Hi Yardstick team,
Sorry I was late for today's working meeting.
Yujun send an email to answer Yardstick's questions about this integration[1].
Maybe some committers and contributors missed this email.
Hope we can reach a final decision in the end of this week.
Thanks!
[1]
https://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2017-January/014714.html
吴之惠 wuzhihui
虚拟化开发七部/无线研究院/无线产品经营部 NIV Development Dept. VII/Wireless Product R＆D
Institute/Wireless Product Operation
上海市浦东新区碧波路889号/上研D座2楼
R&D Building, Bibo Road 889, Zhangjiang Hi-tech Park,
New Pudong District, Shanghai, P..R.China, 518057
T: +86 021 68896831
M: +86 18121012137
E: [email protected]
www.zte.com.cn
原始邮件
发件人： ＜[email protected]＞
收件人： ＜[email protected]＞吴之惠00098564 ＜[email protected]＞
日 期 ：2017年02月06日 22:26
主 题 ：Re: [qtip][yardstick] Q&A on integration
Great, thanks! As I mentioned before, @Zhihui will be the representative for
QTIP on this topic.
I'm sorry for the absence of tomorrow's meeting, dealing with some personal
emergency, and will be out of office next week also. I have expressed most of
my points in mailing list and will continue following the discussion.
During my absence, @Zhihui will make final decision for QTIP project. Hope we
can arrive at a consensus soon.
In case it can not be decided in tomorrow's meeting, we may probably have to
postpone the discussion to Beijing Summit and target it in next release. Thank
you for understanding.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:55 AM Gaoliang (kubi) ＜[email protected]＞
wrote:
Hi Yujun，
Sure, I added the topic into this week meeting agenda[1](US time slot with
GTM), hope we will have a great discussion at the meeting.
[1] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/yardstick/Meetings
Regards,
Kubi
From: Yujun Zhang [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 05,
2017 10:06 AM To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV Gaoliang (kubi) Subject: Re:
[qtip][yardstick] Q&A on integration
Dear yardsticker,
As suggested in last yardstick meeting[1], I've updated the QTIP architecture
to introduce an even more simpler plugin mode[2]. We may discuss it in next
Yardstick meeting.
Do you think it will be OK? @Kubi
The discussion has been lasting for months IIRC. We really need to make
decision ASAP otherwise we are unlikely to catch up with Danube release.
[1]:
http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-yardstick/2017/opnfv-yardstick.2017-01-24-00.30.log.html
[2]:
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/qtip/Architecture#Architecture-PluginMode(Melody)
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:47 AM Yujun Zhang ＜[email protected]＞ wrote:
Dear all
I reviewed the meeting log[1] and it seems we have several questions to
clarify. Feel free to comment.
1. how to integrate
option 1: as a server like original proposal[2]
option 2: as a module
Both are OK to me, if it is YardStick's team to decide to integrate as a
module, we need to revise the proposal and QTIP will provide full support on it
as well.
2. testing vs benchmarking
For sure benchmarking requires testing data. Benchmarking is one method/purpose
of performance testing. Besides that, we may also use testing data for
verification or validation. You may also use benchmarking result for
verification or validation.
3. benchmarking in YardStick or testing in QTIP
This is not a battle between two projects. We chase different targets and have
common methodology.
QTIP may consume testing data from YardStick but not all of them and not only
from YardStick.
YardStick may use QTIP as benchmarking module or implement its own module. It's
up to YardStick team's decision and I'm fine with either way.
[1]:
http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-yardstick/2017/opnfv-yardstick.2017-01-24-00.30.log.html
[2]: https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/yardstick/Yardstick-Qtip+integration
--
Yujun Zhang
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
