Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [SFC] Using compressed sf_nsh_colorado.qcow2 VM image

2017-01-26 Thread Juan Vidal ALLENDE 
Great! Thanks a lot Tim!

I did not know that APEX worked, because the test that is in SFC repo 
explicitly checks for the INSTALLER_TYPE, and it fails if it is not 'fuel'. 
Happy to see that it works with other installers as well.

Cheers,
Juan

On jue, 2017-01-26 at 15:03 -0500, Tim Rozet wrote:
(~ 400MB)
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [tech-discuss][fuel]

2017-01-26 Thread Jonas Bjurel 
Hi Fuel@OPNFV- and OPNFV colleagues!

As I have been assigned a new position within my company, I have decided
to step down as a committer in the OPNFV@Fuel project.
The OPNFV journey to where we stand now has been really thrilling to me, and
I have experienced a lot of great and innovative time with all of you OPNFV
community contributors.

In a sense this concludes one of my best working experiences so far!

In my new position I will not be that distant to OPNFV- and upstream
community work - so I'm likely to be around going forward.

I which the best luck to the Fuel@OPNFV project going forward,
and see you around!

BR/Jonas

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [KVM] Weekly meeting for KVM enhancements for NFV on 1/26/2017 is CANCELLED

2017-01-26 Thread Reddy, Raghuveer 

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]L3VPN for dovetail area

2017-01-26 Thread Wenjing Chu 
Hi Bryan

Hope my inline responses are still readable …
Thanks.

Wenjing

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L [mailto:bs3...@att.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 8:29 AM
To: Wenjing Chu ; Pierre Lynch ; 
Jose Lausuch 
Cc: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]L3VPN for dovetail area

More comments inline.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 3:00 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L >; Pierre Lynch 
>; Jose Lausuch 
>
Cc: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]L3VPN for dovetail area

Thanks Bryan. See my response inline below.

Wenjing

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L [mailto:bs3...@att.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:32 AM
To: Wenjing Chu >; Pierre 
Lynch >; Jose Lausuch 
>
Cc: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]L3VPN for dovetail area

I posted some comments in gerrit. Here are the main points I think we need 
alignment on:

1)  All proposed dovetail included tests will be added one-by-one, in a 
separate commit.

Please follow the gerrit tickets below and see if you can follow through. Test 
cases are organized into two levels for convenience: test areas and test cases. 
There will be one commit for each test case, and one commit for each test area 
(which includes a lot of test cases that are related to a function area). The 
test case commit says we are good on how that test case is implemented. The 
test area commit says we agree the test case ought to be included. Clear enough?
[bryan] A test reference should not be added to a test area until the test has 
been approved (e.g. verified by more than one committer/reviewer). I see one 
commit with about 40 tests referenced. Have all these been verified?

[wenjing] the act of “adding a test case to a test area” is reflected as adding 
a single line in the compliance_set.yml file. Using your example, I can add 40 
tests in a patch, meaning, I “propose” (based on the wiki discussion in the 
past) that these 40 cases be included. The submitter is sending this proposal 
out for review. If you have opinion about any of these, or simply want more 
explanation/clarification, please comment on the gerrit patch. Based on those 
comments, the submitter can modify the patch to reflect updated view and 
resubmit, until we are good and approve with +1 (or disapprove with -1). Hope 
that is clear. These are patch reviews, to be approved. Not yet.

I’m not sure what you mean by “verified”. If you mean if the software is 
tested, I think the answer is yes. If you mean if the test case has been 
approved, no, a patch email is precisely asking you to review.


2)  The commit will include a link to the details of the test case (script 
or otherwise what I would use to run the test for myself)

You can trace down to the source step by step, e.g. from test area to test 
case, then to functest or yardstick, and/or to openstack or other upstream 
eventually the source code in that upstream project.

To test run it, you would need a test environment/pod. I would think that 
running dovetail tool, specifying the individual test cases you’d want to run, 
and examining the results probably a good way to go. Maybe good to write down a 
“how-to” cheat-sheet for this?
[bryan] Not sure how that answered the comment. Rather than having to search 
for something that relates to the test case reference, it would be good for the 
commit message (for test cases) to contain a URL reference to the test source. 
That’s what I was referring to. We need to simplify the effort of reviewers, to 
encourage more active reviews and second-opinions/testing on the tests. Re the 
test environment, that’s no problem the test should clarify what is needed and 
how to run it. Having an environment to do so is clear, and should be clarified 
by the test anyway.

[wenjing] I’ll be happy to try a simpler way for us to review upstream code, so 
if anyone has better idea, please suggest here. But let me first make sure I 
understand what you are asking. If a piece of code is written in Dovetail 
project, yes, your gerrit patch will show everything. If we are only 
referencing a test case in Functest, you will only see the reference line of 
source in Dovetail. I believe we’ve provided in that line a handle to locate 
the source in Functest (which can be a lot more line or files). If then 
Functest

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [doctor] Further discussion of NFVI / APP monitoring

2017-01-26 Thread Carlos Goncalves 
Sounds good to me.
Thanks Aaron and Maryam!

Carlos

On 26 Jan 2017, at 20:23, Aaron Smith 
> wrote:

Hi,
 Maybe we could dedicate a portion of an upcoming Barometer meeting to discuss 
and put together talking points for a longer meeting?
We have been encourage by the alignment that has been happening within the 
Barometer project.  (VES and the telemetry / event
definition work)

Aaron

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Tahhan, Maryam 
> wrote:
Hi Folks
On the barometer side, we’ve been 
looking and actively contributing to collectd to collect system statistics and 
to enable the monitoring of Events and metrics for the NFVI, with the goal of 
leveraging the features it has under the topics you mention. We’d be very 
interested in partaking in a discussion around the topics below to see how 
aligned we are, or if/how we can align. I think there’s a strong alignment with 
VES here also.

One possibility is through the Weekly Technical Discussion forum, another would 
be to dedicate a few of the barometer weekly calls to this (which we would be 
happy to do, as an open call and without project focus).

BR
Maryam


From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Smith
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:12 PM
To: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [doctor] Further discussion of NFVI / APP 
monitoring

Hi,
  Would there be interest in a separate meeting to discussion what an "ideal" 
monitoring framework might look like.

Topics might include:
  - Polling vs Event capture
  - Platform independent monitor agent
- Network Interfaces
- Kernel events
- VM / Container monitoring
- Common bus for Events / Telemetry / Config
  -  Common Object model
- Agent configuration
- Performance
   - <<50ms

This would be an informal brainstorming activity with more emphasis on
concepts than existing projects (unless necessary).

Thoughts?

Aaron

--
Aaron Smith | Senior Principal Software Engineer
NFV Partner Engineering
Red Hat
aasm...@redhat.com

Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at redhat.com



--
Aaron Smith | Senior Principal Software Engineer
NFV Partner Engineering
Red Hat
aasm...@redhat.com

Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at redhat.com

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]L3VPN for dovetail area

2017-01-26 Thread Wenjing Chu 
Hi Tapio

Think of these patches as a place to review the proposed test cases. It does 
not imply that the submitter believes it’s already approved. If a yardstick 
test case may be falling into performance area and shouldn’t be included in 
your opinion, I would provide that comment in gerrit. The submitter may explain 
that is not the case, and once it’s cleared, then you can -1 it or +1 it. So 
this is the normal review process using gerrit.

Wrt yardstick, my understanding is that it’s not all performance benchmark 
testing only, but I’ll leave that to Yardstick folks to comment.

Regards
Wenjing

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Tapio Tallgren
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:36 PM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]L3VPN for dovetail area

I would like to clarify one thing for myself: Dovetail is (currently) about 
interface tests that test certain functionality using an interface, and not 
about how fast or good the implementation for that functionality is. Yardstick, 
in my mind, is about running performance tests to benchmark the implementation. 
Is or is not?

The reason I am asking that many proposed test cases are about measuring 
something. I will "-1" all those in Gerrit with this explanation.

-Tapio




On 01/26/2017 01:00 AM, Wenjing Chu wrote:
Thanks Bryan. See my response inline below.

Wenjing

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L [mailto:bs3...@att.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:32 AM
To: Wenjing Chu ; Pierre 
Lynch ; Jose Lausuch 

Cc: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 

Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]L3VPN for dovetail area

I posted some comments in gerrit. Here are the main points I think we need 
alignment on:

1)  All proposed dovetail included tests will be added one-by-one, in a 
separate commit.

Please follow the gerrit tickets below and see if you can follow through. Test 
cases are organized into two levels for convenience: test areas and test cases. 
There will be one commit for each test case, and one commit for each test area 
(which includes a lot of test cases that are related to a function area). The 
test case commit says we are good on how that test case is implemented. The 
test area commit says we agree the test case ought to be included. Clear enough?


2)  The commit will include a link to the details of the test case (script 
or otherwise what I would use to run the test for myself)

You can trace down to the source step by step, e.g. from test area to test 
case, then to functest or yardstick, and/or to openstack or other upstream 
eventually the source code in that upstream project.

To test run it, you would need a test environment/pod. I would think that 
running dovetail tool, specifying the individual test cases you’d want to run, 
and examining the results probably a good way to go. Maybe good to write down a 
“how-to” cheat-sheet for this?


3)  All tests need to be working under at least one scenario, and the more 
scenarios that have been validated (either explicitly or implicitly), the 
higher priority the test should get. “Implicit” means that a test validated on 
a basic scenario (e.g. nosdn) is implicitly validated on other scenarios for 
that installer. But explicit validation is of course best.

Thanks for highlighting the implicit cases: more “implicit” is “better”, 
because it means something works  more “universally” rather than relying on 
special cases. I would caution on the “more scenario” metrics again because it 
does not necessarily mean “larger applicability”. Sometimes it does, sometimes 
it doesn’t. Also note the fact that we ought not be counting non-generic 
scenarios as the same as generic ones. So let’s not be too numerical about it, 
the criteria should be about the larger applicability scope. I made this point 
in one my earlier emails as well going through the scenarios in Colorado.


4)  The reviewers may require that they be able to duplicate the test 
validation before commit merge.

Please refer to 2) and see if you need anything else.
///


Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Wenjing Chu
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:26 AM
To: Pierre Lynch >; Jose Lausuch 
>
Cc: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]L3VPN for dovetail area


The process that we may have already being

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] [releng][opnfvdocs] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

2017-01-26 Thread Aric Gardner via RT 
Hi,

Looks like the merge job is doing the wrong thing.

its checking out the patchset, rather than what is in master.
since the patchset is from Dec 28, and does not touch
./docs/requirements/05-implementation.rst (which has been updated
since then)
git does not see a conflict with merging this code.

If you look at the console output for the merge job
https://build.opnfv.org/ci/job/opnfv-docs-merge-master/1232/console
its doing this. > git fetch --tags --progress
ssh://gerrit.opnfv.org:29418/$GERRIT_PROJECT refs/changes/65/24365/4 #
timeout=15
and it should be just doing a straight clone of whats in master (after
24365 is merged)

For now you can just submit a small change to doctor/docs/whatever and
then merge it, this will get the latest version of all rst files into
artifacts.

I will submit at change to jjb/opnfvdocs/opnfvdocs.yml to fix this
confusing behavior in the future.

Regards,
Aric



On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Kunzmann, Gerald via RT
 wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Sorry for another email on this issue:
>
> Today the situation is even more strange:
>
> There is the old alarm table in generated artifacts file: 
> http://artifacts.opnfv.org/doctor/docs/requirements/index.html
> But the git tree still contains the new table: 
> https://git.opnfv.org/doctor/tree/docs/requirements/05-implementation.rst
>
> What I realized is that in https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/24365/ after 
> Ryota had merged the patch,
> jenkins-ci has just sent the document links, but there was no specific build 
> started. Is this normal/okay?
>
> Best regards,
> Gerald
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kunzmann, Gerald
> Sent: Donnerstag, 26. Januar 2017 13:40
> To: 'opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org' 
> ; 'Fatih Degirmenci' 
> 
> Cc: 'opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org' 
> ; 'r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com' 
> 
> Subject: RE: [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: 
> [opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins
>
> Dear all,
>
> So this issue is easily reproducible. It had again happened today with 
> another patch being merged
>
> https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/24365
>
> We are now back to the old table again :(
>
> We have to find a solution to this problem!!!
>
> Best regards,
> Gerald
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kunzmann, Gerald
> Sent: Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2017 13:56
> To: 'opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org' 
> 
> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com
> Subject: [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: 
> [opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins
>
> HI Fatih,
>
> Thanks for your quick check. The remerged had helped to bring back the 
> table...
>
> Let's see docs team's reply on it.
>
> I agree gerrit was fine not raising conflict as the changed line in the 
> "editorial" patch was not conflicting with the other patch.
> Still, shouldn't gerrit have just changed that one line instead of also other 
> parts of the file and/or shouldn't gerrit have raised some warning it was 
> changing more than just the one line?
>
> When looking at the diff in gerrit for the "editorial" patch, it does not 
> compare against the latest master, otherwise it would have shown more changes 
> than just this one line. This might have caused the issue?!?
>
> Best regards,
> Gerald
>
> -Original Message-
> From: fatih.degirme...@ericsson.com via RT 
> [mailto:opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2017 13:38
> To: Kunzmann, Gerald 
> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com
> Subject: [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: 
> [opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins
>
> Hi,
>
> I had a quick look at this and diffed the commits and I see no conflict so 
> Gerrit was fine not raising conflict. (the changed line in 
> 05-implementation.rst in most recent patch is not a conflicting change)
>
> I then tried regenerating the documents by putting remerge as comment to 
> check the doc generation script/job output for possible errors which I didn't 
> see any. But the generated document is correct now. If you don't see the 
> updates, please try using a different browser or refresh the page after 
> couple of minutes due to caching.
>
> With that said, this doesn't really help us as we need to be able to trust 
> our toolchain and we shouldn't need to remerge stuff just to make sure.
> I'll raise this to docs team and see what they say.
>
> /Fatih
>
> From:  on behalf of "Kunzmann, 
> Gerald" 
> Date: Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 11:28
> To: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" 
>

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] [releng][opnfvdocs] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

2017-01-26 Thread Aric Gardner 
Hi,

Looks like the merge job is doing the wrong thing.

its checking out the patchset, rather than what is in master.
since the patchset is from Dec 28, and does not touch
./docs/requirements/05-implementation.rst (which has been updated
since then)
git does not see a conflict with merging this code.

If you look at the console output for the merge job
https://build.opnfv.org/ci/job/opnfv-docs-merge-master/1232/console
its doing this. > git fetch --tags --progress
ssh://gerrit.opnfv.org:29418/$GERRIT_PROJECT refs/changes/65/24365/4 #
timeout=15
and it should be just doing a straight clone of whats in master (after
24365 is merged)

For now you can just submit a small change to doctor/docs/whatever and
then merge it, this will get the latest version of all rst files into
artifacts.

I will submit at change to jjb/opnfvdocs/opnfvdocs.yml to fix this
confusing behavior in the future.

Regards,
Aric



On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Kunzmann, Gerald via RT
 wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Sorry for another email on this issue:
>
> Today the situation is even more strange:
>
> There is the old alarm table in generated artifacts file: 
> http://artifacts.opnfv.org/doctor/docs/requirements/index.html
> But the git tree still contains the new table: 
> https://git.opnfv.org/doctor/tree/docs/requirements/05-implementation.rst
>
> What I realized is that in https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/24365/ after 
> Ryota had merged the patch,
> jenkins-ci has just sent the document links, but there was no specific build 
> started. Is this normal/okay?
>
> Best regards,
> Gerald
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kunzmann, Gerald
> Sent: Donnerstag, 26. Januar 2017 13:40
> To: 'opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org' 
> ; 'Fatih Degirmenci' 
> 
> Cc: 'opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org' 
> ; 'r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com' 
> 
> Subject: RE: [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: 
> [opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins
>
> Dear all,
>
> So this issue is easily reproducible. It had again happened today with 
> another patch being merged
>
> https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/24365
>
> We are now back to the old table again :(
>
> We have to find a solution to this problem!!!
>
> Best regards,
> Gerald
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kunzmann, Gerald
> Sent: Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2017 13:56
> To: 'opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org' 
> 
> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com
> Subject: [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: 
> [opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins
>
> HI Fatih,
>
> Thanks for your quick check. The remerged had helped to bring back the 
> table...
>
> Let's see docs team's reply on it.
>
> I agree gerrit was fine not raising conflict as the changed line in the 
> "editorial" patch was not conflicting with the other patch.
> Still, shouldn't gerrit have just changed that one line instead of also other 
> parts of the file and/or shouldn't gerrit have raised some warning it was 
> changing more than just the one line?
>
> When looking at the diff in gerrit for the "editorial" patch, it does not 
> compare against the latest master, otherwise it would have shown more changes 
> than just this one line. This might have caused the issue?!?
>
> Best regards,
> Gerald
>
> -Original Message-
> From: fatih.degirme...@ericsson.com via RT 
> [mailto:opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2017 13:38
> To: Kunzmann, Gerald 
> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com
> Subject: [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: 
> [opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins
>
> Hi,
>
> I had a quick look at this and diffed the commits and I see no conflict so 
> Gerrit was fine not raising conflict. (the changed line in 
> 05-implementation.rst in most recent patch is not a conflicting change)
>
> I then tried regenerating the documents by putting remerge as comment to 
> check the doc generation script/job output for possible errors which I didn't 
> see any. But the generated document is correct now. If you don't see the 
> updates, please try using a different browser or refresh the page after 
> couple of minutes due to caching.
>
> With that said, this doesn't really help us as we need to be able to trust 
> our toolchain and we shouldn't need to remerge stuff just to make sure.
> I'll raise this to docs team and see what they say.
>
> /Fatih
>
> From:  on behalf of "Kunzmann, 
> Gerald" 
> Date: Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 11:28
> To: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" 
>

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [doctor] Further discussion of NFVI / APP monitoring

2017-01-26 Thread Aaron Smith 
Hi,
 Maybe we could dedicate a portion of an upcoming Barometer meeting to
discuss and put together talking points for a longer meeting?
We have been encourage by the alignment that has been happening within the
Barometer project.  (VES and the telemetry / event
definition work)

Aaron

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Tahhan, Maryam 
wrote:

> Hi Folks
> On the barometer  side, we’ve
> been looking and actively contributing to collectd to collect system
> statistics and to enable the monitoring of Events and metrics for the NFVI,
> with the goal of leveraging the features it has under the topics you
> mention. We’d be very interested in partaking in a discussion around the
> topics below to see how aligned we are, or if/how we can align. I think
> there’s a strong alignment with VES here also.
>
>
>
> One possibility is through the Weekly Technical Discussion forum, another
> would be to dedicate a few of the barometer weekly calls to this (which we
> would be happy to do, as an open call and without project focus).
>
>
>
> BR
>
> Maryam
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [
> mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Smith
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:12 PM
> *To:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] [doctor] Further discussion of NFVI / APP
> monitoring
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>   Would there be interest in a separate meeting to discussion what an
> "ideal" monitoring framework might look like.
>
>
>
> Topics might include:
>
>   - Polling vs Event capture
>
>   - Platform independent monitor agent
>
> - Network Interfaces
>
> - Kernel events
>
> - VM / Container monitoring
>
> - Common bus for Events / Telemetry / Config
>
>   -  Common Object model
>
> - Agent configuration
>
> - Performance
>
>- <<50ms
>
>
>
> This would be an informal brainstorming activity with more emphasis on
>
> concepts than existing projects (unless necessary).
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Aaron
>
>
> --
>
> Aaron Smith | Senior Principal Software Engineer
>
> NFV Partner Engineering
>
> Red Hat
>
> aasm...@redhat.com
>
> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
> See how it works at redhat.com
>



-- 
Aaron Smith | Senior Principal Software Engineer
NFV Partner Engineering
Red Hat
aasm...@redhat.com

Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at redhat.com
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Updated Invitation: OPNFV SPC Polestar WG Call @ Weekly from 10am to 11am on Thursday (CDT) (ulrich.kle...@huawei.com)

2017-01-26 Thread Margaret Chiosi 
anyone successful on being the host? I for some reason can't get in as host.


On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Ulrich Kleber 
wrote:

> Hi,
> do we have the meeting today?
> There is nobody on the bridge or in IRC.
> Cheers,
> Uli
>
> -Original Appointment-
> *From:* m...@linuxfoundation.org [mailto:m...@linuxfoundation.org
> ]
> *Sent:* Friday, 20 January, 2017 16:16
> *To:* m...@linuxfoundation.org; hkirk...@linuxfoundation.org;
> jonne.soini...@nokia.com; prodip@hpe.com; john.v.he...@intel.com;
> zhangyujun+...@gmail.com; bob.monk...@arm.com;
> margaretchiosi.o...@gmail.com; tf4...@att.com; pyeg...@juniper.net;
> christopher.pr...@ericsson.com; bs3...@att.com; Raymond Paik;
> dne...@redhat.com; sandra.l.riv...@intel.com; Ulrich Kleber;
> cyo...@clearpathnet.com; fbroc...@cisco.com; Anthony C.K. Soong;
> dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org; sw3...@att.com; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.
> opnfv.org; paul...@emc.com; dick.c...@ztetx.com;
> margaret.chi...@huawei.com; t.nakam...@cablelabs.com
> *Subject:* Updated Invitation: OPNFV SPC Polestar WG Call @ Weekly from
> 10am to 11am on Thursday (CDT) (ulrich.kle...@huawei.com)
> *When:* Thursday, 26 January, 2017 17:00-18:00 (UTC+01:00) Amsterdam,
> Berlin, Bern, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna.
> *Where:* https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/158053245
>
>
> *This event has been changed.*
> *more details »*
> 
> *OPNFV SPC Polestar WG Call *
> OPNFV SPC Polestar WG Call
> Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
> *https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/158053245*
> 
> You can also dial in using your phone.
> United States +1 (571) 317-3116 <(571)%20317-3116>
> United States (Toll-free) 1 877 309 2070 <(877)%20309-2070>
> Access Code: 158-053-245
> More phone numbers
> Australia +61 2 8355 1034 <+61%202%208355%201034>
> Austria +43 7 2088 0716
> Belgium +32 (0) 28 93 7002
> Canada +1 (647) 497-9372 <(647)%20497-9372>
> Denmark +45 69 91 84 58 <+45%2069%2091%2084%2058>
> Finland +358 (0) 923 17 0556
> France +33 (0) 170 950 590
> Germany +49 (0) 692 5736 7206 <+49%2069%20257367206>
> Ireland +353 (0) 19 030 053
> Italy +39 0 699 26 68 65
> Netherlands +31 (0) 208 080 759
> New Zealand +64 9 974 9579 <+64%209-974%209579>
> Spain +34 931 76 1534 <+34%20931%2076%2015%2034>
> Sweden +46 (0) 852 500 691
> Switzerland +41 (0) 435 0026 89
> United Kingdom +44 (0) 20 3713 5011 <+44%2020%203713%205011>
> First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: *http://help.citrix.com/getready*
> 
>
>
>
>
> When *Changed: *Weekly from 10am to 11am on Thursday Central Time
>
> Where https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/158053245 (*map*
> 
> )
> Calendar ulrich.kle...@huawei.com
> Who
> • m...@linuxfoundation.org - organizer
> • hkirk...@linuxfoundation.org
> • jonne.soini...@nokia.com
> • prodip@hpe.com
> • john.v.he...@intel.com
> • zhangyujun+...@gmail.com
> • bob.monk...@arm.com
> • margaretchiosi.o...@gmail.com
> • tf4...@att.com
> • pyeg...@juniper.net
> • christopher.pr...@ericsson.com
> • bs3...@att.com
> • Raymond Paik
> • dne...@redhat.com
> • sandra.l.riv...@intel.com
> • ulrich.kle...@huawei.com
> • cyo...@clearpathnet.com
> • fbroc...@cisco.com
> • anthony.so...@huawei.com
> • dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
> • sw3...@att.com
> • opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> • paul...@emc.com
> • dick.c...@ztetx.com
> • margaret.chi...@huawei.com
> • t.nakam...@cablelabs.com
>
>
> Going?   All events in this series:   *Yes*
> 
> - *Maybe*
> 
> - *No*
>

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [polestar] Folks I can't login as organizer for some reason - go to the IRC polestar

2017-01-26 Thread Margaret Chiosi 
-- 
Margaret Chiosi
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Updated Invitation: OPNFV SPC Polestar WG Call @ Weekly from 10am to 11am on Thursday (CDT) (ulrich.kle...@huawei.com)

2017-01-26 Thread Ulrich Kleber 
Hi,
do we have the meeting today?
There is nobody on the bridge or in IRC.
Cheers,
Uli

-Original Appointment-
From: m...@linuxfoundation.org [mailto:m...@linuxfoundation.org]
Sent: Friday, 20 January, 2017 16:16
To: m...@linuxfoundation.org; hkirk...@linuxfoundation.org; 
jonne.soini...@nokia.com; prodip@hpe.com; john.v.he...@intel.com; 
zhangyujun+...@gmail.com; bob.monk...@arm.com; margaretchiosi.o...@gmail.com; 
tf4...@att.com; pyeg...@juniper.net; christopher.pr...@ericsson.com; 
bs3...@att.com; Raymond Paik; dne...@redhat.com; sandra.l.riv...@intel.com; 
Ulrich Kleber; cyo...@clearpathnet.com; fbroc...@cisco.com; Anthony C.K. Soong; 
dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org; sw3...@att.com; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; paul...@emc.com; dick.c...@ztetx.com; 
margaret.chi...@huawei.com; t.nakam...@cablelabs.com
Subject: Updated Invitation: OPNFV SPC Polestar WG Call @ Weekly from 10am to 
11am on Thursday (CDT) (ulrich.kle...@huawei.com)
When: Thursday, 26 January, 2017 17:00-18:00 (UTC+01:00) Amsterdam, Berlin, 
Bern, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna.
Where: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/158053245


This event has been changed.
more details 
»

OPNFV SPC Polestar WG Call
OPNFV SPC Polestar WG Call

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/158053245
You can also dial in using your phone.
United States +1 (571) 317-3116
United States (Toll-free) 1 877 309 2070
Access Code: 158-053-245
More phone numbers
Australia +61 2 8355 1034
Austria +43 7 2088 0716
Belgium +32 (0) 28 93 7002
Canada +1 (647) 497-9372
Denmark +45 69 91 84 58
Finland +358 (0) 923 17 0556
France +33 (0) 170 950 590
Germany +49 (0) 692 5736 7206
Ireland +353 (0) 19 030 053
Italy +39 0 699 26 68 65
Netherlands +31 (0) 208 080 759
New Zealand +64 9 974 9579
Spain +34 931 76 1534
Sweden +46 (0) 852 500 691
Switzerland +41 (0) 435 0026 89
United Kingdom +44 (0) 20 3713 5011
First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: 
http://help.citrix.com/getready





When
Changed: Weekly from 10am to 11am on Thursday Central Time

Where
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/158053245 
(map)

Calendar
ulrich.kle...@huawei.com

Who
•
m...@linuxfoundation.org - organizer

•
hkirk...@linuxfoundation.org

•
jonne.soini...@nokia.com

•
prodip@hpe.com

•
john.v.he...@intel.com

•
zhangyujun+...@gmail.com

•
bob.monk...@arm.com

•
margaretchiosi.o...@gmail.com

•
tf4...@att.com

•
pyeg...@juniper.net

•
christopher.pr...@ericsson.com

•
bs3...@att.com

•
Raymond Paik

•
dne...@redhat.com

•
sandra.l.riv...@intel.com

•
ulrich.kle...@huawei.com

•
cyo...@clearpathnet.com

•
fbroc...@cisco.com

•
anthony.so...@huawei.com

•
dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org

•
sw3...@att.com

•
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org

•
paul...@emc.com

•
dick.c...@ztetx.com

•
margaret.chi...@huawei.com

•
t.nakam...@cablelabs.com



Going?   All events in this series:   
Yes
 - 
Maybe
 - 
No
more options 
»
Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this courtesy email at the account ulrich.kle...@huawei.com 
because you are an attendee of this event.
To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event. 
Alternatively you can sign up for a Google

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Fuel] Tacker Plugin MIssing From Danube Nightly ISO

2017-01-26 Thread Aimee Ukasick 
Serg - I would be happy to help test Tacker whichever release it goes
into. Same with Congress.

aimee


On 01/25/2017 06:43 PM, Serg Melikyan wrote:
> Hi Aimee,
>
> indeed tacker is not included in Fuel Danube right now, building and
> including this plugin was disabled
> 
> during uplifting to Fuel 10.
>
> Are you planning to include the tacker plugin in Danube?
>
>
> Unfortunately this plugin was never tested with Fuel 10 and we are
> awfully close to the Feature Freeze, any chance you are able and want
> to help with this before Feature Freeze? George (in cc) was original
> committer who added this plugin to the Fuel Colorado and might be
> interested in adding to Danube.
>
> George?
>
> Otherwise I would say that Tacker will not be available as built-in
> plugin for Danube.
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Aimee Ukasick
> > wrote:
>
> Greetings Fuel team - Quick question -- the Colorado 3.0 Fuel ISO
> has a
> tacker plugin (tacker-0.2-0.2.0-1.noarch.rpm) but that plugin is
> missing
> from the Fuel nightly build I downloaded on 24 January (
> artifacts.opnfv.org/fuel/opnfv-2017-01-25_00-00-11.iso
> ).
> Are you
> planning to include the tacker plugin in Danube?
>
> Also I noticed the congress plugin is included in the nightly
> Danube iso
> - thanks loads!
>
> --
>
> Aimee Ukasick, AT Open Source
>
>
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
> 
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Serg Melikyan, Development Manager at Mirantis, Inc.
> http://mirantis.com  | smelik...@mirantis.com
>  | +1 (650) 440-8979

-- 
Aimee Ukasick, AT Open Source

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [doctor] Further discussion of NFVI / APP monitoring

2017-01-26 Thread Tahhan, Maryam 
Hi Folks
On the barometer side, we’ve been 
looking and actively contributing to collectd to collect system statistics and 
to enable the monitoring of Events and metrics for the NFVI, with the goal of 
leveraging the features it has under the topics you mention. We’d be very 
interested in partaking in a discussion around the topics below to see how 
aligned we are, or if/how we can align. I think there’s a strong alignment with 
VES here also.

One possibility is through the Weekly Technical Discussion forum, another would 
be to dedicate a few of the barometer weekly calls to this (which we would be 
happy to do, as an open call and without project focus).

BR
Maryam


From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Smith
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:12 PM
To: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [doctor] Further discussion of NFVI / APP 
monitoring

Hi,
  Would there be interest in a separate meeting to discussion what an "ideal" 
monitoring framework might look like.

Topics might include:
  - Polling vs Event capture
  - Platform independent monitor agent
- Network Interfaces
- Kernel events
- VM / Container monitoring
- Common bus for Events / Telemetry / Config
  -  Common Object model
- Agent configuration
- Performance
   - <<50ms

This would be an informal brainstorming activity with more emphasis on
concepts than existing projects (unless necessary).

Thoughts?

Aaron

--
Aaron Smith | Senior Principal Software Engineer
NFV Partner Engineering
Red Hat
aasm...@redhat.com

Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at redhat.com
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-docs] References in documentation to master or release files?

2017-01-26 Thread Carlos Goncalves 
Hello Docs team,

I was wondering if any decision has been made...?
Personally I'm for option A.

Thanks,
Carlos

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Kunzmann, 
Gerald
Sent: 19 January 2017 09:33
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-docs] References in documentation to 
master or release files?

Dear OPNFVDOCS Team,

We are discussing about the pros/cons of referencing in documentation to master 
or release files.


A) The correct (?) way: always refer to master files/URLs in master branch 
and refer to release files/URLs in release branches.
For example, someone trying to git clone origin/stable/danube as documented in 
master branch will fail. Instead, pointing to a specific release should only 
happen in the corresponding release branch.

Also, rendered files in artifacts.opnfv.org from master branch (e.g. 
http://artifacts.opnfv.org/doctor/docs/manuals/mark-host-down_manual.html) 
should be placed under a 'master' directory just like it happens to rendered 
files from release branches.

Consequences:  When updating the documentation prior to branch split, we would 
have to use references to master and at branch split update all references to 
release branch. And patches that are being cherry picked to the release would 
require changing the links contained in it. Also, the references would have to 
be updated for each release.


B)  The pragmatic way: reduce the need/effort to update such links from 
release to release and use references to master for those parts of the 
documentation that will not change for the release, e.g. references to some 
manuals where we don't have any plans to update those parts of the code.

See also the discussion and example in 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/24365/

We are not sure what would be the preferred/recommended way.
Some recommendations by the opnfvdocs team would help the different projects to 
use a common approach.

I would like to get some more feedback from other OPNFV'ers on how to best 
address this.

Best regards,
Gerald

===
Dr. Gerald Kunzmann, Manager
DOCOMO Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH
Landsberger Strasse 312, 80687 Munich
Tel: +49-89-56824-239 / Fax: +49-89-56824-300
Web: http://www.docomoeurolabs.de

Geschäftsführer: Atsushi Takeshita, Dr. Thomas Walter, Hisahiro Hamahata, 
Hiroyuki Oto, Kei Tonokura,
Amtsgericht München, HRB 132976

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] [releng][opnfvdocs] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

2017-01-26 Thread Kunzmann, Gerald via RT 
Dear all,

Sorry for another email on this issue:

Today the situation is even more strange:

There is the old alarm table in generated artifacts file: 
http://artifacts.opnfv.org/doctor/docs/requirements/index.html
But the git tree still contains the new table: 
https://git.opnfv.org/doctor/tree/docs/requirements/05-implementation.rst

What I realized is that in https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/24365/ after 
Ryota had merged the patch,
jenkins-ci has just sent the document links, but there was no specific build 
started. Is this normal/okay?

Best regards,
Gerald

-Original Message-
From: Kunzmann, Gerald 
Sent: Donnerstag, 26. Januar 2017 13:40
To: 'opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org' 
; 'Fatih Degirmenci' 

Cc: 'opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org' ; 
'r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com' 
Subject: RE: [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: 
[opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

Dear all,

So this issue is easily reproducible. It had again happened today with another 
patch being merged

https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/24365

We are now back to the old table again :(

We have to find a solution to this problem!!!

Best regards,
Gerald

-Original Message-
From: Kunzmann, Gerald 
Sent: Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2017 13:56
To: 'opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org' 

Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com
Subject: [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: 
[opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

HI Fatih,

Thanks for your quick check. The remerged had helped to bring back the table...

Let's see docs team's reply on it.

I agree gerrit was fine not raising conflict as the changed line in the 
"editorial" patch was not conflicting with the other patch.
Still, shouldn't gerrit have just changed that one line instead of also other 
parts of the file and/or shouldn't gerrit have raised some warning it was 
changing more than just the one line?

When looking at the diff in gerrit for the "editorial" patch, it does not 
compare against the latest master, otherwise it would have shown more changes 
than just this one line. This might have caused the issue?!?

Best regards,
Gerald

-Original Message-
From: fatih.degirme...@ericsson.com via RT 
[mailto:opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org] 
Sent: Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2017 13:38
To: Kunzmann, Gerald 
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com
Subject: [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: 
[opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

Hi,

I had a quick look at this and diffed the commits and I see no conflict so 
Gerrit was fine not raising conflict. (the changed line in 
05-implementation.rst in most recent patch is not a conflicting change)

I then tried regenerating the documents by putting remerge as comment to check 
the doc generation script/job output for possible errors which I didn't see 
any. But the generated document is correct now. If you don't see the updates, 
please try using a different browser or refresh the page after couple of 
minutes due to caching.

With that said, this doesn't really help us as we need to be able to trust our 
toolchain and we shouldn't need to remerge stuff just to make sure.
I'll raise this to docs team and see what they say.

/Fatih

From:  on behalf of "Kunzmann, 
Gerald" 
Date: Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 11:28
To: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" , 
"opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org" 
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

Dear all,

Not sure how is the best team to address this to. We have noticed the following 
issue:

In Doctor project there had been two patches merged on the alarm comparison 
table in Section 5.5.3:

-  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/26715

-  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/27237

Few days later, we merged another patch addressing some editorial changes in 
the document but NOT touching this alarm comparison table:

-  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/26731

Unfortunately, this patch has overwritten the two patches merged earlier and 
the alarm comparison table is back to the old version.
I would have expected

a)   that the patch is only changing the editorial fixes, and/or

b)   result in a “merge conflict” as parts of the repo had been changed 
with the other patch.

I had tried to revert the last patch 26731 in patch 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/27531/  , but the document links provided 
by jenkins-ci still show the old version of the table.
I would have expected

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] [releng][opnfvdocs] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

2017-01-26 Thread Kunzmann, Gerald 
Dear all,

Sorry for another email on this issue:

Today the situation is even more strange:

There is the old alarm table in generated artifacts file: 
http://artifacts.opnfv.org/doctor/docs/requirements/index.html
But the git tree still contains the new table: 
https://git.opnfv.org/doctor/tree/docs/requirements/05-implementation.rst

What I realized is that in https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/24365/ after 
Ryota had merged the patch,
jenkins-ci has just sent the document links, but there was no specific build 
started. Is this normal/okay?

Best regards,
Gerald

-Original Message-
From: Kunzmann, Gerald 
Sent: Donnerstag, 26. Januar 2017 13:40
To: 'opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org' 
; 'Fatih Degirmenci' 

Cc: 'opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org' ; 
'r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com' 
Subject: RE: [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: 
[opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

Dear all,

So this issue is easily reproducible. It had again happened today with another 
patch being merged

https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/24365

We are now back to the old table again :(

We have to find a solution to this problem!!!

Best regards,
Gerald

-Original Message-
From: Kunzmann, Gerald 
Sent: Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2017 13:56
To: 'opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org' 

Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com
Subject: [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: 
[opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

HI Fatih,

Thanks for your quick check. The remerged had helped to bring back the table...

Let's see docs team's reply on it.

I agree gerrit was fine not raising conflict as the changed line in the 
"editorial" patch was not conflicting with the other patch.
Still, shouldn't gerrit have just changed that one line instead of also other 
parts of the file and/or shouldn't gerrit have raised some warning it was 
changing more than just the one line?

When looking at the diff in gerrit for the "editorial" patch, it does not 
compare against the latest master, otherwise it would have shown more changes 
than just this one line. This might have caused the issue?!?

Best regards,
Gerald

-Original Message-
From: fatih.degirme...@ericsson.com via RT 
[mailto:opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org] 
Sent: Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2017 13:38
To: Kunzmann, Gerald 
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com
Subject: [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: 
[opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

Hi,

I had a quick look at this and diffed the commits and I see no conflict so 
Gerrit was fine not raising conflict. (the changed line in 
05-implementation.rst in most recent patch is not a conflicting change)

I then tried regenerating the documents by putting remerge as comment to check 
the doc generation script/job output for possible errors which I didn't see 
any. But the generated document is correct now. If you don't see the updates, 
please try using a different browser or refresh the page after couple of 
minutes due to caching.

With that said, this doesn't really help us as we need to be able to trust our 
toolchain and we shouldn't need to remerge stuff just to make sure.
I'll raise this to docs team and see what they say.

/Fatih

From:  on behalf of "Kunzmann, 
Gerald" 
Date: Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 11:28
To: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" , 
"opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org" 
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

Dear all,

Not sure how is the best team to address this to. We have noticed the following 
issue:

In Doctor project there had been two patches merged on the alarm comparison 
table in Section 5.5.3:

-  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/26715

-  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/27237

Few days later, we merged another patch addressing some editorial changes in 
the document but NOT touching this alarm comparison table:

-  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/26731

Unfortunately, this patch has overwritten the two patches merged earlier and 
the alarm comparison table is back to the old version.
I would have expected

a)   that the patch is only changing the editorial fixes, and/or

b)   result in a “merge conflict” as parts of the repo had been changed 
with the other patch.

I had tried to revert the last patch 26731 in patch 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/27531/  , but the document links provided 
by jenkins-ci still show the old version of the table.
I would have expected

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

2017-01-26 Thread Kunzmann, Gerald 
Dear all,

So this issue is easily reproducible. It had again happened today with another 
patch being merged

https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/24365

We are now back to the old table again :(

We have to find a solution to this problem!!!

Best regards,
Gerald

-Original Message-
From: Kunzmann, Gerald 
Sent: Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2017 13:56
To: 'opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org' 

Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com
Subject: [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: 
[opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

HI Fatih,

Thanks for your quick check. The remerged had helped to bring back the table...

Let's see docs team's reply on it.

I agree gerrit was fine not raising conflict as the changed line in the 
"editorial" patch was not conflicting with the other patch.
Still, shouldn't gerrit have just changed that one line instead of also other 
parts of the file and/or shouldn't gerrit have raised some warning it was 
changing more than just the one line?

When looking at the diff in gerrit for the "editorial" patch, it does not 
compare against the latest master, otherwise it would have shown more changes 
than just this one line. This might have caused the issue?!?

Best regards,
Gerald

-Original Message-
From: fatih.degirme...@ericsson.com via RT 
[mailto:opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org] 
Sent: Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2017 13:38
To: Kunzmann, Gerald 
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com
Subject: [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: 
[opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

Hi,

I had a quick look at this and diffed the commits and I see no conflict so 
Gerrit was fine not raising conflict. (the changed line in 
05-implementation.rst in most recent patch is not a conflicting change)

I then tried regenerating the documents by putting remerge as comment to check 
the doc generation script/job output for possible errors which I didn't see 
any. But the generated document is correct now. If you don't see the updates, 
please try using a different browser or refresh the page after couple of 
minutes due to caching.

With that said, this doesn't really help us as we need to be able to trust our 
toolchain and we shouldn't need to remerge stuff just to make sure.
I'll raise this to docs team and see what they say.

/Fatih

From:  on behalf of "Kunzmann, 
Gerald" 
Date: Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 11:28
To: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" , 
"opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org" 
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

Dear all,

Not sure how is the best team to address this to. We have noticed the following 
issue:

In Doctor project there had been two patches merged on the alarm comparison 
table in Section 5.5.3:

-  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/26715

-  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/27237

Few days later, we merged another patch addressing some editorial changes in 
the document but NOT touching this alarm comparison table:

-  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/26731

Unfortunately, this patch has overwritten the two patches merged earlier and 
the alarm comparison table is back to the old version.
I would have expected

a)   that the patch is only changing the editorial fixes, and/or

b)   result in a “merge conflict” as parts of the repo had been changed 
with the other patch.

I had tried to revert the last patch 26731 in patch 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/27531/  , but the document links provided 
by jenkins-ci still show the old version of the table.
I would have expected that with the revert of the last patch, we would be back 
to the version we had after having submitted patch 27237.

Now, whilst I could manually fix this issue by providing another patch to 
update the table, I am very concerned that this behavior may also cause similar 
issues in other patch submissions that go unnoticed….

Can someone please have a look at this?

Best regards,
Gerald

===
Dr. Gerald Kunzmann, Manager
DOCOMO Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH Landsberger Strasse 312, 80687 
Munich
Tel: +49-89-56824-239 / Fax: +49-89-56824-300
Web: http://www.docomoeurolabs.de

Geschäftsführer: Atsushi Takeshita, Dr. Thomas Walter, Hisahiro Hamahata, 
Hiroyuki Oto, Kei Tonokura, Amtsgericht München, HRB 132976


___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

2017-01-26 Thread Kunzmann, Gerald via RT 
Dear all,

So this issue is easily reproducible. It had again happened today with another 
patch being merged

https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/24365

We are now back to the old table again :(

We have to find a solution to this problem!!!

Best regards,
Gerald

-Original Message-
From: Kunzmann, Gerald 
Sent: Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2017 13:56
To: 'opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org' 

Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com
Subject: [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: 
[opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

HI Fatih,

Thanks for your quick check. The remerged had helped to bring back the table...

Let's see docs team's reply on it.

I agree gerrit was fine not raising conflict as the changed line in the 
"editorial" patch was not conflicting with the other patch.
Still, shouldn't gerrit have just changed that one line instead of also other 
parts of the file and/or shouldn't gerrit have raised some warning it was 
changing more than just the one line?

When looking at the diff in gerrit for the "editorial" patch, it does not 
compare against the latest master, otherwise it would have shown more changes 
than just this one line. This might have caused the issue?!?

Best regards,
Gerald

-Original Message-
From: fatih.degirme...@ericsson.com via RT 
[mailto:opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org] 
Sent: Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2017 13:38
To: Kunzmann, Gerald 
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com
Subject: [OPNFV Helpdesk #35878] [linuxfoundation.org #35878] Re: 
[opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

Hi,

I had a quick look at this and diffed the commits and I see no conflict so 
Gerrit was fine not raising conflict. (the changed line in 
05-implementation.rst in most recent patch is not a conflicting change)

I then tried regenerating the documents by putting remerge as comment to check 
the doc generation script/job output for possible errors which I didn't see 
any. But the generated document is correct now. If you don't see the updates, 
please try using a different browser or refresh the page after couple of 
minutes due to caching.

With that said, this doesn't really help us as we need to be able to trust our 
toolchain and we shouldn't need to remerge stuff just to make sure.
I'll raise this to docs team and see what they say.

/Fatih

From:  on behalf of "Kunzmann, 
Gerald" 
Date: Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 11:28
To: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" , 
"opnfv-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org" 
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [releng][helpdesk] Problem with Git/Gerrit/Jenkins

Dear all,

Not sure how is the best team to address this to. We have noticed the following 
issue:

In Doctor project there had been two patches merged on the alarm comparison 
table in Section 5.5.3:

-  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/26715

-  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/27237

Few days later, we merged another patch addressing some editorial changes in 
the document but NOT touching this alarm comparison table:

-  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/26731

Unfortunately, this patch has overwritten the two patches merged earlier and 
the alarm comparison table is back to the old version.
I would have expected

a)   that the patch is only changing the editorial fixes, and/or

b)   result in a “merge conflict” as parts of the repo had been changed 
with the other patch.

I had tried to revert the last patch 26731 in patch 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/27531/  , but the document links provided 
by jenkins-ci still show the old version of the table.
I would have expected that with the revert of the last patch, we would be back 
to the version we had after having submitted patch 27237.

Now, whilst I could manually fix this issue by providing another patch to 
update the table, I am very concerned that this behavior may also cause similar 
issues in other patch submissions that go unnoticed….

Can someone please have a look at this?

Best regards,
Gerald

===
Dr. Gerald Kunzmann, Manager
DOCOMO Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH Landsberger Strasse 312, 80687 
Munich
Tel: +49-89-56824-239 / Fax: +49-89-56824-300
Web: http://www.docomoeurolabs.de

Geschäftsführer: Atsushi Takeshita, Dr. Thomas Walter, Hisahiro Hamahata, 
Hiroyuki Oto, Kei Tonokura, Amtsgericht München, HRB 132976



___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [VSPERF] Weekly Call

2017-01-26 Thread Yujun Zhang 
Oops, wrong thread.

I was sending to the meeting notification for TestPerf meeting not VSPERF.

Sorry for that.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:21 PM Christo Kleu 
wrote:

> Good day Yujun,
>
> I was also not able to attend yesterdays meeting.
>
> VSPERF Project Meetings (link
> )
> IRC meeting minutes for 2017-01-26 (link
> 
> )
>
> Regards,
> *Christo Kleu*
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Yujun Zhang 
> wrote:
>
> Hi, testers
>
> I'm currently on vacation and may not be able to attend the testperf
> meeting today.
>
> It seems something is required from my side about Test Ecosystem diagram[1]
>
> Trevor Cooper 
>
> I think additional input or a discussion would be helpful. I added a note
> to the agenda for this weeks Test WG meeting ... lets get some other input,
> if you can't make it we can defer any updates. I know the meeting time is
> really bad for you. thanks for all the feedback!
>
> If the potential change are just the following
>
>- 20 Jan 2017 Yujun Zhang  change
>the description of QTIP to "Benchmarking as a Service"
>- 20 Jan 2017 Yujun Zhang  add
>clarification on the difference between red and green blocks in
>Performance Testing
>
> Especially the first one, I don't see the necessity to defer the update
> because of my absence.
>
> I want to emphasis again my point on the diagram content and process: the 
> *project
> team* is the best candidates and maybe the only one to provide *original*
> content for discussion, not any party else.
>
> The reason that I made a proposal instead of modify the diagram directly
> is that I don't want the dispute on the old diagram[2] happens again and we
> lose the focus of the discussion.
>
> We may discuss about *which* kind of content to be put in the diagram,
> should it be project purpose or major content. But *what* to be put is
> NOT something worth discussion in working group meeting. The project team
> will provide it and be responsible to clarify it to the community.
>
> [1]: https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/testing/Testing+Ecosystem
> [2]: https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/testing/TestPerf
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:59 PM Cooper, Trevor 
> wrote:
>
> VSPERF Weekly Meeting - Wednesday UTC 16h00, Ireland 16h00, Pacific 8h00
>
>
>- IRC:
>
>
>- freenode *https://freenode.net/* 
>- IRC channel: #opnfv-vswitchperf
>*http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=opnfv-vswitchperf*
>
>
>
>- MeetBot: *http://meetbot.opnfv.org/meetings/opnfv-vswitchperf/2015/*
>
>
>
> *Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.*
> https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/915183117
>
> *You can also dial in using your phone.*
> United States +1 (571) 317-3129
>
> *Access Code:* 915-183-117
>
> *More phone numbers*
> Australia +61 2 8355 1040 <+61%202%208355%201040>
> Austria +43 7 2088 0034
> Belgium +32 (0) 28 93 7018
> Canada +1 (647) 497-9350 <(647)%20497-9350>
> Denmark +45 69 91 88 64 <+45%2069%2091%2088%2064>
> Finland +358 (0) 923 17 0568
> France +33 (0) 170 950 592
> Germany +49 (0) 692 5736 7210
> Ireland +353 (0) 15 360 728
> Italy +39 0 247 92 13 01
> Netherlands +31 (0) 208 080 219
> New Zealand +64 9 909 7888 <+64%209-909%207888>
> Norway +47 75 80 32 07 <+47%2075%2080%2032%2007>
> Spain +34 955 32 0845 <+34%20955%2032%2008%2045>
> Sweden +46 (0) 853 527 836
> Switzerland +41 (0) 435 0167 13
> United Kingdom +44 (0) 330 221 0086 <(330)%20221-0086>
>
>
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>
>
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>
>
>
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [SFC] Using compressed sf_nsh_colorado.qcow2 VM image

2017-01-26 Thread Jose Lausuch 
Juan, please ping me in IRC and I'll do it for you.
- Jose -


-Original Message-
From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Buil
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 18:49 PM
To: Juan Vidal ALLENDE; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [SFC] Using compressed sf_nsh_colorado.qcow2 
VM image

Hello Juan,

Cool, sounds like a great idea!

Only contributors to infra project can upload images in the opnfv artifactory. 
You will need to contact them (e.g. fatih.degirme...@ericsson.com)

Regards,
Manuel




>>> Juan Vidal ALLENDE  01/25/17 4:19 PM >>>
 Hello guys,
 
 
 I used the virt-sparsify[0] command to compress the .qcow image 
sf_nsh_colorado.qcow2 that we are using for our OPNFV-SFC tests, and I reduced 
the size to almost 1/5 of the original one (559M vs. 2.4G previously). The 
small tests that I ran went well,  so I think that we could start using this VM 
image, which will reduce the time required to run the tests (download, upload 
to glance, etc. will benefit from smaller size). My suggestion is to upload it 
to artifacts.opnfv.org/sfc/demo/sf_nsh_danube_sparse.qcow2  or something like 
that, and start using it in master (this patch[1] would enable it.
 
 
 Does it look good to you? How can I upload that image to the opnfv public 
artifactory? I am currently hosting it on my google drive [2] 
 
 
 Regards,
 Juan
 
 
 [0] http://libguestfs.org/virt-sparsify.1.html
 [1] https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/27547/
 [2] 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxsYX2Xl1MrSQ214Sk9sTEJBRDg/view?usp=sharing
 
 
 
 
   

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [doctor] Further discussion of NFVI / APP monitoring

2017-01-26 Thread Feng Liu (A) 
Hi Aaron and Doctor team,

Those are indeed very interesting areas, for some of the topics in the list, 
I’d like to point you to the OpNFV VES 
project(https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/ves), which, imo, share some common 
interests in terms of agent based data collections, common event models, etc. 
Together with doctor team, we may create some interesting discussions.

Cheers,

Feng


From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Juvonen, Tomi 
(Nokia - FI/Espoo)
Sent: January 26, 2017 08:33
To: Aaron Smith; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [doctor] Further discussion of NFVI / APP 
monitoring

Hi Aaron, Doctors, all,

These topics looks very important indeed when looking to reach Telco 
requirements for fault management as a whole. Totally +1 for this discussion.

Doctor has not yet addressed the actual monitoring part that much and would be 
nice to get that in shape. That is also complicated and there has been a lack 
of resources to give more thought to this. For example “HW specific 
configuration” needed to catch HW events. Monitoring agent could totally have 
us fast fault information and that would be a great thing to have.

Doctor requirement is currently time consumed from fault detected to alarm 
caught by consumer (user/tenant/project). Anyhow user point of view it is 
essential to have < 50ms for as many faults as possible from fault occurrence 
to alarm caught by consumer. This means detection have to be as fast as 
convenient without wasting too much resources. Surely framework on top of that 
also need to be optimized and having as straight path to have alarm to consumer 
as possible. I have been working a bit with that, but it is not that easy to 
optimize with current Doctor architecture.

Br,
Tomi

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Smith
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:12 PM
To: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [doctor] Further discussion of NFVI / APP 
monitoring

Hi,
  Would there be interest in a separate meeting to discussion what an "ideal" 
monitoring framework might look like.

Topics might include:
  - Polling vs Event capture
  - Platform independent monitor agent
- Network Interfaces
- Kernel events
- VM / Container monitoring
- Common bus for Events / Telemetry / Config
  -  Common Object model
- Agent configuration
- Performance
   - <<50ms

This would be an informal brainstorming activity with more emphasis on
concepts than existing projects (unless necessary).

Thoughts?

Aaron

--
Aaron Smith | Senior Principal Software Engineer
NFV Partner Engineering
Red Hat
aasm...@redhat.com

Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at redhat.com
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [SFC] Using compressed sf_nsh_colorado.qcow2 VM image

2017-01-26 Thread Juan Vidal ALLENDE 
Hi Tim,

Did you use the '--compress' option? Here are my results:

-rw-r--r--  1 ejuavid eusers  2,4G ago  5 14:50 sf_nsh_colorado.qcow2
-rw-r--r--  1 rootroot1,6G ene 26 09:11 
sf_nsh_colorado.sparse.nocompress.qcow2
-rw-r--r--  1 rootroot559M ene 23 12:37 sf_nsh_colorado.sparse.qcow2

First one is the original, second one is the sparse without compression, and 
the third one is sparse and compressed. You can download the 
sparse my google drive [0]. It is funny that you get 1.1G. Maybe 
there is some fine tuning with the sparsify that I already need to look.

Thanks a lot for being proactive uploading the qcow. Would it be possible to 
move the VM somewhere in the 'sfc' subtree in the artifactory? I think that it 
might be confusing to have the image under the 'apex' subtree when for the 
moment SFC is only working with fuel installer, and even in the case when more 
installers are supported, they could all pick them from the 'sfc' area.

Regards,
Juan

[0] 
 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxsYX2Xl1MrSQ214Sk9sTEJBRDg/view?usp=sharing



On mié, 2017-01-25 at 16:00 -0500, Tim Rozet wrote:

Good idea Juan.  I uploaded it to:
http://artifacts.opnfv.org/apex/random/sfc_cloud.qcow2

However when I virt-sparsified it only reduced it to 1GB.

Tim Rozet
Red Hat SDN Team

- Original Message -
From: "Manuel Buil" >
To: "juan vidal allende" 
>, 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:48:57 PM
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [SFC] Using compressed sf_nsh_colorado.qcow2 
VM image

Hello Juan,

Cool, sounds like a great idea!

Only contributors to infra project can upload images in the opnfv artifactory. 
You will need to contact them (e.g. 
fatih.degirme...@ericsson.com)

Regards,
Manuel










Juan Vidal ALLENDE 
> 
01/25/17 4:19 PM >>>






 Hello guys,


 I used the virt-sparsify[0] command to compress the .qcow image 
sf_nsh_colorado.qcow2 that we are using for our OPNFV-SFC tests, and I reduced 
the size to almost 1/5 of the original one (559M vs. 2.4G previously). The 
small tests that I ran went well,  so I think that we could start using this VM 
image, which will reduce the time required to run the tests (download, upload 
to glance, etc. will benefit from smaller size). My suggestion is to upload it 
to artifacts.opnfv.org/sfc/demo/sf_nsh_danube_sparse.qcow2  or something like 
that, and start using it in master (this patch[1] would enable it.


 Does it look good to you? How can I upload that image to the opnfv public 
artifactory? I am currently hosting it on my google drive [2]


 Regards,
 Juan


 [0] http://libguestfs.org/virt-sparsify.1.html
 [1] https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/27547/
 [2] 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxsYX2Xl1MrSQ214Sk9sTEJBRDg/view?usp=sharing






___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss