Open Stack

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