"dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> wrote on 25/07/2016 09:03:55 AM:
> From: Liran Schour/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
> To: "Ryan Moats" <rmo...@us.ibm.com>
> Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
> Date: 25/07/2016 09:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH monitor_cond V10] RFC OVN:
> Implementation of conditional monitoring usage
> Sent by: "dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org>
>
> Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM wrote on 24/07/2016 11:03:21 PM:
>
> > From: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM
> > To: Liran Schour <lir...@il.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org>, dev@openvswitch.org
> > Date: 24/07/2016 11:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH monitor_cond V10] RFC OVN:
> > Implementation of conditional monitoring usage
> >
> > "dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> wrote on 07/19/2016 03:44:40 AM:
> >
> > > From: Liran Schour <lir...@il.ibm.com>
> > > To: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org>
> > > Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
> > > Date: 07/19/2016 03:45 AM
> > > Subject: [ovs-dev] [PATCH monitor_cond V10] RFC OVN: Implementation
> > > of conditional monitoring usage
> > > Sent by: "dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org>
> > >
> > > Conditional monitor of: Port_Binding, Logical_Flow, Multicast_Group
> > > MAC_Binding tables. As a result ovn-controller will be notified only
> about
> > > records belongs to a datapath that is being served by this
hypervisor.
> > >
> > > Performance evaluation:
> > > OVN is the main candidate for conditional monitoring usage. It is
> clear that
> > > conditional monitoring reduces computation on the ovn-controller
> > (client) side
> > > due to the reduced size of flow tables and update messages.
> Performance
> > > evaluation shows up to 75% computation reduction.
> > > However, performance evaluation shows also a reduction in
> > > computation on the SB
> > > ovsdb-server side proportional to the degree that each logical
network
> is
> > > spread over physical hosts in the DC. Evaluation shows that in a
> realistic
> > > scenarios there is a computation reduction also in the server side.
> > >
> > > Evaluation on simulated environment of 50 hosts and 1000 logical
ports
> shows
> > > the following results (cycles #):
> > >
> > > LN spread over # hosts| master | patch | change
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 1 | 24597200127 | 24339235374 | 1.0%
> > > 6 | 23788521572 | 19145229352 | 19.5%
> > > 12 | 23886405758 | 17913143176 | 25.0%
> > > 18 | 25812686279 | 23675094540 | 8.2%
> > > 24 | 28414671499 | 24770202308 | 12.8%
> > > 30 | 31487218890 | 28397543436 | 9.8%
> > > 36 | 36116993930 | 34105388739 | 5.5%
> > > 42 | 37898342465 | 38647139083 | -1.9%
> > > 48 | 41637996229 | 41846616306 | -0.5%
> > > 50 | 41679995357 | 43455565977 | -4.2%
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Liran Schour <lir...@il.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> >
> > It looks like this patch needs to be rebased - it appears to conflict
> > in both binding.c and patch.c
>
> I have a rebased version on-top of the new incremental processing code
> however I have a problem with one unit test (2189: ovn -- 2 HVs, 2 LRs
> connected via LS, gateway router FAILED (ovn.at:3238) that I see 100%
> failure when combining the incremental processing and the conditional
> monitoring patch.
>
> Although the new conditional monitoring patch improve the stability of
the
> tests. I run the following test:
> for i in `seq 100` ; do
> echo `pwd`
> make check TESTSUITEFLAGS="-k ovn" 2>&1 >> check.out
> done
> grep 'FAILED (' check.out | sort | uniq -c
>
> On master I get:
> 4 2180: ovn -- 3 HVs, 1 VIFs/HV, 1 software GW, 1 LS FAILED
> (ovn.at:1473)
> 1 2181: ovn -- 3 HVs, 3 LS, 3 lports/LS, 1 LR FAILED
> (ovn.at:1887)
> 75 2183: ovn -- 2 HVs, 2 LS, 1 lport/LS, 2 peer LRs FAILED
> (ovn.at:2416)
> 15 2184: ovn -- 1 HV, 1 LS, 2 lport/LS, 1 LR FAILED
> (ovn.at:2529)
> 1 2185: ovn -- 1 HV, 2 LSs, 1 lport/LS, 1 LR FAILED
> (ovn.at:2668)
> 88 2186: ovn -- 2 HVs, 3 LS, 1 lport/LS, 2 peer LRs, static routes
> FAILED (ovn.at:2819)
> 98 2188: ovn -- 2 HVs, 3 LRs connected via LS, static routes FAILED
> (ovn.at:3053)
> 6 2189: ovn -- 2 HVs, 2 LRs connected via LS, gateway router
FAILED
> (ovn.at:3237)
> 94 2189: ovn -- 2 HVs, 2 LRs connected via LS, gateway router
FAILED
> (ovn.at:3240)
> 2 2190: ovn -- icmp_reply: 1 HVs, 2 LSs, 1 lport/LS, 1 LR FAILED
> (ovn.at:3389)
>
> And on conditional monitor patch rebased on master I get:
> 40 2180: ovn -- 3 HVs, 1 VIFs/HV, 1 software GW, 1 LS FAILED
> (ovn.at:1474)
> 5 2184: ovn -- 1 HV, 1 LS, 2 lport/LS, 1 LR FAILED
> (ovn.at:2530)
> 100 2189: ovn -- 2 HVs, 2 LRs connected via LS, gateway router
FAILED
> (ovn.at:3238)
>
> As you can see things are much more stable after applying conditional
> monitor patch but test 2189 has 100% failure.
> Conditional monitoring without incremental processing does not fail this
> test.
>
> I will submit the rebased patch and we will all have the opportunity to
> look on this.
>
Sorry, but I see that I did not rebased the most recent commits.
Seems that the 2 commits:
- "ovn-controller: Handle physical changes correctly"
- "ovn-controller: eliminate stall in ofctrl state machine"
Really solves the problem :-)
Will submit my patch soon.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
