Open Stack

It appears that you don't have caching enabled, then. Without enabling
caching, Fernet performance is well known to be terrible, which would
explain your benchmark results. If you run a similar benchmark with
caching, I'd be eager to see the new configuration and benchmark results.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 8:16 AM 王玺源 <wangxiyuan1007 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Dolph:
>
> We made the keystone.conf same with the example.
>
> [token]
>
> provider = fernet
>
>
>
> [fernet_tokens]   //all configuration is default
>
> #
>
> # From keystone
>
> #
>
>
>
> # Directory containing Fernet token keys. (string value)
>
> #key_repository = /etc/keystone/fernet-keys/
>
>
>
> # This controls how many keys are held in rotation by keystone-manage
>
> # fernet_rotate before they are discarded. The default value of 3 means
> that
>
> # keystone will maintain one staged key, one primary key, and one secondary
>
> # key. Increasing this value means that additional secondary keys will be
> kept
>
> # in the rotation. (integer value)
>
> # max_active_keys = 3
> Dolph Mathews <dolph.mathews at gmail.com>于2017年2月17日 周五上午7:22写道：
>
> Thank you for the data and your test scripts! As Lance and Stanek already
> alluded, Fernet performance is very sensitive to keystone's configuration.
> Can your share your keystone.conf as well?
>
> I'll also be in Atlanta and would love to talk Fernet performance, even if
> we don't have a formal time slot on the schedule.
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:08 AM Lance Bragstad <lbragstad at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> In addition to what David said, have you played around with caching in
> keystone [0]? After the initial implementation of fernet landed, we
> attempted to make it the default token provider. We ended up reverting the
> default back to uuid because we hit several issues. Around the Liberty and
> Mitaka timeframe, we reworked the caching implementation to fix those
> issues and improve overall performance of all token formats, especially
> fernet.
>
> We have a few different performance perspectives available, too. Some were
> run nearly 2 years ago [1] and some are run today [2]. Since the Newton
> release, we've made drastic improvements to the overall structure of the
> token provider [3] [4] [5]. At the very least, it should make understanding
> keystone's approach to tokens easier. Maintaining out-of-tree token
> providers should also be easier since we cleaned up a lot of the interfaces
> that affect developers maintaining their own providers.
>
> We can try and set something up at the PTG. We are getting pretty tight
> for time slots, but I'm sure we can find some time to work through the
> issues you're seeing (also, feel free to hop into #openstack-keystone on
> freenode if you want to visit prior to the PTG).
>
>
> [0]
> https://docs.openstack.org/developer/keystone/configuration.html#caching-layer
> [1] http://dolphm.com/benchmarking-openstack-keystone-token-formats/
> [2] https://github.com/lbragstad/keystone-performance
> [3]
> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/keystone+branch:master+topic:make-fernet-default
> [4]
> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/keystone+branch:master+topic:cleanup-token-provider
> [5]
> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/keystone-specs/specs/keystone/ocata/token-provider-cleanup.html
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:44 AM, David Stanek <dstanek at dstanek.com> wrote:
>
> On 15-Feb 18:16, 王玺源 wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >   PKI/PKIZ token has been removed from keystone in Ocata. But recently
> our
> > production team did some test about PKI and Fernet token (With Keystone
> > Mitaka). They found that in large-scale production environment, Fernet
> > token's performance is not as good as PKI. Here is the test data:
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12cL9bq9EARjZw9IS3YxVmYsGfdauM25NzZcdzPE0fvY/edit?usp=sharing
>
> This is nice to see. Thanks.
>
>
> >
> > From the data, we can see that:
> > 1. In large-scale concurrency test, PKI is much faster than Fernet.
> > 2. PKI token revoke can't immediately make the token invalid. So it has
> the
> > revoke issue.  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OSSN/OSSN-0062
> >
> > But in our production team's opinion, the revoke issue is a small
> problem,
> > and can be avoided by some periphery ways. (More detail solution could be
> > explained by them in the follow email).
> > They think that the performance issue is the most important thing. Maybe
> > you can see that in some production environment, performance is the first
> > thing to be considered.
>
> I'd like to hear solutions to this if you have already come up with
> them. This issue, however, isn't the only one that led us to remove PKI
> tokens.
>
> >
> > So here I'd like to ask you, especially the keystone experts:
> > 1. Is there any chance to bring PKI/PKIZ back to Keystone?
>
> I would guess that, at least in the immediate future, we would not want
> to put it back into keystone until someone can fix the issues. Also
> ideally running the token provider in production.
>
>
> > 2. Has Fernet token improved the performance during these releases? Or
> any
> > road map so that we can make sure Fernet is better than PKI in all side.
> > Otherwise, I don't think that remove PKI in Ocata is the right way. Or
> > even, we can keep the PKI token in Keystone for more one or two cycles,
> > then remove it once Fernet is stable enough.
> > 3. Since I'll be in Atalanta next week, if it is possible, I'd like to
> > bring this topic to Keystone PTG. can I?
>
> Sure. We have a pretty packed calendar, but I'm sure you could steal a
> few minutes somewhere.
>
>
> >
> > It is a real production problem and I really need your feedback.
> >
>
> Have you tried playing with the crypt_strength[1]? If the slowness is
> the crypto (which it was in the past) then you can tune it a little bit.
> Another option might be to keep the same token flow and find a faster
> method for hashing a token.
>
> 1.
> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/keystone/tree/etc/keystone.conf.sample#n67
>
>
> --
> david stanek
> web: https://dstanek.com
> twitter: https://twitter.com/dstanek
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> --
> -Dolph
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-- 
-Dolph
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170221/c686f647/attachment.html>