Let's discuss this in tomorrow's OFP meeting - along with the topics for the developer design forum (DDF).
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Anil Vishnoi <[email protected]> wrote: > +1, i think goal is clear, time to move toward the execution. > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Luis Gomez <[email protected]> wrote: > >> There are at least 3 areas Li plugin performs better than He plugin: >> >> - Flow bulk operations >> - Statistics collection >> - OF messages ordering >> >> For these reasons I think it is good to move to Li plugin but not before >> we fix some of the stability and cluster issues it has. >> >> BR/Luis >> >> On Feb 19, 2016, at 5:16 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Ashutosh, >> >> About your question: >> >> >> Is it possible to validate Li-plugin (performs equal-to-or-better than >> He-plugin) before asking the projects to migrate? >> >> There were comparisons sent out earlier showing the performance was >> better or equal than the Helium design in most areas. >> >> Thanks, >> Abhijit >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Ashutosh Bisht < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Abhijit >>> >>> We had tested Li-plugin earlier.. We also ran into stability issues >>> >>> *Bug 4925* <https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4925>* -* >>> [Clustering]: >>> Openflow connections unstable with Lithium plugin. >>> >>> >>> >>> We limited our testing on Li-plugin since it was decided to use >>> He-plugin for Be release. >>> >>> Is it possible to validate Li-plugin (performs equal-to-or-better than >>> He-plugin) before asking the projects to migrate? >>> >>> >>> >>> With regards >>> >>> Ashutosh >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Luis >>> Gomez >>> *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 1:15 PM >>> *To:* Abhijit Kumbhare >>> *Cc:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [openflowplugin-dev] OFP-Li and OFP-He in Beryllium SRs >>> >>> >>> >>> Personally I think it is less risky changing master and if that works, >>> cherry pick change to stable/beryllium. >>> >>> >>> >>> BR/Luis >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 6:48 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes - agree. But the work to add the support for the Lithium design can >>> start from the projects side in parallel. We should also explore creative >>> ways to see how we can make this easier on the projects: >>> >>> >>> >>> Since Beryllium has just been released & now the development of most >>> projects will shift to the master branch may be we should change the >>> default features to be Li version in stable/beryllium and ask projects to >>> see what breaks? Does that make sense? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Luis Gomez <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi ofp devs, >>> >>> >>> >>> I agree with the plan to move projects to Li design, however I think >>> before asking projects to effectively move we have to address few issues >>> here: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1) OF1.0 issue: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/openflowplugin/job/openflowplugin-csit-1node-flow-services-lithium-redesign-only-beryllium/ >>> >>> https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5328 >>> >>> >>> >>> 2) Cluster issues: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/openflowplugin/job/openflowplugin-csit-3node-clustering-only-beryllium/ >>> >>> https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5388 >>> >>> >>> >>> 3) Stability issues: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/openflowplugin/job/openflowplugin-csit-1node-periodic-longevity-lithium-redesign-only-beryllium/ >>> >>> https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5271 >>> >>> >>> >>> BR/Luis >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 12:42 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hideyuki, >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for bringing this topic up! I was planning to initiate a >>> conversation on this later today - since the Beryllium release was >>> officially approved today. First of all - I think we should dedicate a TWS >>> session for this topic regarding the following discussion and feedback: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. OpenFlow plugin project voted to do the following: >>> >>> OF Plugin recommends dependent ODL projects to all move to Li plugin >>> design in the Be SR 1 timeframe ( >>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/openflowplugin-dev/2016-February/004607.html >>> ) >>> >>> 2. What do projects see as issues & impediments to move to the Lithium >>> design in the SRs (target SR 1) and how the OpenFlow plugin project can >>> address them? Example of the issues - your request regarding the stats >>> RPCs. >>> >>> 3. Develop a timeframe for completing this migration based on the >>> issues/impediments. >>> >>> I would like to note that the key requirement from OpenFlow plugin >>> perspective is that the Boron development should not be done on two >>> different designs. The timeframe should be based on this requirement. Hence >>> OFP thinks it will be important to do this change in the SR1 (or SR2 if >>> cannot be managed). This way OFP developers can concentrate on the Lithium >>> design during the Boron release timeframe (other than occasional high >>> priority bug fixes on Helium design in the subsequent SRs). However, we >>> (OFP & dependent projects) will need to work together for this timeframe. >>> >>> >>> >>> I will try to get this topic on the TWS call on Monday (assuming we can >>> get the following folks from OFP on Monday (alphabetical order) - Anil >>> Vishnoi, Jozef Bazigal, Kamal Rameshan, Michal Rehak & hopefully >>> Muthu/Shuva & Luis. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think the above answers all of your questions except one: >>> >>> Do you plan to continuously support the OFP-He of Beryllium until >>> OpenDaylight project stops to support Beryllium? >>> >>> The answer to that is - yes. OpenFlow Plugin has to support OFP-He in >>> Beryllium - as per ODL release / deprecation requirements. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Abhijit >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Tai, Hideyuki <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi OpenFlow Plugin project, >>> >>> Could you share your plan about the migration to the OFP-Li in Beryllium >>> SRs? >>> Should all projects migrate to the OFP-Li by Beryllium SR1? >>> Do you plan to continuously support the OFP-He of Beryllium until >>> OpenDaylight project stops to support Beryllium? >>> (In my understanding, OpenDaylight project officially stops to support >>> Beryllium (4th) after it releases Carbon (6th).) >>> >>> If we need to migrate to the OFP-Li by Beryllium SR1, I would like to >>> start to test VTN project's features with the OFP-Li as soon as possible. >>> Though, to migrate the VTN features from OFP-He to OFP-Li, we need the >>> "get-stats-.." RPC by default in the OFP-Li as I explained in the following >>> mail. >>> >>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/vtn-dev/2016-February/001278.html >>> >>> Regards, >>> Hideyuki Tai >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openflowplugin-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openflowplugin-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openflowplugin-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev >> >> > > > -- > Thanks > Anil >
_______________________________________________ openflowplugin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev
