Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Date

Attendees



Agenda

  • Start the Recording
  • Antitrust Policy
  • Agenda Bashing (Roll Call, Action Items (5 minutes)
  • VSPERF integration (Prabhjot)
    • need to have a baseline configuration to be used for Vrouter (preferably Juniper needs to review)
    • clarification on flows from the last TSC call.
  • Community Repos (Prabhjot)
  • Source build procedure and tagging of RPMs at TPC http://148.251.5.90/tpc/ (Prabhjot)
  • RLB: List of code reviewers?  (Juniper and non-Juniper)
  • RLB: What's the scope of the technical workstream call and how does it avoid overlap with the TSC call?
  • General Topics

Minutes

  • VSPERF
    • None of those folks are on this call this week
    • PS: Will need a review from someone at Juniper for this stuff
      • Does the config make sense? They may be in a good position to judge this.
    • JG: Going through last hoops of Intel legal approval to share perf doc w/the Docs team
    • JG would like to create a WG to work through perf bottlenecks
  • Forked DPDK in TF
    • Affects VSPERF, per Sridar from 2019-05-28 Meeting notes
    • Currently builds from a cloned DPDK
    • Would like some background on how/why this is forked
      •  So they're not building against a moving target
      • Appears to be a bad habit
      • Should build against a specific tag
    • Worth prototyping to build against official DPDK.org?
      • PS: +1
      • RLB: Will be able to do this once the build is on the community CI, but is there any rush on this now?
      • JG: Unknown on the timing
        • Will be running vrouter from a container, so would be OK for now
          • Would get initial numbers
        • But it's an optics thing. People aren't going to like that it's building from a fork.
        • Also, cleaner and less code to maintain
    • SK: Speculation on why things are this way: sanity & regression testing
      • Not yet fully automated, so people have to be told which version to use
      • Until it's automated, will be able to do things the right way
      • PS: Not the version, it's the source of the code; it's a fork not the master
        • SK: All part of the same process
  • Community repos
    • contrail-vnc & contrail-dev-env aren't being used by commercial contrail?
    • Add TF folks to these repos?
      • VMB: Should get these moved to TF space instead
      • Can move these w/o disturbing anything else
    • PS will check with SK, then follow up with helpdesk@ to get repos moved
      • RLB: This is being driven internally by Juniper folks; it's only partly an LF responsibility right now
    • CI is running for further testing according to Randy
  • TPC
  • JG: Doh! This meeting actually starts 30 minutes later now
    • Need to send updated invite for this (already updated on the calendar)
    • Casey sent an updated invitation at 10:30
  • JG: common code between kernel and dpdk vrouter can be good and bad
    • can kill some of the performance benefits on dpdk vrouter to acheive common code
  • SK: contrail-vnc and contrail-dev-env is still used internally used by Juniper.
  • SK: will help with respect to reviews.
  • SK: More Architects will be joining the TWS call starting next meeting.

Action items

  • Randy BiasFollow up with Juniper to get someone to review the VSPERF config
  • Prabhjot Singh Sethi Email dev@ & Sukhdev Kapur to learn more about the contrail-* repos
  • Prabhjot Singh Sethi Follow up with Alex about the TPC stuff
  • Joseph Gasparakis Write Casey to have him send an updated invite for this meeting
  • Randy Bias Talk to Carlo Contavalli and Marcus about the DPDK build thing (build against a tag/release instead of a fork)
  • Joseph Gasparakis to start email thread on using vhost interface from dpdk instead of vrouter dpdk on dev mailing list
  • Randy Bias need to get us list of code reviewers Juniper and non - Juniper
  • Sukhdev Kapur to followup with juniper engineering to check with respect to usage of dpdk from dpdk.org