Ansible-ize ExecDB
ClosedPublic

Authored by jskladan on Mar 17 2015, 10:40 AM.

Details

Reviewers
tflink
Maniphest Tasks
T442: ansible-ize execdb
Summary

Initial attempt of the subject, created mostly by using ResultsDB as a guide.

Test Plan

Untested, I'm not really sure how could I test it, though

Diff Detail

Lint
Lint Skipped
Unit
Unit Tests Skipped
jskladan retitled this revision from to Ansible-ize ExecDB.Mar 17 2015, 10:40 AM
jskladan updated this object.
jskladan edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)
jskladan added a reviewer: tflink.
jskladan added a project: infrastructure.

overall, it looks pretty good to me but I'm wondering if we really want/need execdb to be its own host or if it'd be better to co-habitate the resultsdb VM. thoughts?

In D307#5537, @tflink wrote:

overall, it looks pretty good to me but I'm wondering if we really want/need execdb to be its own host or if it'd be better to co-habitate the resultsdb VM. thoughts?

Yep, I think it should not be a problem - not sure what would be better - whether resultsdb VM or the VM with Trigger, though. I do not think that it needs its separate VM.

In D307#5564, @jskladan wrote:
In D307#5537, @tflink wrote:

overall, it looks pretty good to me but I'm wondering if we really want/need execdb to be its own host or if it'd be better to co-habitate the resultsdb VM. thoughts?

Yep, I think it should not be a problem - not sure what would be better - whether resultsdb VM or the VM with Trigger, though. I do not think that it needs its separate VM.

Trigger is on the buildmaster VM, so I think that the resultsdb VM would be a better choice since there are fewer things running on it. Let's just put in on there for now - if it causes problems, we can extract to a separate VM later.

jskladan updated this revision to Diff 856.Mar 19 2015, 2:38 PM

in the spirit of @tflink's comment, I (hopefully) changed the configs, so execdb shares the machine with resultsdb

tflink requested changes to this revision.Mar 19 2015, 2:50 PM

overall, looks pretty good to me. I think it'd be better to add the execdb role to the existing resultsdb playbook/group instead of trying to control the same VM with multiple playbooks, though.

playbooks/groups/execdb-dev.yml
2 ↗(On Diff #856)

If execdb is residing on the resultsdb machine, it doesn't need a separate playbook - that can cause oddness when things are repeated. I think it'd be better to add the role on to the resultsdb playbook instead of creating another group

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Mar 19 2015, 2:50 PM
jskladan updated this revision to Diff 861.Mar 23 2015, 3:17 PM

Remove ExecDB playbook and make it a role in ResultsDB

jskladan updated this revision to Diff 862.Mar 23 2015, 3:31 PM
jskladan updated this revision to Diff 863.Mar 23 2015, 3:49 PM
tflink accepted this revision.Mar 23 2015, 3:52 PM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Mar 23 2015, 3:52 PM
jskladan closed this revision.Mar 24 2015, 8:32 AM