[+Trevor to get vsperf point of view] Mark,
Adding ARM artifacts is probably not that much work for python apps, for C/C++ apps that use DPDK it can be a lot more work. I just checked with the Trex team and as I suspected Trex is not available on ARM today. Somebody will have to try it out on an ARM server - meaning, it will take some work to compile Trex, link to DPDK and test it thoroughly to be on par with its x86 version – and a whole lot more people will have to maintain one more arch. The port might work right away or it might be pretty messy. I wonder if Trevor has a plan for TRex on ARM… From what I can see, to run data plane performance test with TRex on ARM pod will require an x86 server until Trex is validated on ARM. Thanks Alec From: "Beierl, Mark" <mark.bei...@dell.com> Date: Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 6:21 AM To: "Alec Hothan (ahothan)" <ahot...@cisco.com> Cc: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>, "HU, BIN" <bh5...@att.com>, Raymond Paik <rp...@linuxfoundation.org> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Topics for Weekly Technical Discussion Alec, It is completely up to you how you want to structure your project and your deliverables. If you don't want the extra hassle of supporting ARM, then don't. As for my project and the other ones that happen to support ARM, we will continue this discussion to see what makes sense. Regards, Mark Mark Beierl SW System Sr Principal Engineer Dell EMC | Office of the CTO mobile +1 613 314 8106<tel:1-613-314-8106> mark.bei...@dell.com<mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com> On Aug 16, 2017, at 21:02, HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com<mailto:bh5...@att.com>> wrote: Alec, Thank you for your input, and letting know you won’t be able to make the meeting tomorrow. Mark, Do you still want to discuss in the meeting tomorrow? (my only concern is the attendance, which may not warrant an effective live discussion. Or do you think the discussion on mailing list should be good enough? If we all think the discussion on mailing list is good enough, we don’t need to discuss it in the meeting tomorrow. Thanks Bin From: Alec Hothan (ahothan) [mailto:ahot...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 5:47 PM To: HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com<mailto:bh5...@att.com>>; Beierl, Mark <mark.bei...@dell.com<mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com>> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Topics for Weekly Technical Discussion Mark, Thanks for updating me on the ARM situation. My only comment is that it could have been easier to perhaps have an x86 server/jump host servicing an ARM pod given that testing tools do not exactly have to run on the same arch than the pod under test, but I guess decision has been made - now we need every test tool to also support ARM (that in addition to more work to support 2 arch, more test to do…). On my side, I’ll need to check with the TRex team if they support ARM. If it does not work, every data plane test tool that uses TRex will be impacted (at least vsperf + nfvbench). It really seems to me that we could have saved all the extra hassle of ARM support with an x86 jump host (VMs is another story but we could have limited the overhead to VM artifacts only). Bin: unfortunately, I won’t be able to make it at the technical discussion meeting as it will be in the middle of my Thursday commute. Thanks Alec From: "HU, BIN" <bh5...@att.com<mailto:bh5...@att.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 5:00 PM To: "Beierl, Mark" <mark.bei...@dell.com<mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com>>, "Alec Hothan (ahothan)" <ahot...@cisco.com<mailto:ahot...@cisco.com>> Cc: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>" <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>> Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Topics for Weekly Technical Discussion Good discussion and suggestion, thank you Alec and Mark. We can discuss this on Thursday. I put it on the agenda “Container Versioning / Naming Schema for x86 and ARM”. Talk to you all on Thursday Bin From: Beierl, Mark [mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:23 AM To: Alec Hothan (ahothan) <ahot...@cisco.com<mailto:ahot...@cisco.com>> Cc: HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com<mailto:bh5...@att.com>>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Topics for Weekly Technical Discussion Hello, Alec. Fair questions, but in the ARM pods there are not necessarily x86 servers to act as the host for the container. It is also my desire to support ARM for the various pods we have, and not make it difficult for them to run. We already support ARM containers for functest, yardstick, qtip and dovetail, just with a different naming scheme than other projects in docker hub. If you look at the way multiarch alpine structures their tags, yes, it is arch-version, so x86-euphrates.1.0 would be the correct way of labelling it. I realize we are getting close to Euphrates release date, so this might be postponed to F, but I would like to have a community discussion about this to see if it makes sense, or if we want to continue with creating repos to match the architecture. Regards, Mark Mark Beierl SW System Sr Principal Engineer Dell EMC | Office of the CTO mobile +1 613 314 8106<tel:1-613-314-8106> mark.bei...@dell.com<mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com> On Aug 15, 2017, at 12:03, Alec Hothan (ahothan) <ahot...@cisco.com<mailto:ahot...@cisco.com>> wrote: We need to look at the impact on versioning since the docker container tag reflects the release (e.g. euphrates-5.0.0), since this proposal prepends an arch field (x86-euphrates-5.0.0 ?). How many OPNFV containers will have to support more arch than just x86? I was under the impression that most test containers could manage to run on x86 only (since we can pick the server where these test containers will run), but I am missing the arm context and why (some) test containers need to support ARM… Is that a mandate for all OPNFV test containers? Thanks Alec From: <opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>> on behalf of "Beierl, Mark" <mark.bei...@dell.com<mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 8:18 AM To: "HU, BIN" <bh5...@att.com<mailto:bh5...@att.com>> Cc: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>" <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>> Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Topics for Weekly Technical Discussion Hello, Is this the right place to discuss changing the docker image names from containing the architecture to having the tag contain it instead? For example (from a previous email): Alpine tags as follows: multiarch/alpine:x86-latest-stable multiarch/alpine:aarch64-latest-stable Vs. in OPNFV we use the image name to specify the architecture [2], [3]: opnfv/functest:latest opnfv/functest_aarch64:latest I think the way multiarch/alpine does it is preferable so that there is only one repository name, but I think we need to discuss this across the different projects and releng to make these changes. [1] https://hub.docker.com/r/multiarch/alpine/tags/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__hub.docker.com_r_multiarch_alpine_tags_&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=MJxkjW6BJzaG06zvgFQAVZz8mxuxlsgLJDxEloQq8AE&s=K5o_APjIzMi4SzYSdQvcyR3VrIJFwSZZtcD-7MXnchA&e=> [2] https://hub.docker.com/r/opnfv/functest/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__hub.docker.com_r_opnfv_functest_&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=MJxkjW6BJzaG06zvgFQAVZz8mxuxlsgLJDxEloQq8AE&s=jQw8zZteD7PMN01Zl7Ey5NDM8EO6r8UOcNUPSZGvY3M&e=> [3] https://hub.docker.com/r/opnfv/functest_aarch64/tags/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__hub.docker.com_r_opnfv_functest-5Faarch64_tags_&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=MJxkjW6BJzaG06zvgFQAVZz8mxuxlsgLJDxEloQq8AE&s=2V36PQtXGS40gTA_NGCBO1nKZsI5yHgB3jFxrWajy6k&e=> Regards, Mark Mark Beierl SW System Sr Principal Engineer Dell EMC | Office of the CTO mobile +1 613 314 8106<tel:1-613-314-8106> mark.bei...@dell.com<mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com> On Aug 15, 2017, at 10:52, HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com<mailto:bh5...@att.com>> wrote: Hello community, Just a friendly reminder that if you want to discuss any item/topic/issue at our weekly technical discussion this Thursday 08/17, please feel free to let me know. Thanks Bin _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=MJxkjW6BJzaG06zvgFQAVZz8mxuxlsgLJDxEloQq8AE&s=vRFVyjqXc-ThbnFiI_m1-lhsgnPWftV4M7TgUFAA8vY&e=>
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
