<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Hi All,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">The reason we selection loaner machines (UNH provided) for the development was to avoid interference with the existing setup, i.e. don't break or degrade the performance tuned systems.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">For the deployed testing (i.e. once we have the OVS developed and integrated with the lab dashboard) can be done either on the existing hardware, or a stand alone setup with multiple NICs. I think this was proposed, because function testing with multiple NICs would had more hardware coverage than the two vendor performance systems right now. That might also be a lower bar for some hardware vendors to only provide a NIC, etc.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">In we choose the "option A" to use the existing performance setups, we would serialize the testing, so the performance jobs run independently, but I don't think that was really the question.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Cheers,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Lincoln</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 8:06 AM Aaron Conole <<a href="mailto:aconole@redhat.com">aconole@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">"O'Driscoll, Tim" <<a href="mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com" target="_blank">tim.odriscoll@intel.com</a>> writes:<br>
<br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:<a href="mailto:thomas@monjalon.net" target="_blank">thomas@monjalon.net</a>]<br>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 3:20 PM<br>
>> To: <a href="mailto:ci@dpdk.org" target="_blank">ci@dpdk.org</a><br>
>> Cc: O'Driscoll, Tim <<a href="mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com" target="_blank">tim.odriscoll@intel.com</a>><br>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Minutes of DPDK Lab Meeting, February 26th<br>
>> <br>
>> Hi,<br>
>> <br>
>> 28/02/2019 15:49, O'Driscoll, Tim:<br>
>> > OVS Tests:<br>
>> > - Jeremy and Aaron are working on setup of the temporary hardware.<br>
>> > - There are two options for hardware to run this on when the setup is<br>
>> complete: 1) use existing vendor hardware; 2) obtain standalone servers<br>
>> for OVS testing. The OVS team's preference is option 2. It's not<br>
>> realistic to expect a vendor to provide hardware to run a competitor's<br>
>> products so we'd need to find a different way to procure this. Aaron<br>
>> will check with Rashid to see if budget is available from Red Hat. I'll<br>
>> check with Trishan to see if the DPDK project budget could cover this.<br>
>> > - The OVS focus is on functional tests, not performance tests. The<br>
>> DPDK lab is currently set up so that each vendor has complete control<br>
>> over performance tests & results on their hardware. If we use separate<br>
>> hardware for the OVS tests, we need to ensure that we restrict scope to<br>
>> functional tests so that it does not conflict with this principle in<br>
>> future.<br>
>> <br>
>> I am not sure to understand.<br>
>> In my opinion, the purpose of this lab is to have properly tuned<br>
>> hardware<br>
>> for running a large set of tests. We should be able to run various<br>
>> tests<br>
>> on the same machine. So the OVS tests, like any new test scenario,<br>
>> should be run on the same machine as the performance tests.<br>
<br>
This is definitely something I support as well.<br>
<br>
>> I think we just need to have a job queue to run tests one by one,<br>
>> avoiding a test to disturb results of another one.<br>
>> <br>
>> Why are we looking for additional machines?<br>
<br>
I think because there is no such kind of job queue available, currently?<br>
I don't recall if an exact reason was given other than the nebulous fear<br>
of "breaking the existing setups".<br>
<br>
> That was my assumption too. I believe the reason is that the OVS team<br>
> want to validate with multiple vendor NICs to be sure that nothing is<br>
> broken. We only have Intel and Mellanox hardware in our lab at<br>
> present, so we don't cover all vendors.<br>
><br>
> Aaron and Ian can provide more details.<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><b>Lincoln Lavoie</b><br></div><div>Senior Engineer, Broadband Technologies</div><div>21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, Durham, NH 03824</div><div><a href="mailto:lylavoie@iol.unh.edu" target="_blank">lylavoie@iol.unh.edu</a></div><div><a href="https://www.iol.unh.edu" target="_blank">https://www.iol.unh.edu</a></div><div>+1-603-674-2755 (m)<br></div><div><a href="https://www.iol.unh.edu/" target="_blank"><img src="http://homeautomation.lavoieholdings.com/_/rsrc/1390068882701/unh-iol-logo.png"></a></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>