Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] stable/liberty busted

On 08/05/2016 02:52 AM, Kevin Benton wrote: Sorry I didn't elaborate a bit more, I was replying from my phone. The agent has logic that calculates the required flows for ports when it starts up and then reconciles that with the current flows in OVS so it doesn't disrupt traffic on every restart.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] stable/liberty busted

Sorry I didn't elaborate a bit more, I was replying from my phone. The agent has logic that calculates the required flows for ports when it starts up and then reconciles that with the current flows in OVS so it doesn't disrupt traffic on every restart. The tests for that run constant pings in the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] stable/liberty busted

Hitless restart logic in the agent. On Aug 4, 2016 14:07, "Rick Jones" wrote: > On 08/04/2016 01:39 PM, Kevin Benton wrote: > >> Yep. Some tests are making sure there are no packets lost. Some are >> making sure that stuff starts working eventually. >> > > Not to be

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] stable/liberty busted

On 08/04/2016 01:39 PM, Kevin Benton wrote: Yep. Some tests are making sure there are no packets lost. Some are making sure that stuff starts working eventually. Not to be pedantic, but what sort of requirement exists that no packets be lost? rick

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] stable/liberty busted

Yep. Some tests are making sure there are no packets lost. Some are making sure that stuff starts working eventually. On Aug 4, 2016 12:28, "Brian Haley" wrote: > On 08/04/2016 03:16 PM, Rick Jones wrote: > >> On 08/04/2016 12:04 PM, Kevin Benton wrote: >> >>> Yeah, I

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] stable/liberty busted

On 08/04/2016 03:25 PM, Brian Haley wrote: On 08/04/2016 03:16 PM, Rick Jones wrote: On 08/04/2016 12:04 PM, Kevin Benton wrote: Yeah, I wasn't thinking when I +2'ed that. There are two use cases for the pinger, one for ensuring continuous connectivity and one for eventual connectivity. I

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] stable/liberty busted

On 08/04/2016 03:16 PM, Rick Jones wrote: On 08/04/2016 12:04 PM, Kevin Benton wrote: Yeah, I wasn't thinking when I +2'ed that. There are two use cases for the pinger, one for ensuring continuous connectivity and one for eventual connectivity. I think the revert is okay for a quick fix, but

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] stable/liberty busted

On 08/04/2016 12:04 PM, Kevin Benton wrote: Yeah, I wasn't thinking when I +2'ed that. There are two use cases for the pinger, one for ensuring continuous connectivity and one for eventual connectivity. I think the revert is okay for a quick fix, but we really need a new argument to the pinger

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] stable/liberty busted

Yeah, I wasn't thinking when I +2'ed that. There are two use cases for the pinger, one for ensuring continuous connectivity and one for eventual connectivity. I think the revert is okay for a quick fix, but we really need a new argument to the pinger for strictness to decide which behavior the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] stable/liberty busted

On 4 August 2016 at 11:45, Brian Haley wrote: > On 08/04/2016 01:36 PM, Armando M. wrote: > >> Hi Neutrinos, >> >> I have noticed that Liberty seems to be belly up [1]. I wonder if anyone >> knows >> anything or has the time to look into it. >> >> Many thanks, >> Armando >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] stable/liberty busted

On 08/04/2016 01:36 PM, Armando M. wrote: Hi Neutrinos, I have noticed that Liberty seems to be belly up [1]. I wonder if anyone knows anything or has the time to look into it. Many thanks, Armando [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/349039/ This could be due to this backport;

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] stable/liberty busted

Hi Neutrinos, I have noticed that Liberty seems to be belly up [1]. I wonder if anyone knows anything or has the time to look into it. Many thanks, Armando [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/349039/ __ OpenStack