Great, thanks! As I mentioned before, @Zhihui will be the representative for QTIP on this topic.
I'm sorry for the absence of tomorrow's meeting, dealing with some personal emergency, and will be out of office next week also. I have expressed most of my points in mailing list and will continue following the discussion. During my absence, @Zhihui will make final decision for QTIP project. Hope we can arrive at a consensus soon. In case it can not be decided in tomorrow's meeting, we may probably have to postpone the discussion to Beijing Summit and target it in next release. Thank you for understanding. On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:55 AM Gaoliang (kubi) <jean.gaoli...@huawei.com> wrote: > Hi Yujun， > > > > Sure, I added the topic into this week meeting agenda[1](US time slot with > GTM), hope we will have a great discussion at the meeting. > > > > [1] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/yardstick/Meetings > > > > Regards, > > Kubi > > *From:* Yujun Zhang [mailto:zhangyujun+...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, February 05, 2017 10:06 AM > *To:* TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV; Gaoliang (kubi) > *Subject:* Re: [qtip][yardstick] Q&A on integration > > > > Dear yardsticker, > > > > As suggested in last yardstick meeting[1], I've updated the QTIP > architecture to introduce an even more simpler plugin mode[2]. We may > discuss it in next Yardstick meeting. > > > > Do you think it will be OK? @Kubi > > > > The discussion has been lasting for months IIRC. We really need to make > decision ASAP otherwise we are unlikely to catch up with Danube release. > > > > [1]: > http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-yardstick/2017/opnfv-yardstick.2017-01-24-00.30.log.html > > > [2]: > https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/qtip/Architecture#Architecture-PluginMode(Melody > ) > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:47 AM Yujun Zhang <zhangyujun+...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Dear all > > > > I reviewed the meeting log[1] and it seems we have several questions to > clarify. Feel free to comment. > > > > 1. how to integrate > > > > option 1: as a server like original proposal[2] > > option 2: as a module > > > > Both are OK to me, if it is YardStick's team to decide to integrate as a > module, we need to revise the proposal and QTIP will provide full support > on it as well. > > > > 2. testing vs benchmarking > > > > For sure benchmarking requires testing data. Benchmarking is one > method/purpose of performance testing. Besides that, we may also use > testing data for verification or validation. You may also use benchmarking > result for verification or validation. > > > > 3. benchmarking in YardStick or testing in QTIP > > > > This is not a battle between two projects. We chase different targets and > have common methodology. > > > > QTIP may consume testing data from YardStick but not all of them and not > only from YardStick. > > > > YardStick may use QTIP as benchmarking module or implement its own module. > It's up to YardStick team's decision and I'm fine with either way. > > > > [1]: > http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-yardstick/2017/opnfv-yardstick.2017-01-24-00.30.log.html > > > [2]: https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/yardstick/Yardstick-Qtip+integration > > -- Yujun Zhang
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
