Re: [onap-discuss] [E] [OOM] Heads up: ONAP Kubernetes master has crossed the 64G VM barrier

2018-03-10 Thread Kumar Skand Priya, Viswanath V via onap-discuss 
Hi Michael,

Does this includes the memory occupied due to deployed VNF & NS as well? If
so, what are the requirements for running just the ONAP ( for both R1) ?
And more particularly, what's eating more space compared to R2 & R1 (
assuming both are plan ONAP installation i.e without DCAE & VNFs) ?

Few days back, someone else from community have highlighted about the
possibility of memory leaks in ONAP code, which might account to increase
memory consumption. Do you have any thoughts on the same?

BR,
Viswa




Viswanath Kumar Skand Priya
Architect
Verizon India ( VDSI )


On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Michael O'Brien 
wrote:

> Team,
>
>ONAP Beijing is currently crossing the 64G boundary as of a couple
> weeks ago.
>
>If you run the system on a 128G VM then heaps will expand past 64G
> within 24 hours.
>
>If you stay on 64G (which you can) – reduce the optional pods or you
> will be getting OOME’s
>
>Use the ongoing POC JIRA as a guide – we need a full set of
> deploytime/runtime dependency trees to be able to know what to shutdown.
>
> https://jira.onap.org/browse/OOM-511
> 
>
>
>
>The recommended VM size (1 or a cluster) is now 80 to 128G – for
> Beijing (without the upcoming DCAE port)
>
>For Amsterdam the OOM side still fits in a 64G vm (you can shutdown
> vCPE/vVOLTE required pods like vfc) – heatbridge works there to DCAE which
> bring you up to 150G when the full heat side is up.
>
>
>
> https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/ONAP+on+Kubernetes#ONAPonKubernetes-
> HardwareRequirements
> 
>
> ONAP startup now reaches a peak of 60 cores so the more vCores you have
> the less CPU bound you will be.
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
> /michael
> This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and
> confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement,
> you may review at https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer
> 
>
> ___
> onap-discuss mailing list
> onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.
> onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Ddiscuss=DwICAg=
> udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ=9F3pNUkzjE-
> 2v1eTClkRVakDRN8GH7Bm-wt1lWkxoUyyDORTqf5MxNO_GrMBs0gZ=
> pUxXmcE2onWJWwHHrm7haZBwTfyT7z1hmkqJADf5-fI=
> INv35wxpki9d5173aITT0lBcfPtccU4rwAyl066qOyE=
>
>
___
onap-discuss mailing list
onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss

[onap-discuss] [sdc] [aaf] Query regarding SDC AAF Integration in R2 release

2018-03-10 Thread Kumar Skand Priya, Viswanath V via onap-discuss 
Dear SDC & AAF Team,

I would like to understand whether SDC user-roles ( such as designer,
tester, operator, admin etc.. ) will have any impact due to AAF
integration. Would these roles still be valid in R2?


Could you also point me to some relevant materials to understand how this
integration is getting shaped?


Thanks!


BR,

Viswa




Viswanath Kumar Skand Priya
Architect
Verizon India ( VDSI )
___
onap-discuss mailing list
onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss

Re: [onap-discuss] [modeling] ONAP R2 IM to DM design

2018-03-10 Thread denghui (L) 
Hello Jessie,

ONAP resource DM proposals have been on table for the long time and discussed 
and polled couple of time about which direction.
I am not familiar about this new work which has never been discussed in our 
committee.

At this moment, the urgent thing is not only do DM spec, but also contribute 
the code to R2, that is the joint JIRA TASK which has been distributed among 5 
companies already.
If you could help to contribute the code, please kindly help to consider to 
contribute the left of them: No.4 and No.7

Thanks a lot for your contribution
Best regards,

DENG Hui

From: jessie jewitt [mailto:jessie.jew...@oamtechnologies.com]
Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 1:26 AM
To: denghui (L) 
Cc: onap-discuss@lists.onap.org; onap-tsc ; Rittwik 
Jana 
Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] [modeling] ONAP R2 IM to DM design

Hello-
I don't remember this being an action out of the modelling committee 
meeting yesterday. How does it compare to the action item from another meeting 
that Alex, Thinh, Anatoly and myself took to work on the IM to DM model 
mapping, and the mappings that have already been proposed (and commented on) 
here:

https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=25436710

Could you please clarify.
Thank you,
Jessie

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 4:46 AM, denghui (L) 
> wrote:
Hello all

As agreed in modeling subcommittee meeting, we need to update the onap types of 
the data model to reflect the agreements reached in information model.

It’s huge work to achieve the goal, in order to accelerate, 7 separate tasks 
have been created based on the current IM. We encourage interested people to 
volunteer to take the lead for particular task.

The tasks including:
1. VDU: https://jira.onap.org/browse/MODELING-67
2. HPA: https://jira.onap.org/browse/MODELING-68
3. CP: https://jira.onap.org/browse/MODELING-69
4. DeploymentFlavor: https://jira.onap.org/browse/MODELING-70
5. VL: https://jira.onap.org/browse/MODELING-71
6. VNFD: https://jira.onap.org/browse/MODELING-72
7. monitor: https://jira.onap.org/browse/MODELING-73

It’s expected that the lead would help provide tosca definitions on the 
contribution page 
(https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Data+Model+align+with+TOSCA+NFV+Profile) and
help implement related logic in SDC, APPC/VFC projects.

Thanks a lot

DENG Hui

___
onap-discuss mailing list
onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss

___
onap-discuss mailing list
onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss