[Openstack-operators] nova-placement-api tuning

iain MacDonnell iain.macdonnell at oracle.com
Thu Mar 29 16:17:41 UTC 2018



On 03/29/2018 01:19 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, iain MacDonnell wrote:
> 
>> Looking for recommendations on tuning of nova-placement-api. I have a 
>> few moderately-sized deployments (~200 nodes, ~4k instances), 
>> currently on Ocata, and instance creation is getting very slow as they 
>> fill up.
> 
> This should be well within the capabilities of an appropriately
> installed placement service, so I reckon something is weird about
> your installation. More within.
> 
>> $ time curl http://apihost:8778/
>>
>> {"error": {"message": "The request you have made requires 
>> authentication.", "code": 401, "title": "Unauthorized"}}
>> real    0m20.656s
>> user    0m0.003s
>> sys    0m0.001s
> 
> This is good choice for trying to determine what's up because it
> avoids any interaction with the database and most of the stack of
> code: the web server answers, runs a very small percentage of the
> placement python stack and kicks out the 401. So this mostly
> indicates that socket accept is taking forever.

Well, this test connects and gets a 400 immediately:

echo | nc -v apihost 8778

so I don't think it's at at the socket level, but, I assume, the actual 
WSGI app, once the socket connection is established. I did try to choose 
a test that tickles the app, but doesn't "get too deep", as you say.


>> nova-placement-api is running under mod_wsgi with the "standard"(?) 
>> config, i.e.:
> 
> Do you recall where this configuration comes from? The settings for
> WSGIDaemonProcess are not very good and if there is some packaging
> or documentation that is settings this way it would be good to find
> it and fix it.

Good question. I could have sworn it was in the installation guide, but 
I can't find it now. It must have come from RDO, i.e.:

https://github.com/rdo-packages/nova-distgit/blob/rpm-master/nova-placement-api.conf


> Depending on what else is on the host running placement I'd boost
> processes to number of cores divided by 2, 3 or 4 and boost threads to
> around 25. Or you can leave 'threads' off and it will default to 15
> (at least in recent versions of mod wsgi).
> 
> With the settings a below you're basically saying that you want to
> handle 3 connections at a time, which isn't great, since each of
> your compute-nodes wants to talk to placement multiple times a
> minute (even when nothing is happening).

Right, that was my basic assessment too.... so now I'm trying to figure 
out how it should be tuned, but had not been able to find any 
guidelines, so thought of asking here. You've confirmed that I'm on the 
right track (or at least "a" right track).


> Tweaking the number of processes versus the number of threads
> depends on whether it appears that the processes are cpu or I/O
> bound. More threads helps when things are I/O bound.

Interesting. Will keep that in mind. Thanks!

>> ...
>>  WSGIProcessGroup nova-placement-api
>>  WSGIApplicationGroup %{GLOBAL}
>>  WSGIPassAuthorization On
>>  WSGIDaemonProcess nova-placement-api processes=3 threads=1 user=nova 
>> group=nova
>>  WSGIScriptAlias / /usr/bin/nova-placement-api
>> ...
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> Other suggestions? I'm looking at things like turning off 
>> scheduler_tracks_instance_changes, since affinity scheduling is not 
>> needed (at least so-far), but not sure that that will help with 
>> placement load (seems like it might, though?)
> 
> This won't impact the placement service itself.

It seemed like it might be causing the compute nodes to make calls to 
update allocations, so I was thinking it might reduce the load a bit, 
but I didn't confirm that. This was "clutching at straws" - hopefully I 
won't need to now.


> A while back I did some experiments with trying to overload
> placement by using the fake virt driver in devstack and wrote it up
> at  https://anticdent.org/placement-scale-fun.html
> 
> 
> The gist was that with a properly tuned placement service it was
> other parts of the system that suffered first.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that!

     ~iain




More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list