On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:54:25PM +0000, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
>
>
> On 1/22/14 4:42 PM, "Ben Pfaff" <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:40:11PM +0000, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/22/14 4:10 PM, "Ben Pfaff" <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:04:48PM +0000, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 1/22/14 3:23 PM, "Ben Pfaff" <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 08:17:05PM +0000, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On 1/22/14 12:44 PM, "Ben Pfaff" <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:39:14AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 05:35:40PM +0000, McGarvey, Kevin
> >>wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > On 1/21/14 6:17 PM, "Ben Pfaff" <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > >I'd expect a dramatic drop in CPU consumption in that case.
> >> >>There
> >> >> >> >>are
> >> >> >> >> > >a few special cases where the upgrade wouldn't help. One
> >>is if
> >> >> >> >> > >in-band control is in use, another is if NetFlow is turned
> >>on,
> >> >>a
> >> >> >> >>third
> >> >> >> >> > >is if LACP bonds with L4 port based hashing are turned on,
> >>and
> >> >> >>there
> >> >> >> >> > >are probably a few others that don't come to mind
> >>immediately.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > I plan to rerun the test to rule out some mistake on my part.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Could you provide more information about the nature of the
> >> >>change
> >> >> >> >>made in
> >> >> >> >> > 1.11 that improves performance for this type of traffic? Is
> >>the
> >> >> >> >>kernel
> >> >> >> >> > module able to forward UDP DNS packets without sending them
> >>to
> >> >> >> >>userspace,
> >> >> >> >> > or was it an optimization of the userspace processing? What
> >> >> >>roughly
> >> >> >> >>is
> >> >> >> >> > the level of performance I should see?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> In 1.11 and later, for simple OpenFlow tables (I don't think
> >>you
> >> >> >> >> mentioned whether you are using a controller or which one),
> >>Open
> >> >> >> >> vSwitch can set up only a single kernel flow that covers many
> >> >> >>possible
> >> >> >> >> flows, for example all possible UDP destination ports, rather
> >>than
> >> >> >> >> setting up an individual kernel flow for each UDP packet. When
> >> >>that
> >> >> >> >> works, it eliminates most of the kernel/userspace traffic,
> >> >>improving
> >> >> >> >> performance. Version 2.0 is better at analyzing OpenFlow flow
> >> >>tables
> >> >> >> >> to see when this is possible, so it can better take advantage
> >>of
> >> >>the
> >> >> >> >> ability.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I see that I didn't answer your question about performance.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >When this optimization kicks in fully, I guess that the
> >>performance
> >> >> >> >should be about the same as for traffic with long flows (like the
> >> >> >> >netperf TCP_STREAM test, for example) in terms of packets per
> >> >>second.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks. This is encouraging. The only question is why isn't the
> >> >> >> optimization kicking in?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I repeated the test, and under a load of 10K DNS
> >>requests/responses
> >> >>per
> >> >> >> second ovs-vswitchd is using 82% of a core.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I wasn't sure whether in-band control was on or off by default,
> >>so I
> >> >> >> disabled it with the command below and restarted openvswitch, but
> >>the
> >> >> >>cpu
> >> >> >> consumption didn't change:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ovs-vsctl set bridge <bridge> other-config:disable-in-band=true
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I did not set up the configuration, but as far as I can tell
> >>Netflow
> >> >>is
> >> >> >> not turned on. The output of 'ovsdb-tool -show-log | grep -i
> >> >>netflow'
> >> >> >>is
> >> >> >> empty.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> There are no bonded interfaces. The 2 NICs used for DNS traffic
> >>are
> >> >> >> associated with separate bridges.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We are not using a controller.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In your response you mentioned that for simple OpenFlow tables
> >>Open
> >> >> >> vSwitch can set up a single kernel flow that covers many possible
> >> >>flows.
> >> >> >> I think this is exactly what I need. Do I need to add a flow
> >>using
> >> >> >> ovs-ofctl?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No. With the settings you describe, it should kick in
> >>automatically.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Here is an experiment that might help. Take one of the flows that
> >> >> >"ovs-dpctl dump-flows" prints, then feed that flow back into
> >> >> >"ovs-appctl ofproto/trace", and show us the results. (You might
> >>have
> >> >> >to spend a few minutes reading the ovs-vswitchd manpage to learn the
> >> >> >ofproto/trace syntax, if you don't already know it.)
> >> >>
> >> >> Below is the ofproto/trace output for an inbound request to bridge
> >> >>brsvr2.
> >> >> One more piece of information is that the packets are going through
> >>a
> >> >> load balancer.
> >> >
> >> >It looks very much to me like you are using an OVS kernel module that
> >> >is too old to support this feature. Are you using the kernel module
> >> >that came with OVS 1.11, or a kernel module that came with your kernel
> >> >(which kernel version), or some other module? ("dmesg|grep Open" can
> >> >help find out.)
> >>
> >> Here's the dmesg output:
> >>
> >> dmesg|grep Open
> >> ohci_hcd: USB 1.1 'Open' Host Controller (OHCI) Driver
> >> openvswitch: Open vSwitch switching datapath
> >>
> >> The dmesg output didn't seem very informative, so I ran modinfo:
> >>
> >> modinfo openvswitch
> >> filename:
> >>
> >>/lib/modules/2.6.32-358.123.4.openstack.el6.x86_64/kernel/net/openvswitch
> >>/o
> >> penvswitch.ko
> >> license: GPL
> >> description: Open vSwitch switching datapath
> >> srcversion: 19E48B3ED642482269914B5
> >> depends: vxlan
> >> vermagic: 2.6.32-358.123.4.openstack.el6.x86_64 SMP mod_unload
> >> modversions
> >>
> >>
> >> The ovs kernel module came with the kernel which is below. I upgraded
> >>to
> >> this kernel on the recommendation of one of our engineers who works a
> >>lot
> >> with OpenStack.
> >>
> >> 2.6.32-358.123.4.openstack.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Oct 30 13:52:57 EDT
> >>2013
> >> x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> >>
> >
> >My guess is that that kernel module doesn't include the "megaflow"
> >support required for the improved performance here. I recommend
> >trying the module that comes with the OVS version that you are using.
>
> Where can I find that? I installed OVS from an rpm. I ran rpm -qlp on
> the package and I didn't see the kernel module. Do I need to build it?
I'm not an expert on the RPM packaging, so I don't know. I guess that
someone else will have to jump in to help at this point.
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
