From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi1-f170.google.com (mail-oi1-f170.google.com [209.85.167.170]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723B82C18 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 17:59:15 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-oi1-f170.google.com with SMTP id t82so4382217oie.12 for ; Mon, 04 Mar 2019 08:59:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=92jI5yDfDpklFnAVpMUdF9JSTYNiWJvxKVq6DIIc4vo=; b=AYjjOGxiCtbihivMitZicUwusDeorD7u0kmTkgiepfCmDHhD/Uic8KtHdlszASHR/c t1t12cel3piJEAuBchDy/B6xSHEVni9nKZhwXEK+PQXGZg3pPchic0McvKYnJGk4hA9S smR4lcfnMXbGTb1K2uXzbwlqkY8wrAGPBMj68= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=92jI5yDfDpklFnAVpMUdF9JSTYNiWJvxKVq6DIIc4vo=; b=twnUrOklMfl1rosS+zGJAfeH0eAinfQ2kOpZqktpq4hdl1faizrAQ27/0pltGTf13B JazSxKKY7CLs4dIlv/B8Mw9Qn11rVdCvtscIxXK/ykloff1o6ve1fizHQG28mmvEo08r V3UEfP7NYgkuVGRn3Yas3TRC0mSb+Tgee0qNUjVWXr1h0FGrtDmvcd3t3ADNk56Sn7UU XZ27u647C/QiiIv9FFnd4hRPSEB9Ox6ZNQRL2L+k98wRFe5mbLlfHgCokCv25K4A9z8a yMBWLiw7J0HI/z1OXb8dn0tmixpRLHW5F4O0Kr5zgLMJLAT68R9pGoBl1PrLZLuCvsll FUIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW11SEJSGUjMvHBjUutM0vSQ83P+R4G80A7BB2qP1Yhrxan6Xv6 RV3jTeNK9t4Fr+8+h1Tbtadu3wSHqR+hcBAgWabkNA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Iaz9AubYveYAEm3lchSxapdvfPN2CoJa4VJuRZrp/8Wf467HOj/UXDmChgt2ZsO1RI0lSCFWHnXjnarrpFrh/I= X-Received: by 2002:aca:5782:: with SMTP id l124mr12248860oib.66.1551718754526; Mon, 04 Mar 2019 08:59:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BAB785C151@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <1705160.KQmOS6fXmK@xps> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BAB785C1CF@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: Lincoln Lavoie Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 11:59:11 -0500 Message-ID: To: Aaron Conole Cc: "O'Driscoll, Tim" , Thomas Monjalon , "ci@dpdk.org" , "Stokes, Ian" , Rashid Khan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000027bbee058347ad8e" 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: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 16:59:15 -0000 --00000000000027bbee058347ad8e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi All, The reason we selection loaner machines (UNH provided) for the development was to avoid interference with the existing setup, i.e. don't break or degrade the performance tuned systems. For the deployed testing (i.e. once we have the OVS developed and integrated with the lab dashboard) can be done either on the existing hardware, or a stand alone setup with multiple NICs. I think this was proposed, because function testing with multiple NICs would had more hardware coverage than the two vendor performance systems right now. That might also be a lower bar for some hardware vendors to only provide a NIC, etc. In we choose the "option A" to use the existing performance setups, we would serialize the testing, so the performance jobs run independently, but I don't think that was really the question. Cheers, Lincoln On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 8:06 AM Aaron Conole wrote: > "O'Driscoll, Tim" writes: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > >> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 3:20 PM > >> To: ci@dpdk.org > >> Cc: O'Driscoll, Tim > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Minutes of DPDK Lab Meeting, February 26th > >> > >> 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. > > This is definitely something I support as well. > > >> 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? > > I think because there is no such kind of job queue available, currently? > I don't recall if an exact reason was given other than the nebulous fear > of "breaking the existing setups". > > > That was my assumption too. I believe the reason is that the OVS team > > want to validate with multiple vendor NICs to be sure that nothing is > > broken. We only have Intel and Mellanox hardware in our lab at > > present, so we don't cover all vendors. > > > > Aaron and Ian can provide more details. > -- *Lincoln Lavoie* Senior Engineer, Broadband Technologies 21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, Durham, NH 03824 lylavoie@iol.unh.edu https://www.iol.unh.edu +1-603-674-2755 (m) --00000000000027bbee058347ad8e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi = All,

=
The reason we select= ion loaner machines (UNH provided) for the development was to avoid interfe= rence with the existing setup, i.e. don't break or degrade the performa= nce tuned systems.

For th= e deployed testing (i.e. once we have the OVS developed and integrated with= the lab dashboard) can be done either on the existing hardware, or a stand= alone setup with multiple NICs.=C2=A0 I think this was proposed, because f= unction testing with multiple NICs would had more hardware coverage than th= e two vendor performance systems right now.=C2=A0 That might also be a lowe= r bar for some hardware vendors to only provide a NIC, etc.

In we choose the "option A" to= use the existing performance setups, we would serialize the testing, so th= e performance jobs run independently, but I don't think that was really= the question.
=
Cheers,
Lincoln

On M= on, Mar 4, 2019 at 8:06 AM Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com> wrote:
"O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com&= gt; writes:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 3:20 PM
>> To: ci@dpdk.org
>> Cc: O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Minutes of DPDK Lab Meeting, February 26th<= br> >>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 28/02/2019 15:49, O'Driscoll, Tim:
>> > OVS Tests:
>> > - Jeremy and Aaron are working on setup of the temporary hard= ware.
>> > - There are two options for hardware to run this on when the = setup is
>> complete: 1) use existing vendor hardware; 2) obtain standalone se= rvers
>> 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 competit= or'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 t= his.
>> > - The OVS focus is on functional tests, not performance tests= . The
>> DPDK lab is currently set up so that each vendor has complete cont= rol
>> over performance tests & results on their hardware. If we use = separate
>> hardware for the OVS tests, we need to ensure that we restrict sco= pe 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.

This is definitely something I support as well.

>> I think we just need to have a job queue to run tests one by one,<= br> >> avoiding a test to disturb results of another one.
>>
>> Why are we looking for additional machines?

I think because there is no such kind of job queue available, currently? I don't recall if an exact reason was given other than the nebulous fea= r
of "breaking the existing setups".

> That was my assumption too. I believe the reason is that the OVS team<= br> > want to validate with multiple vendor NICs to be sure that nothing is<= br> > broken. We only have Intel and Mellanox hardware in our lab at
> present, so we don't cover all vendors.
>
> Aaron and Ian can provide more details.


--
Lincoln Lavoie
Senior Engineer, Broadband Technologies
21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 10= 0, Durham, NH 03824
+1-603-674= -2755 (m)
--00000000000027bbee058347ad8e--