[opnfv-tech-discuss] [vsperf] CANCELLED - VSPERF weekly meeting - 28 Nov 2018

[Sridhar K. N. Rao]

Hi All,

Cancelling this week's meeting due to travel commitments of few members.
I'm Sorry - see you all next week.

Cheers,
Sridhar


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#22460): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/22460
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/28428698/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[HU, BIN]

Thank you Cedric.

Certainly, a DevOps strategy will help guide the right choice, especially 
removing the dependencies between projects and reducing the cycles, and 
enhancing the test activities across various verticals.

Thank you
Bin

-Original Message-
From: ollivier.ced...@gmail.com  
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 1:16 PM
To: HU, BIN ; Georg Kunz ; Tim Irnich 
; Trevor Bramwell 
Cc: AshYoung ; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; 
opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; Manuel Buil 
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Hello,

I don't know if the current issues are related to a missing strategy but I 
think we are moving away from the project scope.

Why not emphazing here XCI which only supports virtual machine deployment and 
the compliance program which mainly includes sparsed functional tests. But our 
endusers are waiting for platforms able to host VNFs and verified to do so 
(benchmarks, vnfs, etc..).

I second the referent platforms as long as they are fully verified by the 
underlying OPNFV test frameworks.

And I vote yes to reduce the dev cycles by removing the dependencies between 
our projects. I hope it won't result in a lack of testing as we're seeing in 
one place. It's great to accelerate new disruptive scenarios or ideas but it 
shouldn't have led to the lowest levels (see OpenStack gates) even if it fits 
few developpers.

OPNFV differs from the upstream communities thanks to its Lab and its DB 
fulfilled by test frameworks which is a fair public comparison between 
installers, networking implementations and enhancements, etc...

Cédric

Le mardi 27 novembre 2018 à 19:18 +, HU, BIN a écrit :
> Georg,
> 
> Thank you for your questions and concerns.
> 
> One key role of TSC is to provide direction to the community, which is 
> the other pillar that strengthens the community-driven approach.
> The direction from TSC will inspire the community and represent our 
> community externally, and the "personal motivation" will ultimately 
> decide where the resource will go.
> 
> One of the questions in the TSC discussion today is whether or not we 
> have had strategy from TSC in the past. As far as I know, there 
> wasn't. Correct me if I am wrong and show me where it is documented.
> So community needs a direction from TSC, which is more urgent for now 
> than ever, because:
> - We don't have a strategy. Everything is driven by "personal 
> motivation", which is good and bad. Sorry that I am quite frank and 
> straightforward. If everything is driven by "personal motivation"
> without a direction, it eventually hurts the entire community. And it 
> won't achieve your goal of strengthening platform and compliance 
> program at all.
> - We are losing developers and other resources, and primarily reason 
> is ROI. If we keep on doing today's way without a direction, no one 
> will magically come back. We will lose more exponentially. A new 
> vision and direction will bring a fresh look of OPNFV, and we will 
> have the opportunity to bring new developers and investments that are 
> interested in working on this direction.
> - The WG mechanism is a good way of how to organize the work in a 
> tactic level. However, without the blessing of a strategy, vision and 
> direction that can be articulated and marketed, it won't bring new 
> developers. So tactics (slide #16) is the way of how to achieve the 
> strategy (slide #13). However, under no circumstance can a tactic 
> replace a strategy.
> - You brought a great example of XCI. It was bottom up, and has 
> achieved great result. However, because there was no strategy, there 
> were hiccups in terms of scenarios v.s. installers etc. Now we face 
> the difficulties - evolve CI/CD in a more installer-centric way, or in 
> a more CI/CD-compliant way. I don't intend to discuss those details of 
> choice here. Those are tactical discussion, and many times we chose a 
> shortcut for the sake of release instead of a right way for long term 
> benefit. However, a strategy and direction will guide those choices 
> when we face those difficulties.
> 
> So there is a reality urgency and need of having a direction for our 
> community, not only for new things to bring in new developers, but 
> also help solve the issues for many projects when they are facing the 
> choices of where to go, what to do next, and whether a shortcut or for 
> long term.
> 
> At last, no one disagrees with strengthening platform and compliance 
> program, which has been captured on slide #13. Adding new direction 
> will not only help bring in new developers but also help many existing 
> projects to make the right choice. Eventually, "personal motivation" 
> decides where resources will go, because no one can force anyone else 
> to work on a specific project. So I don't see the concern of new 
> direction will be competing with existing developers. For example, 
> "personal motivation" may bring all developers to platform 
> 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Cedric OLLIVIER]

Hello,

I don't know if the current issues are related to a missing strategy
but I think we are moving away from the project scope.

Why not emphazing here XCI which only supports virtual machine
deployment and the compliance program which mainly includes sparsed
functional tests. But our endusers are waiting for platforms able to
host VNFs and verified to do so (benchmarks, vnfs, etc..).

I second the referent platforms as long as they are fully verified by
the underlying OPNFV test frameworks.

And I vote yes to reduce the dev cycles by removing the dependencies
between our projects. I hope it won't result in a lack of testing as
we're seeing in one place. It's great to accelerate new disruptive
scenarios or ideas but it shouldn't have led to the lowest levels (see
OpenStack gates) even if it fits few developpers.

OPNFV differs from the upstream communities thanks to its Lab and its
DB fulfilled by test frameworks which is a fair public comparison
between installers, networking implementations and enhancements, etc...

Cédric

Le mardi 27 novembre 2018 à 19:18 +, HU, BIN a écrit :
> Georg,
> 
> Thank you for your questions and concerns.
> 
> One key role of TSC is to provide direction to the community, which
> is the other pillar that strengthens the community-driven approach.
> The direction from TSC will inspire the community and represent our
> community externally, and the "personal motivation" will ultimately
> decide where the resource will go.
> 
> One of the questions in the TSC discussion today is whether or not we
> have had strategy from TSC in the past. As far as I know, there
> wasn't. Correct me if I am wrong and show me where it is documented.
> So community needs a direction from TSC, which is more urgent for now
> than ever, because:
> - We don't have a strategy. Everything is driven by "personal
> motivation", which is good and bad. Sorry that I am quite frank and
> straightforward. If everything is driven by "personal motivation"
> without a direction, it eventually hurts the entire community. And it
> won't achieve your goal of strengthening platform and compliance
> program at all.
> - We are losing developers and other resources, and primarily reason
> is ROI. If we keep on doing today's way without a direction, no one
> will magically come back. We will lose more exponentially. A new
> vision and direction will bring a fresh look of OPNFV, and we will
> have the opportunity to bring new developers and investments that are
> interested in working on this direction.
> - The WG mechanism is a good way of how to organize the work in a
> tactic level. However, without the blessing of a strategy, vision and
> direction that can be articulated and marketed, it won't bring new
> developers. So tactics (slide #16) is the way of how to achieve the
> strategy (slide #13). However, under no circumstance can a tactic
> replace a strategy.
> - You brought a great example of XCI. It was bottom up, and has
> achieved great result. However, because there was no strategy, there
> were hiccups in terms of scenarios v.s. installers etc. Now we face
> the difficulties - evolve CI/CD in a more installer-centric way, or
> in a more CI/CD-compliant way. I don't intend to discuss those
> details of choice here. Those are tactical discussion, and many times
> we chose a shortcut for the sake of release instead of a right way
> for long term benefit. However, a strategy and direction will guide
> those choices when we face those difficulties.
> 
> So there is a reality urgency and need of having a direction for our
> community, not only for new things to bring in new developers, but
> also help solve the issues for many projects when they are facing the
> choices of where to go, what to do next, and whether a shortcut or
> for long term.
> 
> At last, no one disagrees with strengthening platform and compliance
> program, which has been captured on slide #13. Adding new direction
> will not only help bring in new developers but also help many
> existing projects to make the right choice. Eventually, "personal
> motivation" decides where resources will go, because no one can force
> anyone else to work on a specific project. So I don't see the concern
> of new direction will be competing with existing developers. For
> example, "personal motivation" may bring all developers to platform
> capabilities and compliance program, which is great.
> 
> Again, thank you for your question, but I do see the urgency of
> having a strategy asap, because of the reality needs as I stated
> above.
> 
> Best regards
> Bin
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf
> Of Georg Kunz
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:46 AM
> To: HU, BIN ; Tim Irnich ;
> Trevor Bramwell 
> Cc: AshYoung ; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; 
> opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; Manuel Buil 
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
> 
> Hi Bin,
> Hi all,
> 
> Due to the lively discussions during 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Gambia release community awards #gambia #release #awards

[David McBride]

Reminder - nominations close this Friday.  I'd like to see more nominations
for the "integration" category, as well as for interns.  Thanks.

David

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 8:44 AM David McBride 
wrote:

> Many of you already noticed this, but I forgot to include a nominating
> statement to the list of things to provide when nominating.  Updated list
> below:
>
> For nominations, please specify:
>
>- Name
>- Organization
>- e-mail address
>- Award category
>- Brief nominating statement describing the nominee's contributions
>and why they should receive an award.
>
> Thanks.
>
> David
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:02 AM David McBride <
> dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Come on team!  Send in those nominations! - D
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:42 PM David McBride <
>> dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Team,
>>>
>>> With the Gambia 7.0 release behind us. I'd like to kick off the
>>> nomination period for community awards.  Per the TSC approved community
>>> awards procedure ,
>>> we have the following award categories (with the number of winners in
>>> parentheses).
>>>
>>>- Code development (3)
>>>- Community support/leadership (3)
>>>- Integration (3)
>>>- Testing (3)
>>>- Interns (2)
>>>
>>> If you're interested in nominating community members for any of the
>>> categories above, could you please send them to me by Noon, Pacific
>>> Time, on November 30th (Friday)?
>>>
>>> For nominations, please specify:
>>>
>>>- Name
>>>- Organization
>>>- e-mail address
>>>- Award Category (see list above)
>>>
>>>
>>> After I receive the nominations, I'll be sending out a SurveyMonkey link
>>> for voting to opnfv-tech-discuss.
>>>
>>> We plan to announce the winners and hand out awards at the Gambia
>>> Plugfest in January.  If you have not yet registered, here's a link
>>>  to
>>> the registration page.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> --
>>> *David McBride*
>>> Release Manager, OPNFV
>>> Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
>>> Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
>>> Skype: davidjmcbride1
>>> IRC: dmcbride
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *David McBride*
>> Release Manager, OPNFV
>> Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
>> Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
>> Skype: davidjmcbride1
>> IRC: dmcbride
>>
>
>
> --
> *David McBride*
> Release Manager, OPNFV
> Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
> Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
> Skype: davidjmcbride1
> IRC: dmcbride
>


-- 
*David McBride*
Release Manager, OPNFV
Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
Skype: davidjmcbride1
IRC: dmcbride
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#22457): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/22457
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/28180916/21656
Mute #release: https://lists.opnfv.org/mk?hashtag=release=2783016
Mute #gambia: https://lists.opnfv.org/mk?hashtag=gambia=2783016
Mute #awards: https://lists.opnfv.org/mk?hashtag=awards=2783016
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Unable to deploy #opnfv-docs #xci #opnfv-openstack #releng-xci

[Mark Beierl]

The error message shown is “Check that virtualization is enabled in the host 
BIOS, and host configuration is setup to load the kvm modules.”.

What is the output of?

kvm-ok

or:

egrep -c '(vmx|svm)' /proc/cpuinfo

Regards,
Mark

Mark Beierl
SW System Sr Principal Developer
Dell EMC | Cloud & Communication Service Provider Solution
mark.bei...@dell.com

From:  on behalf of 
"sarathatm...@gmail.com" 
Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 08:15
To: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" 
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Unable to deploy #opnfv-docs #xci 
#opnfv-openstack #releng-xci


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
TASK [create-nodes : Start the opnfv vm] 

An exception occurred during task execution. To see the full traceback, use 
-vvv. The error was: libvirtError: unsupported configuration: Domain requires 
KVM, but it is not available. Check that virtualization is enabled in the host 
BIOS, and host configuration is setup to load the kvm modules.
fatal: [deployment_host]: FAILED! => {"changed": false, "msg": "unsupported 
configuration: Domain requires KVM, but it is not available. Check that 
virtualization is enabled in the host BIOS, and host configuration is setup to 
load the kvm modules."}
to retry, use: --limit 
@/root/releng-xci/xci/infra/bifrost/playbooks/xci-setup-nodes.retry

PLAY RECAP 
**
deployment_host: ok=105  changed=31   unreachable=0failed=1


-
Oh no! The XCI deployment failed miserably :-(

If you need help, please choose one of the following options
* #opnfv-pharos @ freenode network
* opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list 
(https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss)
  - Please prefix the subject with [XCI]
* https://jira.opnfv.org (Release Engineering project)

Do not forget to submit the following information on your bug report:

releng-xci tree status: local modifications
opnfv/releng-xci version: 2c8c96b50cc5d91592052d2b967601033519d69d
openstack/bifrost version: 0f605cd723a68e2c2bb9b30a15a08e5aba777bd5
openstack/openstack-ansible version: fa2497ff3faac344d9c626bb264637a9c1e6a17b
xci flavor: mini
xci installer: osa
xci scenario: os-nosdn-nofeature
Environment variables:
ANSIBLE_ROLES_PATH=/root/.ansible/roles:/usr/share/ansible/roles:/etc/ansible/roles:/root/releng-xci/xci/playbooks/roles:/root/releng-xci/.cache/repos/bifrost/playbooks/roles
XCI_LIB_SOURCED=1
DEPLOY_SCENARIO=os-nosdn-nofeature
XCI_PATH=/root/releng-xci
XCI_FLAVOR=mini
ANSIBLE_HOST_KEY_CHECKING=False
INSTALLER_TYPE=osa
XCI_CEPH_ENABLED=false
OPENSTACK_REQUIREMENTS_VERSION=e2336b93386b67bf10d66795d1e3ac8619feb23f
XCI_SCENARIOS_CACHE=/root/releng-xci/.cache/repos/scenarios
OPENSTACK_OSA_VERSION=fa2497ff3faac344d9c626bb264637a9c1e6a17b
BIFROST_IRONIC_INSPECTOR_VERSION=05a86b3d574f3262f8ada3d145a352afb8557cdb
CLEAN_DIB_IMAGES=false
OPENSTACK_OSA_GIT_URL=https://git.openstack.org/openstack/openstack-ansible
ANSIBLE_CALLBACK_PLUGINS=/etc/ansible/roles/plugins/callback:/root/releng-xci/venv/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ara/plugins/callbacks
CORE_OPENSTACK_INSTALL=false
ANSIBLE_LIBRARY=/root/.ansible/plugins/modules:/usr/share/ansible/plugins/modules:/root/releng-xci/.cache/repos/bifrost/playbooks/library
XCI_PLAYBOOKS=/root/releng-xci/xci/playbooks
XCI_ANSIBLE_PIP_VERSION=2.5.8
XCI_DISTRO=centos
OPENSTACK_OSA_OPENRC_GIT_URL=https://git.openstack.org/openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_openrc
OPNFV_RELENG_VERSION=master
OPENSTACK_OSA_HAPROXY_GIT_URL=https://git.openstack.org/openstack/openstack-ansible-haproxy_server
OPENSTACK_OSA_ETC_PATH=/etc/openstack_deploy
OPNFV_HOST_IP=192.168.0.81
OPNFV_RELENG_GIT_URL=https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/releng-xci.git
OPENSTACK_BIFROST_GIT_URL=https://git.openstack.org/openstack/bifrost
OPNFV_XCI_CACHE=/root/releng-xci/.cache
BIFROST_IRONIC_VERSION=754361489d6161bde85375e844fe2bf0e2b4dd0a
XCI_KUBE_ANSIBLE_PIP_VERSION=2.5.8
XCI_ANSIBLE_PARAMS= -e xci_path=/root/releng-xci
XCI_CACHE=/root/releng-xci/.cache
OPENSTACK_BIFROST_VERSION=0f605cd723a68e2c2bb9b30a15a08e5aba777bd5
OPENSTACK_OSA_PATH=/root/releng-xci/.cache/repos/openstack-ansible
XCI_VENV=/root/releng-xci/venv/
BIFROST_IRONIC_INSPECTOR_CLIENT_VERSION=cb370b776aa274b0ecfacfb29fa5035670839308
BIFROST_CREATE_IMAGE_VIA_DIB=true
XCI_FLAVOR_ANSIBLE_FILE_PATH=/root/releng-xci/xci/installer/osa/files/mini
BIFROST_IRONIC_CLIENT_VERSION=a28ccb9ef8a55f96923ba4a3af12b73a91b2e448
-
--
Info: Collecting XCI logs
--

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [edge cloud] H release plan

[Ildiko Vancsa]

Hi Qihui,

Unfortunately I have collision with this call tomorrow and won’t be able to 
dial-in.

The plans look good on high level, please let me know if you need any input 
from me.

Thanks and Best Regards,
Ildikó


> On 2018. Nov 21., at 13:22, zhaoqi...@chinamobile.com wrote:
> 
> Hello Edge Cloud Team,
> 
> I've updated the edge cloud Hunter release plan. Please go to check if  it's 
> proprate. And we will discuss about the plan during our next meeting on 
> Wednesday, Nov. 28.
> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/EC/H+release+plan 
> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/SWREL/Edge+Cloud+Release+Plan+for+OPNFV+Hunter 
> 
> Best,
> Qihui
> China Mobile Research Institute
> (+86) 13810659120

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#22455): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/22455
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/28276413/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Georg Kunz]

Hi Bin,
Hi all,

Due to the lively discussions during today's TSC call, the IRC minutes are a 
little light [1]. However, I have to voice my concern that I cannot agree with 
the following items:

[.]
14:41:31  #info Vote for strategy on Tuesday Dec 4
14:42:01  #info Hopefully everyone will agree
14:43:12  #info We need a decision on Dec 4 in order to trigger 
following actions
14:43:35  #topic budget discussion
14:43:45  #info Stalemate is not an option
[.]

I don't understand why "we need a decision by Dec 4 in order to trigger 
actions". I seriously appreciate your ambition to move this forward quickly as 
the main intention is to strengthen OPNFV's position. However, I also don't see 
why concrete actions are being blocked if there is no decision on Dec 4.

A core value of open source communities is that those who are interested in a 
particular topic, naturally tend to form a group which jointly works towards a 
common goal. In our concrete scenario, we could i) form a devops working group 
which works on fleshing out the details of the proposal, and/or ii) find a 
group of interested people prototyping some of the "cloud-based devops 
methodologies. None of such activities would be considered a stalemate. The 
results of such _community-driven_ activities would help to convince the entire 
community. A very successful example in this regard is XCI, which was driven by 
a small group of people.

Certainly, it is the job of all TSC members to actively participate in the 
strategy definition and discussion and I urge everybody to do so. An open 
source community works best if it is driven by personal motivation. For sure it 
does not work well if deadlines for decisions about unclear directions are put 
on a community without a clear understanding why.


That said, my current view on the proposal is the following: it broadens the 
scope of the community (by a currently undefined amount), i.e., it adds on top 
of what we are currently doing. I do not think that this is the right approach 
given shrinking amounts of resources in the community - both in terms of 
developers and funding. I believe we need to instead discuss, as an 
alternative, if we should and can focus on a very specific, well-defined and 
sought-after contribution to the ecosystem. I mentioned this in a previous 
email already: based on input from stakeholders, I would argue for 
strengthening the reference platform (as defined through comprehensive tests) 
and the corresponding compliance program. This is my perspective for sure - 
others might disagree and I'd love to discuss better proposals.

[1] 
http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2018/opnfv-meeting.2018-11-27-13.54.log.txt

Best regards
Georg

-Original Message-
From: HU, BIN  
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:22 PM
To: Tim Irnich ; Trevor Bramwell 

Cc: AshYoung ; Georg Kunz ; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; Manuel Buil 

Subject: RE: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Thank you for pointing out one possibility based on the assumption that the 
same resources will do both work. The assumption itself may not be true because 
there will be different resources to do different work in different projects 
(which is the reality today).

So the resource availability is a key factor to consider when we approve the 
new projects subsequently after we plan the product portfolio. When we have 
dedicated resources to do each job, such possibility will be unlikely to happen.

Thanks
Bin

-Original Message-
From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf Of Tim 
Irnich
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 11:59 PM
To: HU, BIN ; Trevor Bramwell 
Cc: AshYoung ; Georg Kunz ; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; Manuel Buil 

Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

The way I understand Trevor's concern is that if we start spending more time on 
packaging tools and supporting their usage downstream, there will be less time 
for doing integration work and driving upstream production readiness. Which is 
something I'm concerned about too.

Pretending that this problem doesn't exist isn't helpful IMHO.

Tim

On 11/27/18 2:11 AM, HU, BIN wrote:
> Trevor,
> 
> Thank you for you clarifying it.
> 
> The integration work is explicitly mentioned to be continued in 3rd bullet on 
> slide #13 of v0.8. I am attaching it again just in case you missed it. That 
> work will continue as usual. All related bug fixes and new features in 
> upstream will continue as usual too. So I am not sure why it is a concern 
> here.
> 
> Regarding the concern of spending our time to help people use our tools, 
> isn't it the usual business we are supposed to do today? For example, after 
> we release Gambia, we are supposed to help people use it, right? There is a 
> "opnfv-user" mailing list for this purpose. There isn't much traffic though. 
> It means either everyone is an expert or no one is 

[opnfv-tech-discuss] Reminder - Intel Pharos Lab Unavailable Weekend of 11/30

[Timothy Gresham]

Intel will have a planned downtime from 11/30@12:00PM until approximately  
1/3@12:00PM  Pacific.

No OPNFV Lab services will be available during this time frame.

We will communicate via this list once services have been restored.


Tim Gresham
Open Source Technology Center - Cloud Engineer
Intel Corporation


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#22452): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/22452
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/28372384/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[HU, BIN]

Thank you for pointing out one possibility based on the assumption that the 
same resources will do both work. The assumption itself may not be true because 
there will be different resources to do different work in different projects 
(which is the reality today).

So the resource availability is a key factor to consider when we approve the 
new projects subsequently after we plan the product portfolio. When we have 
dedicated resources to do each job, such possibility will be unlikely to happen.

Thanks
Bin

-Original Message-
From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf Of Tim 
Irnich
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 11:59 PM
To: HU, BIN ; Trevor Bramwell 
Cc: AshYoung ; Georg Kunz ; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; Manuel Buil 

Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

The way I understand Trevor's concern is that if we start spending more time on 
packaging tools and supporting their usage downstream, there will be less time 
for doing integration work and driving upstream production readiness. Which is 
something I'm concerned about too.

Pretending that this problem doesn't exist isn't helpful IMHO.

Tim

On 11/27/18 2:11 AM, HU, BIN wrote:
> Trevor,
> 
> Thank you for you clarifying it.
> 
> The integration work is explicitly mentioned to be continued in 3rd bullet on 
> slide #13 of v0.8. I am attaching it again just in case you missed it. That 
> work will continue as usual. All related bug fixes and new features in 
> upstream will continue as usual too. So I am not sure why it is a concern 
> here.
> 
> Regarding the concern of spending our time to help people use our tools, 
> isn't it the usual business we are supposed to do today? For example, after 
> we release Gambia, we are supposed to help people use it, right? There is a 
> "opnfv-user" mailing list for this purpose. There isn't much traffic though. 
> It means either everyone is an expert or no one is interested in using our 
> release. I wish it was because everyone is an expert, though the reality 
> might be opposite.
> 
> Recently, someone asked me how to run Yardstick on Dovetail. Thanks Georg for 
> sharing the docs. I was really excited because finally someone is interested 
> in using our tool. So getting user to use our tools is exactly what we want, 
> right? Without users, I don't know how to show others our value, frankly.
> 
> So IMHO, spending our time to help user isn't a concern at all. It is what we 
> need. And there is no difference of supporting users, e.g. use OpenStack by 
> OpenStack community, use ODL by ODL community. Etc.
> 
> If there is no user to support, we are in trouble because our deliverables 
> has no value.
> 
> Let me know what you think, and if you still have concerns.
> 
> Thank you
> Bin
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf 
> Of Trevor Bramwell
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:54 PM
> To: HU, BIN 
> Cc: Tim Irnich ; AshYoung ; 
> Georg Kunz ; Manuel Buil ; 
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
> 
> Hi Bin,
> 
> Perhaps 'integrated' is a better word here than 'supported'. A lot of the 
> work in OPNFV involves integrating many of these upstream components which in 
> turn exposes bugs, or creates features that enable an NFV use case.
> 
> I'm quite terrible with examples, but I'm sure others from the community have 
> time.
> 
> Regards,
> Trevor Bramwell
> 
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:26:33AM +, HU, BIN wrote:
>> Trevor,
>>
>> Thank you for your question.
>>
>> Can you give more details and examples of "doing what we're best at, which 
>> is getting NFV supported by upstream projects."?
>>
>> Thank you
>> Bin
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Trevor Bramwell 
>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:17 PM
>> To: HU, BIN 
>> Cc: Tim Irnich ; AshYoung ; 
>> Georg Kunz ; Manuel Buil ; 
>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
>> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
>>
>> Hi Bin,
>>
>> I'm still unclear on the first point: "Enabling and automating stakeholders' 
>> business transformation into DevOps organization"
>>
>> From what I've read it seems like the suggestion is to package up everything 
>> that makes up OPNFV (Platform, CI/CD piplines, testing / verification / 
>> certification tools, etc.) and turn that into something that can be deployed 
>> by a company internally.
>>
>> Is that what is being suggested here, or something else? And if so I'd be 
>> concerned that we'd actually be reducing companies incentive to be involved, 
>> or more of our time would be spent trying to support people using the tool 
>> then doing what we're best at, which is getting NFV supported by upstream 
>> projects.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Trevor Bramwell
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 09:04:57PM +, HU, BIN wrote:
>>> Tim,
>>>
>>> Not sure if you get a chance to follow the 

[opnfv-tech-discuss] Unable to deploy #opnfv-docs #xci #opnfv-openstack #releng-xci

[sarathatmail]

TASK [create-nodes : Start the opnfv vm] 

An exception occurred during task execution. To see the full traceback, use 
-vvv. The error was: libvirtError: unsupported configuration: Domain requires 
KVM, but it is not available. Check that virtualization is enabled in the host 
BIOS, and host configuration is setup to load the kvm modules.
fatal: [deployment_host]: FAILED! => {"changed": false, "msg": "unsupported 
configuration: Domain requires KVM, but it is not available. Check that 
virtualization is enabled in the host BIOS, and host configuration is setup to 
load the kvm modules."}
        to retry, use: --limit 
@/root/releng-xci/xci/infra/bifrost/playbooks/xci-setup-nodes.retry
 
PLAY RECAP 
**
deployment_host            : ok=105  changed=31   unreachable=0    failed=1
 
 
-
Oh no! The XCI deployment failed miserably :-(
 
If you need help, please choose one of the following options
* #opnfv-pharos @ freenode network
* opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list 
(https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss)
  - Please prefix the subject with [XCI]
* https://jira.opnfv.org (Release Engineering project)
 
Do not forget to submit the following information on your bug report:
 
releng-xci tree status: local modifications
opnfv/releng-xci version: 2c8c96b50cc5d91592052d2b967601033519d69d
openstack/bifrost version: 0f605cd723a68e2c2bb9b30a15a08e5aba777bd5
openstack/openstack-ansible version: fa2497ff3faac344d9c626bb264637a9c1e6a17b
xci flavor: mini
xci installer: osa
xci scenario: os-nosdn-nofeature
Environment variables:
ANSIBLE_ROLES_PATH=/root/.ansible/roles:/usr/share/ansible/roles:/etc/ansible/roles:/root/releng-xci/xci/playbooks/roles:/root/releng-xci/.cache/repos/bifrost/playbooks/roles
XCI_LIB_SOURCED=1
DEPLOY_SCENARIO=os-nosdn-nofeature
XCI_PATH=/root/releng-xci
XCI_FLAVOR=mini
ANSIBLE_HOST_KEY_CHECKING=False
INSTALLER_TYPE=osa
XCI_CEPH_ENABLED=false
OPENSTACK_REQUIREMENTS_VERSION=e2336b93386b67bf10d66795d1e3ac8619feb23f
XCI_SCENARIOS_CACHE=/root/releng-xci/.cache/repos/scenarios
OPENSTACK_OSA_VERSION=fa2497ff3faac344d9c626bb264637a9c1e6a17b
BIFROST_IRONIC_INSPECTOR_VERSION=05a86b3d574f3262f8ada3d145a352afb8557cdb
CLEAN_DIB_IMAGES=false
OPENSTACK_OSA_GIT_URL=https://git.openstack.org/openstack/openstack-ansible
ANSIBLE_CALLBACK_PLUGINS=/etc/ansible/roles/plugins/callback:/root/releng-xci/venv/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ara/plugins/callbacks
CORE_OPENSTACK_INSTALL=false
ANSIBLE_LIBRARY=/root/.ansible/plugins/modules:/usr/share/ansible/plugins/modules:/root/releng-xci/.cache/repos/bifrost/playbooks/library
XCI_PLAYBOOKS=/root/releng-xci/xci/playbooks
XCI_ANSIBLE_PIP_VERSION=2.5.8
XCI_DISTRO=centos
OPENSTACK_OSA_OPENRC_GIT_URL=https://git.openstack.org/openstack/openstack-ansible-openstack_openrc
OPNFV_RELENG_VERSION=master
OPENSTACK_OSA_HAPROXY_GIT_URL=https://git.openstack.org/openstack/openstack-ansible-haproxy_server
OPENSTACK_OSA_ETC_PATH=/etc/openstack_deploy
OPNFV_HOST_IP=192.168.0.81
OPNFV_RELENG_GIT_URL=https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/releng-xci.git
OPENSTACK_BIFROST_GIT_URL=https://git.openstack.org/openstack/bifrost
OPNFV_XCI_CACHE=/root/releng-xci/.cache
BIFROST_IRONIC_VERSION=754361489d6161bde85375e844fe2bf0e2b4dd0a
XCI_KUBE_ANSIBLE_PIP_VERSION=2.5.8
XCI_ANSIBLE_PARAMS= -e xci_path=/root/releng-xci
XCI_CACHE=/root/releng-xci/.cache
OPENSTACK_BIFROST_VERSION=0f605cd723a68e2c2bb9b30a15a08e5aba777bd5
OPENSTACK_OSA_PATH=/root/releng-xci/.cache/repos/openstack-ansible
XCI_VENV=/root/releng-xci/venv/
BIFROST_IRONIC_INSPECTOR_CLIENT_VERSION=cb370b776aa274b0ecfacfb29fa5035670839308
BIFROST_CREATE_IMAGE_VIA_DIB=true
XCI_FLAVOR_ANSIBLE_FILE_PATH=/root/releng-xci/xci/installer/osa/files/mini
BIFROST_IRONIC_CLIENT_VERSION=a28ccb9ef8a55f96923ba4a3af12b73a91b2e448
-
--
Info: Collecting XCI logs
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#22450): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/22450
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/28370181/21656
Mute #opnfv-openstack: 
https://lists.opnfv.org/mk?hashtag=opnfv-openstack=2783016
Mute #releng-xci: https://lists.opnfv.org/mk?hashtag=releng-xci=2783016
Mute #opnfv-docs: https://lists.opnfv.org/mk?hashtag=opnfv-docs=2783016
Mute #xci: https://lists.opnfv.org/mk?hashtag=xci=2783016
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Auto] huawei-pod12 ONAP status

[Elias Richard]

Hi Tina,


The issue is still there. After analyzing it further I have realized that it is 
a larger problem with the OpenStack deployment. On the last meeting Paul said 
that he will try taking a look at it and reinstalling using fuel. I think this 
would be the correct way to go forward and I hope it goes well.


Regards,

Richard


From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org  
on behalf of Tina Tsou 
Sent: 20 November 2018 04:58:32
To: Tina Tsou
Cc: Elias Richard; huangxiangyu; Klozik Martin; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; Gary Wu
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Auto] huawei-pod12 ONAP status

Dear Richard et al,

Is there still key issue?


Thank you,
Tina

On Nov 12, 2018, at 6:52 AM, Tina Tsou 
mailto:tina.t...@arm.com>> wrote:

Dear Richard et al,

It looks like Richard changed the key in the env file, which used to be 
onap_key, which is keypair in openstack.


Thank you,
Tina

On Nov 9, 2018, at 4:16 AM, Elias Richard 
mailto:richard.el...@tieto.com>> wrote:


Hi Harry,


Tina has forwarded me the information below, but this does not solve my issue.


The issue I emailed you about is concerning the ssh access into the Openstack 
VMs, as is shown by this command run by the deploy-onap.sh script:

"ssh -o StrictHostKeychecking=no -i /root/.ssh/onap_key 
ubuntu@172.30.12.114 'sudo docker ps'" which 
returns "Permission denied (publickey)."

I cannot access the logs without accessing the VMs. I have been going through 
other public and private keys mentioned in the installation, but still no luck.

Could you try connecting to host1 and accessing one of the VMs?


Thank you very much,

Richard


From: Tina Tsou mailto:tina.t...@arm.com>>
Sent: 09 November 2018 05:35:16
To: Elias Richard
Cc: huangxiangyu; Klozik Martin; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; 
Gary Wu
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Auto] huawei-pod12 ONAP status

Dear Richard et al,

Harry had a look, the docker tag in the environment doesn’t match what’s in the 
code, you need to look at the log and change accordingly.


Thank you,
Tina

On Nov 5, 2018, at 8:12 AM, Elias Richard 
mailto:richard.el...@tieto.com>> wrote:


Hello,

As was recommended by Tina I have added Gary to the conversation.


Thank you for the fix Harry, looks like the nbi_docker value was also some 
problem with the python packages. The VMs do all start up now, but I have 
problems connecting to them with ssh so I can look over the logs. Even the last 
command of the deployment script does not complete correctly as it returns a 
permission problem with the private key. So far I am not sure if it is a 
problem with the ssh config or if the VMs are not loading the proper ssh public 
key.


Have you encountered this problem? Is there any specific ssh configuration 
necessary for the pod or ONAP?


Thank you very much,

Richard


From: huangxiangyu mailto:huangxiang...@huawei.com>>
Sent: 05 November 2018 08:11:07
To: Elias Richard; Klozik Martin; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Auto] huawei-pod12 ONAP status


Hi Richard



I have removed the pip.conf for host1. Though pip will still check the local 
repo first but it can install packages from internet now.

There seems no stack at this point and I believed OpenStack components are 
working functionally.

As for nbi_docker, I haven’t met this problem before, maybe you need to find 
answer from ONAP community



Regards

Harry



发件人: Elias Richard [mailto:richard.el...@tieto.com]
发送时间: 2018年10月30日 21:36
收件人: Klozik Martin mailto:martin.klo...@tieto.com>>; 
huangxiangyu mailto:huangxiang...@huawei.com>>; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
主题: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Auto] huawei-pod12 ONAP status



Hi Harry,

I connected to the host and run the commands, but there were problems with the 
python packages.



There was a proxy server set for the pip installation which cannot download the 
packages. Was there a reason a proxy was necessary for pip? If the packages are 
already installed the check could probably be skipped.



There are also some parts of Openstack that seem to be stuck after the reboot( 
for example a stack with status:DELETE_FAILED). The teardown script tries to 
remove this, but as it is stuck there could be problems with the deployment.



The creation script itself returns this error:

"ERROR: The Parameter (nbi_docker) was not provided."

I was not able to find this parameter in any of the templates in 
~/onap/integration/test/ete/labs/ so I am not sure what is missing.



I started analyzing the problem but I did not want to change anything before 
asking you for help.

Could you please take a look at it and share any insights you have?

Thank you very much,

Richard

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Tim Irnich]

The way I understand Trevor's concern is that if we start spending more
time on packaging tools and supporting their usage downstream, there
will be less time for doing integration work and driving upstream
production readiness. Which is something I'm concerned about too.

Pretending that this problem doesn't exist isn't helpful IMHO.

Tim

On 11/27/18 2:11 AM, HU, BIN wrote:
> Trevor,
> 
> Thank you for you clarifying it.
> 
> The integration work is explicitly mentioned to be continued in 3rd bullet on 
> slide #13 of v0.8. I am attaching it again just in case you missed it. That 
> work will continue as usual. All related bug fixes and new features in 
> upstream will continue as usual too. So I am not sure why it is a concern 
> here.
> 
> Regarding the concern of spending our time to help people use our tools, 
> isn't it the usual business we are supposed to do today? For example, after 
> we release Gambia, we are supposed to help people use it, right? There is a 
> "opnfv-user" mailing list for this purpose. There isn't much traffic though. 
> It means either everyone is an expert or no one is interested in using our 
> release. I wish it was because everyone is an expert, though the reality 
> might be opposite.
> 
> Recently, someone asked me how to run Yardstick on Dovetail. Thanks Georg for 
> sharing the docs. I was really excited because finally someone is interested 
> in using our tool. So getting user to use our tools is exactly what we want, 
> right? Without users, I don't know how to show others our value, frankly.
> 
> So IMHO, spending our time to help user isn't a concern at all. It is what we 
> need. And there is no difference of supporting users, e.g. use OpenStack by 
> OpenStack community, use ODL by ODL community. Etc.
> 
> If there is no user to support, we are in trouble because our deliverables 
> has no value.
> 
> Let me know what you think, and if you still have concerns.
> 
> Thank you
> Bin
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf Of 
> Trevor Bramwell
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:54 PM
> To: HU, BIN 
> Cc: Tim Irnich ; AshYoung ; Georg 
> Kunz ; Manuel Buil ; 
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
> 
> Hi Bin,
> 
> Perhaps 'integrated' is a better word here than 'supported'. A lot of the 
> work in OPNFV involves integrating many of these upstream components which in 
> turn exposes bugs, or creates features that enable an NFV use case.
> 
> I'm quite terrible with examples, but I'm sure others from the community have 
> time.
> 
> Regards,
> Trevor Bramwell
> 
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:26:33AM +, HU, BIN wrote:
>> Trevor,
>>
>> Thank you for your question.
>>
>> Can you give more details and examples of "doing what we're best at, which 
>> is getting NFV supported by upstream projects."?
>>
>> Thank you
>> Bin
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Trevor Bramwell 
>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:17 PM
>> To: HU, BIN 
>> Cc: Tim Irnich ; AshYoung ; 
>> Georg Kunz ; Manuel Buil ; 
>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
>> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
>>
>> Hi Bin,
>>
>> I'm still unclear on the first point: "Enabling and automating stakeholders’ 
>> business transformation into DevOps organization"
>>
>> From what I've read it seems like the suggestion is to package up everything 
>> that makes up OPNFV (Platform, CI/CD piplines, testing / verification / 
>> certification tools, etc.) and turn that into something that can be deployed 
>> by a company internally.
>>
>> Is that what is being suggested here, or something else? And if so I'd be 
>> concerned that we'd actually be reducing companies incentive to be involved, 
>> or more of our time would be spent trying to support people using the tool 
>> then doing what we're best at, which is getting NFV supported by upstream 
>> projects.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Trevor Bramwell
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 09:04:57PM +, HU, BIN wrote:
>>> Tim,
>>>
>>> Not sure if you get a chance to follow the most recent discussion.
>>>
>>> The ask is merely to agree on a strategy (i.e. the vision and direction) 
>>> outlined on Slide #13, supported by the steps of actions summarized on 
>>> slide #16. See attached the most recent update v0.8.
>>>
>>> Please let me know if there is anything unclear here.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Bin
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On 
>>> Behalf Of Tim Irnich
>>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 12:57 PM
>>> To: HU, BIN ; AshYoung ; Georg 
>>> Kunz ; Manuel Buil 
>>> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
>>> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
>>>
>>> On 11/26/18 4:40 PM, HU, BIN wrote:

 If I understand correctly, Point #1 and #3 are actually the same question, 
 i.e. what will we do in the next step?
>>>