What kernel version are you running on the host? On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:09 PM, André Aranha <andre.f.ara...@gmail.com> wrote: > Our compute nodes are using vhost_net, we haven't made any changes to buffer > our NIC. > The system is not over loaded, cpu usage aren't higher than 30% > > On 12 December 2014 at 02:35, mad Engineer <themadengin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> so looks like its not the issue with openvswitch,missed is quite >> normal,it is not the reason for packet loss >> is your guests using vhost_net? >> do >> ps aux|grep vhost >> also have you made any changes to buffer size of your NIC? >> is the system over loaded what is the cpu usage >> >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:20 PM, André Aranha <andre.f.ara...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Thanks for the advice, i've run the command in NetworkNode and in a >> > ComputeNode and lost is 0, but missed is a high value. >> > >> > NetworkNode >> > system@ovs-system: >> > lookups: hit:425667155 missed:2962922 lost:0 >> > flows: 27 >> > port 0: ovs-system (internal) >> > port 1: br-ex (internal) >> > port 2: br-tun (internal) >> > port 3: eth1 >> > port 4: br-int (internal) >> > port 5: tapbdc3d959-d8 (internal) >> > port 6: gre_system (gre: df_default=false, ttl=0) >> > port 7: qr-4063db49-6b (internal) >> > port 8: qg-e427e527-92 (internal) >> > >> > >> > ComputeNode >> > system@ovs-system: >> > lookups: hit:28660666 missed:200922 lost:0 >> > flows: 19 >> > port 0: ovs-system (internal) >> > port 1: br-int (internal) >> > port 2: br-tun (internal) >> > port 3: gre_system (gre: df_default=false, ttl=0) >> > port 4: em1 >> > port 5: br-private (internal) >> > port 6: qvo9a959049-a0 >> > port 7: qvodd0ef077-e1 >> > port 8: qvoac2b566b-65 >> > port 9: qvo9e4ab149-5c >> > port 10: qvoc2d2625c-0c >> > port 11: qvo3069daeb-4a >> > port 12: qvo7f82a3cf-0c >> > port 13: qvo83b77d2d-1a >> > port 14: qvobbadd8c2-30 >> > port 15: qvocfd0b8e8-ad >> > port 16: qvo714fab88-60 >> > port 17: qvob9ddde49-86 >> > port 18: qvo42ef9f3b-ac >> > port 19: qvof4ae7868-41 >> > port 20: qvoa4408a18-03 >> > port 22: qvo36c64d52-9b >> > >> > On 11 December 2014 at 06:17, mad Engineer <themadengin...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> sorry its 2.3.0 not 2.1.3 >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 2:43 PM, mad Engineer >> >> <themadengin...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Not in openstack,i had performance issue, with OVS and bursty traffic >> >> > upgrading to later version improved the performance.A lot of >> >> > performance features have been added in 2.1.3. >> >> > >> >> > Do you have lots of lost: value in >> >> > ovs-dpctl show >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 2:33 AM, André Aranha >> >> > <andre.f.ara...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> Yes, we are using version 2.0.2. >> >> >> The process uses only about 0.3% on network node and compute node. >> >> >> Did you have the same issue? >> >> >> >> >> >> On 10 December 2014 at 14:31, mad Engineer >> >> >> <themadengin...@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> are you using openvswitch? which version? >> >> >>> if yes,is it consuming a lot of CPU? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:45 PM, André Aranha >> >> >>> <andre.f.ara...@gmail.com> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>> > Well, here we are using de Icehouse with Ubuntu 14.04 LTS >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > We found this thread in the community and we apply the changes >> >> >>> > in >> >> >>> > the >> >> >>> > compute nodes (change VHOST_NET_ENABLED to 1 in >> >> >>> > /etc/default/qemu-kvm). >> >> >>> > After do this, a few instances the problem doesn't exists >> >> >>> > anymore. >> >> >>> > This >> >> >>> > link >> >> >>> > show an investigation to find the problem. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > About the MTU in our cloud (using iperf), >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > 1-from any the Desktop to the Network Node >> >> >>> > MSS size 1448 bytes (MTU 1500 bytes, ethernet) >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > 2-from any Desktop to the instance >> >> >>> > MSS size 1348 bytes (MTU 1388 bytes, unknown interface) >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > 3- from any instance to the Network Node >> >> >>> > MSS size 1348 bytes (MTU 1388 bytes, unknown interface) >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > 4- from any instance to the Desktop >> >> >>> > MSS size 1348 bytes (MTU 1388 bytes, unknown interface) >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > 5-from Network Node to any ComputeNode >> >> >>> > MSS size 1448 bytes (MTU 1500 bytes, ethernet) >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > 6-from any ComputeNode to NetworkNode >> >> >>> > MSS size 1448 bytes (MTU 1500 bytes, ethernet) >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > On 10 December 2014 at 10:31, somshekar kadam >> >> >>> > <som_ka...@yahoo.co.in> >> >> >>> > wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Sorry for wrong post mail chain. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Regards >> >> >>> >> Neelu >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 6:59 PM, somshekar kadam >> >> >>> >> <som_ka...@yahoo.co.in> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Hi All, >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Please recommend which stable Host OS to use for Controller and >> >> >>> >> Compute >> >> >>> >> node. >> >> >>> >> I have tried Fedora20 seems lot of tweaking is required, corerct >> >> >>> >> me >> >> >>> >> If >> >> >>> >> I >> >> >>> >> am wrong. >> >> >>> >> I see that most of it is tested on ubuntu and centos. >> >> >>> >> I am planning to use JUNO stable version. >> >> >>> >> Please help on this >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Regards >> >> >>> >> Neelu >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 5:42 PM, Hannah Fordham >> >> >>> >> <hford...@radiantworlds.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> I'm afraid we didn't, we're still struggling with some VMs with >> >> >>> >> this >> >> >>> >> problem. Sorry! >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> On 9 December 2014 14:09:32 GMT+00:00, "André Aranha" >> >> >>> >> <andre.f.ara...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Hi, >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> We are with the same issue here, and already try some solutions >> >> >>> >> that >> >> >>> >> didn't work at all. Did you solved this problem? >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Thank you, >> >> >>> >> Andre Aranha >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> On 27 August 2014 at 08:17, Hannah Fordham >> >> >>> >> <hford...@radiantworlds.com> >> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> I’ve been trying to figure this one out for a while, so I’ll try >> >> >>> >> and be >> >> >>> >> as >> >> >>> >> thorough as possible in this post but apologies if I miss >> >> >>> >> anything >> >> >>> >> pertinent >> >> >>> >> out. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> First off, I’m running a set up with one control node and 5 >> >> >>> >> compute >> >> >>> >> nodes, >> >> >>> >> all created using the Stackgeek scripts - >> >> >>> >> http://www.stackgeek.com/guides/gettingstarted.html. The first >> >> >>> >> two >> >> >>> >> (compute1 >> >> >>> >> and compute 2) were created at the same time, compute3, 4 and 5 >> >> >>> >> were >> >> >>> >> added >> >> >>> >> as needed later. My VMs are predominantly CentOS, while my >> >> >>> >> Openstack >> >> >>> >> nodes >> >> >>> >> are Ubuntu 14.04.1 >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> The symptom: irregular high latency/packet loss to VMs on all >> >> >>> >> compute >> >> >>> >> boxes except compute3. Mostly a pain when trying to do anything >> >> >>> >> via >> >> >>> >> ssh >> >> >>> >> on a >> >> >>> >> VM because the lag makes it difficult to do anything, but it >> >> >>> >> shows >> >> >>> >> itself >> >> >>> >> quite nicely through pings as well: >> >> >>> >> --- 10.0.102.47 ping statistics --- >> >> >>> >> 111 packets transmitted, 103 received, 7% packet loss, time >> >> >>> >> 110024ms >> >> >>> >> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.096/367.220/5593.100/1146.920 ms, pipe >> >> >>> >> 6 >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> I have tested these pings: >> >> >>> >> VM to itself (via its external IP) seems fine >> >> >>> >> VM to another VM is not fine >> >> >>> >> Hosting compute node to VM is not fine >> >> >>> >> My PC to VM is not fine (however the other way round works fine) >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Top on a (32 core) compute node with laggy VMs: >> >> >>> >> top - 12:09:20 up 33 days, 21:35, 1 user, load average: 2.37, >> >> >>> >> 4.95, >> >> >>> >> 6.23 >> >> >>> >> Tasks: 431 total, 2 running, 429 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 >> >> >>> >> zombie >> >> >>> >> %Cpu(s): 0.6 us, 3.4 sy, 0.0 ni, 96.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, >> >> >>> >> 0.0 >> >> >>> >> si, >> >> >>> >> 0.0 st >> >> >>> >> KiB Mem: 65928256 total, 44210348 used, 21717908 free, 341172 >> >> >>> >> buffers >> >> >>> >> KiB Swap: 7812092 total, 1887864 used, 5924228 free. 7134740 >> >> >>> >> cached >> >> >>> >> Mem >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> And for comparison, on the one compute node that doesn’t seem to >> >> >>> >> be >> >> >>> >> suffering from this: >> >> >>> >> top - 12:12:20 up 33 days, 21:38, 1 user, load average: 0.28, >> >> >>> >> 0.18, >> >> >>> >> 0.15 >> >> >>> >> Tasks: 399 total, 3 running, 396 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 >> >> >>> >> zombie >> >> >>> >> %Cpu(s): 0.3 us, 0.1 sy, 0.0 ni, 98.9 id, 0.6 wa, 0.0 hi, >> >> >>> >> 0.0 >> >> >>> >> si, >> >> >>> >> 0.0 st >> >> >>> >> KiB Mem: 65928256 total, 49986064 used, 15942192 free, 335788 >> >> >>> >> buffers >> >> >>> >> KiB Swap: 7812092 total, 919392 used, 6892700 free. 39272312 >> >> >>> >> cached >> >> >>> >> Mem >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Top on a laggy VM: >> >> >>> >> top - 11:02:53 up 27 days, 33 min, 3 users, load average: >> >> >>> >> 0.00, >> >> >>> >> 0.00, >> >> >>> >> 0.00 >> >> >>> >> Tasks: 91 total, 1 running, 90 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 >> >> >>> >> zombie >> >> >>> >> Cpu(s): 0.2%us, 0.1%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.5%id, 0.1%wa, 0.0%hi, >> >> >>> >> 0.0%si, >> >> >>> >> 0.0%st >> >> >>> >> Mem: 1020400k total, 881004k used, 139396k free, 162632k >> >> >>> >> buffers >> >> >>> >> Swap: 1835000k total, 14984k used, 1820016k free, 220644k >> >> >>> >> cached >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> http://imgur.com/blULjDa shows the hypervisor panel of Horizon. >> >> >>> >> As >> >> >>> >> you >> >> >>> >> can >> >> >>> >> see, Compute 3 has fewer resources used, but none of the compute >> >> >>> >> nodes >> >> >>> >> should be anywhere near overloaded from what I can tell. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Any ideas? Let me know if I’m missing anything obvious that >> >> >>> >> would >> >> >>> >> help >> >> >>> >> with figuring this out! >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Hannah >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> *********** >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Radiant Worlds Limited is registered in England (company no: >> >> >>> >> 07822337). >> >> >>> >> This message is intended solely for the addressee and may >> >> >>> >> contain >> >> >>> >> confidential information. If you have received this message in >> >> >>> >> error >> >> >>> >> please >> >> >>> >> send it back to us and immediately and permanently delete it >> >> >>> >> from >> >> >>> >> your >> >> >>> >> system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained >> >> >>> >> in >> >> >>> >> this >> >> >>> >> message or in any attachment. Please also note that transmission >> >> >>> >> cannot >> >> >>> >> be >> >> >>> >> guaranteed to be secure or error-free. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>> >> Mailing list: >> >> >>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack >> >> >>> >> Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org >> >> >>> >> Unsubscribe : >> >> >>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> -- >> >> >>> >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my >> >> >>> >> brevity. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> *********** >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Radiant Worlds Limited is registered in England (company no: >> >> >>> >> 07822337). >> >> >>> >> This message is intended solely for the addressee and may >> >> >>> >> contain >> >> >>> >> confidential information. If you have received this message in >> >> >>> >> error >> >> >>> >> please >> >> >>> >> send it back to us and immediately and permanently delete it >> >> >>> >> from >> >> >>> >> your >> >> >>> >> system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained >> >> >>> >> in >> >> >>> >> this >> >> >>> >> message or in any attachment. Please also note that transmission >> >> >>> >> cannot >> >> >>> >> be >> >> >>> >> guaranteed to be secure or error-free. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>> >> Mailing list: >> >> >>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack >> >> >>> >> Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org >> >> >>> >> Unsubscribe : >> >> >>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>> >> Mailing list: >> >> >>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack >> >> >>> >> Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org >> >> >>> >> Unsubscribe : >> >> >>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >>> > Mailing list: >> >> >>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack >> >> >>> > Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org >> >> >>> > Unsubscribe : >> >> >>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack > Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org > Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
