Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] #infra #laas Deciding on LaaS usage policy

[Frank Brockners via Lists.Opnfv.Org]

IMHO it would be best to have the user provide the INFO.yaml link - and then 
just check that the repo belongs to an LFN project (just check the domain name).
This mitigates the need to walk repo trees.

We should also limit things to LFN projects, given that it is LFN that pays for 
the service. LFN projects (see https://www.lfnetworking.org/) are

Opnfv.org
Onap.org
Opendaylight.org
Fd.io
Pnda.io
Tungsten.io
Snas.io

Cheers, Frank


-Original Message-
From: Aric Gardner  
Sent: Montag, 27. August 2018 21:06
To: Parker Berberian 
Cc: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) ; Lincoln Lavoie 
; Trevor Bramwell ; 
opnfv-tech-dis. 
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] #infra #laas Deciding on LaaS usage policy

Hi Parker,

Most LFN projects will have INFO files already, those that do not will have 
them added in the near future.

The url to fetch the info files (or have the user provide them) is:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/$LFNproject/$repo/master/INFO.yaml

LFNproject is one of

onap
opnfv
acumos
odl
iotivity
fdio
hyperledger

Regards,
Aric






On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Parker Berberian  
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This path makes sense to me.
> Is there an official list of OPNFV / LFN projects for us to use?  I 
> can use all opnfv/* projects on github with INFO.yaml files. Will all 
> 7 LFN projects have a similar structure?
>
> Thanks,
> Parker
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) 
>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Aric,
>>
>>
>>
>> I like that suggestion – and we might consider a tiered approach:
>>
>>
>>
>> ·   Single server booking: Open to all (like what we have right now)
>>
>> ·   Multi-server booking: Allow only PTLs to book resources. When
>> booking, you need to supply a link to the INFO file on git to 
>> authorize yourself as PTL.
>> With other projects also moving to INFO files, that would even work 
>> for other projects under the roof of the LFN. At the same time, there 
>> is only minimal burden on UNH – all they need to check is whether the 
>> UUID of the requesting user matches the PTL in the INFO file.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Frank
>>
>>
>>
>> From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>>  On Behalf Of Aric Gardner
>> Sent: Montag, 27. August 2018 17:11
>> To: Parker Berberian 
>> Cc: Lincoln Lavoie ; Trevor Bramwell 
>> ; opnfv-tech-dis.
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] #infra #laas Deciding on LaaS usage 
>> policy
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Parker, Lincoln,
>>
>> Just a note, if we ask for a project name when booking we can turn 
>> that into a github url and grab that projects info file, which can 
>> inform us on things like project committers and project lead.
>>
>> example for project opnfv/releng:
>> https://github.com/opnfv/releng/blob/master/INFO.yaml
>>
>> In this way we could limit bookings to committers, or if resources 
>> are indeed scarce, project leads.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Aric
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Parker Berberian 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Trevor and Lincoln,
>>
>>
>>
>> I just want these points to be kept in mind:
>>
>> - Users can design and book 'PODs' of any size (up to a max that it TBD).
>> Especially as LaaS expands beyond OPNFV, it may not be helpful to 
>> limit our thinking to just the Pharos spec.
>>
>> - a significant feature of this LaaS 2.0 release is the sharing of 
>> resources. We try to make it as easy as possible to have a POD owner 
>> share their resources with coworkers, team members, or other projects 
>> for integration, etc. For example, scenarios with ONAP development / 
>> testing happening on top of OPNFV as the VIM, it can be the case that 
>> multiple projects can share a POD and both get a lot of value from 
>> it. So if we want to limit booking on a per user / per project basis, 
>> we need to decide how shared resources count toward that cap.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Parker
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Lincoln Lavoie 
>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Trevor,
>>
>>
>>
>> Does the LFN accounting system (i.e. what the dashboard performs 
>> authentication against) have any info tied to a user for the LFN 
>> project they participate in? To limit to 4 bookings per project, we'd 
>> need a source of truth for that.  Another approach would be to 
>> present the user with a "drop down" list of which project the 
>> resource is for.  What I want to avoid is requiring UNH-IOL to make a 
>> decision point about what a booking is being used for, because we 
>> don't always have 100% visibility into what project states are, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Lincoln
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 3:54 PM Trevor Bramwell 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Parker,
>>
>> From the minutes of this week's TSC call:
>>
>> http://meetbot.opnfv.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2018/opnfv-meeting.20
>> 18-08-21-12.52.html they've deferred the agreement till next week.
>>
>> Assuming there is an agreement, and LaaS is open to all LFN members, 
>> I agree we will run into a scarcity of resources if we don't set some 

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [OVN4NFV] Weekly Meeting (28 August 2018)

[Trinath Somanchi]

Hi OVN4NFV Team -

Please find the agenda for today's IRC based weekly meeting -  at
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/OV/Meeting+Agenda


Tuesday (Weekly) meetings

Meeting Time: 1530 to 1630 UTC

*EST/ET:* 1030 to 1130 HRS

*PST/PT:* 0730 to 0830 HRS

*IST:* 2100 to 2200 HRS

(Please co-relate with Day light saving (if any) with India Standard Time)


/Trinath

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#21859): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/21859
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/25037368/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[opnfv-tech-discuss] FW: Yardstick weekly meeting - Aug 28

[limingjiang]

BEGIN:VCALENDAR
METHOD:REQUEST
PRODID:Microsoft Exchange Server 2010
VERSION:2.0
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:16010101T00
TZOFFSETFROM:+
TZOFFSETTO:+
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:16010101T00
TZOFFSETFROM:+
TZOFFSETTO:+
END:DAYLIGHT
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
ORGANIZER;CN="Foley, Emma L";SENT-BY="MAILTO:limingji...@huawei.com":MAILTO:emm
 a.l.fo...@intel.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=TECH-DISCU
 SS OPNFV:MAILTO:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
DESCRIPTION;LANGUAGE=zh-CN:Today’s Agenda - 2018 28/08 (08:30 UTC)\n
 •   Action point follow-up 5'\n•   Milestone 6\n•   TSC 
 election\n•   pip dependancy\n•   ONS summit\n•   AoB 5'
 \n•   Minutes:\n\n\n\nMeeting Logistics\n•   Tuesdays UTC 
 08h30 - 09h00 (Asia and Europe Slot)\n•   zoom:  https://zoom.us/j/5
 014627785\n•   IRC channel: #opnfv-yardstick\n•   chair by Rex
  Lee\n•   See Yardstick Meetings for details and m
 inutes of meeting\n\n\n
SUMMARY;LANGUAGE=zh-CN:FW: Yardstick weekly meeting - Aug 28
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20180828T083000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20180828T09
UID:04008200E00074C5B7101A82E008D03E734479C7D301000
 01000A360706B3A279C468F9FD0EADE57E8C7
RECURRENCE-ID;TZID=UTC:20180828T083000
CLASS:PUBLIC
PRIORITY:5
DTSTAMP:20180329T235413Z
TRANSP:OPAQUE
STATUS:CONFIRMED
SEQUENCE:0
LOCATION;LANGUAGE=zh-CN:https://zoom.us/j/5014627785   
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-APPT-SEQUENCE:0
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-OWNERAPPTID:-757254174
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-BUSYSTATUS:TENTATIVE
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-INTENDEDSTATUS:BUSY
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-ALLDAYEVENT:FALSE
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-IMPORTANCE:1
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-INSTTYPE:3
X-MICROSOFT-DISALLOW-COUNTER:FALSE
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OVN4NFV] [Container4NFV] OVN Changes

[Srini]

Hi,

I indicated to Bin that I would be able to present on coming Thursday.

Thanks
Srini


From: David McBride [mailto:dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 4:05 PM
To: Bin Hu 
Cc: Addepalli, Srinivasa R ; Trinath Somanchi 
; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
; Trevor Bramwell 
; tim.irn...@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OVN4NFV] [Container4NFV] OVN Changes

Hi Trinath and Srini,

Have you decided on a date for the presentation?  Thanks.

David

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:17 AM HU, BIN 
mailto:bh5...@att.com>> wrote:
Next Thursday is fine.

Based on discussion in release meeting today, Trinath will send a proposal to 
the mailing list, along with a suggested date to discuss in the tech-discuss 
meeting on Thursdays. We will go from there.

Thanks
Bin

From: Addepalli, Srinivasa R 
mailto:srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 8:53 AM
To: HU, BIN mailto:bh5...@att.com>>; David McBride 
mailto:dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org>>; Trinath 
Somanchi mailto:trinath.soman...@nxp.com>>
Cc: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>;
 Trevor Bramwell 
mailto:tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org>>; 
tim.irn...@ericsson.com
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OVN4NFV] [Container4NFV] OVN Changes

I saw this email just now.

I am travelling to Akraino meeting and hence will not be available this 
Thursday. How about next Thursday?

Thanks
Srini


From: HU, BIN [mailto:bh5...@att.com]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 4:23 PM
To: David McBride 
mailto:dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org>>; Addepalli, 
Srinivasa R 
mailto:srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com>>; 
Trinath Somanchi mailto:trinath.soman...@nxp.com>>
Cc: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>;
 Trevor Bramwell 
mailto:tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org>>; 
tim.irn...@ericsson.com
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OVN4NFV] [Container4NFV] OVN Changes

David,

If they are not available for the release meeting tomorrow, we can take it on 
Thursday.

Thanks
Bin

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 
mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>> 
On Behalf Of David McBride
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 4:17 PM
To: srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com; 
Trinath Somanchi mailto:trinath.soman...@nxp.com>>
Cc: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>;
 Trevor Bramwell 
mailto:tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org>>; 
tim.irn...@ericsson.com; HU, BIN 
mailto:bh5...@att.com>>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OVN4NFV] [Container4NFV] OVN Changes

This would be a good topic for the release 
meeting
 tomorrow.  Are both of you available?  Alternatively, we could discuss it in 
the weekly technical discussion on Thursday.

Bin - would this fit your agenda this week if they're not available for the 
release meeting?

David

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:58 AM Srini 
mailto:srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com>> wrote:
Hi,


I understand that OVN4NFV group is trying to make sure that OVN is viable 
option for NFV deployments and Container4NFV group is working on using 
containers for NFV. In ONAP community, we are trying to create a reference 
deployment for edges based on Kubernetes and provide service orchestration via 
ONAP.  For data plane network containers, multiple virtual interfaces and 
multi-homing is a typical requirement.  Currently, OVN (even with Multus) does 
not have a  way to provide this support.  We, at Intel, working on this to fix 
the issues in OVN.   Since the changes are only relevant for NFV, I am not sure 
how fast the OVN community would accept those changes.

Is OVN4NFV or container4NFV groups the right place to work on these?  If you 
agree, what is the right place (repositories) to make these changes?  I tried 
to search whether there is any fork of OVN in OVN4NFV project. I did not see 
any.  Any suggestions?

Thanks
Srini








--
David McBride
Release Manager, OPNFV
Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
Email/Google Talk: 
dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
Skype: davidjmcbride1
IRC: dmcbride



--
David McBride
Release Manager, OPNFV
Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
Email/Google Talk: 
dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
Skype: davidjmcbride1
IRC: dmcbride

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#21857): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/21857
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/23861762/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch..

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OVN4NFV] [Container4NFV] OVN Changes

[David McBride]

Hi Trinath and Srini,

Have you decided on a date for the presentation?  Thanks.

David

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:17 AM HU, BIN  wrote:

> Next Thursday is fine.
>
>
>
> Based on discussion in release meeting today, Trinath will send a proposal
> to the mailing list, along with a suggested date to discuss in the
> tech-discuss meeting on Thursdays. We will go from there.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Bin
>
>
>
> *From:* Addepalli, Srinivasa R 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 21, 2018 8:53 AM
> *To:* HU, BIN ; David McBride <
> dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org>; Trinath Somanchi 
> *Cc:* TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV ; Trevor
> Bramwell ; tim.irn...@ericsson.com
> *Subject:* RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OVN4NFV] [Container4NFV] OVN Changes
>
>
>
> I saw this email just now.
>
>
>
> I am travelling to Akraino meeting and hence will not be available this
> Thursday. How about next Thursday?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Srini
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* HU, BIN [mailto:bh5...@att.com ]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2018 4:23 PM
> *To:* David McBride ; Addepalli, Srinivasa
> R ; Trinath Somanchi <
> trinath.soman...@nxp.com>
> *Cc:* TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV ; Trevor
> Bramwell ; tim.irn...@ericsson.com
> *Subject:* RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OVN4NFV] [Container4NFV] OVN Changes
>
>
>
> David,
>
>
>
> If they are not available for the release meeting tomorrow, we can take it
> on Thursday.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Bin
>
>
>
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org <
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> *On Behalf Of *David McBride
> *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2018 4:17 PM
> *To:* srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com; Trinath Somanchi <
> trinath.soman...@nxp.com>
> *Cc:* TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV ; Trevor
> Bramwell ; tim.irn...@ericsson.com; HU,
> BIN 
> *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OVN4NFV] [Container4NFV] OVN Changes
>
>
>
> This would be a good topic for the release meeting
> 
> tomorrow.  Are both of you available?  Alternatively, we could discuss it
> in the weekly technical discussion on Thursday.
>
>
>
> Bin - would this fit your agenda this week if they're not available for
> the release meeting?
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:58 AM Srini 
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
>
>
> I understand that OVN4NFV group is trying to make sure that OVN is viable
> option for NFV deployments and Container4NFV group is working on using
> containers for NFV. In ONAP community, we are trying to create a reference
> deployment for edges based on Kubernetes and provide service orchestration
> via ONAP.  For data plane network containers, multiple virtual interfaces
> and multi-homing is a typical requirement.  Currently, OVN (even with
> Multus) does not have a  way to provide this support.  We, at Intel,
> working on this to fix the issues in OVN.   Since the changes are only
> relevant for NFV, I am not sure how fast the OVN community would accept
> those changes.
>
>
>
> Is OVN4NFV or container4NFV groups the right place to work on these?  If
> you agree, what is the right place (repositories) to make these changes?  I
> tried to search whether there is any fork of OVN in OVN4NFV project. I did
> not see any.  Any suggestions?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Srini
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *David McBride*
>
> Release Manager, OPNFV
>
> Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
>
> Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
>
> Skype: davidjmcbride1
>
> IRC: dmcbride
>
> 
>


-- 
*David McBride*
Release Manager, OPNFV
Mobile: +1.805.276.8018 
Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
Skype: davidjmcbride1
IRC: dmcbride

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#21856): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/21856
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/23861762/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] #infra #laas Deciding on LaaS usage policy

[Aric Gardner]

Hi Parker,

Most LFN projects will have INFO files already, those that do not will
have them added in the near future.

The url to fetch the info files (or have the user provide them) is:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/$LFNproject/$repo/master/INFO.yaml

LFNproject is one of

onap
opnfv
acumos
odl
iotivity
fdio
hyperledger

Regards,
Aric






On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Parker Berberian
 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This path makes sense to me.
> Is there an official list of OPNFV / LFN projects for us to use?  I can use
> all opnfv/* projects on github with INFO.yaml files. Will all 7 LFN projects
> have a similar structure?
>
> Thanks,
> Parker
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Aric,
>>
>>
>>
>> I like that suggestion – and we might consider a tiered approach:
>>
>>
>>
>> ·   Single server booking: Open to all (like what we have right now)
>>
>> ·   Multi-server booking: Allow only PTLs to book resources. When
>> booking, you need to supply a link to the INFO file on git to authorize
>> yourself as PTL.
>> With other projects also moving to INFO files, that would even work for
>> other projects under the roof of the LFN. At the same time, there is only
>> minimal burden on UNH – all they need to check is whether the UUID of the
>> requesting user matches the PTL in the INFO file.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Frank
>>
>>
>>
>> From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>>  On Behalf Of Aric Gardner
>> Sent: Montag, 27. August 2018 17:11
>> To: Parker Berberian 
>> Cc: Lincoln Lavoie ; Trevor Bramwell
>> ; opnfv-tech-dis.
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] #infra #laas Deciding on LaaS usage
>> policy
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Parker, Lincoln,
>>
>> Just a note, if we ask for a project name when booking we can turn that
>> into a github url and grab that projects info file, which can inform us on
>> things like project committers and project lead.
>>
>> example for project opnfv/releng:
>> https://github.com/opnfv/releng/blob/master/INFO.yaml
>>
>> In this way we could limit bookings to committers, or if resources are
>> indeed scarce, project leads.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Aric
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Parker Berberian
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Trevor and Lincoln,
>>
>>
>>
>> I just want these points to be kept in mind:
>>
>> - Users can design and book 'PODs' of any size (up to a max that it TBD).
>> Especially as LaaS expands beyond OPNFV, it may not be helpful to limit our
>> thinking to just the Pharos spec.
>>
>> - a significant feature of this LaaS 2.0 release is the sharing of
>> resources. We try to make it as easy as possible to have a POD owner share
>> their resources with coworkers, team members, or other projects for
>> integration, etc. For example, scenarios with ONAP development / testing
>> happening on top of OPNFV as the VIM, it can be the case that multiple
>> projects can share a POD and both get a lot of value from it. So if we want
>> to limit booking on a per user / per project basis, we need to decide how
>> shared resources count toward that cap.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Parker
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Lincoln Lavoie 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Trevor,
>>
>>
>>
>> Does the LFN accounting system (i.e. what the dashboard performs
>> authentication against) have any info tied to a user for the LFN project
>> they participate in? To limit to 4 bookings per project, we'd need a source
>> of truth for that.  Another approach would be to present the user with a
>> "drop down" list of which project the resource is for.  What I want to avoid
>> is requiring UNH-IOL to make a decision point about what a booking is being
>> used for, because we don't always have 100% visibility into what project
>> states are, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Lincoln
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 3:54 PM Trevor Bramwell
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Parker,
>>
>> From the minutes of this week's TSC call:
>>
>> http://meetbot.opnfv.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2018/opnfv-meeting.2018-08-21-12.52.html
>> they've deferred the agreement till next week.
>>
>> Assuming there is an agreement, and LaaS is open to all LFN members, I
>> agree we will run into a scarcity of resources if we don't set some
>> restrictions upon users/projects.
>>
>> So the question is, should this restriction be on a per-user, per-group,
>> per-lfn-project basis, or some combination thereof?
>>
>> With 48 x86 and 14 aarch64 machines, we can have in total 8 Pharos
>> compliant PODs (6 servers) booked at once (with 4 extra servers).
>>
>> Perhaps we restrict bookings to 1 per-user, 4 per-lfn-project, with a
>> max of 2-weeks per-booking? You would have to do some calculations of
>> which groups/projects a user belongs to in order to figure out when the
>> quota is reached. This will also be somewhat hard as the limit might
>> depend on either the number of servers in total, or the number of PODs
>> and that would have to be a separate calculation
>>
>> I'm not

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] #infra #laas Deciding on LaaS usage policy

[Parker Berberian]

Hi all,

This path makes sense to me.
Is there an official list of OPNFV / LFN projects for us to use?  I can use
all opnfv/* projects on github with INFO.yaml files. Will all 7 LFN
projects have a similar structure?

Thanks,
Parker

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <
fbroc...@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Aric,
>
>
>
> I like that suggestion – and we might consider a tiered approach:
>
>
>
> ·   Single server booking: Open to all (like what we have right now)
>
> ·   Multi-server booking: Allow only PTLs to book resources. When
> booking, you need to supply a link to the INFO file on git to authorize
> yourself as PTL.
> With other projects also moving to INFO files, that would even work for
> other projects under the roof of the LFN. At the same time, there is only
> minimal burden on UNH – all they need to check is whether the UUID of the
> requesting user matches the PTL in the INFO file.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Thanks, Frank
>
>
>
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org  opnfv.org> *On Behalf Of *Aric Gardner
> *Sent:* Montag, 27. August 2018 17:11
> *To:* Parker Berberian 
> *Cc:* Lincoln Lavoie ; Trevor Bramwell <
> tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org>; opnfv-tech-dis.  opnfv.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] #infra #laas Deciding on LaaS usage
> policy
>
>
>
> Hi Parker, Lincoln,
>
> Just a note, if we ask for a project name when booking we can turn that
> into a github url and grab that projects info file, which can inform us on
> things like project committers and project lead.
>
> example for project opnfv/releng: https://github.com/opnfv/
> releng/blob/master/INFO.yaml
>
> In this way we could limit bookings to committers, or if resources are
> indeed scarce, project leads.
>
> Regards,
>
> Aric
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Parker Berberian 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Trevor and Lincoln,
>
>
>
> I just want these points to be kept in mind:
>
> - Users can design and book 'PODs' of any size (up to a max that it TBD).
> Especially as LaaS expands beyond OPNFV, it may not be helpful to limit our
> thinking to just the Pharos spec.
>
> - a significant feature of this LaaS 2.0 release is the sharing of
> resources. We try to make it as easy as possible to have a POD owner share
> their resources with coworkers, team members, or other projects for
> integration, etc. For example, scenarios with ONAP development / testing
> happening on top of OPNFV as the VIM, it can be the case that multiple
> projects can share a POD and both get a lot of value from it. So if we want
> to limit booking on a per user / per project basis, we need to decide how
> shared resources count toward that cap.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Parker
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Lincoln Lavoie 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Trevor,
>
>
>
> Does the LFN accounting system (i.e. what the dashboard performs
> authentication against) have any info tied to a user for the LFN project
> they participate in? To limit to 4 bookings per project, we'd need a source
> of truth for that.  Another approach would be to present the user with a
> "drop down" list of which project the resource is for.  What I want to
> avoid is requiring UNH-IOL to make a decision point about what a booking is
> being used for, because we don't always have 100% visibility into what
> project states are, etc.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Lincoln
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 3:54 PM Trevor Bramwell <
> tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Parker,
>
> From the minutes of this week's TSC call:
> http://meetbot.opnfv.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2018/
> opnfv-meeting.2018-08-21-12.52.html
> they've deferred the agreement till next week.
>
> Assuming there is an agreement, and LaaS is open to all LFN members, I
> agree we will run into a scarcity of resources if we don't set some
> restrictions upon users/projects.
>
> So the question is, should this restriction be on a per-user, per-group,
> per-lfn-project basis, or some combination thereof?
>
> With 48 x86 and 14 aarch64 machines, we can have in total 8 Pharos
> compliant PODs (6 servers) booked at once (with 4 extra servers).
>
> Perhaps we restrict bookings to 1 per-user, 4 per-lfn-project, with a
> max of 2-weeks per-booking? You would have to do some calculations of
> which groups/projects a user belongs to in order to figure out when the
> quota is reached. This will also be somewhat hard as the limit might
> depend on either the number of servers in total, or the number of PODs
> and that would have to be a separate calculation
>
> I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I wanted to respond to at
> least keep the discussion rolling.
>
> Regards,
> Trevor Bramwell
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:58:28AM -0400, Parker Berberian wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As the release of LaaS 2.0 (info here
> > ) nears, we need to
> come
> > to a conclusion on how we are going to limit access to the Lab as a
> Service.
> >
> > Background info:
> >
> 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release] Call for participation - TSC Release Process Working Group

[Yeleswarapu, Ramamani]

Hi David,

Please count me in.

Thanks,
Ramamani (Rama).


From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of David McBride
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 1:00 PM
To: Foley, Emma L ; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 

Cc: tim.irn...@ericsson.com; Tapio Tallgren 
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release] Call for participation - TSC 
Release Process Working Group



On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:40 PM David McBride 
mailto:dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
Thanks, Emma.

Come on team!  Who else is going to join Emma as a member of the TSC Release 
Process working group?

David

On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 9:55 AM Foley, Emma L 
mailto:emma.l.fo...@intel.com>> wrote:
I’d like to get involved.
Sign me up!

Best regards,
Emma

--
Intel Research and Development Ireland Limited
Registered in Ireland
Registered Office: Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare
Registered Number: 308263

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org]
 On Behalf Of David McBride
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 9:34 PM
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
Cc: TSC OPNFV mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>>; 
tim.irn...@ericsson.com; Tapio Tallgren 
mailto:tapio.tallg...@nokia.com>>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release] Call for participation - TSC Release 
Process Working Group

Team,

Tim and Tapio have proposed a Release Process WG for the TSC to help guide the 
evolution of the OPNFV release process.  We'd like to have at least 5 
individuals from different areas of OPNFV, including test, tools, installers, 
infra, and feature projects.

This is a great opportunity to make a meaningful impact on the future of OPNFV. 
 Please respond to this email if you are interested in participating.  Thanks.

David

--
David McBride
Release Manager, OPNFV
Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
Email/Google Talk: 
dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
Skype: davidjmcbride1
IRC: dmcbride


--
David McBride
Release Manager, OPNFV
Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
Email/Google Talk: 
dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
Skype: davidjmcbride1
IRC: dmcbride


--
David McBride
Release Manager, OPNFV
Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
Email/Google Talk: 
dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
Skype: davidjmcbride1
IRC: dmcbride


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#21853): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/21853
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/24828791/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] #infra #laas Deciding on LaaS usage policy

[Frank Brockners via Lists.Opnfv.Org]

Hi Aric,

I like that suggestion – and we might consider a tiered approach:


·   Single server booking: Open to all (like what we have right now)

·   Multi-server booking: Allow only PTLs to book resources. When booking, 
you need to supply a link to the INFO file on git to authorize yourself as PTL.
With other projects also moving to INFO files, that would even work for other 
projects under the roof of the LFN. At the same time, there is only minimal 
burden on UNH – all they need to check is whether the UUID of the requesting 
user matches the PTL in the INFO file.

Thoughts?

Thanks, Frank

From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org  
On Behalf Of Aric Gardner
Sent: Montag, 27. August 2018 17:11
To: Parker Berberian 
Cc: Lincoln Lavoie ; Trevor Bramwell 
; opnfv-tech-dis. 

Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] #infra #laas Deciding on LaaS usage policy

Hi Parker, Lincoln,
Just a note, if we ask for a project name when booking we can turn that into a 
github url and grab that projects info file, which can inform us on things like 
project committers and project lead.

example for project opnfv/releng: 
https://github.com/opnfv/releng/blob/master/INFO.yaml
In this way we could limit bookings to committers, or if resources are indeed 
scarce, project leads.
Regards,
Aric

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Parker Berberian 
mailto:pberber...@iol.unh.edu>> wrote:
Hi Trevor and Lincoln,

I just want these points to be kept in mind:
- Users can design and book 'PODs' of any size (up to a max that it TBD). 
Especially as LaaS expands beyond OPNFV, it may not be helpful to limit our 
thinking to just the Pharos spec.
- a significant feature of this LaaS 2.0 release is the sharing of resources. 
We try to make it as easy as possible to have a POD owner share their resources 
with coworkers, team members, or other projects for integration, etc. For 
example, scenarios with ONAP development / testing happening on top of OPNFV as 
the VIM, it can be the case that multiple projects can share a POD and both get 
a lot of value from it. So if we want to limit booking on a per user / per 
project basis, we need to decide how shared resources count toward that cap.

Thanks,
Parker

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Lincoln Lavoie 
mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>> wrote:
Hi Trevor,

Does the LFN accounting system (i.e. what the dashboard performs authentication 
against) have any info tied to a user for the LFN project they participate in? 
To limit to 4 bookings per project, we'd need a source of truth for that.  
Another approach would be to present the user with a "drop down" list of which 
project the resource is for.  What I want to avoid is requiring UNH-IOL to make 
a decision point about what a booking is being used for, because we don't 
always have 100% visibility into what project states are, etc.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 3:54 PM Trevor Bramwell 
mailto:tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
Hi Parker,

From the minutes of this week's TSC call:
http://meetbot.opnfv.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2018/opnfv-meeting.2018-08-21-12.52.html
they've deferred the agreement till next week.

Assuming there is an agreement, and LaaS is open to all LFN members, I
agree we will run into a scarcity of resources if we don't set some
restrictions upon users/projects.

So the question is, should this restriction be on a per-user, per-group,
per-lfn-project basis, or some combination thereof?

With 48 x86 and 14 aarch64 machines, we can have in total 8 Pharos
compliant PODs (6 servers) booked at once (with 4 extra servers).

Perhaps we restrict bookings to 1 per-user, 4 per-lfn-project, with a
max of 2-weeks per-booking? You would have to do some calculations of
which groups/projects a user belongs to in order to figure out when the
quota is reached. This will also be somewhat hard as the limit might
depend on either the number of servers in total, or the number of PODs
and that would have to be a separate calculation

I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I wanted to respond to at
least keep the discussion rolling.

Regards,
Trevor Bramwell


On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:58:28AM -0400, Parker Berberian wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As the release of LaaS 2.0 (info here
> ) nears, we need to come
> to a conclusion on how we are going to limit access to the Lab as a Service.
>
> Background info:
>
> LaaS usage is currently around 50-80%. As we open LaaS to all of LFN and as
> we allow users to book multiple servers together as one "POD", we expect to
> have a resource scarcity.
>
> We need some way of policing who is allowed to book how many machines, and
> for how long.
>
>
> The infra call this monday has been cancelled, and we need to try and come
> to a conclusion on this soon.
>
> Thank you,
> Parker
>
>
>




--
***
Lincoln Lavoie
Senior Engineer, Broadband Technologies

[Image removed by s

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] #infra #laas Deciding on LaaS usage policy

[Aric Gardner]

Hi Parker, Lincoln,

Just a note, if we ask for a project name when booking we can turn that
into a github url and grab that projects info file, which can inform us on
things like project committers and project lead.

example for project opnfv/releng:
https://github.com/opnfv/releng/blob/master/INFO.yaml

In this way we could limit bookings to committers, or if resources are
indeed scarce, project leads.

Regards,
Aric


On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Parker Berberian 
wrote:

> Hi Trevor and Lincoln,
>
> I just want these points to be kept in mind:
> - Users can design and book 'PODs' of any size (up to a max that it TBD).
> Especially as LaaS expands beyond OPNFV, it may not be helpful to limit our
> thinking to just the Pharos spec.
> - a significant feature of this LaaS 2.0 release is the sharing of
> resources. We try to make it as easy as possible to have a POD owner share
> their resources with coworkers, team members, or other projects for
> integration, etc. For example, scenarios with ONAP development / testing
> happening on top of OPNFV as the VIM, it can be the case that multiple
> projects can share a POD and both get a lot of value from it. So if we want
> to limit booking on a per user / per project basis, we need to decide how
> shared resources count toward that cap.
>
> Thanks,
> Parker
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Lincoln Lavoie 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Trevor,
>>
>> Does the LFN accounting system (i.e. what the dashboard performs
>> authentication against) have any info tied to a user for the LFN project
>> they participate in? To limit to 4 bookings per project, we'd need a source
>> of truth for that.  Another approach would be to present the user with a
>> "drop down" list of which project the resource is for.  What I want to
>> avoid is requiring UNH-IOL to make a decision point about what a booking is
>> being used for, because we don't always have 100% visibility into what
>> project states are, etc.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Lincoln
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 3:54 PM Trevor Bramwell <
>> tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Parker,
>>>
>>> From the minutes of this week's TSC call:
>>> http://meetbot.opnfv.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2018/opnfv-
>>> meeting.2018-08-21-12.52.html
>>> they've deferred the agreement till next week.
>>>
>>> Assuming there is an agreement, and LaaS is open to all LFN members, I
>>> agree we will run into a scarcity of resources if we don't set some
>>> restrictions upon users/projects.
>>>
>>> So the question is, should this restriction be on a per-user, per-group,
>>> per-lfn-project basis, or some combination thereof?
>>>
>>> With 48 x86 and 14 aarch64 machines, we can have in total 8 Pharos
>>> compliant PODs (6 servers) booked at once (with 4 extra servers).
>>>
>>> Perhaps we restrict bookings to 1 per-user, 4 per-lfn-project, with a
>>> max of 2-weeks per-booking? You would have to do some calculations of
>>> which groups/projects a user belongs to in order to figure out when the
>>> quota is reached. This will also be somewhat hard as the limit might
>>> depend on either the number of servers in total, or the number of PODs
>>> and that would have to be a separate calculation
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I wanted to respond to at
>>> least keep the discussion rolling.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Trevor Bramwell
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:58:28AM -0400, Parker Berberian wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > As the release of LaaS 2.0 (info here
>>> > ) nears, we need to
>>> come
>>> > to a conclusion on how we are going to limit access to the Lab as a
>>> Service.
>>> >
>>> > Background info:
>>> >
>>> > LaaS usage is currently around 50-80%. As we open LaaS to all of LFN
>>> and as
>>> > we allow users to book multiple servers together as one "POD", we
>>> expect to
>>> > have a resource scarcity.
>>> >
>>> > We need some way of policing who is allowed to book how many machines,
>>> and
>>> > for how long.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The infra call this monday has been cancelled, and we need to try and
>>> come
>>> > to a conclusion on this soon.
>>> >
>>> > Thank you,
>>> > Parker
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 
>> ***
>> *Lincoln Lavoie*
>> Senior Engineer, Broadband Technologies
>>
>> 
>> www.iol.unh.edu
>> 21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, Durham, NH 03824
>> 
>> Mobile: +1-603-674-2755
>> lylav...@iol.unh.edu
>>    
>> 
>>
>> Ars sine scientia nihil est! -- Art without science is nothing.
>> Scientia sine ars est vacua! -- Science without art is empty.
>>
>> Broadband Forum Gfast Certified Product List
>> 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] #infra #laas Deciding on LaaS usage policy

[Parker Berberian]

Hi Trevor and Lincoln,

I just want these points to be kept in mind:
- Users can design and book 'PODs' of any size (up to a max that it TBD).
Especially as LaaS expands beyond OPNFV, it may not be helpful to limit our
thinking to just the Pharos spec.
- a significant feature of this LaaS 2.0 release is the sharing of
resources. We try to make it as easy as possible to have a POD owner share
their resources with coworkers, team members, or other projects for
integration, etc. For example, scenarios with ONAP development / testing
happening on top of OPNFV as the VIM, it can be the case that multiple
projects can share a POD and both get a lot of value from it. So if we want
to limit booking on a per user / per project basis, we need to decide how
shared resources count toward that cap.

Thanks,
Parker

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Lincoln Lavoie 
wrote:

> Hi Trevor,
>
> Does the LFN accounting system (i.e. what the dashboard performs
> authentication against) have any info tied to a user for the LFN project
> they participate in? To limit to 4 bookings per project, we'd need a source
> of truth for that.  Another approach would be to present the user with a
> "drop down" list of which project the resource is for.  What I want to
> avoid is requiring UNH-IOL to make a decision point about what a booking is
> being used for, because we don't always have 100% visibility into what
> project states are, etc.
>
> Cheers,
> Lincoln
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 3:54 PM Trevor Bramwell <
> tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Parker,
>>
>> From the minutes of this week's TSC call:
>> http://meetbot.opnfv.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2018/
>> opnfv-meeting.2018-08-21-12.52.html
>> they've deferred the agreement till next week.
>>
>> Assuming there is an agreement, and LaaS is open to all LFN members, I
>> agree we will run into a scarcity of resources if we don't set some
>> restrictions upon users/projects.
>>
>> So the question is, should this restriction be on a per-user, per-group,
>> per-lfn-project basis, or some combination thereof?
>>
>> With 48 x86 and 14 aarch64 machines, we can have in total 8 Pharos
>> compliant PODs (6 servers) booked at once (with 4 extra servers).
>>
>> Perhaps we restrict bookings to 1 per-user, 4 per-lfn-project, with a
>> max of 2-weeks per-booking? You would have to do some calculations of
>> which groups/projects a user belongs to in order to figure out when the
>> quota is reached. This will also be somewhat hard as the limit might
>> depend on either the number of servers in total, or the number of PODs
>> and that would have to be a separate calculation
>>
>> I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I wanted to respond to at
>> least keep the discussion rolling.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Trevor Bramwell
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:58:28AM -0400, Parker Berberian wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > As the release of LaaS 2.0 (info here
>> > ) nears, we need to
>> come
>> > to a conclusion on how we are going to limit access to the Lab as a
>> Service.
>> >
>> > Background info:
>> >
>> > LaaS usage is currently around 50-80%. As we open LaaS to all of LFN
>> and as
>> > we allow users to book multiple servers together as one "POD", we
>> expect to
>> > have a resource scarcity.
>> >
>> > We need some way of policing who is allowed to book how many machines,
>> and
>> > for how long.
>> >
>> >
>> > The infra call this monday has been cancelled, and we need to try and
>> come
>> > to a conclusion on this soon.
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > Parker
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>
> --
> 
> ***
> *Lincoln Lavoie*
> Senior Engineer, Broadband Technologies
>
> 
> www.iol.unh.edu
> 21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, Durham, NH 03824
> 
> Mobile: +1-603-674-2755
> lylav...@iol.unh.edu
>    
> 
>
> Ars sine scientia nihil est! -- Art without science is nothing.
> Scientia sine ars est vacua! -- Science without art is empty.
>
> Broadband Forum Gfast Certified Product List
> 
> 
> ***
>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#21850): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/21850
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/24945176/21656
Mute #laas: https://lists.opnfv.org/mk?hashtag=laas&subid=2783016
Mute #infra: https://lists.opnfv.org/mk?hashtag=infra&subid=2783016
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] #infra #laas Deciding on LaaS usage policy

[Lincoln Lavoie]

Hi Trevor,

Does the LFN accounting system (i.e. what the dashboard performs
authentication against) have any info tied to a user for the LFN project
they participate in? To limit to 4 bookings per project, we'd need a source
of truth for that.  Another approach would be to present the user with a
"drop down" list of which project the resource is for.  What I want to
avoid is requiring UNH-IOL to make a decision point about what a booking is
being used for, because we don't always have 100% visibility into what
project states are, etc.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 3:54 PM Trevor Bramwell <
tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi Parker,
>
> From the minutes of this week's TSC call:
>
> http://meetbot.opnfv.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2018/opnfv-meeting.2018-08-21-12.52.html
> they've deferred the agreement till next week.
>
> Assuming there is an agreement, and LaaS is open to all LFN members, I
> agree we will run into a scarcity of resources if we don't set some
> restrictions upon users/projects.
>
> So the question is, should this restriction be on a per-user, per-group,
> per-lfn-project basis, or some combination thereof?
>
> With 48 x86 and 14 aarch64 machines, we can have in total 8 Pharos
> compliant PODs (6 servers) booked at once (with 4 extra servers).
>
> Perhaps we restrict bookings to 1 per-user, 4 per-lfn-project, with a
> max of 2-weeks per-booking? You would have to do some calculations of
> which groups/projects a user belongs to in order to figure out when the
> quota is reached. This will also be somewhat hard as the limit might
> depend on either the number of servers in total, or the number of PODs
> and that would have to be a separate calculation
>
> I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I wanted to respond to at
> least keep the discussion rolling.
>
> Regards,
> Trevor Bramwell
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:58:28AM -0400, Parker Berberian wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As the release of LaaS 2.0 (info here
> > ) nears, we need to
> come
> > to a conclusion on how we are going to limit access to the Lab as a
> Service.
> >
> > Background info:
> >
> > LaaS usage is currently around 50-80%. As we open LaaS to all of LFN and
> as
> > we allow users to book multiple servers together as one "POD", we expect
> to
> > have a resource scarcity.
> >
> > We need some way of policing who is allowed to book how many machines,
> and
> > for how long.
> >
> >
> > The infra call this monday has been cancelled, and we need to try and
> come
> > to a conclusion on this soon.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Parker
> >
> >
> >
>
> 
>
>

-- 
***
*Lincoln Lavoie*
Senior Engineer, Broadband Technologies


www.iol.unh.edu
21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, Durham, NH 03824
Mobile: +1-603-674-2755
lylav...@iol.unh.edu
   


Ars sine scientia nihil est! -- Art without science is nothing.
Scientia sine ars est vacua! -- Science without art is empty.

Broadband Forum Gfast Certified Product List

***

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#21849): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/21849
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/24945176/21656
Mute #laas: https://lists.opnfv.org/mk?hashtag=laas&subid=2783016
Mute #infra: https://lists.opnfv.org/mk?hashtag=infra&subid=2783016
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release] Call for participation - TSC Release Process Working Group

[Cristina Pauna]

I can get involved too.

Thanks,
Cristina

From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org  
On Behalf Of Trinath Somanchi
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2018 4:33 AM
To: David McBride 
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; TSC OPNFV ; 
tim.irn...@ericsson.com; Tapio Tallgren 
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release] Call for participation - TSC 
Release Process Working Group

Please count me.

/Trinath

On Tue 21 Aug, 2018, 02:04 David McBride, 
mailto:dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
Team,

Tim and Tapio have proposed a Release Process WG for the TSC to help guide the 
evolution of the OPNFV release process.  We'd like to have at least 5 
individuals from different areas of OPNFV, including test, tools, installers, 
infra, and feature projects.

This is a great opportunity to make a meaningful impact on the future of OPNFV. 
 Please respond to this email if you are interested in participating.  Thanks.

David

--
David McBride
Release Manager, OPNFV
Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
Email/Google Talk: 
dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
Skype: davidjmcbride1
IRC: dmcbride


This message, including attachments, is CONFIDENTIAL. It may also be privileged 
or otherwise protected by law. If you received this email by mistake please let 
us know by reply and then delete it from your system; you should not copy it or 
disclose its contents to anyone. All messages sent to and from Enea may be 
monitored to ensure compliance with internal policies and to protect our 
business. Emails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as 
they can be intercepted, a mended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. The 
sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the 
contents of this message, which arise as a result of email transmission. Anyone 
who communicates with us by email accepts these risks.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#21848): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/21848
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/24828791/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-