Re: [openstack-dev] [Performance][Shaker]

Thanks Ilya! On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Ilya Shakhat wrote: > Hi Sai, > > In UDP testing PPS represents packets sent by iperf client to server. Loss > is the percentage of packets that were not received by server (more > specifically the server tracks packets and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Performance][Shaker]

Hi Sai, In UDP testing PPS represents packets sent by iperf client to server. Loss is the percentage of packets that were not received by server (more specifically the server tracks packets and sums gaps between of them, https://github.com/esnet/iperf/blob/3.0.7/src/iperf_udp.c#L64). While

[openstack-dev] [Performance][Shaker]

Hey, When using the "iperf3" class in shaker for looking at UDP small packet performance, we see that as we scale up the concurrency the average PPS goes up and also the loss % increases. Is the loss % a percentage of the PPS or does the PPS only represent successful transmissions? Thanks! --

Re: [openstack-dev] [Performance][shaker] Triangular topology

- Mail original - > De: "Ilya Shakhat" <ishak...@mirantis.com> > À: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Envoyé: Mardi 6 Décembre 2016 14:39:28 > Objet: Re: [openstack

Re: [openstack-dev] [Performance][shaker] Triangular topology

List (not for usage questions)" < > openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > > Envoyé: Jeudi 24 Novembre 2016 13:03:33 > > Objet: Re: [openstack-dev] [Performance][shaker] > > > > Hi Matt, > > > > Out of the box Shaker doesn't support such topology. >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Performance][shaker]

" <ishak...@mirantis.com> > À: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Envoyé: Jeudi 24 Novembre 2016 13:03:33 > Objet: Re: [openstack-dev] [Performance][shaker] > > Hi Matt, > > Out of t

Re: [openstack-dev] [Performance][shaker]

Hi Matt, Out of the box Shaker doesn't support such topology. It shouldn't be hard to implement though. Let me check what needs to be done. Thanks, Ilya 2016-11-24 13:49 GMT+03:00 Matthieu Simonin : > Hello, > > I'm looking to shaker capabilities and I'm wondering if

[openstack-dev] [Performance][shaker]

Hello, I'm looking to shaker capabilities and I'm wondering if this kind of accomodation (see attachment also) can be achieved Ascii (flat) version : CN1 (2n VMs) <- n flows -> CN2 (2n VMs) CN1 (2n VMs) <- n flows -> CN3 (2n VMs) CN2 (2n VMs) <- n flows -> CN3 (2n VMs) In this situation