[openstack-dev] Quantum Performance
Rick Jones
rick.jones2 at hp.com
Wed Nov 7 19:08:43 UTC 2012
On 11/07/2012 10:26 AM, Juergen Brendel (jbrendel) wrote:
> This also could lead to the question whether performance related
> regression tests should be part of the standard unit test suite, or
> whether they should not be run by default. Performance tests can take a
> little while to run.
And they will be sensitive to the configuration of the systems on which
they are run. Many years ago I tried to get some basic networking
performance regression tests included in a classic "QA" set, and the
folks managing QA there blanched when I told them the performance tests
had to run without anything else going on in the environment at the
time, and that the testbed had to remain fixed.
> For this particular performance patch, I wrote a small unit test and
> included it in the default unit tests, but we probably want something
> different in the long run.
If the unit test looks for "time to create the Nth network was within
<percentage> of time to create the 1st" then it should be insensitive to
configuration and being in unit tests should be OK (modulo the running
when nothing else bit that is...). But if it is "time to create the Nth
network is less than <time>" it won't.
That is the "fun" bit about trying to get performance regression tests
going - the need for isolation and keeping the testbed fixed. And be
able to have overlapping testbeds for at least a little while if you
want to "evolve" the testbed.
rick jones
>
> Juergen
>
>
> *From:*Dan Wendlandt [mailto:dan at nicira.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 08, 2012 7:12 AM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] Quantum Performance
>
> I'd like to see something like this automated as part of the smoke
> tests, otherwise its easy for performance regressions to sneak in. I am
> not aware of this existing for a Folsom-based setup yet.
>
> This seems to be the bug we're using to track:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/quantum/+bug/1075369. I don't see a linked
> review on gerrit though. Have you not yet posted it?
>
> Dan
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Debojyoti Dutta <ddutta at gmail.com
> <mailto:ddutta at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> In fact this points to the fact that we need a Geekbench equivalent for
> openstack so that folks can submit performance numbers for their scaled
> setups.
>
> For starters, we could have simple metrics like the test here (for
> quantum) and repeat this for nova too (for starting a bunch of VMs).
>
> The submitted numbers will also be a metric for new fixes/features which
> might have performance sideeffects
>
> debo
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Edgar Magana (eperdomo)
> <eperdomo at cisco.com <mailto:eperdomo at cisco.com>> wrote:
>
> Team,
>
> We ran a comparative tests between current Quantum code and our proposed
> fix for this bug and the results are incredible, in current quantum code
> it takes around 4-5 seconds to create a network when already have over
> 600 networks created and almost 7 second when we have over 1K networks.
> See this log:
>
> Tue Nov 6 23:39:52 PST 2012
>
> Created a new network:
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> | Field | Value |
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> | admin_state_up | True |
>
> | id | e87b2f27-9308-4001-b180-228ff5ab6479 |
>
> | name | net621 |
>
> | provider:network_type | local |
>
> | provider:physical_network | |
>
> | provider:segmentation_id | |
>
> | router:external | False |
>
> | shared | False |
>
> | status | ACTIVE |
>
> | subnets | |
>
> | tenant_id | b248e18b173b4ea99873e102a0715dcd |
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> Tue Nov 6 23:39:57 PST 2012
>
> ++++
>
> Wed Nov 7 00:17:46 PST 2012
>
> Created a new network:
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> | Field | Value |
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> | admin_state_up | True |
>
> | id | 2138b910-8996-40b7-a9b4-ac090e126a2b |
>
> | name | net1032 |
>
> | provider:network_type | local |
>
> | provider:physical_network | |
>
> | provider:segmentation_id | |
>
> | router:external | False |
>
> | shared | False |
>
> | status | ACTIVE |
>
> | subnets | |
>
> | tenant_id | b248e18b173b4ea99873e102a0715dcd |
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> Wed Nov 7 00:17:53 PST 2012
>
> Wed Nov 7 00:17:53 PST 2012
>
> Created a new network:
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> | Field | Value |
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> | admin_state_up | True |
>
> | id | 29530fb3-1a1a-4c88-b9e4-954988bb8ccb |
>
> | name | net1033 |
>
> | provider:network_type | local |
>
> | provider:physical_network | |
>
> | provider:segmentation_id | |
>
> | router:external | False |
>
> | shared | False |
>
> | status | ACTIVE |
>
> | subnets | |
>
> | tenant_id | b248e18b173b4ea99873e102a0715dcd |
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> Wed Nov 7 00:18:00 PST 2012
>
> With the changes on the count call we have a constant performance
> regardless the number of networks created:
>
> Wed Nov 7 02:48:59 PST 2012
>
> Created a new network:
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> | Field | Value |
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> | admin_state_up | True |
>
> | id | 024aa164-cb7b-4683-a5ae-41f11a582529 |
>
> | name | net3847 |
>
> | provider:network_type | local |
>
> | provider:physical_network | |
>
> | provider:segmentation_id | |
>
> | router:external | False |
>
> | shared | False |
>
> | status | ACTIVE |
>
> | subnets | |
>
> | tenant_id | 5baba10045db44cdad235fff1d5e59b1 |
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> Wed Nov 7 02:49:00 PST 2012
>
> Wed Nov 7 02:49:00 PST 2012
>
> Created a new network:
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> | Field | Value |
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> | admin_state_up | True |
>
> | id | 91e7eaa3-bdc4-4705-a8b5-2b63500fd066 |
>
> | name | net3848 |
>
> | provider:network_type | local |
>
> | provider:physical_network | |
>
> | provider:segmentation_id | |
>
> | router:external | False |
>
> | shared | False |
>
> | status | ACTIVE |
>
> | subnets | |
>
> | tenant_id | 5baba10045db44cdad235fff1d5e59b1 |
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> Wed Nov 7 02:49:01 PST 2012
>
> Wed Nov 7 02:49:01 PST 2012
>
> Created a new network:
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> | Field | Value |
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> | admin_state_up | True |
>
> | id | 19fd1785-77c2-4526-9fa6-5a2c8c01b3a4 |
>
> | name | net3849 |
>
> | provider:network_type | local |
>
> | provider:physical_network | |
>
> | provider:segmentation_id | |
>
> | router:external | False |
>
> | shared | False |
>
> | status | ACTIVE |
>
> | subnets | |
>
> | tenant_id | 5baba10045db44cdad235fff1d5e59b1 |
>
> +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> Wed Nov 7 02:49:01 PST 2012
>
> We will push this code changes ASAP.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edgar
>
> *From: *Edgar Magana <eperdomo at cisco.com <mailto:eperdomo at cisco.com>>
> *Reply-To: *OpenStack List <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, November 6, 2012 9:19 AM
> *To: *OpenStack List <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>, "gkotton at redhat.com
> <mailto:gkotton at redhat.com>" <gkotton at redhat.com
> <mailto:gkotton at redhat.com>>
>
>
> *Subject: *Re: [openstack-dev] Quantum Performance
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I just want to give you an update on this topic, we opened a bug against
> this behavior:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/quantum/+bug/1075369
>
> Bug Description:
>
> In quantum when a new network is created and system checks for user's
> quota, instead of getting a count from DB object, it returns all objects
> from db and locally counts them all. It has performance implications
> when the number of objects increases.
>
> We will submit the patch ASAP.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edgar
>
> *From: *Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com <mailto:sorlando at nicira.com>>
> *Reply-To: *OpenStack List <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
> *Date: *Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:54 AM
> *To: *"gkotton at redhat.com <mailto:gkotton at redhat.com>"
> <gkotton at redhat.com <mailto:gkotton at redhat.com>>, OpenStack List
> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [openstack-dev] Quantum Performance
>
> Edgar,
>
> My suspicion here goes to the IP allocation mechanisms.
>
> Hence, I'd try to run the following tests (they should be easily
> scriptable):
>
> 1) Create networks no subnets
>
> 2) Create networks, with subnet having a small CIDR (say /28)
>
> 3) Create networks with larger CIDRs (say /24, /20, /16 etc)
>
> What behaviour do you observe in the above three cases?
>
> Also, It might be worth shutting down agent to pinpoint whether the
> problem is in Quantum service itself on in the interactions with the
> various agents.
>
> Salvatore
>
> PS: thanks for doing these tests - They've been lying on my TODO list
> for way too much time!
>
> If you don't hate me too much for the service insertion story, I'll be
> glad to buy you a drink at the next summit :)
>
> On 31 October 2012 08:37, Gary Kotton <gkotton at redhat.com
> <mailto:gkotton at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> On 10/31/2012 09:48 AM, Edgar Magana (eperdomo) wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I am running OpenStack Folsom with Quantum/OVS plugin. I am running some
> performance tests for Quantum, basically I am creating 5000 network with
> one subnet each one of them.
>
> After the first ~50 – 70 networks the system response time is slower and
> slower, to the point that it could take up to ~6 - 7 seconds to create
> just a network and the same for the subnets.
>
> Hi,
> Is the problem you are seeing with the Quantum service or the agents?
> Off the bat I would say that it is with the Quantum service. Are the
> calls done in parallel or are they done sequentially?
>
> There are a number of things that we should do to isolate this:
> 1. Check the internal logic of the network creation. Basically there are
> 3 stages:
> i. provider network treatment
> ii network create
> iii. l3 notification
> It would be interesting to see who eats the most time.
> 2. Need to profile database access
>
> Thanks
> Gary
>
>
> I would like to know if somebody else has experimented this kind of
> behavior in Quantum or even in nova-network.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edgar
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> --
> -Debo~
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dan Wendlandt
>
> Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com <http://www.nicira.com>
>
> twitter: danwendlandt
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
More information about the OpenStack-dev
mailing list