Re: RE: RE: Virutal Router MTU

[Rafael del Valle]

Hi Alex,

I have now found all the detail of the 1400 MTU past incident that lead us to 
patch OpenNuebula VRs.

The problem was detected because startTLS sessions failed in our email, 
persistently and to peers such as hotmail:


2019-01-26
 14:58:06 + 02 9a1d30b6d6d1 SMTP-OUT:0001: SSL error remote 
104.47.13.33:25, SSL_connect:failed in SSLv2/v3 read server hello A


We investigated the issue together with the email platform vendor, and the 
problem persisted until we patched the MTU1400 issue.

So this is a must implement for us. A workaround exists: patch VRs and use 
cloud-init to customize NICs in VMs.

I am very happy to accept your collaboration offer :) 

Where should this patch implemented?

It is actually a requirement of this VLAN (vlanIpRange) and propagates to 
Virtual Routers and NICs of the involved VMs.

Is it the same in your use-case of Jumbo frames for storage oriented networks?

Perhaps we should treat this setting just like a netmask or gateway setting.

Shall we open an issue?

Rafael



On Wed, 2021-03-24 11:08 AM, Alex Mattioli  wrote:
> 
Hi Raf,
> 
> Can you share with us which SDWAN vendor it is?  I've tried 4 different ones 
> with ACS and they all worked fine, in all cases what I did was to set the MTU 
> in the SDWAN appliance to be a bit lower than 1500 (in between 1422 and 1460, 
> depending on SDWAN solution).  In most network you'll end up with most of 
> your traffic with an MTU of around 500-600 anyway, so larger MTU doesn't help 
> that much, I'd highly recommend you run some traffic analysis to try to 
> figure out what's the MTU distribution for your network traffic.
> 
> With that said, I also had to change the MTU in VRs for a proof of concept on 
> iSCSI between datacenters, in that situation I just wrote a script that would 
> login to each VR and change the MTU of the public and private interfaces, it 
> worked OK.  I would strongly advise you not to change the MTU of the 
> management interface, when I did (by mistake) the VRs lost communication with 
> the management server.
> 
> If you want to contribute by expanding cloudstack code to add a setting for 
> VR MTU I'd be more than happy to collaborate with you on that. 
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Cheers,
> Alex
> 
> 
> alex.matti...@shapeblue.com 
> http://www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>   
>  
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Rafael del Valle " target="_blank"> 
> Sent: 24 March 2021 10:33
> To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: us...@cloudstack.apache.org; dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RE: Virutal Router MTU
> 
> Hi Alex, 
> 
> In our particular use case the Public Network is an SD WAN and we have a 
> requirement of slightly smaller MTU than the standard 1500.
> 
> I have assumed that our traffic will be encapsulated into something else 
> before delivery, I guess that is the reason for the requirement.
> 
> What would be the easier way to add support for MTU tunning on VRs?
> 
> I would be to contribute and implement it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2021-03-24 09:39 AM, Alex Mattioli " 
> target="_blank"> wrote:
> > 
> Hi R,
> > 
> > There's no ACS setting for the VR's MTU size. 
> > Unless you are running storage traffic s in that network then jumbo frames 
> > aren't of much use. I've ran some tests at the request of some customers in 
> > my previous job, and with some very busy VRs and the performance gains for 
> > an MTU of 9000 were statistically insignificant. 
> > If your VRs are saturated your best option is to increase the 
> > resources for its offering (if you need guidance with that, am happy 
> > to provide it)
> > 
> > Anyway, what's your use case for jumbo frames?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Alex
> > 
> > alex.matti...@shapeblue.com
> > http://www.shapeblue.com
> > 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK 
> > @shapeblue
> >   
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: rva...@privaz.io.INVALID " 
> > target="_blank">" target="_blank">
> > Sent: 24 March 2021 09:23
> > To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Virutal Router MTU
> > 
> > Hi!
> > 
> > I can see in the Global Parameters that it is possible to specify the MTU 
> > for secondary storage VM.
> > 
> > Is it possible to configure the MTU for a virtual router? how?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > R.
> > 
> 

[DISCUSS] Renaming default git branch name from 'master' to 'main'

[Suresh Anaparti]

Hi all,

The default git branch name 'master' was replaced with 'main' on GitHub [2][3] 
and in the wider Git community [4]. For those that have missed the broader 
discussion in society, the term 'master' is offensive to some people [1]. This 
is widely considered insensitive if not illegal, hence the proposed change.

It seems fitting the CloudStack would follow this example of inclusiveness. For 
this, the project would rename its default branch name of all the repositories 
to 'main'. In addition, all the applicable integration points (Eg: Travis-CI, 
etc) using these repositories have to replace the branch name 'master' with 
'main'.

The sample steps to rename and replace the default branch to 'main' are here: 
https://faun.pub/git-step-by-step-renaming-a-master-branch-to-main-16390ca7577b

I would like to hear your thoughts and suggestions on this.


[1] 
https://www.theserverside.com/feature/Why-GitHub-renamed-its-master-branch-to-main
[2] 
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-main-starting-in-october-what-developers-need-to-know
[3] https://github.com/github/renaming
[4] https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2021/03/10/new-git-default-branch-name/


Regards,
Suresh


suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
  
 

RE: RE: RE: Virutal Router MTU

[Alex Mattioli]

Hi Rafael,

I've had very similar issues in the past, with SSL and TLS so playing well with 
fragmentation.
It is the same use case indeed, in that case I needed jumbo frames for a 
certain network.

I believe this should be implemented per-network, as a setting applied when the 
network is created (but editable and applied when the network is restarted with 
clean-up).

I'll consult with my colleagues what's the best way forward and get back to you.

Cheers,
Alex

From: Rafael del Valle 
Sent: 25 March 2021 09:06
To: Alex Mattioli 
Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Virutal Router MTU

Hi Alex,

I have now found all the detail of the 1400 MTU past incident that lead us to 
patch OpenNuebula VRs.

The problem was detected because startTLS sessions failed in our email, 
persistently and to peers such as hotmail:


2019-01-26 14:58:06 + 02 9a1d30b6d6d1 SMTP-OUT:0001: SSL error remote 
104.47.13.33:25, SSL_connect:failed in SSLv2/v3 read server hello A


We investigated the issue together with the email platform vendor, and the 
problem persisted until we patched the MTU1400 issue.

So this is a must implement for us. A workaround exists: patch VRs and use 
cloud-init to customize NICs in VMs.

I am very happy to accept your collaboration offer :)

Where should this patch implemented?

It is actually a requirement of this VLAN (vlanIpRange) and propagates to 
Virtual Routers and NICs of the involved VMs.

Is it the same in your use-case of Jumbo frames for storage oriented networks?

Perhaps we should treat this setting just like a netmask or gateway setting.

Shall we open an issue?

Rafael




alex.matti...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
  
 

On Wed, 2021-03-24 11:08 AM, Alex Mattioli 
mailto:alex.matti...@shapeblue.com>> wrote:
Hi Raf,

Can you share with us which SDWAN vendor it is? I've tried 4 different ones 
with ACS and they all worked fine, in all cases what I did was to set the MTU 
in the SDWAN appliance to be a bit lower than 1500 (in between 1422 and 1460, 
depending on SDWAN solution). In most network you'll end up with most of your 
traffic with an MTU of around 500-600 anyway, so larger MTU doesn't help that 
much, I'd highly recommend you run some traffic analysis to try to figure out 
what's the MTU distribution for your network traffic.

With that said, I also had to change the MTU in VRs for a proof of concept on 
iSCSI between datacenters, in that situation I just wrote a script that would 
login to each VR and change the MTU of the public and private interfaces, it 
worked OK. I would strongly advise you not to change the MTU of the management 
interface, when I did (by mistake) the VRs lost communication with the 
management server.

If you want to contribute by expanding cloudstack code to add a setting for VR 
MTU I'd be more than happy to collaborate with you on that.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Alex


alex.matti...@shapeblue.com
http://www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue




-Original Message-
From: Rafael del Valle 

Sent: 24 March 2021 10:33
To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: us...@cloudstack.apache.org; 
dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: RE: Virutal Router MTU

Hi Alex,

In our particular use case the Public Network is an SD WAN and we have a 
requirement of slightly smaller MTU than the standard 1500.

I have assumed that our traffic will be encapsulated into something else before 
delivery, I guess that is the reason for the requirement.

What would be the easier way to add support for MTU tunning on VRs?

I would be to contribute and implement it.

Regards,





On Wed, 2021-03-24 09:39 AM, Alex Mattioli 
 wrote:
>
Hi R,
>
> There's no ACS setting for the VR's MTU size.
> Unless you are running storage traffic s in that network then jumbo frames 
> aren't of much use. I've ran some tests at the request of some customers in 
> my previous job, and with some very busy VRs and the performance gains for an 
> MTU of 9000 were statistically insignificant.
> If your VRs are saturated your best option is to increase the
> resources for its offering (if you need guidance with that, am happy
> to provide it)
>
> Anyway, what's your use case for jumbo frames?
>
> Regards,
> Alex
>
> alex.matti...@shapeblue.com
> http://www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: rva...@privaz.io.INVALID "
> target="_blank">
> Sent: 24 March 2021 09:23
> To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming default git branch name from 'master' to 'main'

[Wei ZHOU]

Will it impact jenkins/travis/trillian and prs ?

-Wei

On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 10:00, Suresh Anaparti 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The default git branch name 'master' was replaced with 'main' on GitHub
> [2][3] and in the wider Git community [4]. For those that have missed the
> broader discussion in society, the term 'master' is offensive to some
> people [1]. This is widely considered insensitive if not illegal, hence the
> proposed change.
>
> It seems fitting the CloudStack would follow this example of
> inclusiveness. For this, the project would rename its default branch name
> of all the repositories to 'main'. In addition, all the applicable
> integration points (Eg: Travis-CI, etc) using these repositories have to
> replace the branch name 'master' with 'main'.
>
> The sample steps to rename and replace the default branch to 'main' are
> here:
> https://faun.pub/git-step-by-step-renaming-a-master-branch-to-main-16390ca7577b
>
> I would like to hear your thoughts and suggestions on this.
>
>
> [1]
> https://www.theserverside.com/feature/Why-GitHub-renamed-its-master-branch-to-main
> [2]
> https://www.techrepublic.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-main-starting-in-october-what-developers-need-to-know
> [3] https://github.com/github/renaming
> [4] https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2021/03/10/new-git-default-branch-name/
>
>
> Regards,
> Suresh
>
>
> suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming default git branch name from 'master' to 'main'

[Suresh Anaparti]

Yes Wei, all the integrated systems / scripts (using the CloudStack git 
repositories) have to replace the default branch name to 'main' wherever 
applicable. 

Regard
Suresh

On 25/03/21, 2:44 PM, "Wei ZHOU"  wrote:

Will it impact jenkins/travis/trillian and prs ?

-Wei

On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 10:00, Suresh Anaparti 

wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The default git branch name 'master' was replaced with 'main' on GitHub
> [2][3] and in the wider Git community [4]. For those that have missed the
> broader discussion in society, the term 'master' is offensive to some
> people [1]. This is widely considered insensitive if not illegal, hence 
the
> proposed change.
>
> It seems fitting the CloudStack would follow this example of
> inclusiveness. For this, the project would rename its default branch name
> of all the repositories to 'main'. In addition, all the applicable
> integration points (Eg: Travis-CI, etc) using these repositories have to
> replace the branch name 'master' with 'main'.
>
> The sample steps to rename and replace the default branch to 'main' are
> here:
> 
https://faun.pub/git-step-by-step-renaming-a-master-branch-to-main-16390ca7577b
>
> I would like to hear your thoughts and suggestions on this.
>
>
> [1]
> 
https://www.theserverside.com/feature/Why-GitHub-renamed-its-master-branch-to-main
> [2]
> 
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-main-starting-in-october-what-developers-need-to-know
> [3] https://github.com/github/renaming
> [4] https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2021/03/10/new-git-default-branch-name/
>
>
> Regards,
> Suresh
>
>
> suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>


suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
  
 

RE: [DISCUSS] Renaming default git branch name from 'master' to 'main'

[paul_a]

Personally, I'm +1 on this change.




Kind regards

Paul Angus

-Original Message-
From: Suresh Anaparti  
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 9:23 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming default git branch name from 'master' to 'main'

Yes Wei, all the integrated systems / scripts (using the CloudStack git 
repositories) have to replace the default branch name to 'main' wherever 
applicable. 

Regard
Suresh

On 25/03/21, 2:44 PM, "Wei ZHOU"  wrote:

Will it impact jenkins/travis/trillian and prs ?

-Wei

On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 10:00, Suresh Anaparti 

wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The default git branch name 'master' was replaced with 'main' on GitHub
> [2][3] and in the wider Git community [4]. For those that have missed the
> broader discussion in society, the term 'master' is offensive to some
> people [1]. This is widely considered insensitive if not illegal, hence 
the
> proposed change.
>
> It seems fitting the CloudStack would follow this example of
> inclusiveness. For this, the project would rename its default branch name
> of all the repositories to 'main'. In addition, all the applicable
> integration points (Eg: Travis-CI, etc) using these repositories have to
> replace the branch name 'master' with 'main'.
>
> The sample steps to rename and replace the default branch to 'main' are
> here:
> 
https://faun.pub/git-step-by-step-renaming-a-master-branch-to-main-16390ca7577b
>
> I would like to hear your thoughts and suggestions on this.
>
>
> [1]
> 
https://www.theserverside.com/feature/Why-GitHub-renamed-its-master-branch-to-main
> [2]
> 
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-main-starting-in-october-what-developers-need-to-know
> [3] https://github.com/github/renaming
> [4] https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2021/03/10/new-git-default-branch-name/
>
>
> Regards,
> Suresh
>
>
> suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>


suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK @shapeblue
  
 

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming default git branch name from 'master' to 'main'

[Gabriel Beims Bräscher]

I am +1 on migrating from 'master' to 'main' branch.

We will need to update some scripts, documentations, and the releasing
process.

Regards,
Gabriel.

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 08:10  wrote:

> Personally, I'm +1 on this change.
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Angus
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Suresh Anaparti 
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 9:23 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming default git branch name from 'master' to
> 'main'
>
> Yes Wei, all the integrated systems / scripts (using the CloudStack git
> repositories) have to replace the default branch name to 'main' wherever
> applicable.
>
> Regard
> Suresh
>
> On 25/03/21, 2:44 PM, "Wei ZHOU"  wrote:
>
> Will it impact jenkins/travis/trillian and prs ?
>
> -Wei
>
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 10:00, Suresh Anaparti <
> suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The default git branch name 'master' was replaced with 'main' on
> GitHub
> > [2][3] and in the wider Git community [4]. For those that have
> missed the
> > broader discussion in society, the term 'master' is offensive to some
> > people [1]. This is widely considered insensitive if not illegal,
> hence the
> > proposed change.
> >
> > It seems fitting the CloudStack would follow this example of
> > inclusiveness. For this, the project would rename its default branch
> name
> > of all the repositories to 'main'. In addition, all the applicable
> > integration points (Eg: Travis-CI, etc) using these repositories
> have to
> > replace the branch name 'master' with 'main'.
> >
> > The sample steps to rename and replace the default branch to 'main'
> are
> > here:
> >
> https://faun.pub/git-step-by-step-renaming-a-master-branch-to-main-16390ca7577b
> >
> > I would like to hear your thoughts and suggestions on this.
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://www.theserverside.com/feature/Why-GitHub-renamed-its-master-branch-to-main
> > [2]
> >
> https://www.techrepublic.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-main-starting-in-october-what-developers-need-to-know
> > [3] https://github.com/github/renaming
> > [4]
> https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2021/03/10/new-git-default-branch-name/
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Suresh
> >
> >
> > suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com
> > www.shapeblue.com
> > 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
> > @shapeblue
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming default git branch name from 'master' to 'main'

[Simon Weller]

+1

From: Gabriel Beims Bräscher 
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 6:56 AM
To: dev 
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming default git branch name from 'master' to 'main'

I am +1 on migrating from 'master' to 'main' branch.

We will need to update some scripts, documentations, and the releasing
process.

Regards,
Gabriel.

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 08:10  wrote:

> Personally, I'm +1 on this change.
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Angus
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Suresh Anaparti 
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 9:23 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming default git branch name from 'master' to
> 'main'
>
> Yes Wei, all the integrated systems / scripts (using the CloudStack git
> repositories) have to replace the default branch name to 'main' wherever
> applicable.
>
> Regard
> Suresh
>
> On 25/03/21, 2:44 PM, "Wei ZHOU"  wrote:
>
> Will it impact jenkins/travis/trillian and prs ?
>
> -Wei
>
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 10:00, Suresh Anaparti <
> suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The default git branch name 'master' was replaced with 'main' on
> GitHub
> > [2][3] and in the wider Git community [4]. For those that have
> missed the
> > broader discussion in society, the term 'master' is offensive to some
> > people [1]. This is widely considered insensitive if not illegal,
> hence the
> > proposed change.
> >
> > It seems fitting the CloudStack would follow this example of
> > inclusiveness. For this, the project would rename its default branch
> name
> > of all the repositories to 'main'. In addition, all the applicable
> > integration points (Eg: Travis-CI, etc) using these repositories
> have to
> > replace the branch name 'master' with 'main'.
> >
> > The sample steps to rename and replace the default branch to 'main'
> are
> > here:
> >
> https://faun.pub/git-step-by-step-renaming-a-master-branch-to-main-16390ca7577b
> >
> > I would like to hear your thoughts and suggestions on this.
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://www.theserverside.com/feature/Why-GitHub-renamed-its-master-branch-to-main
> > [2]
> >
> https://www.techrepublic.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-main-starting-in-october-what-developers-need-to-know
> > [3] https://github.com/github/renaming
> > [4]
> https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2021/03/10/new-git-default-branch-name/
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Suresh
> >
> >
> > suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com
> > www.shapeblue.com
> > 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
> > @shapeblue
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
>