From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 452BE4C88 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 14:06:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EE2685543; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:06:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com (ovpn-124-52.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.124.52]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4967A6085B; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:06:11 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: "O'Driscoll\, Tim" Cc: Thomas Monjalon , "ci\@dpdk.org" , "Stokes\, Ian" , Rashid Khan References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BAB785C151@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <1705160.KQmOS6fXmK@xps> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BAB785C1CF@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 08:06:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BAB785C1CF@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> (Tim O'Driscoll's message of "Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:24:47 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Mon, 04 Mar 2019 13:06:12 +0000 (UTC) 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 13:06:13 -0000 "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.