Re: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network
Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: In testing I have been unable to saturate a 10g link using a single VM. Even with multiple streams, the best I have been able to do (using virtio and vhost_net is about 7.8g. Can you share details about your hardware and vSwitch config (possibly off list if that isn't a valid openstack-dev topic) I haven't been able to spend any time on serious performance testing, but just doing preliminary testing on a HP BL460cG8 and Virtual Connect I haven't been able to push more than about 1Gbps using a pretty vanilla Havana install with OvS and VLANs (no GRE). ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network
On Jan 30, 2014, at 6:26 AM, CARVER, PAUL pc2...@att.com wrote: Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: In testing I have been unable to saturate a 10g link using a single VM. Even with multiple streams, the best I have been able to do (using virtio and vhost_net is about 7.8g. Can you share details about your hardware and vSwitch config (possibly off list if that isn’t a valid openstack-dev topic) I haven’t been able to spend any time on serious performance testing, but just doing preliminary testing on a HP BL460cG8 and Virtual Connect I haven’t been able to push more than about 1Gbps using a pretty vanilla Havana install with OvS and VLANs (no GRE). This is using nova-network mode. There are likely new software bottlenecks introduced by Neutron/OVS, but a huge amount of performance tweaking is around jumbo frames and vhost-net. This article has a bunch of excellent suggestions: http://buriedlede.blogspot.com/2012/11/driving-100-gigabit-network-with.html Vish ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network
On Jan 24, 2014, at 6:33 AM, CARVER, PAUL pc2...@att.com wrote: I agree that I’d like to see a set of use cases for this. This is the second time in as many days that I’ve heard about a desire to have such a thing but I still don’t think I understand any use cases adequately. In the physical world it makes perfect sense, LACP, MLT, Etherchannel/Portchannel, etc. In the virtual world I need to see a detailed description of one or more use cases. Shihanzhang, why don’t you start up an Etherpad or something and start putting together a list of one or more practical use cases in which the same VM would benefit from multiple virtual connections to the same network. If it really makes sense we ought to be able to clearly describe it. I can think of one potential use case. In testing I have been unable to saturate a 10g link using a single VM. Even with multiple streams, the best I have been able to do (using virtio and vhost_net is about 7.8g. I have been told with CPU pinning that can be pushed up into the high nines, but pinning is not a great fit for cloud. I am not totally sure where the bottleneck is, but I have a guess that it relates to maxing out a single cpu on the host side pushing traffic from the virtual interface into the physical one. I have been able to saturate a 10g link by using multiple vms, but it occurs to me that having two separate vnics might allow you to push the full 10g from a single vm. I have not tested this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it is true. Vish -- Paul Carver VO: 732-545-7377 Cell: 908-803-1656 E: pcar...@att.com Q Instant Message From: Day, Phil [mailto:philip@hp.com] Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 09:11 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network I agree its oddly inconsistent (you’ll get used to that over time ;-) - but to me it feels more like the validation is missing on the attach that that the create should allow two VIFs on the same network. Since these are both virtualised (i.e share the same bandwidth, don’t provide any additional resilience, etc) I’m curious about why you’d want two VIFs in this configuration ? From: shihanzhang [mailto:ayshihanzh...@126.com] Sent: 24 January 2014 03:22 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network I am a beginer of nova, there is a problem which has confused me, in the latest version, it not allowed to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network, but allowed to add a VIF that it network is same with a existed VIF'network, there is the use case that a vm with two VIF in the same network, but why not allow to create the vm directly with two VIF in the same network? ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network
On 25 January 2014 03:33, CARVER, PAUL pc2...@att.com wrote: I agree that I'd like to see a set of use cases for this. This is the second time in as many days that I've heard about a desire to have such a thing but I still don't think I understand any use cases adequately. In the physical world it makes perfect sense, LACP, MLT, Etherchannel/Portchannel, etc. In the virtual world I need to see a detailed description of one or more use cases. I've got two use cases. One is 'nova baremetal' - where we are modelling the physical world directly using Neutron. So you'd want to model both physical ports with their unique MACs and the fact they are bonded etc. A related one is virtual IPs for HA for nova baremetal, but I'm not sure having that modelled as a /port/ makes sense, rather a second IP on a port. -Rob -- Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network
Lingxian Kong wrote: Actually, in the scenario of NFV, all the rules or behaviors of the physical world will apply to that in the virtual world, right? IMHO, despite of the scenarios, we should at least guarantee the consistency of creating vms with nics and attaching nics . I'll need to think about that a bit before I decide whether I agree. My gut response is to disagree with it as a blanket statement while allowing that it may apply in specific scenarios. The point about PCI passthrough in another post was a good one. If the VM is managing physical NICs then LACP at the VM level would make sense. But if the VM is using virtualized NICs there's at least some possibility that the underlying connectivity from the vNIC to the physical network is going over an LACP bundle of multiple NICs handled at the hypervisor level. At least that's the way we're doing it. Running LACP over multiple vNICs just seems wrong to me. Increasing availability doesn't simply mean adding two (or more) of everything. Sometimes adding more things reduces availability. There needs to be at least one specific failure scenario where thing 2 can be expected to continue working when thing 1 fails. If all the failure modes are correlated (i.e. whatever caused thing 1 to fail almost certainly would also cause thing 2 to fail simultaneously) then having one thing would be better than two. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network
Hi Paul: I am very glad to do the thing that puts together the practical use cases in which the same VM would benefit from multiple virtual connections to the same network, whatever it takes, I think we should at least guarantee the consistency of creating vms with nics and attaching nics. 在 2014-01-24 22:33:36，CARVER, PAUL pc2...@att.com 写道： I agree that I’d like to see a set of use cases for this. This is the second time in as many days that I’ve heard about a desire to have such a thing but I still don’t think I understand any use cases adequately. In the physical world it makes perfect sense, LACP, MLT, Etherchannel/Portchannel, etc. In the virtual world I need to see a detailed description of one or more use cases. Shihanzhang, why don’t you start up an Etherpad or something and start putting together a list of one or more practical use cases in which the same VM would benefit from multiple virtual connections to the same network. If it really makes sense we ought to be able to clearly describe it. -- Paul Carver VO: 732-545-7377 Cell: 908-803-1656 E: pcar...@att.com Q Instant Message From: Day, Phil [mailto:philip@hp.com] Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 09:11 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network I agree its oddly inconsistent (you’ll get used to that over time ;-) - but to me it feels more like the validation is missing on the attach that that the create should allow two VIFs on the same network. Since these are both virtualised (i.e share the same bandwidth, don’t provide any additional resilience, etc) I’m curious about why you’d want two VIFs in this configuration ? From: shihanzhang [mailto:ayshihanzh...@126.com] Sent: 24 January 2014 03:22 To:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network I am a beginer of nova, there is a problem which has confused me, in the latest version, it not allowed to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network, but allowed to add a VIF that it network is same with a existed VIF'network, there is the use case that a vm with two VIF in the same network, but why not allow to create the vm directly with two VIF in the same network? ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network
Hi Paul: Actually, in the scenario of NFV, all the rules or behaviors of the physical world will apply to that in the virtual world, right? IMHO, despite of the scenarios, we should at least guarantee the consistency of creating vms with nics and attaching nics . 2014-01-24 CARVER, PAUL pc2...@att.com I agree that I’d like to see a set of use cases for this. This is the second time in as many days that I’ve heard about a desire to have such a thing but I still don’t think I understand any use cases adequately. In the physical world it makes perfect sense, LACP, MLT, Etherchannel/Portchannel, etc. In the virtual world I need to see a detailed description of one or more use cases. Shihanzhang, why don’t you start up an Etherpad or something and start putting together a list of one or more practical use cases in which the same VM would benefit from multiple virtual connections to the same network. If it really makes sense we ought to be able to clearly describe it. -- Paul Carver VO: 732-545-7377 Cell: 908-803-1656 E: pcar...@att.com Q Instant Message *From:* Day, Phil [mailto:philip@hp.com] *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2014 09:11 *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network I agree its oddly inconsistent (you’ll get used to that over time ;-) - but to me it feels more like the validation is missing on the attach that that the create should allow two VIFs on the same network. Since these are both virtualised (i.e share the same bandwidth, don’t provide any additional resilience, etc) I’m curious about why you’d want two VIFs in this configuration ? *From:* shihanzhang [mailto:ayshihanzh...@126.com ayshihanzh...@126.com] *Sent:* 24 January 2014 03:22 *To:* openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org *Subject:* [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network I am a beginer of nova, there is a problem which has confused me, in the latest version, it not allowed to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network, but allowed to add a VIF that it network is same with a existed VIF'network, there is the use case that a vm with two VIF in the same network, but why not allow to create the vm directly with two VIF in the same network? ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- *---* *Lingxian Kong* Huawei Technologies Co.,LTD. IT Product Line CloudOS PDU China, Xi'an Mobile: +86-18602962792 Email: konglingx...@huawei.com; anlin.k...@gmail.com ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network
I agree its oddly inconsistent (you'll get used to that over time ;-) - but to me it feels more like the validation is missing on the attach that that the create should allow two VIFs on the same network. Since these are both virtualised (i.e share the same bandwidth, don't provide any additional resilience, etc) I'm curious about why you'd want two VIFs in this configuration ? From: shihanzhang [mailto:ayshihanzh...@126.com] Sent: 24 January 2014 03:22 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network I am a beginer of nova, there is a problem which has confused me, in the latest version, it not allowed to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network, but allowed to add a VIF that it network is same with a existed VIF'network, there is the use case that a vm with two VIF in the same network, but why not allow to create the vm directly with two VIF in the same network? ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network
I agree that I'd like to see a set of use cases for this. This is the second time in as many days that I've heard about a desire to have such a thing but I still don't think I understand any use cases adequately. In the physical world it makes perfect sense, LACP, MLT, Etherchannel/Portchannel, etc. In the virtual world I need to see a detailed description of one or more use cases. Shihanzhang, why don't you start up an Etherpad or something and start putting together a list of one or more practical use cases in which the same VM would benefit from multiple virtual connections to the same network. If it really makes sense we ought to be able to clearly describe it. -- Paul Carver VO: 732-545-7377 Cell: 908-803-1656 E: pcar...@att.commailto:pcar...@att.com Q Instant Messageqto://talk/pc2929 From: Day, Phil [mailto:philip@hp.com] Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 09:11 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network I agree its oddly inconsistent (you'll get used to that over time ;-) - but to me it feels more like the validation is missing on the attach that that the create should allow two VIFs on the same network. Since these are both virtualised (i.e share the same bandwidth, don't provide any additional resilience, etc) I'm curious about why you'd want two VIFs in this configuration ? From: shihanzhang [mailto:ayshihanzh...@126.com] Sent: 24 January 2014 03:22 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network I am a beginer of nova, there is a problem which has confused me, in the latest version, it not allowed to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network, but allowed to add a VIF that it network is same with a existed VIF'network, there is the use case that a vm with two VIF in the same network, but why not allow to create the vm directly with two VIF in the same network? ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network
On 01/24/2014 08:33 AM, CARVER, PAUL wrote: I agree that I’d like to see a set of use cases for this. This is the second time in as many days that I’ve heard about a desire to have such a thing but I still don’t think I understand any use cases adequately. In the physical world it makes perfect sense, LACP, MLT, Etherchannel/Portchannel, etc. In the virtual world I need to see a detailed description of one or more use cases. Shihanzhang, why don’t you start up an Etherpad or something and start putting together a list of one or more practical use cases in which the same VM would benefit from multiple virtual connections to the same network. If it really makes sense we ought to be able to clearly describe it. One obvious case is if we ever support SR-IOV NIC passthrough. Since that is essentially real hardware, all the physical world reasons still apply. Chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova]Why not allow to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same network
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 02:11:02PM +, Day, Phil wrote: I agree its oddly inconsistent (you'll get used to that over time ;-) - but to me it feels more like the validation is missing on the attach that that the create should allow two VIFs on the same network. Since these are both virtualised (i.e share the same bandwidth, don't provide any additional resilience, etc) I'm curious about why you'd want two VIFs in this configuration ? Whether it has benefits or not will depend on the type of network configuration being used. If the guest virtual NICs are connected to a physical NIC that is an SRIOV device using macvtap, then there is certainly potential for performance benefits. ie each of the VIFs could be connected to a separate virtual function on the physical NIC, and so benefit from separate transmit queues in the hardware. NB, this is somewhat academic wrt openstack though, since I don't believe any of the NIC configs we support can do this kind of cleverness macvtap configs. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
