Hi Bob, We are considering to setup a new ARM POD in our lab, and I plan only 5 blade servers with ARM CPU. I wonder I can still use a x86_64 server as the jumphost for this ARM POD. I don't expect it will be blocked by another arm server.
BR/Julien Alec Hothan (ahothan) <[email protected]>于2017年9月8日周五 上午6:31写道： > Hi Trevor, > > > > Thanks for getting back on this. I agree there is not much incentive to > run TRex on ARM at this point. > > ARM pods that want to do data plane benchmarking can use a HW traffic > generator or run Trex on an Intel jump host. > > > > Thanks > > > > Alec > > > > > > > > *From: *"Cooper, Trevor" <[email protected]> > *Date: *Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 2:37 PM > *To: *"Alec Hothan (ahothan)" <[email protected]>, "Beierl, Mark" < > [email protected]> > > > *Cc: *"[email protected]" < > [email protected]>, "HU, BIN" <[email protected]>, Raymond > Paik <[email protected]> > > *Subject: *RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Topics for Weekly Technical Discussion > > > > Hi Alec … > > > > VSPERF does not currently plan to support TREX on ARM … it’s not clear > what the benefit of this work would be given that there are multiple > traffic generator options. The Pharos POD specification doesn’t have any > bearing on components such as traffic generators. We have found that > software traffic generators have a wide variety of capabilities. > > > > /Trevor > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Alec Hothan (ahothan) [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, August 17, 2017 7:47 AM > *To:* Beierl, Mark <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; HU, BIN <[email protected]>; > Raymond Paik <[email protected]>; Cooper, Trevor < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Topics for Weekly Technical Discussion > > > > [+Trevor to get vsperf point of view] > > > > Mark, > > > > Adding ARM artifacts is probably not that much work for python apps, for > C/C++ apps that use DPDK it can be a lot more work. > > I just checked with the Trex team and as I suspected Trex is not available > on ARM today. Somebody will have to try it out on an ARM server - meaning, > it will take some work to compile Trex, link to DPDK and test it thoroughly > to be on par with its x86 version – and a whole lot more people will have > to maintain one more arch. The port might work right away or it might be > pretty messy. I wonder if Trevor has a plan for TRex on ARM… > > From what I can see, to run data plane performance test with TRex on ARM > pod will require an x86 server until Trex is validated on ARM. > > > > Thanks > > > > Alec > > > > > > *From: *"Beierl, Mark" <[email protected]> > *Date: *Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 6:21 AM > *To: *"Alec Hothan (ahothan)" <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"[email protected]" < > [email protected]>, "HU, BIN" <[email protected]>, Raymond > Paik <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Topics for Weekly Technical Discussion > > > > Alec, > > > > It is completely up to you how you want to structure your project and your > deliverables. If you don't want the extra hassle of supporting ARM, then > don't. > > > > As for my project and the other ones that happen to support ARM, we will > continue this discussion to see what makes sense. > > > > Regards, > > Mark > > > > *Mark Beierl* > > SW System Sr Principal Engineer > > *Dell **EMC* | Office of the CTO > > mobile +1 613 314 8106 <1-613-314-8106> > > *[email protected] <[email protected]>* > > > > On Aug 16, 2017, at 21:02, HU, BIN <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Alec, > > > > Thank you for your input, and letting know you won’t be able to make the > meeting tomorrow. > > > > Mark, > > > > Do you still want to discuss in the meeting tomorrow? (my only concern is > the attendance, which may not warrant an effective live discussion. > > > > Or do you think the discussion on mailing list should be good enough? > > > > If we all think the discussion on mailing list is good enough, we don’t > need to discuss it in the meeting tomorrow. > > > > Thanks > > Bin > > > > *From:* Alec Hothan (ahothan) [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2017 5:47 PM > *To:* HU, BIN <[email protected]>; Beierl, Mark <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Topics for Weekly Technical Discussion > > > > > > Mark, > > > > Thanks for updating me on the ARM situation. My only comment is that it > could have been easier to perhaps have an x86 server/jump host servicing an > ARM pod given that testing tools do not exactly have to run on the same > arch than the pod under test, but I guess decision has been made - now we > need every test tool to also support ARM (that in addition to more work to > support 2 arch, more test to do…). > > > > On my side, I’ll need to check with the TRex team if they support ARM. If > it does not work, every data plane test tool that uses TRex will be > impacted (at least vsperf + nfvbench). > > It really seems to me that we could have saved all the extra hassle of ARM > support with an x86 jump host (VMs is another story but we could have > limited the overhead to VM artifacts only). > > > > Bin: unfortunately, I won’t be able to make it at the technical discussion > meeting as it will be in the middle of my Thursday commute. > > > > Thanks > > > > Alec > > > > > > > > *From: *"HU, BIN" <[email protected]> > *Date: *Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 5:00 PM > *To: *"Beierl, Mark" <[email protected]>, "Alec Hothan (ahothan)" < > [email protected]> > *Cc: *"[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Topics for Weekly Technical Discussion > > > > Good discussion and suggestion, thank you Alec and Mark. > > > > We can discuss this on Thursday. I put it on the agenda “Container > Versioning / Naming Schema for x86 and ARM”. > > > > Talk to you all on Thursday > > Bin > > > > *From:* Beierl, Mark [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:23 AM > *To:* Alec Hothan (ahothan) <[email protected]> > *Cc:* HU, BIN <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Topics for Weekly Technical Discussion > > > > Hello, Alec. > > > > Fair questions, but in the ARM pods there are not necessarily x86 servers > to act as the host for the container. It is also my desire to support ARM > for the various pods we have, and not make it difficult for them to run. > We already support ARM containers for functest, yardstick, qtip and > dovetail, just with a different naming scheme than other projects in docker > hub. > > > > If you look at the way multiarch alpine structures their tags, yes, it is > arch-version, so x86-euphrates.1.0 would be the correct way of labelling > it. I realize we are getting close to Euphrates release date, so this > might be postponed to F, but I would like to have a community discussion > about this to see if it makes sense, or if we want to continue with > creating repos to match the architecture. > > > > Regards, > > Mark > > > > *Mark Beierl* > > SW System Sr Principal Engineer > > *Dell **EMC* | Office of the CTO > > mobile +1 613 314 8106 <1-613-314-8106> > > *[email protected] <[email protected]>* > > > > On Aug 15, 2017, at 12:03, Alec Hothan (ahothan) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > We need to look at the impact on versioning since the docker container tag > reflects the release (e.g. euphrates-5.0.0), since this proposal prepends > an arch field (x86-euphrates-5.0.0 ?). > > How many OPNFV containers will have to support more arch than just x86? > > I was under the impression that most test containers could manage to run > on x86 only (since we can pick the server where these test containers will > run), but I am missing the arm context and why (some) test containers need > to support ARM… Is that a mandate for all OPNFV test containers? > > > > Thanks > > > > Alec > > > > > > > > > > *From: *<[email protected]> on behalf of > "Beierl, Mark" <[email protected]> > *Date: *Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 8:18 AM > *To: *"HU, BIN" <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *[opnfv-tech-discuss] Topics for Weekly Technical Discussion > > > > Hello, > > > > Is this the right place to discuss changing the docker image names from > containing the architecture to having the tag contain it instead? For > example (from a previous email): > > > > Alpine tags as follows: > > > > multiarch/alpine:*x86*-latest-stable > > multiarch/alpine:*aarch64*-latest-stable > > > > Vs. in OPNFV we use the image name to specify the architecture [2], [3]: > > > > opnfv/functest:latest > > opnfv/*functest_aarch64*:latest > > > > I think the way multiarch/alpine does it is preferable so that there is > only one repository name, but I think we need to discuss this across the > different projects and releng to make these changes. > > > > [1] https://hub.docker.com/r/multiarch/alpine/tags/ > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__hub.docker.com_r_multiarch_alpine_tags_&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=MJxkjW6BJzaG06zvgFQAVZz8mxuxlsgLJDxEloQq8AE&s=K5o_APjIzMi4SzYSdQvcyR3VrIJFwSZZtcD-7MXnchA&e=> > > [2] https://hub.docker.com/r/opnfv/functest/ > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__hub.docker.com_r_opnfv_functest_&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=MJxkjW6BJzaG06zvgFQAVZz8mxuxlsgLJDxEloQq8AE&s=jQw8zZteD7PMN01Zl7Ey5NDM8EO6r8UOcNUPSZGvY3M&e=> > > > [3] https://hub.docker.com/r/opnfv/functest_aarch64/tags/ > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__hub.docker.com_r_opnfv_functest-5Faarch64_tags_&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=MJxkjW6BJzaG06zvgFQAVZz8mxuxlsgLJDxEloQq8AE&s=2V36PQtXGS40gTA_NGCBO1nKZsI5yHgB3jFxrWajy6k&e=> > > > > Regards, > > Mark > > > > *Mark Beierl* > > SW System Sr Principal Engineer > > *Dell **EMC* | Office of the CTO > > mobile +1 613 314 8106 <1-613-314-8106> > > *[email protected] <[email protected]>* > > > > On Aug 15, 2017, at 10:52, HU, BIN <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hello community, > > > > Just a friendly reminder that if you want to discuss any item/topic/issue > at our weekly technical discussion this Thursday 08/17, please feel free to > let me know. > > > > Thanks > > Bin > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=MJxkjW6BJzaG06zvgFQAVZz8mxuxlsgLJDxEloQq8AE&s=vRFVyjqXc-ThbnFiI_m1-lhsgnPWftV4M7TgUFAA8vY&e=> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss >
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
