On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Valentine Sinitsyn <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Han,
>
> Thanks for the quick answer.
>
> On 17.03.2017 00:34, Han Zhou wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Valentine Sinitsyn
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We are doing some stress testing on OVN 2.7, and wanted to reproduce
>>
>> results from the talk [1]. Looking at ovn-scale-test sources, I have two
>> questions:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hi Valentine,
>>
>> Thanks for picking this up.
>>
>>
>>> - Do I get correctly that the benchmark always starts with the empty
>>
>> northbound db. Then lswitches are added, then you add ports to each
lswitch?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the test result shown in the talk was started from empty to
>> gradually reach 20k lports on 200 lswitches.
>>
>>> - What is the batch size in port_create_args?
>>
>>
>> I remember it was 100. In addition, there were 5 jobs running in
parallel.
>> +Lei to confirm.
>
> Could you recall how long (approximately) does it take to create and bind
20K ports with these settings? This would be really helpful.
>
I don't have the raw data now, but it took around 1 - 2 hours.
We don't always run the full test, but after the full test is completed, we
can just run another task to create and bind 1k more lports to evaluate the
optimizations in each iteration on top of the existing scale.
One more thing, the graph shared also involved sandbox (simulated HV)
creation and lswitch creation. They were all created gradually during the
test run.
The flow was like:
1. create 50 sandboxes
2. (5 jobs in parallel) create 1 lswitch, create 100 lports, bind 100
lports, wait 100 lport up
3. if there are 100 sandboxes already on the BM, switch to another BM
4. goto step1, until it is done for all 20 BMs.
Moreover, in current ovs-scale-test code, the step "wait 100 lport up" is
updated utilizing a new feature (wait for HVs to catch up) that was added
after the report, and we didn't run the test again yet with this change. I
would expect it impact the test result slightly negatively, but it would
more accurate.
>>
>>>
>>> In short: is it true that for the setup involving (say) 10000 ports
>>
>> spanned over 100 lswitches in the aforementioned test, a Rally task
>> would look like this?
>>>
>>>
>>> {
>>> "version": 2,
>>> "title": "Create and bind port",
>>> "subtasks": [{
>>> "title": "Create and bind port",
>>> "workloads": [{
>>> "name": "OvnNetwork.create_and_bind_ports",
>>> "args": {
>>> "network_create_args": {
>>> "amount": 100,
>>> "batch": 1,
>>> "start_cidr": "172.16.1.0/24 <http://172.16.1.0/24
>",
>>> "physical_network": "providernet"
>>> },
>>> "port_create_args" : {"batch": 2},
>>> "ports_per_network": 100,
>>> "port_bind_args": {"wait_up": true}
>>> },
>>> "runner": {
>>> "type": "serial","times": 1},
>>> "context": {
>>> "ovn_multihost" : {
>>> "controller": "ovn-controller-node"
>>> },
>>> "sandbox":{ "tag": "ToR1"}
>>> }
>>> }]
>>> }]
>>> }
>>>
>>> 1. https://youtu.be/okralc7LrZo?t=1185
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Valentine
>>
>>
>
> --
> С уважением,
> Синицын Валентин
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
