Open Stack

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 09:57:56AM -0500, Dean Troyer wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Adam Young <ayoung at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > I wonder how much of that is Token caching.  In a typical CLI use patter,
> > a new token is created each time a client is called, with no passing of a
> > token between services.  Using a session can greatly decrease the number of
> > round trips to Keystone.
> >
> 
> Not as much as you think (or hope?).  Persistent token caching to disk will
> help some, at other expenses though.  Using --timing on OSC will show how
> much time the Identity auth round trip cost.
> 
> I don't have current numbers, the last time I instrumented OSC there were
> significant load times for some modules, so we went a good distance to
> lazy-load as much as possible.
> 
> What Dan sees WRT a persistent client process, though, is a combination of
> those two things: saving the Python loading and the Keystone round trips.

The 1.5sec overhead I eliminated doesn't actually have anything todo
with network round trips at all. Even if you turn off all network
services and just run 'openstack <somecmmand>' and let it fail due
to inability to connect it'll still have that 1.5 sec overhead. It
is all related to python runtime loading and work done during module
importing.

eg run 'unstack.sh' and then compare the main openstack client:

$ time /usr/bin/openstack server list
Discovering versions from the identity service failed when creating the password plugin. Attempting to determine version from URL.
Unable to establish connection to http://192.168.122.156:5000/v2.0/tokens

real	0m1.555s
user	0m1.407s
sys	0m0.147s

Against my client-as-a-service version:

$ time $HOME/bin/openstack server list
[Errno 111] Connection refused

real	0m0.045s
user	0m0.029s
sys	0m0.016s


I'm sure there is scope for also optimizing network traffic / round
trips, but I didn't investigate that at all.

> I have (had!) a version of DevStack that put OSC into a subprocess and
> called it via pipes to do essentially what Dan suggests.  It saves some
> time, at the expense of complexity that may or may not be worth the effort.

devstack doesn't actually really need any significant changes beyond
making sure $PATH pointed to the replacement client programs and that
the server was running - the latter could be automated as a launch on
demand thing which would limit devstack changes.

It actually doesn't technically need any devstack change - these
replacement clients could simply be put in some 3rd party git repo
and let developers who want the speed benefit simply put them in
their $PATH before running devstack.

> One thing missing is any sort of transactional control in the I/O with the
> subprocess, ie, an EOT marker.  I planned to add a -0 option (think xargs)
> to handle that but it's still down a few slots on my priority list.  Error
> handling is another problem, and at this point (for DevStack purposes
> anyway) I stopped the investigation, concluding that reliability trumped a
> few seconds saved here.

For I/O I simply replaced stdout + stderr with a new StringIO handle to
capture the data when running each command, and for error handling I
ensured the exit status was fed back & likewise stderr printed.

It is more than just a few seconds saved - almost 4 minutes, or
nearly 20% of entire time to run stack.sh on my machine


> Ultimately, this is one of the two giant nails in the coffin of continuing
> to persue CLIs in Python.  The other is co-installability. (See that
> current thread on the ML for pain points).  Both are easily solved with
> native-code-generating languages.  Go and Rust are at the top of my
> personal list here...

Regards,
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 :|