From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ua0-f173.google.com (mail-ua0-f173.google.com [209.85.217.173]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F7FDE3 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 19:15:13 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ua0-f173.google.com with SMTP id i68so164790819uad.0 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:15:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mimzVtkC/r46TngOtnfQsl78b0nZAHoY0CRj1vg34SI=; b=SLWUG6v2WgAYlPhZ2sp3JRnhAhklRa2sQWii7jrrIV9+tQ9/6QWGDILvSx470MCOWn e6jdgt4lSQTuy9b04zRZUglivOTEH93RiZku4DxTOOvXmVEJsSQtFSW5P8AzHkELGeEo djVzcKCgDA8u1MCuT7XcfeNzREkQ21p+ZnqOI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mimzVtkC/r46TngOtnfQsl78b0nZAHoY0CRj1vg34SI=; b=dhFpPPhgd1wkJDZukoSdE+kinkF87TDzMhUZmylxLJdpKZjeyO/U/U9bq9ocms5Clu r2/6/ZTLe9M1fPlqHMhxSWEXIPkJOKBoCOi11xOtAbtGVa3+gQqNA8y5Em64EBRgEV+A SYUsOJdyIDeaYm4etrpAHWftJNiNrlz7r5W7X6/Hxv6uJYNT1bKjwuBkhfNDKqBCDN6j gD2M06nS/OP2CQZQdqOnROmPw0VDkAK5MzhPfSCOHXS4YCKG7rzvk2CYvzVyRukMPAXa acrDyYTxsemtNMZYzW7/Ivz2G4NigmFiJ9LdYKJ0zbkcHomj4XoqjiCaW+Q6hQUsmLoq Ov+g== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLVxhI6pfHMRkNx3rf+YtuBim7dH/vS+loE7tKdhqr8oC5pKWgG/r5GA+03aGk5DUhvje2aotbc5fcgJKY3 X-Received: by 10.159.37.1 with SMTP id 1mr21701776uaz.2.1485368112755; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:15:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.3.211 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:15:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA722AFFE0@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA722AFB94@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <19609074-037C-410D-8C49-9D47C366F5D2@intel.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA722AFEEA@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA722AFF59@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA722AFFE0@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> From: Michael Dolan Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:15:12 -0800 Message-ID: To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" Cc: "Zhu, Heqing" , George Zhao , Ed Warnicke , "Wiles, Keith" , "moving@dpdk.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c122e4cb912290546ef369b Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 24th 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: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:15:13 -0000 --94eb2c122e4cb912290546ef369b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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 test= s > 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=E2=80=99ll have a proposal on this after the PRC New Year holiday. If = we end up > not having budget for this, or don=E2=80=99t agree that it=E2=80=99s requ= ired, 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 ; O'Driscoll, Tim < > tim.odriscoll@intel.com>; Ed Warnicke > *Cc:* Wiles, Keith ; 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 ]= *On > Behalf Of *George Zhao > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:29 AM > *To:* O'Driscoll, Tim ; Ed Warnicke < > hagbard@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Wiles, Keith ; 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 ]= *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=E2=80=99t yet agreed that we definitely need a lab, how big it n= eeds 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=E2=80=99s a couple of wee= ks away > from being ready to share with the community. > > > > The scope we=E2=80=99ve been discussing for the lab is quite small when c= ompared > to FD.io=E2=80=99s CSIT project. It would be a reference lab to provide i= ndependent > performance data and to identify any performance regression. The ~$200k I > quoted for a single rack is really the minimum starting point. If we agre= e > 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=E2=80=99ll also have one of our PRC team present the proposal to the c= ommunity > when they return from their New Year holiday. After that, we=E2=80=99ll k= now more > about the level of interest in the lab and the cost associated with it. > > > > Tim > > > > *From:* Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@gmail.com ] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2017 4:31 PM > *To:* O'Driscoll, Tim > *Cc:* Wiles, Keith ; 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 > wrote: > > > From: Wiles, Keith > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Jan 25, 2017, at 4:57 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim > > 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) a= nd > 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 relea= se > 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. > > > --94eb2c122e4cb912290546ef369b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
OPNFV also uses distributed labs and came to agreement in = the community on what those should look like.=C2=A0


---
Mike Dolan
VP of Strategic Programs
The Li= nux Foundation
Office: +1.330.460.3250 =C2=A0=C2=A0Cell: +1.440.552.5322= =C2=A0Skype: michaelkdolan
mdolan@linuxfoundation.org
---

<= /div>

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

Yes, agreed, more proposals and parti= cipation are always good.

=C2=A0

In terms of the lab models that Georg= e asked about, we decided early in our discussions to implement a distribut= ed CI solution. Thomas has done great work to integrate this with Patchwork, so you can see which CI tests each patch ha= s passed/failed at: http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/project/dpdk/list/ (see the Succ= ess/Warning/Fail (S/W/F) columns).

=C2=A0

There was interest in creating a comm= unity 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 credibili= ty than results from vendor labs. As Heqing said, we=E2=80=99ll have a prop= osal on this after the PRC New Year holiday. If we end up not having budget= for this, or don=E2=80=99t agree that it=E2=80=99s required, then we can explore other options such as a distributed solution.

=C2=A0

From: Zhu, Heqing
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 5:39 PM
To: George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@huawei.com>; O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@int= el.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 F= oundation" call, January 24th

=C2=A0

As matter of fact today, Intel helps the D= PDK release validation. As Tim said, we will make a proposal after CNY.

=C2=A0

DPDK is an open community, more proposals = and participation are welcomed.

=C2=A0

From: moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org<= /a>] 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 F= oundation" call, January 24th

=C2=A0

I know there are two ways normally co= mmunity lab operate, one is like fd.io project,=C2=A0 CSIT lab is managed by Linux Foundation, the other is like OpenDaylight where member companies open their lab to share = with community.

=C2=A0

Do we decide which way for DPDK lab?<= u>

=C2=A0

George

=C2=A0

From: moving [mailto: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 F= oundation" call, January 24th

=C2=A0

We haven=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99s a couple of= weeks away from being ready to share with the community.

=C2=A0

The scope we=E2=80=99ve been discussi= ng for the lab is quite small when compared to FD.io=E2=80=99s CSIT project= . It would be a reference lab to provide independent performance data and to identify any performance regression. T= he ~$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 expan= d beyond that.

=C2=A0

Mike will explore interest in the lab= as part of his discussions, and we=E2=80=99ll also have one of our PRC tea= m present the proposal to the community when they return from their New Year holiday. After that, we=E2= =80=99ll know more about the level of interest in the lab and the cost asso= ciated with it.



Tim

=C2=A0

From: Ed Warnicke [mailto: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 F= oundation" call, January 24th

=C2=A0

Question... are you only pricing for *one* rac= k?=C2=A0 I ask, because *one* rack can fill pretty quick...

=C2=A0

Ed

=C2=A0

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:16 AM, O'Driscol= l, 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 wa= s
> going cost a fair bit am I wrong here?

The membership rates we decide on will need to strike a balance between rai= sing budget and having a broad membership that's representative of the = breadth of DPDK contributions/usage. If we choose a high figure it will lim= it the number of companies prepared to join. If we choose too low a number then we won't maximize our budg= et. We need to strike a balance between the two.

The next step we agreed was for Mike to identify who's interested in me= mbership (he's already posted on the moving list asking for contacts) a= nd begin to have individual discussions with them. Feedback on membership r= ates 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 men= tioned based on FD.io, but from the beginning of these discussions we'v= e 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 wi= ll help us to reach a conclusion on this.

=C2=A0


--94eb2c122e4cb912290546ef369b--