NOTE: This poll closes on Thu March 8th, 2018
HPA is a desired feature to be supported in R2, but no agreements have been reached on the attributes to be included into the clean version. This poll is to decide which (or all) of these attributes are to be included in the clean version (R2 IM).
Attributes include (defined in ETSI IFA011 v2.4.1):
- vduCpuRequirements (attribute of IE/class VirtualCpuData)
- vduMemRequirements (attribute of IE/class VirtualMemoryData)
- vduStorageRequirements (attribute of IE/class VirtualStorageDesc)
- logicalNode (attribute of IE/class VirtualComputeDesc)
- nicIoRequirements (attribute of IE/data type VirtualNetworkInterfaceRequirements)
- networkInterfaceRequirements (attribute of IE/data type VirtualNetworkInterfaceRequirements)
Examples of the above attributes can be found at https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpageattachments.action?pageId=24051740&metadataLink=true, or if you have ETSI account, NFVIFA(18)000162 contribution.
Which (or all) of the attributes you would like to include in R2 IM?
Option 1: include this attribute in the clean version (same as IFA011)
Option 2: include this attribute in the clean version and remove other redundant (legacy) attributes (modification based on IFA011)
Option 3: not include this attribute in the clean version
Please put your @name in one of the option column for each attribute (or the "ALL" for simplicity) and provide any comments you might have.
| Attribute | Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "ALL" | All the listed attributes (for simplicity). | |||
| vduCpuRequirements | Xu Yang: Possible redundant attributes: numVirtualCpu, virtualCpuClock, logicalCpuPinningPolicy, logicalCpuThreadPinningPolicy, computeRequirements Alexander Vul: the computeRequirements attribute is not HPA related. Srinivasa Addepalli : Based on this document (http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-IFA/001_099/011/02.04.01_60/gs_NFV-IFA011v020401p.pdf), I guess you already have numVirtualCPU, virtualCPUClock, vitualCPUPinning, virtualCPUoversubscriptionPolicy in virtualCPUData. I did not see vduCPURequirements defined in the document. So, I am not sure where the redundancy is. In any case, I agree with Xu Yang that there should not be any redundant attributes. Since we have 'requestAdditonalCapability' IE for any advanced attributes, I prefer we remove 'vduCpuRequirements' element from the 'virtualCPUData' to avoid any confusion. | |||
| vduMemRequirements | Srinivasa Addepalli : Same comment as above. Since we have 'requestAdditonalCapability' IE for any advanced attributes, I prefer we remove 'vduMemRequirements' element from the 'virtualMemoryData' to avoid any confusion. | |||
| vduStorageRequirements | Srinivasa Addepalli : Same comment as above. Since we have 'requestAdditonalCapability' IE for any advanced attributes, I prefer we remove 'vduStorageRequirements' element from the 'virtualStorageDesc' to avoid any confusion. | |||
| logicalNode | Xu Yang: Question: In the example document, the logical node requirements are categorized into compute, memory and network categories. But in IFA011, only one logicalNode attribute is defined, what's the mapping here? Srinivasa Addepalli : Based on explanation in IFA011, it appears to me that one use case for this is to specify NUMA nodes. I feel that NUMA can be specified in 'requestAdditionalCapability'. So, personally, I feel that this term is confusing and would like to see any advanced capability requirements to be pushed to 'requestAddtionalCapability', which is generic to represent feature requirements. Alexander Vul has final say from Intel side | |||
| nicIoRequirements | Xu Yang: Question: related to the above comment, if the network logical node requirements are specific, should this be a dedicated data type instead of a reference? Srinivasa Addepalli: I have related question. Why is this reference? Is it meant to represent 'virtio','pci-passthrough' and 'sriov nic' kind of information? In any case, few examples would be good. | |||
| networkInterfaceRequirements | Srinivasa Addepalli : Same comment as above. Since we have 'requestAdditonalCapability' IE for any advanced attributes, I prefer we remove 'networkInterfacesRequirements' element from the 'virtualNetworkInterfaceRequirements' to avoid any confusion. | |||
