On Thursday, 26 de February de 2015 at 7:48, Miguel Ángel Ajo wrote: > Inline comments follow after this, but I wanted to respond to Brian question > which has been cut out: > > We’re talking here of doing a preliminary analysis of the networking > performance, > before writing any real code at neutron level. > > If that looks right, then we should go into a preliminary (and orthogonal to > iptables/LB) > implementation. At that moment we will be able to examine the scalability of > the solution > in regards of switching openflow rules, which is going to be severely affected > by the way we use to handle OF rules in the bridge: > > * via OpenFlow, making the agent a “real" OF controller, with the current > effort to use > the ryu framework plugin to do that. > * via cmdline (would be alleviated with the current rootwrap work, but the > former one > would be preferred). > > Also, ipset groups can be moved into conjunctive groups in OF (thanks Ben > Pfaff for the > explanation, if you’re reading this ;-)) > > Best, > Miguel Ángel > > > > On Wednesday, 25 de February de 2015 at 20:34, Tapio Tallgren wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The RFC2544 with near zero packet loss is a pretty standard performance > > benchmark. It is also used in the OPNFV project > > (https://wiki.opnfv.org/characterize_vswitch_performance_for_telco_nfv_use_cases). > > > > Does this mean that OpenStack will have stateful firewalls (or security > > groups)? Any other ideas planned, like ebtables type filtering? > > > What I am proposing is in the terms of maintaining the statefulness we have > now > regards security groups (RELATED/ESTABLISHED connections are allowed back > on open ports) while adding a new firewall driver working only with OVS+OF > (no iptables > or linux bridge). > > That will be possible (without auto-populating OF rules in oposite > directions) due to > the new connection tracker functionality to be eventually merged into ovs. > > > -Tapio > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Rick Jones <rick.jon...@hp.com > > (mailto:rick.jon...@hp.com)> wrote: > > > On 02/25/2015 05:52 AM, Miguel Ángel Ajo wrote: > > > > I’m writing a plan/script to benchmark OVS+OF(CT) vs > > > > OVS+LB+iptables+ipsets, > > > > so we can make sure there’s a real difference before jumping into any > > > > OpenFlow security group filters when we have connection tracking in OVS. > > > > > > > > The plan is to keep all of it in a single multicore host, and make > > > > all the measures within it, to make sure we just measure the > > > > difference due to the software layers. > > > > > > > > Suggestions or ideas on what to measure are welcome, there’s an initial > > > > draft here: > > > > > > > > https://github.com/mangelajo/ovs-experiments/tree/master/ovs-ct > > > > > > Conditions to be benchmarked > > > > > > Initial connection establishment time > > > Max throughput on the same CPU > > > > > > Large MTUs and stateless offloads can mask a multitude of path-length > > > sins. And there is a great deal more to performance than Mbit/s. While > > > some of that may be covered by the first item via the likes of say > > > netperf TCP_CRR or TCP_CC testing, I would suggest that in addition to a > > > focus on Mbit/s (which I assume is the focus of the second item) there is > > > something for packet per second performance. Something like netperf > > > TCP_RR and perhaps aggregate TCP_RR or UDP_RR testing. > > > > > > Doesn't have to be netperf, that is simply the hammer I wield :) > > > > > > What follows may be a bit of perfect being the enemy of the good, or > > > mission creep... > > > > > > On the same CPU would certainly simplify things, but it will almost > > > certainly exhibit different processor data cache behaviour than actually > > > going through a physical network with a multi-core system. Physical NICs > > > will possibly (probably?) have RSS going, which may cause cache lines to > > > be pulled around. The way packets will be buffered will differ as well. > > > Etc etc. How well the different solutions scale with cores is definitely > > > a difference of interest between the two sofware layers. > > >
Hi rick, thanks for your feedback here, I’ll take it into consideration, specially about the small packet pps measurements, and really using physical hosts. Although I may start with an AIO setup for simplicity, we should get more conclusive results from at least two hosts and decent NICs. I will put all this together in the document, and loop you in for review. > > > rick > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > > Unsubscribe: > > > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > > > (http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe) > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > > -- > > -Tapio > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > > (mailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe) > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > (mailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe) > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
