Open Stack

Awesome i will see if I can make it, maybe u guys can send out a summary afterwards? Glad to see performance work (and the associated tooling) get the attention it deserves!

Sent from my really tiny device...

On Dec 18, 2013, at 5:32 AM, "Neependra Khare" <nkhare at redhat.com<mailto:nkhare at redhat.com>> wrote:

On 12/17/2013 05:19 PM, Neependra Khare wrote:
On 12/17/2013 12:48 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:

Another thing that u might consider.

The rally project[1] has been using a tool called tomograph[2] and making
tomograph better and it has been collecting some similar use-cases and
test-cases around various openstack performance related work (also it has
been working on defining said methodology, how to setup for performance
tests, and more...).

Some examples of various keystone/nova/glance related calls (see the low
level trace information gathered there):


Thanks Josh.
We have started a blueprint to have keystone related benchmarks
with Rally.
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/rally/+spec/keystone-benchmark
We are planning to have g+ hangout tomorrow (Dec 19, 2013)  to discuss
Keystone related benchmarks with Rally at 11:00 EST
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Rally_Keystone_Benchmarks

Feel free to join it. Just update your name on above mentioned etherpad
under Interested participants section.

Regards,
Neependra



Regards,
Neependra

-
https://raw.github.com/stackforge/tomograph/master/doc/screenshots/zipkin-g
lance-image-list.png
- http://www.slideshare.net/mirantis/rally-benchmarkingatscale/24

It would seem like some of our scripts/test-cases would actually fit quite
nicely into rally instead of being one-offs.

I know that boris-42 would appreciate a single solution instead of
one-offs. It seems like rally is becoming that.

[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Rally
[2] https://github.com/stackforge/tomograph

Jump in IRC and the rally team I'm sure would love to chat
(#openstack-rally, freenode).

-Josh

On 12/16/13, 10:00 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com><mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:



On 12/16/2013 02:25 AM, Neependra Khare wrote:


Hi Jay,

Thanks for your comments.  Please find my reply in-line.

On 12/14/2013 12:58 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:


I have listed down the methodology I'll be following for this test:-


https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/KeystonePerformance#Identify_CPU.2C_Dis
k.2C_Memory.2C_Database_bottlenecks



My first suggestion would be to rework the performance benchmarking
work items to have clearer indications regarding *what are the metrics
being tested* in each work item.


Performance characterization is an iterative process. I am open to
rework on the work-items as we
go along.


Right, but the smaller the work item, the easier the iterations are :)



For example, the first work item is "Identify CPU, Disk, Memory, and
Database Bottlenecks".

The first test case listed is:

"Test #1, Create users in parallel and look for CPU, disk or memory
bottleneck."

I think that is a bit too big of an initial bite ;)

Instead, it may be more effective to instead break down the
performance analysis based on the metrics you wish to test and the
relative conclusions you wish your work to generate.

For example, consider this possible work item:

"Determine the maximum number of token authentication calls that can
be performed"


Tests like these would be very subjective to the hardware and software
resources we have like
no. of CPUs, Memcahced etc.  Its is very important to see if we can find
any obvious bottlenecks.


No, that's not my point. When you have a specific metric like "number of
token authentication calls that can be performed in X minutes", you can
iterate based on singular changes -- not to the hardware, but to the
configuration of the software. If you are trying to solve the problem of
"where are my bottlenecks", without first identifying what metrics will
describe how a piece of software scales, then you are putting the cart
before the horse.



Within that work item, you can then further expand a testing matrix,
like so:

* Measure the total number of token authentication calls performed by
a single client against a single-process, Python-only Keystone server
* Measure the total number of token authentication calls performed by
a single client against a multi-process Keystone server running inside
an nginx or Apache container server -- with 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32
pre-forked processes


Any pointers on configuring multi-process Keystone would be helpful. I
see a method
mentioned in "Run N keystone Processes" section of following:-

http://blog.gridcentric.com/bid/318277/Boosting-OpenStack-s-Parallel-Perf
ormance"


Absolutely. You can spawn Keystone server in multiple pre-forked Apache
processes by configuring Keystone in an Apache vhost. Some general docs:

http://docs.openstack.org/developer/keystone/apache-httpd.html

Take a look at provision.sh script in eNovance's keystone-wsgi-apache
repo:

https://github.com/enovance/keystone-wsgi-apache/blob/master/provision.sh#
L152



* Measure the above using increasing numbers of concurrent clients --
10, 50, 100, 500, 1000.

There's, of course, nothing wrong with measuring things like CPU, disk
and I/O performance during tests, however there should be a clear
metric that is being measured for each test.


Agreed. Let me start collecting results from the tests you suggested
above and I mentioned
on the wiki. Once we have those, we can rework on the work-items. Does
that sound OK ?


Sure, absolutely. I'm just big on first defining the metrics by which
scale can be described, and THEN describing the test variations and
iterations...



My second suggestion would be to drop the requirement of using RDO --
or any version of OpenStack for that matter.


My end goal would be to have scripts that one can run on any of the
OpenStack distribution.
RDO is mentioned here an example here.


Probably worth just removing the RDO reference entirely from the wiki,
since, as you agree below, benchmarking Keystone actually does not
require installing OpenStack as a whole at all...

Best,
-jay



In these kinds of tests, where you are not measuring the integrated
performance of multiple endpoints, but are instead measuring the
performance of a single endpoint (Keystone), there's no reason, IMHO,
to install all of OpenStack. Installing and serving the Keystone
server (and it's various drivers) is all that is needed. The fewer
"balls up in the air" during a benchmarking session, the fewer
side-effects are around to effect the outcome of the benchmark...


Agreed. As mentioned in following I suggested to install just Keystone
on the instances, where the tests would be performed :-

https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/KeystonePerformance#Test_.231.2C_Create_u
sers_in_parallel_and_look_for_CPU.2C_disk_or_memory_bottleneck.


Thanks,
Neependra




Best,
-jay



_______________________________________________
Mailing list:
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
Post to     : openstack at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack at lists.openstack.org>
Unsubscribe :
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack


_______________________________________________
Mailing list:
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
Post to     : openstack at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack at lists.openstack.org>
Unsubscribe :
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20131220/06e00738/attachment.html>