I think that isaku is talking about a more intensive usage of
defer_apply_on/off as it is done in the patch of gongysh [1].
Isaku, i don't see any reason why this could not be done in
precess_network_ports, if needed. Moreover the patch from edouard [2]
resolves multithreading issues while
Thanks Mathieu!
I think we should first merge Edouard's patch, which appears to be a
prerequisite.
I think we could benefit a lot by applying this mechanism to
process_network_ports.
However, I am not sure if there could be drawbacks arising from the fact
that the agent would assign the local
Mathieu, Thank you for clarification.
I'll take a look at the patches.
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 02:34:24PM +0100,
Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
Thanks Mathieu!
I think we should first merge Edouard's patch, which appears to be a
prerequisite.
I think we could benefit a lot by
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:09:02AM +0100,
Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
Hi,
We now have several patches under review which improve a lot how neutron
handles parallel testing.
In a nutshell, these patches try to ensure the ovs agent processes new,
removed, and updated
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 19:40 +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:09:02AM +0100,
Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
Hi,
We now have several patches under review which improve a lot how neutron
handles parallel testing.
In a nutshell, these patches try to
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 17:04 +0100, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
I have already discussed the matter with Jay on IRC, even if for a
different issue.
In this specific case 'batching' will have the benefit of reducing the
rootwrap overhead.
Right.
However, it seems the benefit from batching is not
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 17:04 +0100, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
I have already discussed the matter with Jay on IRC, even if for a
different issue.
In this specific case 'batching' will have the benefit of reducing the
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 05:04:47PM +0100,
Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
I have already discussed the matter with Jay on IRC, even if for a
different issue.
In this specific case 'batching' will have the benefit of reducing the
rootwrap overhead.
However, it seems the benefit
I have already discussed the matter with Jay on IRC, even if for a
different issue.
In this specific case 'batching' will have the benefit of reducing the
rootwrap overhead.
However, it seems the benefit from batching is not resolutive. I admit I
have not run tests in the gate with batching; I've
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 08:58 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 17:04 +0100, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
I have already discussed the matter with Jay on IRC, even if
for a
different
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 08:58 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 17:04 +0100, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
I have already
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 09:56 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
What about it? Also those numbers are pretty old at this point. I was
thinking disable rootwrap and run full parallel tempest against it.
I think that is a little overkill for what we're trying to do here. We
are specifically talking about
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 09:56 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
What about it? Also those numbers are pretty old at this point. I was
thinking disable rootwrap and run full parallel tempest against it.
I think that is a little
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 11:17 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 09:56 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
What about it? Also those numbers are pretty old at this
point. I was
This thread is starting to get a bit confusing, at least for people with a
single-pipeline brain like me!
I am not entirely sure if I understand correctly Isaku's proposal
concerning deferring the application of flow changes.
I think it's worth discussing in a separate thread, and a supporting
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 21:24 +0100, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
This thread is starting to get a bit confusing, at least for people
with a single-pipeline brain like me!
Heh, point taken.
snip
On the other hand, I would invite community members picking up some of
the bugs we've registered for
Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2014 7:53:05 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][qa] Parallel testing update
Thanks for the updates here Salvatore, and for continuing to push on
this! This is all great
Hi again,
I've now run the experimental job a good deal of times, and I've filed bugs
for all the issues which came out.
Most of them occurred no more than once among all test execution (I think
about 30).
They're all tagged with neutron-parallel [1]. for ease of tracking, I've
associated all
: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][qa] Parallel testing update
Thanks for the updates here Salvatore, and for continuing to push on
this! This is all great work!
On Jan 2, 2014, at 6:57 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
Hi again,
I've now run the experimental job a good deal of times
-
From: Kyle Mestery mest...@siliconloons.com
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2014 7:53:05 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][qa] Parallel testing update
Thanks for the updates here
Hi,
We now have several patches under review which improve a lot how neutron
handles parallel testing.
In a nutshell, these patches try to ensure the ovs agent processes new,
removed, and updated interfaces as soon as possible,
These patches are:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/61105/
Hi,
As you might have noticed, there has been some progress on parallel tests
for neutron.
In a nutshell:
* Armando fixed the issue with IP address exhaustion on the public network
[1]
* Salvatore has now a patch which has a 50% success rate (the last failures
are because of me playing with it)
On Dec 2, 2013 9:04 PM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
Hi,
As you might have noticed, there has been some progress on parallel tests
for neutron.
In a nutshell:
* Armando fixed the issue with IP address exhaustion on the public
network [1]
* Salvatore has now a patch which has
Salvatore and Armando, thanks for your great work and detailed explanation!
Eugene.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 2, 2013 9:04 PM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:
Hi,
As you might have noticed, there has been some
Yes, this is all great Salvatore and Armando! Thank you for all of this work
and the explanation behind it all.
Kyle
On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:24 PM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com wrote:
Salvatore and Armando, thanks for your great work and detailed explanation!
Eugene.
On Mon,
25 matches
Mail list logo
