Open Stack

Carl,

By 2006 I mean the "MySQL server has gong away" error code.

The error message was still appearing when idle_timeout is set to 1 and the
quantum API server did not work in my case.

Could you perhaps share your conf file when applying this patch?

Thanks.



On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:34 AM, Carl Baldwin <carl at ecbaldwin.net> wrote:

> Hi, sorry for the delay in response.  I'm glad to look at it.
>
> Can you be more specific about the error?  Maybe paste the error your
> seeing in paste.openstack.org?  I don't find any reference to "2006".
> Maybe I'm missing something.
>
> Also, is the patch that you applied the most recent?  With the final
> version of the patch it was no longer necessary for me to set
> pool_recycle or idle_interval.
>
> Thanks,
> Carl
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Zhongyue Luo <zhongyue.nah at intel.com>
> wrote:
> > Carl, Yingjun,
> >
> > I'm still getting the 2006 error even by configuring idle_interval to 1.
> >
> > I applied the patch to the RDO havana dist on centos 6.4.
> >
> > Are there any other options I should be considering such as min/max pool
> > size or use_tpool?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Baldwin, Carl (HPCS Neutron)
> > <carl.baldwin at hp.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> This pool_recycle parameter is already configurable using the
> idle_timeout
> >> configuration variable in neutron.conf.  I tested this with a value of 1
> >> as suggested and it did get rid of the mysql server gone away messages.
> >>
> >> This is a great clue but I think I would like a long-term solution that
> >> allows the end-user to still configure this like they were before.
> >>
> >> I'm currently thinking along the lines of calling something like
> >> pool.dispose() in each child immediately after it is spawned.  I think
> >> this should invalidate all of the existing connections so that when a
> >> connection is checked out of the pool a new one will be created fresh.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?  I'll be testing.  Hopefully, I'll have a fixed patch up soon.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Carl
> >>
> >> From:  Yingjun Li <liyingjun1988 at gmail.com>
> >> Reply-To:  OpenStack Development Mailing List
> >> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> >> Date:  Thursday, September 5, 2013 8:28 PM
> >> To:  OpenStack Development Mailing List
> >> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> >> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] The three API server
> multi-worker
> >> process patches.
> >>
> >>
> >> +1 for Carl's patch, and i have abandoned my patch..
> >>
> >> About the `MySQL server gone away` problem, I fixed it by set
> >> 'pool_recycle' to 1 in db/api.py.
> >>
> >> 在 2013年9月6日星期五，Nachi Ueno 写道：
> >>
> >> Hi Folks
> >>
> >> We choose https://review.openstack.org/#/c/37131/ <-- This patch to go
> on.
> >> We are also discussing in this patch.
> >>
> >> Best
> >> Nachi
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2013/9/5 Baldwin, Carl (HPCS Neutron) <carl.baldwin at hp.com>:
> >> > Brian,
> >> >
> >> > As far as I know, no consensus was reached.
> >> >
> >> > A problem was discovered that happens when spawning multiple
> processes.
> >> > The mysql connection seems to "go away" after between 10-60 seconds in
> >> > my
> >> > testing causing a seemingly random API call to fail.  After that, it
> is
> >> > okay.  This must be due to some interaction between forking the
> process
> >> > and the mysql connection pool.  This needs to be solved but I haven't
> >> > had
> >> > the time to look in to it this week.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure if the other proposal suffers from this problem.
> >> >
> >> > Carl
> >> >
> >> > On 9/4/13 3:34 PM, "Brian Cline" <bcline at softlayer.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Was any consensus on this ever reached? It appears both reviews are
> >> >> still
> >> >>open. I'm partial to review 37131 as it attacks the problem a more
> >> >>concisely, and, as mentioned, combined the efforts of the two more
> >> >>effective patches. I would echo Carl's sentiments that it's an easy
> >> >>review minus the few minor behaviors discussed on the review thread
> >> >>today.
> >> >>
> >> >>We feel very strongly about these making it into Havana -- being
> >> >> confined
> >> >>to a single neutron-server instance per cluster or region is a huge
> >> >>bottleneck--essentially the only controller process with massive CPU
> >> >>churn in environments with constant instance churn, or sudden large
> >> >>batches of new instance requests.
> >> >>
> >> >>In Grizzly, this behavior caused addresses not to be issued to some
> >> >>instances during boot, due to quantum-server thinking the DHCP agents
> >> >>timed out and were no longer available, when in reality they were just
> >> >>backlogged (waiting on quantum-server, it seemed).
> >> >>
> >> >>Is it realistically looking like this patch will be cut for h3?
> >> >>
> >> >>--
> >> >>Brian Cline
> >> >>Software Engineer III, Product Innovation
> >> >>
> >> >>SoftLayer, an IBM Company
> >> >>4849 Alpha Rd, Dallas, TX 75244
> >> >>214.782.7876 direct  |  bcline at softlayer.com
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>-----Original Message-----
> >> >>From: Baldwin, Carl (HPCS Neutron) [mailto:carl.baldwin at hp.com]
> >> >>Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:04 PM
> >> >>To: Mark McClain
> >> >>Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> >> >>Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] The three API server multi-worker
> >> >>process patches.
> >> >>
> >> >>All,
> >> >>
> >> >>We've known for a while now that some duplication of work happened
> with
> >> >>respect to adding multiple worker processes to the neutron-server.
> >> >> There
> >> >>were a few mistakes made which led to three patches being done
> >> >>independently of each other.
> >> >>
> >> >>Can we settle on one and accept it?
> >> >>
> >> >>I have changed my patch at the suggestion of one of the other 2
> authors,
> >> >>Peter Feiner, in attempt to find common ground.  It now uses openstack
> >> >>common code and therefore it is more concise than any of the original
> >> >>three and should be pretty easy to review.  I'll admit to some bias
> >> >>toward
> >> >>my own implementation but most importantly, I would like for one of
> >> >> these
> >> >>implementations to land and start seeing broad usage in the community
> >> >>earlier than later.
> >> >>
> >> >>Carl Baldwin
> >> >>
> >> >>PS Here are the two remaining patches.  The third has been abandoned.
> >> >>
> >> >>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/37131/
> >> >>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/36487/
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>_______________________________________________
> >> >>OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> >>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
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Intel SSG/STO/DCST/CIT
> > 880 Zixing Road, Zizhu Science Park, Minhang District, 200241, Shanghai,
> > China
> > +862161166500
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > 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
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 
*Intel SSG/STO/DCST/CIT*
880 Zixing Road, Zizhu Science Park, Minhang District, 200241, Shanghai,
China
+862161166500
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131121/c0b4e4ae/attachment.html>