diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/scenario-lifecycle/current-status.rst | 51 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/scenario-lifecycle/scenario-tree-danube.png | bin | 0 -> 80299 bytes |
2 files changed, 38 insertions, 13 deletions
diff --git a/docs/scenario-lifecycle/current-status.rst b/docs/scenario-lifecycle/current-status.rst index 08a3776..c8da13a 100644 --- a/docs/scenario-lifecycle/current-status.rst +++ b/docs/scenario-lifecycle/current-status.rst @@ -6,7 +6,8 @@ Current Status --------------- -tdb: this chapter will summarize the scenario analysis. +This chapter summarizes the scenario analysis to provide some background. +It also defines the way to introduce the scenario processes. Arno ^^^^^^^^ @@ -18,31 +19,55 @@ that could be deployed in two ways, by the two installers available in Arno. Brahmaputra ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -tbd +In Brahmaputra, we added options for SDN (ONOS, OCL) and some optional +features (sfc, sdnvpn, kvm, l3 enabled ODL). +Thus we had 9 scenarios, some of them to be deployed with 2 installers, +that planned to participate in the release. Not all of them succeeded. Colorado ^^^^^^^^^^^^ -tbd +In Colorado more components and features were added to a total of 17 +combinations of components and features. Some were supported by one +of the four installers, others by multiple installers. In addition HA +and NOHA options were defined. +This lead to 28 combinations that planned to participate. Danube ^^^^^^^^^^ -tbd: Analysis of the 58 scenarios -The analysis can be found in the slides at -https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/INF/Scenario+Consolidation -and will be explain with some text here. -The text will also use the diagrams from the slides, e.g. -show a scenario tree: +In Danube the number of combinations of components and features increased +to 24, but since installer support increased and more scenarios planned +to provide HA and NOHA options, the number of combinations was 54. -.. figure:: scenario-tree.png +In addition to that some scenarios were defined later in during development +and some scenarios worked on ARM support. -and an idea about possible generic scenarios: +This created the need to better understand relationships and +incompatibilities of the scenarios to drive for a manageable process +for scenarios. -.. figure:: scenario-tree+idea.png +As a result the relationship between the scenarios can be +visualized by a scenario tree. -as well as possible ways to reach this. +.. figure:: scenario-tree-danube.png +The process for generic and specific scenarios is not in place for the +Danube release yet. But the different branches of the scenario tree +provide the candidates to define generic scenario during the timeframe +of the next release. + +Euphrates +^^^^^^^^^^ + +tbd: statistics on Euphrates Scenarios + +During Euphrates timeframe, dynamic POD allocation is introduced in CI. +This is a prerequisite to make use of the SDF in the CI pipeline. +Therefore in this timeframe, scenario processes are introduced only in +a documentation way and as support for release management. + +Also the definition of generic scenarios can be done. diff --git a/docs/scenario-lifecycle/scenario-tree-danube.png b/docs/scenario-lifecycle/scenario-tree-danube.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..54c111e --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/scenario-lifecycle/scenario-tree-danube.png |
