...
Many tools were evaluated but not all tools work with each other equally well. The table below shows the tools and their respective role that were evaluated (demonstration and/or prototype)
| SCM | CI/CD Pipeline | Repository |
|---|---|---|
| GitHub | CircleCI | DockerHub |
| GitLab | GitLab-CI | |
| BitBucket | Travic-CI | |
| Zuul (Demo) | ||
| OPNFV CI | ||
| Drone/Drone.io |
...
- ODL: 3,078,224.58m x $0.024/m - $73,877.84/quarter
- ONAP: 790,041.78m x $0.024/m - $18,960/quarter
- OPNFV: 3,300,000m x $0.024/m - $79,200/quarter
- FD.io - LFN was unable to provide current minute usage for FD.io... back of the envelope
Costs for tooling software updates and day to management are included in these cost estimates.
While these costs do not factor in all the costs that would be incurred they indicate that there is potential saving by moving to an As A Service instead of the dedicated per project resources (3rd party hosting) for at least the projects that do not need bare metal. Projects like ODL, ONAP etc are above the hypervisor layer so they need VM's and K8 while others like OPNFV need bare metal do actually do their testing of an installation.
c. Hardware Hosting
Hardware Hosting technologies have also modernized in recent year as bare metal public cloud has been emerging. While it is anticipated that there will always be some magic hardware, there are new opportunities that may dramatically reduce the amount/costs while improving the reliability of services.
Summarized Results
SCM
GitHub and GitLab are the dominant tools for SCM that satisfy the requirement of easy to use and popular. There are many choices but either of these would be good. Bit Bucket is also very popular but is more commercially oriented. GitLab has a slight edge since it can also be run in corporate environment behind the firewall and meet corporate community developer requirements with a consistent GIT history.
...
DockerHub was the preferred docker repository hands down. Many projects are already moving to dockerhub for the released containers.
Packagecloud.io provides apt/yum/maven repos as a service. FD.io is in the process of switching to it for apt/yum, and has had very happy experiences with it.
Recommendation
Any recommendation represents a trade off in capability that is highly dependent dependent on a community's skill level and risk tolerance vs being on the cutting edge.
...
- For new LFN Projects we would recommend "As a Service" infrastructure whether Github ecosystem + CI as a Service (Circle CI/Drone.io/Azure Pipelines/Host Tekron) or all in one GitLab/GitLab-CI as the going forward tool chain for SCM, CI/CD and Docker Hub for artifacts.
- For existing LFN Projects we would recommend moving to "As a Service" infrastructure whether Github ecosystem + CI as a Service (Circle CI/Drone.io/Azure Pipelines/Host Tekron) or all in one GitLab/GitLab-CI if they are considering a new tool chain or to take advantage of the "As A Service" options.
...
The working group believes that moving to a "As A Service" model will result in better costs structure. LF should start a project to get a business case together and analyze what cost savings could be achieved by moving to a GitLab/GitLab-CI as a service model.
For Discussion
- Community managable and controllable.
Contributors
REVIEW FOR ACCURACY
...