From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE290374C for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 07:02:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Apr 2017 22:02:35 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,162,1488873600"; d="scan'208";a="245683914" Received: from irsmsx106.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.31]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Apr 2017 22:02:34 -0700 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.239]) by IRSMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.8.202]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:02:33 +0100 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: DPDK Lab Thread-Index: AdKvWZ1WX6AN9LpiRJKe43aI1/mr9Q== Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 05:02:32 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA75A60870@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNjRlZTM5ZWUtZDFhOS00Nzg0LTk1NzMtYTRkNDlkMmNhNTU3IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjIuMTEuMCIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiIxa0hGR3I3cUdnRHYwSnhsTHZoRERtZWx5M2pob3ZkcDdmN0tVeFI3enJJPSJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 10.0.102.7 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [dpdk-moving] DPDK Lab X-BeenThere: moving@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK community structure changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 05:02:37 -0000 A couple of months ago we discussed creating an open DPDK lab for identifyi= ng performance regressions. See http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2017-Feb= ruary/000177.html for the initial proposal. We agreed to form a small sub-t= eam of those who were interested in participating in the lab, and have had = a few follow-up calls involving reps from Intel, Mellanox, NXP, 6WIND and R= ed Hat. Because several companies have now joined the DPDK Linux Foundation project= who were not involved in those earlier discussions, we agreed at our last = meeting to post again on this mailing list to see if anybody else is intere= sted in participating. If anybody is, let me know and I'll include you in t= he meetings. As background, the purpose of the lab is to identify any performance regres= sions in patches that are submitted to DPDK. Testing when the patches are s= ubmitted will help to identify problems early, and avoid situations where w= e're trying to fix performance issues late in the release (as we have been = doing with the mbuf changes in 17.05 recently). Doing the testing in an ope= n lab will help to give people confidence in the numbers, and make sure the= data is accessible to the community. As a quick status update on this, we have an initial equipment list now (se= e https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17t8j388wAxwF7B6iuZ5gpkauLMB1ownJe= 3eIVl4TXUg/edit?usp=3Dsharing), and plan to focus on the specific tests to = be run at our next meeting. At the moment the spreadsheet specifies all tes= ts as being run on a daily basis, but we need to determine which can be run= per patch and/or per patch set. We're also investigating hosting costs so = that we can create a complete proposal that can then be submitted to the go= verning board for review/approval. Tim