To RHEL or Not to RHEL?

[Tim Flink]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 17:34:24 -0600
Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 May 2015 17:16:09 -0600
> Tim Flink <tflink at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 11 May 2015 13:09:33 -0600
> > Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, 9 May 2015 12:05:04 -0600
> > > Tim Flink <tflink at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > This was brought up a little while ago and we decided to put off
> > > > the discussion a little bit but I'd like to re-start the
> > > > conversation before we get too much farther with disposable
> > > > clients.
> > > > 
> > > > My plan for how our hosts would be set up once we deploy support
> > > > for disposable clients is this:
> > > >   - virthosts would have N buildslave processes running on them
> > > >   - each buildslave would launch VMs for disposable clients as
> > > > needed
> > > >   - each virthost would have access to a shared filesystem used
> > > > to store at least VM images, maybe logs and other data
> > > 
> > > Thats each virthost, not all virthosts having the same storage
> > > right?
> > 
> > All of the virthosts (at least in each group of dev/stg/prod) would
> > have a chunk of shared storage used to store the canonical VM images
> > that we use to boot the disposable clients (the disk changes would
> > be done locally to the virthosts). This way we only have to build
> > them once instead of once per virthost.
> 
> Would it be feasable to just build them once and rsync them between
> hosts? Or would you prefer shared storage?

Honestly, that hadn't even occurred to me. I think it may end up
depending on how we kick off the image builds but that sounds much
easier and more reliable than a shared filesystem.

> > In the back of my head, I'm thinking that it may make sense to store
> > logs and artifacts on a chunk of shared storage instead of
> > transferring everything to the taskotron master using buildbot. I
> > figure that may make sense if the shared storage is already set up
> > but this hasn't gotten past the "thinking about it" stage yet :).
> 
> Yeah. We may be able to do a netapp nfs volume, we will have to see
> what all we can do once we move to our new c-mode filer. 

I think it may be a little while before we're ready to look at doing
something different for the logs and shared storage - still at step 1
"make it work" in this whole process but will keep it in mind.

Thanks,

Tim
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/qa-devel/attachments/20150513/3209cd91/attachment.sig>