From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com (mail-wm0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB46A133F for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:56:45 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id f82so110395837wmf.1 for ; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 02:56:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Mp04ufYLZi3LPxwcYeop4CjdEGM/SVsF4Fe0qz1t++Q=; b=yQjBLODDiogSplA5Oq6pXLdVf3kILn4zoz0OMKwHhmj1BLCjH5tsQCJVNZkTzTINji HQJbQJkk+HJsggk2jPBQjz/xI/0XRhx4qZscjxhzahy85bC4ivMgESpMGBYAjUX+iA02 dssRSIac843kJ0+l0nMjAJHzCQTZE6LOVRN30+wWlpFOUBWBuZ1rMuRvj+CzSAMT6JRU p0vMWvHJh0uGEWAYHw9EIoLvNKioqhDcuN88h6oY0wWqsJIaIhfdi3TJPEP1pAKyM9Zq PzagbDqehalTX5RLciasNichp0ENvZOiHZE8lwZxrdhUhX5XFeLGfrlwXF3IasT5JU1S z2vg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Mp04ufYLZi3LPxwcYeop4CjdEGM/SVsF4Fe0qz1t++Q=; b=QxJrqVCBsQ50VYLu4j/VhRYFQumXqAe59qX2E3b56naniB3BznRRDxcCt8UqhfuaHg tnJkPnylxAQtlVTIs5q4jZelZQaj8Qt2ChqAaLEkaoNKJwX1OjgdAjXVtH7l5zbTCqRF 15+aKD3fFNgmkz+bpODHX7YJ59Nz64oouts0gJMmXhFyd+5dRLdrU8/CYOt2r+g34IFA swuJYr0yPJTFmNUrfbSLQTekqZpPTVNkCVenmw4iUdaOqNn+kOI7kiyrQL6/mZp7n53I 1ToXvmfK9cSEvF1+Dj2zj8qnOJIh+saMdGSOYm2niTSsAxuUP44+ODNPjcgAhLSlpShj yxgg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfYLN7d/3wAzMgCmbl5XGF2njIx5oOnOd/7f5Ovsz6e7WpVGXQncUAC73vTCplvFBAA X-Received: by 10.28.211.71 with SMTP id k68mr8171830wmg.21.1478516205679; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 02:56:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id jq10sm30316490wjb.46.2016.11.07.02.56.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Nov 2016 02:56:44 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" , "Jerome Tollet (jtollet)" Cc: "Xu, Qian Q" , moving@dpdk.org, "Liu, Yong" , ci@dpdk.org Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 11:56:43 +0100 Message-ID: <10290425.flzfQBmMWt@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760D97B@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <86228AFD5BCD8E4EBFD2B90117B5E81E60310FA1@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760D97B@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] [dpdk-moving] proposal for DPDK CI improvement X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 10:56:46 -0000 2016-11-07 10:34, O'Driscoll, Tim: > From: Jerome Tollet > >=20 > > Hi Thomas & Qian, > > IMHO, performance results should be centralized and executed in a > > trusted & controlled environment. > > If official DPDK numbers are coming from private lab=E2=80=99s vend= ors, > > perception might be that they are not 100% neutral. That would prob= ably > > not help DPDK community to be seen open & transparent. >=20 > +1 >=20 > Somebody (Jan Blunck I think) also said on last week's call that > performance testing was a higher priority than CI for a centralized l= ab. > A model where we have centralized performance test and distributed CI= > might work well. +1 Having some trusted performance numbers is a top priority. I hope a budget in the foundation can solve it. I was just trying to say that numbers from private labs can bring some diversity and may be also valuable.