| -@gerrit:opendev.org- James E. Blair https://matrix.to/#/@jim:acmegating.com proposed: [zuul/zuul] 905278: Remove unused variable in job graph https://review.opendev.org/c/zuul/zuul/+/905278 | 00:11 | |
| @mhuin:matrix.org | Hello, are Zuul & Nodepool expected to support running jobs on nodes from different providers? For example a job requiring a label defined on providerA and also another label defined on providerB | 09:44 |
|---|---|---|
| @mhuin:matrix.org | I am asking because one such job we have is hitting a NODE FAILURE, but there's no such error in nodepool launcher's log (usually we'd see something along the lines of "Launch attempt X/X failed ...") | 09:46 |
| @mhuin:matrix.org | the only peculiarity of the job is that it requires labels on two different providers | 09:46 |
| -@gerrit:opendev.org- Simon Westphahl proposed: [zuul/zuul] 905304: Only consider branches protected when name matches https://review.opendev.org/c/zuul/zuul/+/905304 | 13:06 | |
| @fungicide:matrix.org | > <@mhuin:matrix.org> Hello, are Zuul & Nodepool expected to support running jobs on nodes from different providers? For example a job requiring a label defined on providerA and also another label defined on providerB | 14:21 |
| for now, a node request must be satisfied in its entirety by a single provider. the original design relied on that as a means of trying to guarantee proximity and connectivity between all nodes in the group used by the job. i gather that part of the design may change with https://zuul-ci.org/docs/zuul/latest/developer/specs/nodepool-in-zuul.html#node-management | ||
| @fungicide:matrix.org | "Fulfilling node requests from multiple providers: by designing zuul-launcher for cooperative work, we can have nodesets that request nodes which are fulfilled by different providers. Generally we should favor the same provider for a set of nodes (since they may need to communicate over a LAN), but if that is not feasible, allowing multiple providers to fulfill a request will permit nodesets with diverse node types (e.g., VM + static, or VM + container)." | 14:22 |
| @mhuin:matrix.org | good to know, thanks @fungi - we could also add an explicit but optional "provider" parameter when listing labels in a nodeset definition in Zuul, so that it confirms the end user knows what they're doing and giving a hint to nodepool about where to spawn the node | 14:23 |
| @fungicide:matrix.org | pretty sure that's part of the spec too, but i'd have to go back through it to confirm | 14:24 |
| -@gerrit:opendev.org- Simon Westphahl proposed: [zuul/zuul] 905304: Only consider branches protected when name matches https://review.opendev.org/c/zuul/zuul/+/905304 | 15:44 | |
| -@gerrit:opendev.org- Simon Westphahl proposed: [zuul/zuul] 905304: Only consider branches protected when name matches https://review.opendev.org/c/zuul/zuul/+/905304 | 15:48 | |
| -@gerrit:opendev.org- James E. Blair https://matrix.to/#/@jim:acmegating.com proposed: [zuul/zuul] 905275: Optimize db prune query https://review.opendev.org/c/zuul/zuul/+/905275 | 17:48 | |
| -@gerrit:opendev.org- James E. Blair https://matrix.to/#/@jim:acmegating.com proposed: [zuul/zuul] 905349: Avoid joining the provides table in the builds query https://review.opendev.org/c/zuul/zuul/+/905349 | 18:44 | |
| -@gerrit:opendev.org- James E. Blair https://matrix.to/#/@jim:acmegating.com proposed: [zuul/zuul] 905359: Use a DummyFrozenJob in build cleanup https://review.opendev.org/c/zuul/zuul/+/905359 | 21:51 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!