Nice Shihanzhang,
Do you mean the ipset implementation is ready, or just the spec?. For the SG group refactor, I don't worry about who does it, or whotakes the credit, but I believe it's important we address this bottleneck during Juno trying to match nova's scalability.
Best regards, Miguel Ángel. On 07/02/2014 02:50 PM, shihanzhang wrote:
hi Miguel Ángel and Ihar Hrachyshka, I agree with you that split the work in several specs, I have finished the work ( ipset optimization), you can do 'sg rpc optimization (without fanout)'. as the third part(sg rpc optimization (with fanout)), I think we need talk about it, because just using ipset to optimize security group agent codes does not bring the best results! Best regards, shihanzhang. At 2014-07-02 04:43:24, "Ihar Hrachyshka" <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 02/07/14 10:12, Miguel Angel Ajo wrote:Shihazhang, I really believe we need the RPC refactor done for this cycle, and given the close deadlines we have (July 10 for spec submission and July 20 for spec approval). Don't you think it's going to be better to split the work in several specs? 1) ipset optimization (you) 2) sg rpc optimization (without fanout) (me) 3) sg rpc optimization (with fanout) (edouard, you , me) This way we increase the chances of having part of this for the Juno cycle. If we go for something too complicated is going to take more time for approval.I agree. And it not only increases chances to get at least some of those highly demanded performance enhancements to get into Juno, it's also "the right thing to do" (c). It's counterproductive to put multiple vaguely related enhancements in single spec. This would dim review focus and put us into position of getting 'all-or-nothing'. We can't afford that. Let's leave one spec per enhancement. @Shihazhang, what do you think?Also, I proposed the details of "2", trying to bring awareness on the topic, as I have been working with the scale lab in Red Hat to find and understand those issues, I have a very good knowledge of the problem and I believe I could make a very fast advance on the issue at the RPC level. Given that, I'd like to work on this specific part, whether or not we split the specs, as it's something we believe critical for neutron scalability and thus, *nova parity*. I will start a separate spec for "2", later on, if you find it ok, we keep them as separate ones, if you believe having just 1 spec (for 1 & 2) is going be safer for juno-* approval, then we can incorporate my spec in yours, but then "add-ipset-to-security" is not a good spec title to put all this together. Best regards, Miguel Ángel. On 07/02/2014 03:37 AM, shihanzhang wrote:hi Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo! I agree with you and modify my spes, but I will also optimization the RPC from security group agent to neutron server. Now the modle is 'port[rule1,rule2...], port...', I will change it to 'port[sg1, sg2..]', this can reduce the size of RPC respose message from neutron server to security group agent. At 2014-07-01 09:06:17, "Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo" <mangel...@redhat.com> wrote:Ok, I was talking with Édouard @ IRC, and as I have time to work into this problem, I could file an specific spec for the security group RPC optimization, a masterplan in two steps: 1) Refactor the current RPC communication for security_groups_for_devices, which could be used for full syncs, etc.. 2) Benchmark && make use of a fanout queue per security group to make sure only the hosts with instances on a certain security group get the updates as they happen. @shihanzhang do you find it reasonable? ----- Original Message ---------- Original Message -----@Nachi: Yes that could a good improvement to factorize the RPCmechanism.Another idea: What about creating a RPC topic per security group (quid of theRPC topicscalability) on which an agent subscribes if one of its ports isassociatedto the security group? Regards, Édouard.Hmm, Interesting, @Nachi, I'm not sure I fully understood: SG_LIST [ SG1, SG2] SG_RULE_LIST = [SG_Rule1, SG_Rule2] .. port[SG_ID1, SG_ID2], port2 , port3 Probably we may need to include also the SG_IP_LIST = [SG_IP1, SG_IP2] ... and let the agent do all the combination work. Something like this could make sense? Security_Groups = {SG1:{IPs:[....],RULES:[....], SG2:{IPs:[....],RULES:[....]} } Ports = {Port1:[SG1, SG2], Port2: [SG1] .... } @Edouard, actually I like the idea of having the agent subscribed to security groups they have ports on... That would remove the need to include all the security groups information on every call... But would need another call to get the full information of a set of security groups at start/resync if we don't already have any.On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:04 AM, shihanzhang <ayshihanzh...@126.com >wrote: hi Miguel Ángel, I am very agree with you about the following point:* physical implementation on the hosts (ipsets, nftables, ... )--this can reduce the load of compute node.* rpc communication mechanisms.-- this can reduce the load of neutron server can you help me to review my BP specs? At 2014-06-19 10:11:34, "Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo" <mangel...@redhat.com >wrote:Hi it's a very interesting topic, I was getting ready to raise the same concerns about our security groups implementation,shihanzhangthank you for starting this topic. Not only at low level where (with our default security group rules -allow all incoming from 'default' sg- the iptable rules will grow in ~X^2 for a tenant, and, the "security_group_rules_for_devices" rpc call from ovs-agent to neutron-server grows to message sizes of100MB,generating serious scalability issues or timeouts/retries that totally break neutron service. (example trace of that RPC call with a few instances http://www.fpaste.org/104401/14008522/ ) I believe that we also need to review the RPC calling mechanism for the OVS agent here, there are several possible approaches tobreakingdown (or/and CIDR compressing) the information we return via thisapicall. So we have to look at two things here: * physical implementation on the hosts (ipsets, nftables, ... ) * rpc communication mechanisms. Best regards, Miguel Ángel. ----- Mensaje original -----Do you though about nftables that will replace{ip,ip6,arp,eb}tables?It also based on the rule set mechanism. The issue in that proposition, it's only stable since the beginof theyear and on Linux kernel 3.13. But there lot of pros I don't list here (leverage iptableslimitation,efficient update rule, rule set, standardization of netfilter commands...).Édouard.On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:25 AM, henry hly < henry4...@gmail.com > wrote:we have done some tests, but have different result: theperformance isnearly the same for empty and 5k rules in iptable, but huge gap between enable/disable iptable hook on linux bridgeOn Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:21 AM, shihanzhang <ayshihanzh...@126.comwrote:Now I have not get accurate test data, but I can confirm the following points:1. In compute node, the iptable's chain of a VM is liner,iptablefilter it one by one, if a VM in default security group and this default security group have many members, but ipset chain is set, the timeipsetfilter one and many member is not much difference.2. when the iptable rule is very large, the probability offailurethat iptable-save save the iptable rule is very large.At 2014-06-19 10:55:56, "Kevin Benton" < blak...@gmail.comwrote:This sounds like a good idea to handle some of theperformanceissues until the ovs firewall can be implemented down the the line.Do you have any performance comparisons?On Jun 18, 2014 7:46 PM, "shihanzhang" <ayshihanzh...@126.com >wrote:Hello all,Now in neutron, it use iptable implementing securitygroup, butthe performance of this implementation is very poor, thereis a bug:https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1302272 toreflect thisproblem. In his test, w ith default security groups(which has remote security group), beyond 250-300 VMs, there were around 6k Iptable ruleson evrycompute node, although his patch can reduce the processing time, butit don'tsolve this problem fundamentally. I have commit a BP to solve thisproblem:https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/add-ipset-to-securityThere are other people interested in this it?_______________________________________________OpenStack-dev mailing listOpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> > > >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev_______________________________________________OpenStack-dev mailing listOpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>_______________________________________________OpenStack-dev mailing listOpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev_______________________________________________OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev_______________________________________________OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTs8YsAAoJEC5aWaUY1u573G8H/jfRgoJMEJ0al9+io8bKtoLK 1oznScn4StQGy+eObk4cTIY1qmfEBcqdZLsGXkVtDVxtJZo/lUwViAX/r0qffazB dYCRoFqjhj+JhbQ2ul51A42vZ528lVdzwRdV0Hmwr9AdHdLwjdHi4msTqMXb0Tzs HiLIp9IED758xDN9DfCv3BTFR1EqQoczrSKmFV7eUnS7A8dTun3LzhyptD9dwzR4 jKl2RJ8/rpzu+oU0R/yju6IaF6Pe48D5UOH1LjNvL3BpUBj/ULH4Z/Sw8VSV9xPj VtOowoB6evsK3bmehsiTXo/nn/M/B1Qo8n2Q+ox2A5q5/0Mhw8pH41GrOPECZlQ= =/+cP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev