On Sat, 9 May 2015 12:05:04 -0600
Tim Flink <tflink(a)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?
...snip good description of pros and cons...
I think that infra would like to see us migrate to RHEL so that the
Taskotron systems are more like everything else that supports Fedora
but I don't think that they'd object to us running Fedora as long as
we accept responsibility for keeping everything working and actually
do it. If we do decide that we'd prefer to keep Fedora, we'll discuss
it with them but I wanted to start the discussion here before
bothering the infra folks with it.
Yeah, we run Fedora in places it makes sense to do so (builders are all
fedora for example), but they are some more work.
I suspect that our virthosts for Taskotron will be slightly
different
from infra's either way - we still need to figure out a shared
filesystem for the images (gluster is the first thing that comes to
mind but there are other options) and none of infra's virthosts have
that. They do use gluster for a few things, so I suspect that it'd be
less work to set that up on rhel than fedora.
gluster might be actually easier on fedora. RHEL ships all gluster but
the server in base repos, but the server is in some storage channel,
etc.
I'm happy to provide any info or support needed.
kevin