On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 3:04 AM Jean Tourrilhes <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 07:53:25PM +0800, Tonghao Zhang wrote: > > > > Hi Ben, Ilya > > Try to explain this patch again. Now OvS has supported the burst_size, > > as one user case, > > if users don't use the burst_size feature, we should set burst_size to > > rate or 0. This patch set this to 0. > > '0' is definitely not an "implementation defined optimal > value" as the spec requires. Actually, most token buckets > implementations do not work or work very poorly with a bucket size of > zero. Hi I want to know what tools can we use to measure the meters "rate" and "bust_size" is optimal value, I use the vnstat tool, and not find the ovs meter doesn't work with or without burst_size.
> The first hit on a Google search : > https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/routing-policy/topics/concept/policer-mx-m120-m320-burstsize-determining.html > I don't fully agree with their recommendations, 5ms is way too > large for high speed networks, but they expose the problem properly. > > > As Ilya said, we should check the OFPMF13_BURST in userspace datapath, > > I think it's right. > > I don't have enough context to comment on the patch and > I don't know where that flag should be tested. It would seem that all > datapaths will suffer from the same issue, you need to figure out an > optimal burst_size for user space *and* for kernel space if none is > given via OpenFlow. > I have a strong suspicion that the patch does not do a great > job if OFPMF13_BURST is not set, but I may be wrong. > > Regards, > > Jean -- Best regards, Tonghao _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
