Re: [ovs-discuss] ovs-vswitchd 100% CPU in OVN scale test

> Hi Han, > > If you investigate the patch you referenced, it's fairly small. It adds an extra strcmp() call and an extra call to ofproto_port_open_type(). It's most likely the extra call to ofproto_port_open_type() is causing the extra CPU usage. Most of the processing done by calling it a second

Re: [ovs-discuss] ovs-vswitchd 100% CPU in OVN scale test

Hi All: As per the discussions/requests by Mark and Numan, I finally reverted the mtu patch (commit-id 8c319e8b73032e06c7dd1832b3b31f8a1189dcd1) on branch-2.9 and re-ran the test with 10k lports to bind on farms, with 8 LRs and 40 LS ;and results improvised. Since ovs did not go super hot, it

Re: [ovs-discuss] ovs-vswitchd 100% CPU in OVN scale test

On 02/08/2018 07:55 PM, Han Zhou wrote: On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Han Zhou > wrote: > > When doing scale testing for OVN (using https://github.com/openvswitch/ovn-scale-test), we had some interesting findings, and need some help here.

Re: [ovs-discuss] ovs-vswitchd 100% CPU in OVN scale test

Nice findings Han! Looking back at the patch that Numan sent I answered this to the report: "Yes, thanks Numan for the patch :) Another option would be that ovn-controller sets explicitly the MTU to 1450. Not sure which of the two is the best or would have less side effects. Cheers, Daniel "

[ovs-discuss] ovs-vswitchd 100% CPU in OVN scale test

When doing scale testing for OVN (using https://github.com/openvswitch/ovn-scale-test), we had some interesting findings, and need some help here. We ran the test "create and bind lports" against branch 2.9 and branch 2.6, and we found that 2.6 was must faster. With some analysis, we found out