On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Saravanan KR <skram...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hello, > > The aim of this mail is to ease the DPDK deployment with TripleO. I > would like to see if the approach of deriving THT parameter based on > introspection data, with a high level input would be feasible. > > Let me brief on the complexity of certain parameters, which are > related to DPDK. Following parameters should be configured for a good > performing DPDK cluster: > * NeutronDpdkCoreList (puppet-vswitch) > * ComputeHostCpusList (PreNetworkConfig [4], puppet-vswitch) (under review) > * NovaVcpuPinset (puppet-nova) > > * NeutronDpdkSocketMemory (puppet-vswitch) > * NeutronDpdkMemoryChannels (puppet-vswitch) > * ComputeKernelArgs (PreNetworkConfig [4]) (under review) > * Interface to bind DPDK driver (network config templates) > > The complexity of deciding some of these parameters is explained in > the blog [1], where the CPUs has to be chosen in accordance with the > NUMA node associated with the interface. We are working a spec [2], to > collect the required details from the baremetal via the introspection. > The proposal is to create mistral workbook and actions > (tripleo-common), which will take minimal inputs and decide the actual > value of parameters based on the introspection data. I have created > simple workbook [3] with what I have in mind (not final, only > wireframe). The expected output of this workflow is to return the list > of inputs for "parameter_defaults", which will be used for the > deployment. I would like to hear from the experts, if there is any > drawbacks with this approach or any other better approach. > > This workflow will ease the TripleO UI need to integrate DPDK, as UI > (user) has to choose only the interface for DPDK [and optionally, the > number for CPUs required for PMD and Host]. Of-course, the > introspection should be completed, with which, it will be easy to > deploy a DPDK cluster. > > There is a complexity if the cluster contains heterogeneous nodes, for > example a cluster having HP and DELL machines with different CPU > layout, we need to enhance the workflow to take actions based on > roles/nodes, which brings in a requirement of localizing the above > mentioned variables per role. For now, consider this proposal for > homogeneous cluster, if there is a value in this, I will work towards > heterogeneous clusters too. > > Please share your thoughts.
Using Mistral workflows for this use-case seems valuable to me. I like your step-by-step approach and also the fact it will ease TripleO UI with this proposal. > Regards, > Saravanan KR > > > [1] https://krsacme.github.io/blog/post/dpdk-pmd-cpu-list/ > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/396147/ > [3] https://gist.github.com/krsacme/c5be089d6fa216232d49c85082478419 > [4] > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/411797/6/extraconfig/pre_network/host_config_and_reboot.role.j2.yaml > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 -- Emilien Macchi __________________________________________________________________________ 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
