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

2016-12-07 Thread Matthieu Simonin 


- 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-dev] [Performance][shaker] Triangular topology
> 
> Hi Matt,
> 
> I would suggest to let users specify custom topology in Shaker scenario via
> graphs (e.g. directed triangle would look like: A -> B, B -> C, C -> A),
> where every pair of nodes is pair of VMs and every edge corresponds to the
> traffic flow. The above example will be deployed as 6 VMs, 2 per compute
> node (since we need to separate ingress and egress flows).

I totally agree as it could cover a lot of use cases.

> 
> I already have a patch that allows to deploy graph-based topology:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/407495/ but it does not configure
> concurrency properly yet (concurrency still increments by pairs, solution
> tbd)

I'm guessing that changing the semantic of concurrency with regard to the other
 scenarios is maybe not a good thing.

As far as I understand a concurrency of 3 with the following graph

- [A, B]
- [B, C]
- [C, A]

will lead to 3 flows (potentially bi-directionnal) being active. 

So without changing the current semantic of the concurrency 
we could have all flows active, with a concurrency of 6 for the following :

graph:
- [A, B]
- [B, C]
- [C, A]
- [A, B]
- [B, C]
- [C, A]

In that case, what would mean a concurrency of 3 with the above graph ? 
In other words, can we make sure that [A,B], [B,C] and [C,A] are active ? 
More generally, for a custom graph, maybe we can find a way to specify in 
the yaml what pairs should be active for a given concurrency level. 
This could be in the above case (pseudo-yaml) : 
graph:
- [A, B],1
- [B, C],2
- [C, A],3
- [A, B],4
- [B, C],5
- [C, A],6

all pairs with a number less or equal to the concurrency will be considered 
active.

> 
> Please check whether my approach suits your use case, feedback appreciated
> :)

I like it !

> 
> Thanks,
> Ilya
> 
> 2016-11-24 19:57 GMT+04:00 Matthieu Simonin <matthieu.simo...@inria.fr>:
> 
> > Hi Ilya,
> >
> > Thanks for your answer, let me know your findings.
> > In any case I'll be glad to help if needed.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > ps : I just realized that I missed a proper subjet to the thread :(.
> > If this thread continue it's maybe better to change that.
> >
> > - Mail original -
> > > De: "Ilya Shakhat" <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 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 <matthieu.simo...@inria.fr>:
> > >
> > > > 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 concurrency could be mapped to the number of
> > > > simultaneous flows in use per link.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Matt
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > __
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > 
> > __
> > > 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
> > >
>

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

2016-12-06 Thread Ilya Shakhat 
Hi Matt,

I would suggest to let users specify custom topology in Shaker scenario via
graphs (e.g. directed triangle would look like: A -> B, B -> C, C -> A),
where every pair of nodes is pair of VMs and every edge corresponds to the
traffic flow. The above example will be deployed as 6 VMs, 2 per compute
node (since we need to separate ingress and egress flows).

I already have a patch that allows to deploy graph-based topology:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/407495/ but it does not configure
concurrency properly yet (concurrency still increments by pairs, solution
tbd)

Please check whether my approach suits your use case, feedback appreciated
:)

Thanks,
Ilya

2016-11-24 19:57 GMT+04:00 Matthieu Simonin :

> Hi Ilya,
>
> Thanks for your answer, let me know your findings.
> In any case I'll be glad to help if needed.
>
> Matt
>
> ps : I just realized that I missed a proper subjet to the thread :(.
> If this thread continue it's maybe better to change that.
>
> - Mail original -
> > De: "Ilya Shakhat" 
> > 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 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 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 concurrency could be mapped to the number of
> > > simultaneous flows in use per link.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> __
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> > 
> __
> > 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
> >
>
> __
> 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
>
__
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