Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 24th

[Michael Dolan <mdolan@linuxfoundation.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6484 bytes --]

OPNFV also uses distributed labs and came to agreement in the community on
what those should look like.

https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/pharos/Pharos+Home

---
Mike Dolan
VP of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
Office: +1.330.460.3250   Cell: +1.440.552.5322  Skype: michaelkdolan
mdolan@linuxfoundation.org
---

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:06 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
wrote:

> Yes, agreed, more proposals and participation are always good.
>
>
>
> In terms of the lab models that George asked about, we decided early in
> our discussions to implement a distributed CI solution. Thomas has done
> great work to integrate this with Patchwork, so you can see which CI tests
> each patch has passed/failed at: http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/
> project/dpdk/list/ (see the Success/Warning/Fail (S/W/F) columns).
>
>
>
> There was interest in creating a community lab to be hosted by the Linux
> Foundation for independent performance testing and for identifying
> performance regressions. It was felt that results from an independent lab
> would have more credibility than results from vendor labs. As Heqing said,
> we’ll have a proposal on this after the PRC New Year holiday. If we end up
> not having budget for this, or don’t agree that it’s required, then we can
> explore other options such as a distributed solution.
>
>
>
> *From:* Zhu, Heqing
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2017 5:39 PM
> *To:* George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@huawei.com>; O'Driscoll, Tim <
> tim.odriscoll@intel.com>; Ed Warnicke <hagbard@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles@intel.com>; moving@dpdk.org; Zhu, Heqing <
> heqing.zhu@intel.com>
> *Subject:* RE: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux
> Foundation" call, January 24th
>
>
>
> As matter of fact today, Intel helps the DPDK release validation. As Tim
> said, we will make a proposal after CNY.
>
>
>
> DPDK is an open community, more proposals and participation are welcomed.
>
>
>
> *From:* moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org <moving-bounces@dpdk.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *George Zhao
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:29 AM
> *To:* O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>; Ed Warnicke <
> hagbard@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles@intel.com>; moving@dpdk.org
> *Subject:* Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux
> Foundation" call, January 24th
>
>
>
> I know there are two ways normally community lab operate, one is like
> fd.io project,  CSIT lab is managed by Linux Foundation, the other is
> like OpenDaylight where member companies open their lab to share with
> community.
>
>
>
> Do we decide which way for DPDK lab?
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> *From:* moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org <moving-bounces@dpdk.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *O'Driscoll, Tim
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:10 AM
> *To:* Ed Warnicke
> *Cc:* Wiles, Keith; moving@dpdk.org
> *Subject:* Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux
> Foundation" call, January 24th
>
>
>
> We haven’t yet agreed that we definitely need a lab, how big it needs to
> be, and how much it will cost. Our team in PRC have been working on a
> proposal, but with their New Year holidays that’s a couple of weeks away
> from being ready to share with the community.
>
>
>
> The scope we’ve been discussing for the lab is quite small when compared
> to FD.io’s CSIT project. It would be a reference lab to provide independent
> performance data and to identify any performance regression. The ~$200k I
> quoted for a single rack is really the minimum starting point. If we agree
> we need more and have the budget to cover it, then we can expand beyond
> that.
>
>
>
> Mike will explore interest in the lab as part of his discussions, and
> we’ll also have one of our PRC team present the proposal to the community
> when they return from their New Year holiday. After that, we’ll know more
> about the level of interest in the lab and the cost associated with it.
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@gmail.com <hagbard@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2017 4:31 PM
> *To:* O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
> *Cc:* Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles@intel.com>; moving@dpdk.org
> *Subject:* Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux
> Foundation" call, January 24th
>
>
>
> Question... are you only pricing for *one* rack?  I ask, because *one*
> rack can fill pretty quick...
>
>
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:16 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Wiles, Keith
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Jan 25, 2017, at 4:57 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Membership costs:
> > > - Discussed potential membership costs. My proposal was ~$50-100k for
> > Gold, ~$5-$20k for Silver. Most agreed that this was a good starting
> > point for discussions.
> >
> > I thought we were trending toward the higher $100k range as the lab was
> > going cost a fair bit am I wrong here?
>
> The membership rates we decide on will need to strike a balance between
> raising budget and having a broad membership that's representative of the
> breadth of DPDK contributions/usage. If we choose a high figure it will
> limit the number of companies prepared to join. If we choose too low a
> number then we won't maximize our budget. We need to strike a balance
> between the two.
>
> The next step we agreed was for Mike to identify who's interested in
> membership (he's already posted on the moving list asking for contacts) and
> begin to have individual discussions with them. Feedback on membership
> rates from these discussions will help us to make a final decision.
>
> I think we need to be careful on lab costs. Some high figures have been
> mentioned based on FD.io, but from the beginning of these discussions we've
> agreed that we want a smaller scope and lower cost level for DPDK. Rough
> estimate for a full rack with a part time sys admin and a part time release
> engineer is ~$200k/year.
>
> We also discussed yesterday whether lab costs should be fully accounted
> for in the Gold membership fee, or if they should be handled separately.
> Mike will also ask about interest in the lab as part of his discussions
> which will help us to reach a conclusion on this.
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14115 bytes --]