on the same thing let us work on this
> together. I will share what we have currently, we can use it, or parts of
> it (some of it is there at
>, but it is not
> organised as in cannot be run out of the box). While virtualisation is good
> from the ease of orchestration and resource utilisation point of view, it
> has other problems like compatibility/dependencies issues. Also it might
> tie the CI to a particular Hypervisor like ESXi as you have pointed out.
> So let us discuss on how to proceed further, and get things rolling.
> Thanks,
> Bharat.
> On 11-Feb-2016, at 9:44 PM, Paul Angus <<mailto:
>>> wrote:
> Hi Bharat,
> Early last week I opened a discussion thread around the aims of Trillian
> which we had begun working on as a CI/CD platform for the community
> hardware (as well as individual use). Please could you elaborate on where
> there is/isn't cross-over? In terms of functionality and goals rather than
> method. It would be great to get community consensus around what we want
> from our centralised CI/CD.
> Project: Trillian
> We have been working on PoC of a CI environment design which will:
> * Provide fast build or rebuild of environments for testing.
> * Enable multiple independent concurrent builds
> * Be available on-demand through automation or individual request.
> * Be capable of fully utilising all available hardware
> * Flexible enough to be used to build super-realistic development
> environments.
> We intend to contribute and maintain our work within the Apache repos.
> However, we are currently building the POC, figuring out the requirements
> (and quirks) of the individual pieces, before pushing something concrete
> for to the community to review.
> We envision that Trillian would cater for a number of use cases:
> 1. CloudStack community integration testing of master against multiple
> deployment scenarios (using ASF infra)
> 2. CloudStack community integration testing of PRs against multiple
> deployment scenarios (using ASF infra)
> 3. Organisations/individuals running the full suites of tests available in
> Marvin against any physical environment they have.
> 4. Organisations/individuals deploying and running the full suites of
> tests available in Marvin against virtualised infrastructures which can be
> deployed by Marvin.
> As we intend Trillian to test multiple environments concurrently, we use
> nested virtualization on ESXi hosts (our testing has shown that this is the
> only hypervisor which can support the nested virtualisation of all other
> hypervisors with reasonable performance). We use Ansible to deploy and
> configure all aspects of the build as this will greatly lower the barrier
> to entry for independent testers.
> We use CloudStack to provision the management server and virtualised
> (nested) hosts on the physical hosts. We are creating Ansible playbooks and
> roles which can:
> 1. Create guest instances using Rene's Ansible 2.0 CloudStack modules - a
> Marvin VM, a Mgmt Server (CentOS or Ubuntu), any number of compute hosts
> (KVM, vSphere or XenServer. Hyper-V later)
> 2. Configure hosts (inc. installing the relevant CloudStack agent where
> required)
> 3. Install required ACS packages on management server
> 4. Configure a zone (including adding the compute hosts) via Marvin.
> 5. Run the required Marvin tests.
> 6. Return the results
> We may need to propose enhancements to Marvin in order to sync the
> configuration of hosts with the configuration used by Marvin.
> Using virtualised test environments, we can have multiple test scenarios
> running concurrently. To do this we have found that it is necessary to
> create pools or ranges of VLANs and IP addresses and allocate them to
> environments. So for any given physical environment which will be used for
> testing in, we take the total range(s) of IPs and VLANs available and carve
> them into non-overlapping chunks suitable for concurrent use as mgmt,
> public and guest networks. These are stored in a MariaDB database. When a
> range is being used in a testing environment, that range is marked as
> 'inuse' in the database. When creating a test environment, Trillian looks
> in the database for the next available VLAN range, the next available
> public IP range and so on. The returned values are used to populate a
> Marvin cfg file which in turn will be used to both build the environment
> and when running the Marvin testing. When the virtualised infra is cleaned
> up, the database will be updated to reflect that the used ranges are
> available again.
> This initiative has only recently been started, and as stated earlier we
> are currently figuring out the requirements (and quirks) of the individual
> pieces and looking for the most suitable wrapper to glue it all together.
> Also I have found that Marvin requires a little work to make the output
> more meaningful/readable (especially in the case of errors and exceptions)
> and to make it a little more intelligent about the tests it can/can't run
> based on the chosen infrastructure components. I have also found
> unreachable or very slow ISO and template paths hardcoded into Marvin or
> individual tests.
> We plan to enhance tests to address these issues and also reduce runtimes
> where possible.
> <>
> Paul Angus
> VP Technology   ,       ShapeBlue
> d:      +44 203 617 0528 | s: +44 203 603 0540<tel:+44%20203%20617%200528%20|%20s:%20+44%20203%20603%200540>
>    |      m:      +44 7711 418784<tel:+44%207711%20418784>
> e: | t: @cloudyangus<mailto:
>|%20t:%20@cloudyangus>      |      w:
> a:      53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK
> Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue
> Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under
> license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a
> company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape
> Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of
> South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is
> a registered trademark.
> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended
> solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or
> opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the
> intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based
> upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender
> if you believe you have received this email in error.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bharat Kumar []
> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 9:57 AM
> To:<>
> Subject: Re: Important Pending Items
> Hi Sebastien,
> As Raja said, we are actively working on it and we will share the code on
> github soon.
> Thanks,
> Bharat.
> > On 11-Feb-2016, at 2:41 PM, Raja Pullela <
> <>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sebastien,
> >
> > On item (3) - the BVTs have been running consistently (with same
> passrates) and haven't had the time to automate the process of reporting to
> an external site.
> > Bharat and Sanjeev are working on CI - running BVTs/Regression, working
> on getting it run automatically and consistently.
> > Hope to see it ready soon.
> >
> > Best,
> > Raja
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sebastien Goasguen []
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 2:29 PM
> > To:<>
> > Subject: Important Pending Items
> >
> > Morning folks,
> >
> > We have several crucial pending items, that we need to resolve before
> moving on:
> >
> > 1- We need an RM for master ( just saw some commits there that should be
> reverted or merged properly in other branches).
> >
> > 2- We need to automate writing release notes, pushing/tagging new docs
> when release come out and announcing releases on website. Currently neither
> 4.7 nor 4.8 have been announced.
> >
> > 3- CI is still almost inexistent
> >
> > -Sebastien
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services:
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<
>> | CSForge – rapid
> IaaS deployment framework<>
> CloudStack Consulting<> |
> CloudStack Software Engineering<
> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<
>> | CloudStack
> Bootcamp Training Courses<>

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message