[Gluster-devel] POC- Distributed regression testing framework

[Xavi Hernandez]

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:57 AM Deepshikha Khandelwal <dkhandel at redhat.com>
wrote:

> Hello folks,
>
> Distributed-regression job[1] is now a part of Gluster's
> nightly-master build pipeline. The following are the issues we have
> resolved since we started working on this:
>
> 1) Collecting gluster logs from servers.
> 2) Tests failed due to infra-related issues have been fixed.
> 3) Time taken to run regression testing reduced to ~50-60 minutes.
>
> To get time down to 40 minutes needs your help!
>
> Currently, there is a test that is failing:
>
> tests/bugs/glusterd/optimized-basic-testcases-in-cluster.t
>
> This needs fixing first.
>
> There's a test that takes 14 minutes to complete -
> `tests/bugs/index/bug-1559004-EMLINK-handling.t`. A single test taking
> 14 minutes is not something we can distribute. Can we look at how we
> can speed this up[2]? When this test fails, it is re-attempted,
> further increasing the time. This happens in the regular
> centos7-regression job as well.
>

I made a change [1] to reduce the amount of time this tests needs. With
this change the test completes in about 90 seconds. It would need some
reviews from maintainers though.

Do you want I send a patch with this change alone ?

Xavi

[1]
https://review.gluster.org/#/c/glusterfs/+/19254/22/tests/bugs/index/bug-1559004-EMLINK-handling.t


>
> If you see any other issues, please file a bug[3].
>
> [1]: https://build.gluster.org/job/distributed-regression
> [2]: https://build.gluster.org/job/distributed-regression/264/console
> [3]:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=glusterfs&component=project-infrastructure
>
> Thanks,
> Deepshikha Khandelwal
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:02 AM Nigel Babu <nigelb at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 7:28 PM Amar Tumballi <atumball at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> There are currently a few known issues:
> >>> * Not collecting the entire logs (/var/log/glusterfs) from servers.
> >>
> >>
> >> If I look at the activities involved with regression failures, this can
> wait.
> >
> >
> > Well, we can't debug the current failures without having the logs. So
> this has to be fixed first.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> * A few tests fail due to infra-related issues like geo-rep tests.
> >>
> >>
> >> Please open bugs for this, so we can track them, and take it to closure.
> >
> >
> > These are failing due to infra reasons. Most likely subtle differences
> in the setup of these nodes vs our normal nodes. We'll only be able to
> debug them once we get the logs. I know the geo-rep ones are easy to fix.
> The playbook for setting up geo-rep correctly just didn't make it over to
> the playbook used for these images.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> * Takes ~80 minutes with 7 distributed servers (targetting 60 minutes)
> >>
> >>
> >> Time can change with more tests added, and also please plan to have
> number of server as 1 to n.
> >
> >
> > While the n is configurable, however it will be fixed to a single digit
> number for now. We will need to place *some* limitation somewhere or else
> we'll end up not being able to control our cloud bills.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> * We've only tested plain regressions. ASAN and Valgrind are currently
> untested.
> >>
> >>
> >> Great to have it running not 'per patch', but as nightly, or weekly to
> start with.
> >
> >
> > This is currently not targeted until we phase out current regressions.
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Before bringing it into production, we'll run this job nightly and
> >>> watch it for a month to debug the other failures.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I would say, bring it to production sooner, say 2 weeks, and also plan
> to have the current regression as is with a special command like 'run
> regression in-one-machine' in gerrit (or something similar) with voting
> rights, so we can fall back to this method if something is broken in
> parallel testing.
> >>
> >> I have seen that regardless of amount of time we put some scripts in
> testing, the day we move to production, some thing would be broken. So, let
> that happen earlier than later, so it would help next release branching
> out. Don't want to be stuck for branching due to infra failures.
> >
> >
> > Having two regression jobs that can vote is going to cause more
> confusion than it's worth. There are a couple of intermittent memory issues
> with the test script that we need to debug and fix before I'm comfortable
> in making this job a voting job. We've worked around these problems right
> now. It still pops up now and again. The fact that things break often is
> not an excuse to prevent avoidable failures.  The one month timeline was
> taken with all these factors into consideration. The 2-week timeline is a
> no-go at this point.
> >
> > When we are ready to make the switch, we won't be switching 100% of the
> job. We'll start with a sliding scale so that we can monitor failures and
> machine creation adequately.
> >
> > --
> > nigelb
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20181004/c982516a/attachment.html>