On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:43 AM, 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?
>
+100

File these as separate specs, and lets see how much of this we can get
into Juno.

Thanks for taking this enhancement and performance improvement on everyone!

Kyle

>>
>> 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
>>>>>> RPC
>>>>> mechanism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another idea: What about creating a RPC topic per security
>>>>>> group (quid of the
>>>>> RPC topic
>>>>>> scalability) on which an agent subscribes if one of its
>>>>>> ports is
>>>>> associated
>>>>>> to 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,
>>>>> shihanzhang
>>>>>>> thank 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 of
>>>>>>>> 100MB,
>>>>>>> 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 to
>>>>> breaking
>>>>>>> down (or/and CIDR compressing) the information we return
>>>>>>> via this
>>>>> api
>>>>>>> call.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 begin
>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> year and on Linux kernel 3.13. But there lot of pros I
>>>>>>>> don't list here (leverage iptables
>>>>> limitation,
>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> performance is
>>>>>>>>> nearly the same for empty and 5k rules in iptable,
>>>>>>>>> but huge gap between enable/disable iptable hook on
>>>>>>>>> linux bridge
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:21 AM, shihanzhang <
>>>>> ayshihanzh...@126.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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,
>>>>> iptable
>>>>>>>>>> filter 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 time
>>>>> ipset
>>>>>>>>>> filter one and many member is not much difference.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. when the iptable rule is very large, the
>>>>>>>>>> probability of
>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>> that iptable-save save the iptable rule is very
>>>>>>>>>> large.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At 2014-06-19 10:55:56, "Kevin Benton" <
>>>>>>>>>> blak...@gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds like a good idea to handle some of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>>>> issues 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>> group, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> the performance of this implementation is very
>>>>>>>>>>>> poor, there
>>>>> is a bug:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1302272
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>> reflect this
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem. In his test, w ith default security
>>>>>>>>>>>> groups(which has remote security group), beyond
>>>>>>>>>>>> 250-300 VMs, there were around 6k Iptable
>>>>>>>>>>>> rules
>>>>> on evry
>>>>>>>>>>>> compute node, although his patch can reduce the
>>>>>>>>>>>> processing time, but
>>>>> it don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> solve this problem fundamentally. I have commit
>>>>>>>>>>>> a BP to solve this
>>>>> problem:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/add-ipset-to-security
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are other people interested in this it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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

Reply via email to