Redesigning the autopkgtest controller/workers CI system for Ubuntu and Debian
mpitt at debian.org
Fri Mar 14 12:13:35 UTC 2014
thanks for your detailled response.
Antonio Terceiro [2014-03-14 6:26 -0300]:
> the current setup on ci.debian.net is the simplest setup that could
> possibly work, but debci was designed from the beginning to make scaling
> possible with small extensions.
Ah, that's great to hear!
> the codebase already supports:
> - multiple architectures (and multiple suites FWIW).
> The only bit missing here is in the UI, so I still need to figure out
> how to organize the information from multiple arch/suite pairs. Do I
> do it in a package-centric way? In a suite-centric way?
In my experience with D and U so far, most developers mostly care
about the development version packages. It's usually the release team
(i. e. different set of people) who care about tests in the stable
releases, mostly for stable release updates. Personally I'd organize
it by suite (at the top) → package → version → architecture as that's
the developer-centric view (which should be the most important one).
> But right now you can already drive test runs for multiple
> architectures from a single debci setup. e.g. you could for instance
> already run tests for any architecture supported by qemu user
> emulation -- although I didn't test that yet, nor think it's useful as
> a test scenario.
With "single debci setup" you mean a single server? Or a group of
servers where one acts as a controller and a set of workers (which
could have different architectures and/or adt-runners). I suppose
the former, but I'd like to confirm.
> - multiple backends, so it's now already possible to implement a new
> backend that will run the tests in other ways than just using
> adt-virt-schroot locally.
Right, I've seen that. That looks straightforward to extend to e. g.
using LXC etc., from a worker machine POV. As far as I can see, there
is no job distribution to a set of workers on different machines yet,
right? That's the part that I'd like to use AMQP for.
> > * A swift installation, providing sufficient storage space and
> > redundancy. We already have one for CI/QA in Ubuntu, and we'll need
> > to set up one for Debian (that's the only bit that actually
> > requires some thought and knowledge).
> How much space you expect this to require?
However much space we currently need to keep all the logs and all the
artifacts from all the runs at least for one given release, times the
number of replications. After a distro release we can probably delete
most of the logs and just keep the most recent one for each package.
So maybe 50 GB or so, with three replicas to provide redundancy
> Is something more complicated than a simple filesystem location
> really needed?
> I mean, that filesystem location could be backed up by any distributed
> FS, really, but do you really need the tools to care?
Network file systems have different semantics than local file systems,
so I think we do need to care. E. g. what we discussed about creating
unique file names and locking, that's something which is easy on a
single local fs and hard/impossible on a distributed FS.
Other than that, swift is "just" a distributed FS, but one which
avoids SPOF (single points of failures), unlike e.g. NFS. We are using
that as standard technology in Canonical. But if you don't like it for
Debian, it's fairly easy to provide support for both. After all, the
interface is rather small:
for the workers, and something like
for the web UI and britney (probably a little refined to also query
for arch, etc.)
> I think an architecture very similar to this could be implemented to this by
> extending debci:
Yes, I agree. Some notes:
> - add a new `remote` backend, which will implement test runs as
> - publish a message to and autopkgtest_* asking for a given package to
> be tested
Right, this will be some 10 lines of python to connect to an AMPQ and
issue a request.
Also, I wouldn't like only a debci setup to be able to issue requests.
We really want britney (both in Debian and Ubuntu) to issue requests,
and it also seems useful to have some command line admin tools for
"retrigger test for package foo", or "retrigger all packages", or
"retrigger all failed packages since yesterday" (e. g. if you fix a
bug which broke testing).
> - wait for the test to finish
As I wrote I'd like to implement this by checking the results in the
distributed FS, so that stateless clients like britney can do this at
any time, and be robust against temporary failures. If we'd send a
message back from the worker to the requestor, this could easily get
> - collect results (log file + adt-run exit status)
That would then come from the distributed FS.
> - add a remote worker daemon that would listen to the queue, run the
> tests against a local backend (schroot, or lxc/kvm when those are
> available) and send the results back in a results queue (log file +
> autopkgtest exit status)
Right. That's the toy PoC worker that I have in my +junk branch. With
AMQP doing all the real work, this is really just a bit of glue code
between AMQP, adt-run, and the distributed fs (swift in the PoC). I
must say it's delightfully simple, the whole worker has less code than
a single Jenkins job configuration XML :-)
> - make britney read from debci data API (which is the plan AFAICT for
> using the autopkgtest test results in Debian testing migration)
I suppose you mean the .json files? Yes, that would work. In fact, I
think we should write the workers so that they already spit out the
data format that we desire (i. e. json). Then all this would happen
completely asynchronous and not depend on a central debci instance to
collect, read and convert the data from the workers (remember, we are
trying to eliminate single points of failures).
So the "data API" would then just be "check the distributed FS", or
rather above mini-API like get_logs_for_package(package) which could
then be backed by swift or a simple local fs (if you like that better
> The only point that doesn't fit with your ideas is the fact that each
> debci run currently _waits_ for all package tests to finish. The reason
> for that is very prosaic: it's just to be able to generate the needed
> indexes (i.e. consolidated .json files in /data/$suite-$arch/) in a
> concurrency-free way (also the overall run is inside a critical section
> so you cannot have two concurrent debci runs for the same suite/arch
What is a "debci run"? A test run for a set of packages? Then this indeed
sounds like a SPOF again: we don't want to block the complete
machinery because a single test worker goes AWOL, or e. g. the workers
for a particular architecture are currently under maintenance.
Or do you mean "debci run" == some regular invocation of debci to
update the aggregated .json and web ui files for the latest runs?
That's presentation only and sounds fine, as it doesn't interfere
with, or is a blocker for britney and the workers.
I intend the whole machinery be 3 different parts which are completely
independent of each other: britney (or a CLI, or a button on some web
UI) trigger requests, AMPQ does the task distribution to worker nodes,
and the web UI is only for presenting the data (well, it could also
grow some "admin" functionality to re-trigger tests etc., but that
wouldn't be its main purpose). That makes it easy to test new web UI
versions locally or for the web UI to go down without breaking britney
and propagation of packages into the archive/testing. It also avoids
the presentation layer to be a SPOF (such as Jenkins currently is).
> Depending on the latency that you need, that may not even be a problem.
> For Debian, given that the archive updates updates 4 times a day, with
> enough workers running in parallel that would not be problem IMO. How
> often does the Ubuntu archive update?
It updates about two or three times per hour, so about 50 times a day.
But that only matters for the delay that you have between a package
upload and the package (and its binaries) appearing on the http
archive so that the tests can actually install them.
The test machinery shouldn't care. It should get triggered by britney
when new packages to be tested get built and are found to be
installable. So in Ubuntu we get a stream of package requests all the
time, while in Debian we get a big batch of test requests four times a
day; the overall worker load (i. e. how many we need per arch) should
be roughly the same though?
> > If you think it's helpful, we can also organize a Google Hangout and
> > talk face to face sometime soon?
> That would be nice I think. Late next week should work for me.
Great! Do you have a google account for hangout? (Fine to send me with
private mail, of course).
Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the autopkgtest-devel