From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220FC374C for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:20:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8546620964; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:20:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:20:28 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=BTIgnzJFZ36hSf+eTkoe3N1kI0YDSNMQtU5164q4Ato=; b=ZC10PxINQpyT xr7HOi6S88hwkS8h5mm3Q1Do44pQyThlmX/fx04mDBFRsw7JYvVmdOclqn5RBjhq TYsD9u2YDEw8UeQmrG2sxGW4KaFb115e7bL2h+Ez87cHkieAei0BBWXtBlEprxym yaA6Pi9RloI29lWf1vPXjp9hOHWxl1w= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=BTIgnzJFZ36hSf+eTkoe3N1kI0YDSNMQtU5164q4A to=; b=yG1SidhKMpTuqRPj2oJIboqNqTqSqCoh/VIHgL1fPcCgJMcCcd03GmlVH P0PCGkTRygdx4USfSkwG7Upa5Xtl8VjFs5aXIT/T5VSt3gMUYjqnPFLVdQEm/Nyw luKbIAP8Ppc3HAId3Nmr9qy9xrRyge97q89hvuBJRvE/D5TUDEYVujWn5h+YG/pt yNDYzOZm/7RN4UxUsG0bpRh5OdMDmWxypRYQ7B2/EZOZ5K8qBD1/Gh8qUt11Kh6D zI+skgeXjEzxKd1bhPLL+C+iRZm/6JKI3fmc8bPvNqRdT3X52LhmNiGEgfjeyXp2 b1nHvgTs01wXls/Ol4shy6cm0v7Ug== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedutddrvdefgdejkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epleefrdeirddugeelrdduudegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgr shesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (114.149.6.93.rev.sfr.net [93.6.149.114]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BD89310312; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:20:26 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: ci@dpdk.org Cc: "O'Driscoll, Tim" Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:20:18 +0100 Message-ID: <1705160.KQmOS6fXmK@xps> In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BAB785C151@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BAB785C151@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Minutes of DPDK Lab Meeting, February 26th X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:20:29 -0000 Hi, 28/02/2019 15:49, O'Driscoll, Tim: > OVS Tests: > - Jeremy and Aaron are working on setup of the temporary hardware. > - There are two options for hardware to run this on when the setup is complete: 1) use existing vendor hardware; 2) obtain standalone servers for OVS testing. The OVS team's preference is option 2. It's not realistic to expect a vendor to provide hardware to run a competitor's products so we'd need to find a different way to procure this. Aaron will check with Rashid to see if budget is available from Red Hat. I'll check with Trishan to see if the DPDK project budget could cover this. > - The OVS focus is on functional tests, not performance tests. The DPDK lab is currently set up so that each vendor has complete control over performance tests & results on their hardware. If we use separate hardware for the OVS tests, we need to ensure that we restrict scope to functional tests so that it does not conflict with this principle in future. I am not sure to understand. In my opinion, the purpose of this lab is to have properly tuned hardware for running a large set of tests. We should be able to run various tests on the same machine. So the OVS tests, like any new test scenario, should be run on the same machine as the performance tests. I think we just need to have a job queue to run tests one by one, avoiding a test to disturb results of another one. Why are we looking for additional machines?