7:54 a.m.
This patch is intended to start a slightly larger discussion about
our plans for the CentOS CI environment going forward.
At the moment, we have active builders for
CentOS 7
Debian 9
Debian 10
Fedora 30
Fedora 31
Fedora Rawhide
FreeBSD 11
FreeBSD 12
but we don't have builder for
Debian sid
FreeBSD -CURRENT
Ubuntu 16.04
Ubuntu 18.04
despite them being fully supported in the libvirt-jenkins-ci
repository.
This makes sense for sid and -CURRENT, since the former covers the
same "freshest Linux packages" angle that Rawhide already takes care
of and the latter is often broken and not trivial to keep updated;
both Ubuntu targets, however, should IMHO be part of the CentOS CI
environment. Hence this series :)
Moreover, we're in the process of adding
CentOS 8
openSUSE Leap 15.1
openSUSE Tumbleweed
as targets, of which the first two should also IMHO be added as they
would provide useful additional coverage.
The only reason why I'm even questioning whether this should be done
is capacity for the hypervisor host: the machine we're running all
builders on has
CPUs: 8
Memory: 32 GiB
Storage: 450 GiB
and each of the guests is configured to use
CPUs: 2
Memory: 2 GiB
Storage: 20 GiB
So while we're good, and actually have plenty of room to grow, on
the memory and storage front, we're already overcommitting our CPUs
pretty significantly, which I guess is at least part of the reason
why builds take so long.
Can we afford to add 50% more load on the machine without making it
unusable? I don't know. But I think it would be worthwhile to at
least try and see how it handles an additional 25%, which is exactly
what this series does.
In my opinion, as long as the machine can keep up with demand and not
end up in a situation where it starts accumulating backlog jobs, it's
fine if builds take longer: developers who want to run a relatively
quick smoke test before posting patches can use Travis CI or 'make
ci-check@...' locally for the purpose, whereas the role of CentOS CI
in my eyes is to try and catch as many issues as possible after merge
so that they don't end up in a release. But I realize others might
see it differently, hence this lenghty cover letter :)
Andrea Bolognani (1):
jenkins: Start building on Ubuntu
jenkins/jobs/defaults.yaml | 2 ++
jenkins/projects/libvirt-dbus.yaml | 1 +
jenkins/projects/libvirt-sandbox.yaml | 2 ++
jenkins/projects/libvirt-tck.yaml | 2 ++
jenkins/projects/libvirt.yaml | 2 ++
jenkins/projects/virt-manager.yaml | 2 ++
6 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
--
2.23.0
7:54 a.m.
New subject: [libvirt] [jenkins-ci PATCH 1/1] jenkins: Start building on Ubuntu
We've supported both Ubuntu 16.04 and Ubuntu 18.04 as build targets
for a long time now, and we are even building on the latter on
Travis CI, but we've never actually deployed the corresponding VMs
in the CentOS CI environment. Start doing that now.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna(a)redhat.com>
---
jenkins/jobs/defaults.yaml | 2 ++
jenkins/projects/libvirt-dbus.yaml | 1 +
jenkins/projects/libvirt-sandbox.yaml | 2 ++
jenkins/projects/libvirt-tck.yaml | 2 ++
jenkins/projects/libvirt.yaml | 2 ++
jenkins/projects/virt-manager.yaml | 2 ++
6 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/jenkins/jobs/defaults.yaml b/jenkins/jobs/defaults.yaml
index 676ecbf..18bbade 100644
--- a/jenkins/jobs/defaults.yaml
+++ b/jenkins/jobs/defaults.yaml
@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@
- libvirt-fedora-rawhide
- libvirt-freebsd-11
- libvirt-freebsd-12
+ - libvirt-ubuntu-1604
+ - libvirt-ubuntu-1804
rpm_machines:
- libvirt-centos-7
- libvirt-fedora-30
diff --git a/jenkins/projects/libvirt-dbus.yaml b/jenkins/projects/libvirt-dbus.yaml
index dfc159c..db9d64b 100644
--- a/jenkins/projects/libvirt-dbus.yaml
+++ b/jenkins/projects/libvirt-dbus.yaml
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
- libvirt-fedora-30
- libvirt-fedora-31
- libvirt-fedora-rawhide
+ - libvirt-ubuntu-1804
- meson-rpm-job:
parent_jobs: 'libvirt-dbus-check'
# RPM build is still not possible on CentOS7 as it does not
diff --git a/jenkins/projects/libvirt-sandbox.yaml
b/jenkins/projects/libvirt-sandbox.yaml
index 6a8acec..00ecb98 100644
--- a/jenkins/projects/libvirt-sandbox.yaml
+++ b/jenkins/projects/libvirt-sandbox.yaml
@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@
- libvirt-fedora-30
- libvirt-fedora-31
- libvirt-fedora-rawhide
+ - libvirt-ubuntu-1604
+ - libvirt-ubuntu-1804
title: Libvirt Sandbox
archive_format: gz
git_url: '{git_urls[libvirt-sandbox][default]}'
diff --git a/jenkins/projects/libvirt-tck.yaml b/jenkins/projects/libvirt-tck.yaml
index fcdea98..4e129ee 100644
--- a/jenkins/projects/libvirt-tck.yaml
+++ b/jenkins/projects/libvirt-tck.yaml
@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@
- libvirt-fedora-rawhide
- libvirt-freebsd-11
- libvirt-freebsd-12
+ - libvirt-ubuntu-1604
+ - libvirt-ubuntu-1804
title: Libvirt TCK
archive_format: gz
git_url: '{git_urls[libvirt-tck][default]}'
diff --git a/jenkins/projects/libvirt.yaml b/jenkins/projects/libvirt.yaml
index fdc24bc..9c5922f 100644
--- a/jenkins/projects/libvirt.yaml
+++ b/jenkins/projects/libvirt.yaml
@@ -19,6 +19,8 @@
- libvirt-fedora-30
- libvirt-fedora-31
- libvirt-fedora-rawhide
+ - libvirt-ubuntu-1604
+ - libvirt-ubuntu-1804
- autotools-check-job:
parent_jobs: 'libvirt-syntax-check'
local_env: |
diff --git a/jenkins/projects/virt-manager.yaml b/jenkins/projects/virt-manager.yaml
index 3dc8e2e..81bee13 100644
--- a/jenkins/projects/virt-manager.yaml
+++ b/jenkins/projects/virt-manager.yaml
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
- libvirt-fedora-rawhide
- libvirt-freebsd-11
- libvirt-freebsd-12
+ - libvirt-ubuntu-1804
title: Virtual Machine Manager
archive_format: gz
git_url: '{git_urls[virt-manager][default]}'
@@ -33,6 +34,7 @@
- libvirt-fedora-30
- libvirt-fedora-31
- libvirt-fedora-rawhide
+ - libvirt-ubuntu-1804
- python-distutils-rpm-job:
parent_jobs: 'virt-manager-check'
machines:
--
2.23.0
7:08 a.m.
New subject: [libvirt] [jenkins-ci PATCH 1/1] jenkins: Start building on Ubuntu
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 02:54:23PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
We've supported both Ubuntu 16.04 and Ubuntu 18.04 as build
targets
for a long time now, and we are even building on the latter on
Travis CI, but we've never actually deployed the corresponding VMs
in the CentOS CI environment. Start doing that now.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna(a)redhat.com>
---
jenkins/jobs/defaults.yaml | 2 ++
jenkins/projects/libvirt-dbus.yaml | 1 +
jenkins/projects/libvirt-sandbox.yaml | 2 ++
jenkins/projects/libvirt-tck.yaml | 2 ++
jenkins/projects/libvirt.yaml | 2 ++
jenkins/projects/virt-manager.yaml | 2 ++
6 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com>
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
8:54 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 02:54:22PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
This patch is intended to start a slightly larger discussion about
our plans for the CentOS CI environment going forward.
At the moment, we have active builders for
CentOS 7
Debian 9
Debian 10
Fedora 30
Fedora 31
Fedora Rawhide
FreeBSD 11
FreeBSD 12
but we don't have builder for
Debian sid
FreeBSD -CURRENT
Ubuntu 16.04
Ubuntu 18.04
despite them being fully supported in the libvirt-jenkins-ci
repository.
This makes sense for sid and -CURRENT, since the former covers the
same "freshest Linux packages" angle that Rawhide already takes care
of and the latter is often broken and not trivial to keep updated;
both Ubuntu targets, however, should IMHO be part of the CentOS CI
environment. Hence this series :)
Moreover, we're in the process of adding
CentOS 8
openSUSE Leap 15.1
openSUSE Tumbleweed
as targets, of which the first two should also IMHO be added as they
would provide useful additional coverage.
The only reason why I'm even questioning whether this should be done
is capacity for the hypervisor host: the machine we're running all
builders on has
CPUs: 8
Memory: 32 GiB
Storage: 450 GiB
and each of the guests is configured to use
CPUs: 2
Memory: 2 GiB
Storage: 20 GiB
So while we're good, and actually have plenty of room to grow, on
the memory and storage front, we're already overcommitting our CPUs
pretty significantly, which I guess is at least part of the reason
why builds take so long.
NB the memory that's free is not really free - it is being usefull
as I/O cache for the VM disks. So more VMs will reduce I/O cache.
Whether that will actually impact us I don't know though.
More importantly though, AFAICT, those are not 8 real CPUs.
virsh nodeinfo reports 8 cores, but virsh capabilities
reports it as a 1 socket, 4 core, 2 thread CPU.
IOW we haven't really got 8 CPUs, more like equivalent of 5 CPUs.
as HT only really gives a x1.3 boost in best case, and I suspect
builds are not likely to be hitting the best case.
Can we afford to add 50% more load on the machine without making it
unusable? I don't know. But I think it would be worthwhile to at
least try and see how it handles an additional 25%, which is exactly
what this series does.
Giving it a try is ok I guess.
I expect there's probably more we can do to optimize the setup
too.
For example, what actual features of qcow2 are we using ? We're
not snapshotting VMs, we don't need grow-on-demand allocation.
AFACT we're paying the performance cost of qcow2 (l1/l2 table
lookups & metadata caching), for no reason. Switch the VMs to
fully pre-allocated raw files may improve I/O performance.
Raw LVM VGs would be even better but that will be painful
to setup given the host install setup.
I also wonder if we have the optimal aio setting for disks,
as there's nothing in the XML.
We could consider using cache=unsafe for VMs, though for
that I think we'd want to separate off a separate disk
for /home/jenkins so that if there was a host OS crash,
we wouldn't have to rebuild the entire VMs - just throw
away the data disk & recreate.
Since we've got plenty of RAM, another obvious thing would be
to turn on huge pages and use them for all guest RAM. This may
well have a very significant performance boost from reducing
CPU overhead which is our biggest bottleneck.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
9:18 a.m.
On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 14:54 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 02:54:22PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> The only reason why I'm even questioning whether this should be done
> is capacity for the hypervisor host: the machine we're running all
> builders on has
>
> CPUs: 8
> Memory: 32 GiB
> Storage: 450 GiB
>
> and each of the guests is configured to use
>
> CPUs: 2
> Memory: 2 GiB
> Storage: 20 GiB
>
> So while we're good, and actually have plenty of room to grow, on
> the memory and storage front, we're already overcommitting our CPUs
> pretty significantly, which I guess is at least part of the reason
> why builds take so long.
NB the memory that's free is not really free - it is being usefull
as I/O cache for the VM disks. So more VMs will reduce I/O cache.
Whether that will actually impact us I don't know though.
Oh yeah, I'm aware of that. But like you, I'm unsure about the exact
impact that makes.
We could arguably reduce the amount of memory assigned to guests to
1 GiB: building libvirt and friends is not exactly memory-intensive,
and we could potentially benefit from the additionaly I/O cache or
lessen the blow caused by adding more VMs.
More importantly though, AFAICT, those are not 8 real CPUs.
virsh nodeinfo reports 8 cores, but virsh capabilities
reports it as a 1 socket, 4 core, 2 thread CPU.
IOW we haven't really got 8 CPUs, more like equivalent of 5 CPUs.
as HT only really gives a x1.3 boost in best case, and I suspect
builds are not likely to be hitting the best case.
That's also true.
> Can we afford to add 50% more load on the machine without making
it
> unusable? I don't know. But I think it would be worthwhile to at
> least try and see how it handles an additional 25%, which is exactly
> what this series does.
Giving it a try is ok I guess.
Can I have an R-b then? O:-)
I expect there's probably more we can do to optimize the setup
too.
For example, what actual features of qcow2 are we using ? We're
not snapshotting VMs, we don't need grow-on-demand allocation.
AFACT we're paying the performance cost of qcow2 (l1/l2 table
lookups & metadata caching), for no reason. Switch the VMs to
fully pre-allocated raw files may improve I/O performance.
Raw LVM VGs would be even better but that will be painful
to setup given the host install setup.
I also wonder if we have the optimal aio setting for disks,
as there's nothing in the XML.
We could consider using cache=unsafe for VMs, though for
that I think we'd want to separate off a separate disk
for /home/jenkins so that if there was a host OS crash,
we wouldn't have to rebuild the entire VMs - just throw
away the data disk & recreate.
The home directory for the jenkins user contains some configuration
as well, so you'd have to run 'lcitool update' anyway after attaching
the new disk... At that point, it might be less work overall to just
rebuild the entire VM from scratch. We have only seen a couple of
unexpected host shutdowns so far, and all were caused by hardware
issues that resulted in a multi-day downtime anyway, so the overhead
of reinstalling the various guest OS' would not be the dealbreaker.
Since we've got plenty of RAM, another obvious thing would be
to turn on huge pages and use them for all guest RAM. This may
well have a very significant performance boost from reducing
CPU overhead which is our biggest bottleneck.
Yeah, all of the above sounds like it could help, but I'm not really
well versed on the performance tuning front so I wouldn't know where
to start and even how to properly measure the impact of each change.
We also have to keep in mind that, while the CentOS CI environment
is the main consumer of the repository, we want it to be possible for
any developer to deploy builders locally relatively painlessly, so
things like hugepages and LVM usage would definitely have to be
optional if we introduced them.
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
1842
days inactive
1843
days old
4 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Andrea Bolognani -
Daniel P. Berrangé