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 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 ; 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’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 ] > *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) 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. > > >