[Backport 2024.1] test(large-partitions-1h): Introduce new short longevity with large partitions

[mergify]

This commit introducing new large partition longevity focusing on disruptive nemesis including network nemesis (by configuring it with 2 network interfaces). The main motivation for this longevity is to be used by scylla gocql driver as an extended CI using scylla-bench.

Testing

• [ ]

PR pre-checks (self review)

• I added the relevant backport labels
• I didn't leave commented-out/debugging code

Reminders

• Add New configuration option and document them (in sdcm/sct_config.py)
• Add unit tests to cover my changes (under unit-test/ folder)
• Update the Readme/doc folder relevant to this change (if needed)

(cherry picked from commit 72a67ce)

Parent PR: #9137

[mergify]

Cherry-pick of 72a67ce has failed:

On branch mergify/bp/branch-2024.1/pr-9137
Your branch is up to date with 'origin/branch-2024.1'.

You are currently cherry-picking commit 72a67ce96.
  (fix conflicts and run "git cherry-pick --continue")
  (use "git cherry-pick --skip" to skip this patch)
  (use "git cherry-pick --abort" to cancel the cherry-pick operation)

Changes to be committed:
	new file:   test-cases/longevity/longevity-large-partitions-with-network-nemesis-1h.yaml

Unmerged paths:
  (use "git add <file>..." to mark resolution)
	added by them:   jenkins-pipelines/longevity-large-partitions-with-network-nemesis-1h.jenkinsfile

To fix up this pull request, you can check it out locally. See documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally

[fruch]

@roydahan

this branch doesn't support the new networking setups, do we really need in this branch ?

[fruch]

@roydahan

this branch doesn't support the new networking setups, do we really need in this branch ?

@roydahan ? any reason you need this on this branch ?

[roydahan]

We wanted to have the CI job stable and use the same branch we use with the version we test (2024.1), but it's not a must if the conflicts are so big.

[fruch]

We wanted to have the CI job stable and use the same branch we use with the version we test (2024.1), but it's not a must if the conflicts are so big.

it's big change, I'll close this one.