Hi Helen and all,
One question for clarification, does "heat template" imply each component would
occupy one vm instead of one container? If the answer is no, do we have a
mature integration plan to put a group of components together into one vm
image?
Best Regards,
Yuan Yue
袁越 yuanyue
资深战略规划师 Senior Strategy Planner
技术规划部/技术规划部/系统产品 Technology Planning Dept./Technology Planning Dept./System
Product
南京市雨花区软件大道50号中兴通讯3号楼1/F,Building 3, ZTE Nanjing R&D Center II, No.50, Software
Avenue,YuHua District,Nanjing,P.R.China 210012
T: +025 88013478
M: +86 13851446442
E: yuan....@zte.com.cn
www.zte.com.cn
原始邮件
发件人： <helen.c...@huawei.com>
收件人： <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>
日 期 ：2017年09月19日 08:03
主 题 ：[onap-tsc] [tsc]Vote: ONAP Deployment Proposal for Amsterdam Release
Dear ONAP TSC Members,
We had several discussion sessions regarding “Heat template vs OOM” with PTLs,
a lot of emails follow ups in past 4+ weeks, and we also tested OOM and Heat
template in Integration lab in past two weeks. Here are our conclusions:
1. Heat template deployment is more mature than OOM with Kubernetes at
this moment
2. Most of the OpenECOMP projects have done integration test with Heat
template while Kubernetes based has not done any
3. PTLs / key developers feel less comfortable to “learn” a new tool at
this time
Based on above reasons, Integration team recommends to use Heat template as
ONAP platform deployment strategy in Amsterdam Release.
Please send your email vote for “whether you approve using Heat template as
ONAP platform deployment strategy in Amsterdam Release”, options are:
+1: approve
0: no opinion
-1: disapprove
Due: 9/20/2017, 6:00PM PDT.
Kenny, please help us collect the result. The result will impact our
integration testing priority and integration lab resource allocation priority.
Regards,
Helen Chen
_______________________________________________
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
