Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Tianhongbo]

Thanks

Hongbo

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Cooper, Trevor
Sent: 2017年8月18日 7:29
To: Wenjing Chu ; Lincoln Lavoie 
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Done https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta

Trevor

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 9:53 AM
To: Lincoln Lavoie >
Cc: Cooper, Trevor >; 
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
>; Dave 
Urschatz >; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Very well said. Let me amend it. Thanks.

Wenjing

From: Lincoln Lavoie [mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 5:31 AM
To: Wenjing Chu >
Cc: Cooper, Trevor >; 
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
>; Dave 
Urschatz >; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

It's not suppose to be "only bugs from beta testers," but beta testers are 
expected to be the primary source of bug reports.  During the beta period, no 
new tests or features would be added, only bug fixes.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Wenjing Chu 
> wrote:
Trevor & Bryan,

Thanks for the interest in participating in Beta. It’s great to see the leaders 
stepping up.

I think the quoted line meant to say that bugs encountered in beta have 
priority and the immediate attention, esp. if/when we have to choose. Another 
point is that during beta we have interests in stability as well, fixing 
non-critical bugs already known before the beta may cause more harm than good. 
That’s how I understood it as a developer.

Lincoln, do you like to add comment as it’s from one of your suggestions?

We can discuss & rephrase it as appropriate.

Wenjing

From: Cooper, Trevor 
[mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 7:01 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
>; 
Wenjing Chu >; Dave 
Urschatz >; Lincoln 
Lavoie >
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org

Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I added Intel to the table as offering a Pharos POD for the beta trial.

“Only bugs submitted by the beta testers will be reviewed and accepted during 
Beta” … why would we only fix bugs reported by beta testers? ALL reported bugs 
should be investigated and prioritized.

/Trevor

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 10:14 AM
To: Wenjing Chu >; Dave 
Urschatz >; Lincoln 
Lavoie >
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I added the table for beta participants.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:44 PM
To: Dave Urschatz >; 
Lincoln Lavoie >; SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Here is the Beta test page: 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta
I think I summarized most of the comments I received so far. Please 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Weekly meeting agenda 8/18

[Cooper, Trevor]

I have updated the list of documents, there are still a number that need 
significant work before launch  
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+%28Danube%29+Documentation+for+Review

/Trevor

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Wenjing Chu
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 11:11 PM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Weekly meeting agenda 8/18

Hi Dovetailers

We have a lot on agenda this week. Time may be tight, so please prepare ahead 
of time.


-  Cvp web portal plan review  ~20 min.

-  A quick status on dovetaill 0.5 release (feature freeze) ~ 15 min

-  Documentation: addendum, and the full list that still need to be 
merged  ~15 min

-  Beta draft plan ~10 min

Any other suggestions/comments ? Thanks.

Regards
Wenjing
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Cooper, Trevor]

Done https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta

Trevor

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 9:53 AM
To: Lincoln Lavoie 
Cc: Cooper, Trevor ; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
; Dave Urschatz ; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Very well said. Let me amend it. Thanks.

Wenjing

From: Lincoln Lavoie [mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 5:31 AM
To: Wenjing Chu >
Cc: Cooper, Trevor >; 
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
>; Dave 
Urschatz >; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

It's not suppose to be "only bugs from beta testers," but beta testers are 
expected to be the primary source of bug reports.  During the beta period, no 
new tests or features would be added, only bug fixes.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Wenjing Chu 
> wrote:
Trevor & Bryan,

Thanks for the interest in participating in Beta. It’s great to see the leaders 
stepping up.

I think the quoted line meant to say that bugs encountered in beta have 
priority and the immediate attention, esp. if/when we have to choose. Another 
point is that during beta we have interests in stability as well, fixing 
non-critical bugs already known before the beta may cause more harm than good. 
That’s how I understood it as a developer.

Lincoln, do you like to add comment as it’s from one of your suggestions?

We can discuss & rephrase it as appropriate.

Wenjing

From: Cooper, Trevor 
[mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 7:01 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
>; 
Wenjing Chu >; Dave 
Urschatz >; Lincoln 
Lavoie >
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org

Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I added Intel to the table as offering a Pharos POD for the beta trial.

“Only bugs submitted by the beta testers will be reviewed and accepted during 
Beta” … why would we only fix bugs reported by beta testers? ALL reported bugs 
should be investigated and prioritized.

/Trevor

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 10:14 AM
To: Wenjing Chu >; Dave 
Urschatz >; Lincoln 
Lavoie >
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I added the table for beta participants.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:44 PM
To: Dave Urschatz >; 
Lincoln Lavoie >; SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Here is the Beta test page: 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta
I think I summarized most of the comments I received so far. Please let me know 
if I missed anything. Additional comments welcome and we’ll discuss in this 
week’s call.
Again, thanks Bryan and Lincoln for your suggestions.

Dave,
On your first two points, please refer to the above wiki page.
For the third point, yes, current testing assumes Pharos pods for the system 
under test.

Wenjing

From: Wenjing Chu
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:47 PM
To: 'Dave Urschatz' >; 
Lincoln Lavoie >; 

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [StorPerf] Graphite Alpine

[Beierl, Mark]

Hello, Shrenik.

I see there is already an alpine based Graphite that is being developed here 
[1].  Do you think it is worth using instead of the hopsoft one?

[1] https://hub.docker.com/r/diceone/alpine-graphite/~/dockerfile/

Regards,
Mark

Mark Beierl
SW System Sr Principal Engineer
Dell EMC | Office of the CTO
mobile +1 613 314 8106
mark.bei...@dell.com

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Wenjing Chu]

Very well said. Let me amend it. Thanks.

Wenjing

From: Lincoln Lavoie [mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 5:31 AM
To: Wenjing Chu 
Cc: Cooper, Trevor ; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
; Dave Urschatz ; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

It's not suppose to be "only bugs from beta testers," but beta testers are 
expected to be the primary source of bug reports.  During the beta period, no 
new tests or features would be added, only bug fixes.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Wenjing Chu 
> wrote:
Trevor & Bryan,

Thanks for the interest in participating in Beta. It’s great to see the leaders 
stepping up.

I think the quoted line meant to say that bugs encountered in beta have 
priority and the immediate attention, esp. if/when we have to choose. Another 
point is that during beta we have interests in stability as well, fixing 
non-critical bugs already known before the beta may cause more harm than good. 
That’s how I understood it as a developer.

Lincoln, do you like to add comment as it’s from one of your suggestions?

We can discuss & rephrase it as appropriate.

Wenjing

From: Cooper, Trevor 
[mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 7:01 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
>; 
Wenjing Chu >; Dave 
Urschatz >; Lincoln 
Lavoie >
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org

Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I added Intel to the table as offering a Pharos POD for the beta trial.

“Only bugs submitted by the beta testers will be reviewed and accepted during 
Beta” … why would we only fix bugs reported by beta testers? ALL reported bugs 
should be investigated and prioritized.

/Trevor

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 10:14 AM
To: Wenjing Chu >; Dave 
Urschatz >; Lincoln 
Lavoie >
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I added the table for beta participants.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:44 PM
To: Dave Urschatz >; 
Lincoln Lavoie >; SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Here is the Beta test page: 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta
I think I summarized most of the comments I received so far. Please let me know 
if I missed anything. Additional comments welcome and we’ll discuss in this 
week’s call.
Again, thanks Bryan and Lincoln for your suggestions.

Dave,
On your first two points, please refer to the above wiki page.
For the third point, yes, current testing assumes Pharos pods for the system 
under test.

Wenjing

From: Wenjing Chu
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:47 PM
To: 'Dave Urschatz' >; 
Lincoln Lavoie >; SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Just an ack that I’ll be populating a wiki page today incorporating discussions 
at last Friday’s call and some of comments in this thread.
Thanks for all the inputs.

Wenjing

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Urschatz
Sent: Friday, August 11, 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Topics for Weekly Technical Discussion

[Bob Monkman]

Alec,
  We appreciate your comments. In the Armband project, we indeed 
used x86 jump servers for the first 2 years of the project, but converted to 
ARM servers recently as we resolved missing support items. It is our preference 
at this point to identify and resolve missing ARM support wherever we encounter 
it, rather than decide we cannot do it. OPNFV, ONAP, FD.IO, DPDK, etc shall 
be/must be multi-architecture and our team can help bring resources to bear to 
solve the problems as they arise.
  Having said that, if we have a deadline that will be missed due 
to lead times to solve ARM support issues, we can always decide to attack that 
offline for a later release.

  I am on holiday and I will ask Shai Tsur and Alex Avadanii to 
help dealing with identified issues that require work. Shai, please escalate 
internally if we need extra resources to solve issues.

Regards,
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Alec Hothan 
(ahothan)
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 5:47 PM
To: HU, BIN ; Beierl, Mark 
Cc: 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" >
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 5:00 PM
To: "Beierl, Mark" >, "Alec 
Hothan (ahothan)" >
Cc: 
"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) >
Cc: HU, BIN >; 
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
mark.bei...@dell.com

On Aug 15, 2017, at 12:03, Alec Hothan (ahothan) 
> 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 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Topics for Weekly Technical Discussion

[Alec Hothan (ahothan)]

[+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" 
Date: Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 6:21 AM
To: "Alec Hothan (ahothan)" 
Cc: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" , 
"HU, BIN" , Raymond Paik 
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
mark.bei...@dell.com

On Aug 16, 2017, at 21:02, HU, BIN > 
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 >; Beierl, Mark 
>
Cc: 
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" >
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 5:00 PM
To: "Beierl, Mark" >, "Alec 
Hothan (ahothan)" >
Cc: 
"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) >
Cc: HU, BIN >; 
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 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [VSPERF] [Bottlenecks] VSPERF and StorPerf

[Beierl, Mark]

Hello, Gabriel.

The idea behind starting one first is so we can see the delta at the point 
where it started.  We certainly can run both independently as a baseline, and 
then run them together can measure the delta that way...

Regards,
Mark

Mark Beierl
SW System Sr Principal Engineer
Dell EMC | Office of the CTO
mobile +1 613 314 8106
mark.bei...@dell.com

On Aug 17, 2017, at 04:20, Yuyang (Gabriel) 
> wrote:

Hi Mark,

I fully support the idea here. I think it is time testing projects together 
develop some sophisticated stress test cases across components of the system.
Just 1 question, why start VSPERF and STORPERF separately. Why not start both 
tests simultaneously and monitoring/reporting the throughput variation along 
time.

Thanks,
Gabriel


From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Beierl, Mark
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 12:17 AM
To: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [VSPERF] [Bottlenecks] VSPERF and StorPerf

Hello, Trevor and VSPERF team.

I'd like to get a quick overview of VSPERF and how the metrics are captured.  
Sorry if these are dumb questions :)

First, is there a test that simply pushes packets over the network to see what 
the maximum throughput is, like a saturation test?

Does VSPERF capture periodic metrics, or just a summary report at the end?  If 
I change something in the network while the test is running (such as adding 
more traffic outside of VSPERF), is there a way to see the impact of that while 
the test is running?

The reason behind the questions are for the following scenario:

1) I start up VSPERF on the NICs that represent the tenant network in an 
OpenStack installation.
2) After 10 minutes, start up StorPerf read/write test that should stress the 
OpenStack storage network
3) See if there is a change to the VSPERF throughput.

Alternatively, as StorPerf does have minute by minute metrics, we can do this:

1) Start StorPerf read/write
2) After 10 minutes, start VSPERF to stress the tenant network NICs
3) Look at the change in StorPerf throughput at the time that VSPERF starts.

Thoughts?

Regards,
Mark

Mark Beierl
SW System Sr Principal Engineer
Dell EMC | Office of the CTO
mobile +1 613 314 8106
mark.bei...@dell.com

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Topics for Weekly Technical Discussion

[Beierl, Mark]

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
mark.bei...@dell.com

On Aug 16, 2017, at 21:02, HU, BIN > 
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 >; Beierl, Mark 
>
Cc: 
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" >
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 5:00 PM
To: "Beierl, Mark" >, "Alec 
Hothan (ahothan)" >
Cc: 
"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) >
Cc: HU, BIN >; 
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
mark.bei...@dell.com

On Aug 15, 2017, at 12:03, Alec Hothan (ahothan) 
> 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

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [all] ETSI NFV - OpenStack workshop in Denver

[Ildiko Vancsa]

Hi All,

I would like to draw your attention to a co-located event during the upcoming 
OpenStack PTG (https://www.openstack.org/ptg/) in Denver which might be in your 
interest. The event will take place in the OpenStack PTG venue (Renaissance 
Hotel, Denver) at 2pm - 5pm on Tuesday (Sept. 12).

The workshop intends to provide a forum to identify and discuss the common use 
cases and tasks between OpenStack and ETSI NFV and take these items to the next 
level. The co-located workshop will be a working event to discuss the gaps and 
requirements on both sides in details and work on the technical solutions and 
next steps.

You can find more details and planned agenda on the following etherpad: 
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/etsi-nfv-openstack-gathering-denver

Please add your name to the etherpad if you intend to join. If you have any 
questions or comments feel free to add them to the etherpad or reply to this 
mail thread.

Thanks and Best Regards,
Ildikó Váncsa
Ecosystem Technical Lead, OpenStack Foundation
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Lincoln Lavoie]

It's not suppose to be "only bugs from beta testers," but beta testers are
expected to be the primary source of bug reports.  During the beta period,
no new tests or features would be added, only bug fixes.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Wenjing Chu  wrote:

> Trevor & Bryan,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the interest in participating in Beta. It’s great to see the
> leaders stepping up.
>
>
>
> I think the quoted line meant to say that bugs encountered in beta have
> priority and the immediate attention, esp. if/when we have to choose.
> Another point is that during beta we have interests in stability as well,
> fixing non-critical bugs already known before the beta may cause more harm
> than good. That’s how I understood it as a developer.
>
>
>
> Lincoln, do you like to add comment as it’s from one of your suggestions?
>
>
>
> We can discuss & rephrase it as appropriate.
>
>
>
> Wenjing
>
>
>
> *From:* Cooper, Trevor [mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2017 7:01 PM
> *To:* SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) ;
> Wenjing Chu ; Dave Urschatz <
> dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>; Lincoln Lavoie 
> *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>
> *Subject:* RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> I added Intel to the table as offering a Pharos POD for the beta trial.
>
>
>
> “Only bugs submitted by the beta testers will be reviewed and accepted
> during Beta” … why would we only fix bugs reported by beta testers? ALL
> reported bugs should be investigated and prioritized.
>
>
>
> /Trevor
>
>
>
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [
> mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *SULLIVAN,
> BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2017 10:14 AM
> *To:* Wenjing Chu ; Dave Urschatz <
> dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>; Lincoln Lavoie 
> *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> I added the table for beta participants.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bryan Sullivan | AT
>
>
>
> *From:* Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 14, 2017 10:44 PM
> *To:* Dave Urschatz ; Lincoln Lavoie <
> lylav...@iol.unh.edu>; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) <
> bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>
> *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> Here is the Beta test page: https://wiki.opnfv.org/
> display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta
> 
>
> I think I summarized most of the comments I received so far. Please let me
> know if I missed anything. Additional comments welcome and we’ll discuss in
> this week’s call.
>
> Again, thanks Bryan and Lincoln for your suggestions.
>
>
>
> Dave,
>
> On your first two points, please refer to the above wiki page.
>
> For the third point, yes, current testing assumes Pharos pods for the
> system under test.
>
>
>
> Wenjing
>
>
>
> *From:* Wenjing Chu
> *Sent:* Monday, August 14, 2017 4:47 PM
> *To:* 'Dave Urschatz' ; Lincoln Lavoie <
> lylav...@iol.unh.edu>; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) <
> bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>
> *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> Just an ack that I’ll be populating a wiki page today incorporating
> discussions at last Friday’s call and some of comments in this thread.
>
> Thanks for all the inputs.
>
>
>
> Wenjing
>
>
>
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [
> mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Dave Urschatz
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2017 10:39 AM
> *To:* Lincoln Lavoie ; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) <
> bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>
> *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> I missed the call today also.
>
>- What timeframe are we planning this for?
>- How long would the trial be?
>- Bare Metal Pharos PODs only?  (I think this is yes but want to
>confirm.)
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> *Dave Urschatz*
>
> *Senior Technical Lead*
>
>
> 
>
> *555 Legget Drive| Tower A | Suite 

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV] follow-up vIMS load test automation initiated during last plugfest

[morgan.richomme]

Hi,

End of July, Valentin (Orange) and Arturo (Ixia) finalized the 
automation of load test using Ixia loader based on cloudify_ims testcase.


This work was initiated during the Plugfest in Paris.

So far, the cloudify_ims was dealing with 3 steps

 -   deployement of cloudify (orchestrator part)
 -   deployment of clearwater ims
 -   run functional signaling suite based on metaswitch ruby suite

This has been integrated by Valentin and released since Brahmaputra (see 
description in the OPNFV book)


During the plugfest Arturo and Valentin were able to generate realistic 
load through the ixia loader on such system (see Plugfest report)
Most of the additional operations (installation of the loader, 
generation of the load, ..) were done manually.


During the summer session we were able to generate more than 130.000 
calls within 10 minutes.
you can see the effects on the power consumption through the POD 
monitoring (2 load tests visible on the figure below)




this part has been automated
Valentin submitted a patch to create the testcase => 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/38767/4


This new test case is raising 2 questions

-integration of proprietary loader (already raised in vsperf)
In the configuration file there is a link towards Ixia licence server in 
order to enable loader.
within open source community context it can be discussed with Ixia. it 
could make sense to create an url such as opnfv.ixia.org for the license 
server with referencing the OPNFV community PODs (filtering on the IPs 
of the community PODs on Ixia side).


-testing organization on VNF performance tests
The test case is in Functest because it requires the cloud_ims as 
prerequisites.
However Functest is not aiming to perform performance test...the pseudo 
micro service approach we already discussed a little bit could make sense
- a performance project is able to ask functest to deploy the vIMS 
through an API (patch under review) then perform the performance part.
For Euphrates it will be too short...we then intend to merge the case in 
Functest with a status disabled (people could run it manually but not 
integrated in CI).
But we will probably need to discuss how to manage VNF performance 
testing in the future.

what do you think?

I suggest a 20' presentation on the work done during a testing working 
group meeting (on the 23rd or 31st of August?)
I could also invite people from the EUAG that may be interested by the 
topic and/or people from ONAP?


any comment welcome

/Morgan

_

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [VSPERF] [Bottlenecks] VSPERF and StorPerf

[Yuyang (Gabriel)]

Hi Mark,

I fully support the idea here. I think it is time testing projects together 
develop some sophisticated stress test cases across components of the system.
Just 1 question, why start VSPERF and STORPERF separately. Why not start both 
tests simultaneously and monitoring/reporting the throughput variation along 
time.

Thanks,
Gabriel


From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Beierl, Mark
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 12:17 AM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [VSPERF] [Bottlenecks] VSPERF and StorPerf

Hello, Trevor and VSPERF team.

I'd like to get a quick overview of VSPERF and how the metrics are captured.  
Sorry if these are dumb questions :)

First, is there a test that simply pushes packets over the network to see what 
the maximum throughput is, like a saturation test?

Does VSPERF capture periodic metrics, or just a summary report at the end?  If 
I change something in the network while the test is running (such as adding 
more traffic outside of VSPERF), is there a way to see the impact of that while 
the test is running?

The reason behind the questions are for the following scenario:

1) I start up VSPERF on the NICs that represent the tenant network in an 
OpenStack installation.
2) After 10 minutes, start up StorPerf read/write test that should stress the 
OpenStack storage network
3) See if there is a change to the VSPERF throughput.

Alternatively, as StorPerf does have minute by minute metrics, we can do this:

1) Start StorPerf read/write
2) After 10 minutes, start VSPERF to stress the tenant network NICs
3) Look at the change in StorPerf throughput at the time that VSPERF starts.

Thoughts?

Regards,
Mark

Mark Beierl
SW System Sr Principal Engineer
Dell EMC | Office of the CTO
mobile +1 613 314 8106
mark.bei...@dell.com

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Wenjing Chu]

Trevor & Bryan,

Thanks for the interest in participating in Beta. It’s great to see the leaders 
stepping up.

I think the quoted line meant to say that bugs encountered in beta have 
priority and the immediate attention, esp. if/when we have to choose. Another 
point is that during beta we have interests in stability as well, fixing 
non-critical bugs already known before the beta may cause more harm than good. 
That’s how I understood it as a developer.

Lincoln, do you like to add comment as it’s from one of your suggestions?

We can discuss & rephrase it as appropriate.

Wenjing

From: Cooper, Trevor [mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 7:01 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) ; Wenjing Chu 
; Dave Urschatz ; Lincoln 
Lavoie 
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I added Intel to the table as offering a Pharos POD for the beta trial.

“Only bugs submitted by the beta testers will be reviewed and accepted during 
Beta” … why would we only fix bugs reported by beta testers? ALL reported bugs 
should be investigated and prioritized.

/Trevor

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 10:14 AM
To: Wenjing Chu >; Dave 
Urschatz >; Lincoln 
Lavoie >
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I added the table for beta participants.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:44 PM
To: Dave Urschatz >; 
Lincoln Lavoie >; SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Here is the Beta test page: 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta
I think I summarized most of the comments I received so far. Please let me know 
if I missed anything. Additional comments welcome and we’ll discuss in this 
week’s call.
Again, thanks Bryan and Lincoln for your suggestions.

Dave,
On your first two points, please refer to the above wiki page.
For the third point, yes, current testing assumes Pharos pods for the system 
under test.

Wenjing

From: Wenjing Chu
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:47 PM
To: 'Dave Urschatz' >; 
Lincoln Lavoie >; SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Just an ack that I’ll be populating a wiki page today incorporating discussions 
at last Friday’s call and some of comments in this thread.
Thanks for all the inputs.

Wenjing

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Urschatz
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 10:39 AM
To: Lincoln Lavoie >; 
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I missed the call today also.

  *   What timeframe are we planning this for?
  *   How long would the trial be?
  *   Bare Metal Pharos PODs only?  (I think this is yes but want to confirm.)

Best Regards,
Dave

Dave Urschatz
Senior Technical Lead
[cid:image001.jpg@01D316E5.72FF4450]
555 Legget Drive| Tower A | Suite 600| Ottawa ON | K2K 2X3 | 613-963-1201


From: