On 5/17/12 8:58 AM, Oliver Francke wrote:
Hi,
uhm, I think I have my firewall-provisioning ready for production, but still
temporary high load of the ovs-vswitchd.
Anybody with a clue of what's going on there?
--- 8-< ---
May 17 13:54:07 fcmsnode10 ovs-vswitchd: 1844633|poll_loop|WARN|Dropped 771 log
messages in last 1 seconds (most recently, 1 seconds ago) due to excessive rate
May 17 13:54:07 fcmsnode10 ovs-vswitchd: 1844634|poll_loop|WARN|wakeup due to
[POLLIN] on fd 36 (unknown anon_inode:[eventpoll]) at lib/dpif-linux.c:1197
(101% CPU usage)
May 17 13:54:07 fcmsnode10 ovs-vswitchd: 1844635|poll_loop|WARN|wakeup due to
[POLLIN] on fd 36 (unknown anon_inode:[eventpoll]) at lib/dpif-linux.c:1197
(101% CPU usage)
May 17 13:54:08 fcmsnode10 ovs-vswitchd: 1844636|timeval|WARN|105 ms poll
interval (56 ms user, 44 ms system) is over 152 times the weighted mean
interval 1 ms (342116319 samples)
May 17 13:54:08 fcmsnode10 ovs-vswitchd: 1844637|timeval|WARN|context switches:
0 voluntary, 2 involuntary
May 17 13:54:08 fcmsnode10 ovs-vswitchd: 1844638|coverage|INFO|Skipping details
of duplicate event coverage for hash=959f79a0 in epoch 342116319
May 17 13:54:08 fcmsnode10 ovs-vswitchd: 1844639|poll_loop|WARN|Dropped 880 log
messages in last 1 seconds (most recently, 1 seconds ago) due to excessive rate
--- 8-< ---
and ovs-dpctl shows:
system@vmbr1:
lookups: hit:269430948 missed:1076470 lost:1
flows: 6
port 0: vmbr1 (internal)
port 1: eth1
port 4: vlan10 (internal)
port 5: tap822i1d0
port 6: tap822i1d1
port 7: tap410i1d0
port 9: tap1113i1d0
port 13: tap433i1d0
port 15: tap377i1d0
port 16: tap416i1d0
port 18: tap287i1d0
port 19: tap451i1d0
port 23: tap160i1d0
port 24: tap376i1d0
port 27: tap1084i1d0
port 28: tap1085i1d0
port 30: tap760i1d0
port 31: tap339i1d0
system@vmbr0:
lookups: hit:15321943230 missed:8565995663 lost:201094006
flows: 15216
port 0: vmbr0 (internal)
port 1: vlan146 (internal)
port 2: eth0
OVS can't handle some sort of traffic, causing loss packets and high
load, as shown on the vmbr0.
If you have a firewall VM, that might be the problem. OVS probably can't
handle all those concentrated traffic. If you're running NAT, it's worse.
We had 1 VM Firewall running NAT handling about 100 VMs and we had some
problems. We had to split the firewall into multiples VMs/hosts to
spread the workload or change to normal bridge.
--
Luiz Henrique Ozaki
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
