[Openstack-operators] improve perfomance Neutron VXLAN
Mathieu Rohon
mathieu.rohon at gmail.com
Fri Jan 23 13:00:32 UTC 2015
Hi pedro,
This thread might interest you :
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-January/054953.html
Mathieu
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Pedro Sousa <pgsousa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Slawek,
>
> I've tried with 8950/9000 but I had problems communicating with external
> hosts from the VM.
>
> Regards,
> Pedro Sousa
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Sławek Kapłoński <slawek at kaplonski.pl>
> wrote:
>
>> As I wrote earlier, for me it is best to have 9000 on hosts and 8950 on
>> instances. Then I have full speed between instances. With lower mtu on
>> instances I have about 2-2.5 Gbps and I saw that vhost-net process on host
>> is using 100 of 1 cpu core. I'm using libvirt with kvm - maybe You are
>> using something else and it will be different on Your hosts.
>>
>> Slawek Kaplonski
>>
>>
>> W dniu 22.01.2015 o 20:45, Pedro Sousa pisze:
>>
>>> Hi Slawek,
>>>
>>> I've tried several options but that one that seems to work better is MTU
>>> 1450 on VM and MTU 1600 on the host. With MTU 1400 on the VM I would get
>>> freezes and timeouts.
>>>
>>> Still I get about 2.2Gbit/Sec while in the host I get 9 Gbit/Sec, do you
>>> think is normal?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pedro Sousa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Sławek Kapłoński <slawek at kaplonski.pl
>>> <mailto:slawek at kaplonski.pl>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> In dnsmasq file in neutron will be ok. It will then force option 26
>>> on vm.
>>> You can also manually change it on vms to tests.
>>>
>>> Slawek Kaplonski
>>>
>>> W dniu 22.01.2015 o 17:06, Pedro Sousa pisze:
>>>
>>> Hi Slawek,
>>>
>>> I'll test this, did you change the mtu on dnsmasq file in
>>> /etc/neutron/?
>>> Or do you need to change on other places too?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pedro Sousa
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Sławek Kapłoński
>>> <slawek at kaplonski.pl <mailto:slawek at kaplonski.pl>
>>> <mailto:slawek at kaplonski.pl <mailto:slawek at kaplonski.pl>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have similar and I also got something like 2-2,5Gbps
>>> between vms.
>>> When I
>>> change it to 8950 on vms (so in neutron conf) (50 less then
>>> on
>>> hosts) then it
>>> is much better.
>>> You can check that probably when You make test between vms
>>> on host
>>> there is
>>> process called "vhost-net" (or something like that) and it
>>> uses 100%
>>> of one cpu
>>> core and that is imho bottleneck
>>>
>>> Slawek Kaplonski
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 04:12:02PM +0000, Pedro Sousa wrote:
>>> > Hi Slawek,
>>> >
>>> > I have dhcp-option-force=26,1400 in neutron-dnsmasq.conf
>>> and
>>> MTU=9000 on
>>> > network-interfaces in the operating system.
>>> >
>>> > Do I need to change somewhere else?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Pedro Sousa
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Sławek Kapłoński
>>> <slawek at kaplonski.pl <mailto:slawek at kaplonski.pl>
>>> <mailto:slawek at kaplonski.pl <mailto:slawek at kaplonski.pl>>>
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hello,
>>> > >
>>> > > Try to set bigger jumbo framse on hosts and vms. For
>>> example on
>>> hosts You
>>> > > can
>>> > > set 9000 and then 8950 and check then. It helps me
>>> with similar
>>> problem.
>>> > >
>>> > > Slawek Kaplonski
>>> > >
>>> > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:22:50PM +0000, Pedro Sousa
>>> wrote:
>>> > > > Hi all,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > is there a way to improve network performance on my
>>> instances
>>> with
>>> > > VXLAN? I
>>> > > > changed the MTU on physical interfaces to 1600, still
>>> performance it's
>>> > > > lower than in baremetal hosts:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > *On Instance:*
>>> > > >
>>> > > > [root at vms6-149a71e8-1f2a-4d6e-__bba4-e70dfa42b289
>>> ~]# iperf3 -s
>>> > > >
>>> ------------------------------__-----------------------------
>>> > > > Server listening on 5201
>>> > > >
>>> ------------------------------__-----------------------------
>>>
>>> > > > Accepted connection from 10.0.66.35, port 42900
>>> > > > [ 5] local 10.0.66.38 port 5201 connected to
>>> 10.0.66.35 port
>>> 42901
>>> > > > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
>>> > > > [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 189 MBytes 1.59 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 245 MBytes 2.06 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 213 MBytes 1.78 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 227 MBytes 1.91 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 235 MBytes 1.97 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 235 MBytes 1.97 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 234 MBytes 1.96 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 235 MBytes 1.97 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 244 MBytes 2.05 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 234 MBytes 1.97 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 10.00-10.04 sec 9.30 MBytes 1.97 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> > > > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
>>> Retr
>>> > > > [ 5] 0.00-10.04 sec 2.25 GBytes 1.92
>>> Gbits/sec 43
>>> > > sender
>>> > > > [ 5] 0.00-10.04 sec 2.25 GBytes 1.92 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > receiver
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > *On baremetal:*
>>> > > > iperf3 -s
>>> > > > warning: this system does not seem to support IPv6 -
>>> trying IPv4
>>> > > >
>>> ------------------------------__-----------------------------
>>> > > > Server listening on 5201
>>> > > >
>>> ------------------------------__-----------------------------
>>>
>>> > > > Accepted connection from 172.16.21.4, port 51408
>>> > > > [ 5] local 172.16.21.5 port 5201 connected to
>>> 172.16.21.4
>>> port 51409
>>> > > > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
>>> > > > [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 1.02 GBytes 8.76 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 1.07 GBytes 9.23 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 1.08 GBytes 9.29 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 1.08 GBytes 9.27 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 1.08 GBytes 9.27 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 1.08 GBytes 9.28 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 1.08 GBytes 9.28 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 1.08 GBytes 9.29 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 1.08 GBytes 9.28 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 1.08 GBytes 9.29 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > [ 5] 10.00-10.04 sec 42.8 MBytes 9.31 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> > > > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
>>> Retr
>>> > > > [ 5] 0.00-10.04 sec 10.8 GBytes 9.23
>>> Gbits/sec 95
>>> > > sender
>>> > > > [ 5] 0.00-10.04 sec 10.8 GBytes 9.22 Gbits/sec
>>> > > > receiver
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Thanks,
>>> > > > Pedro Sousa
>>> > >
>>> > > > _________________________________________________
>>> > > > OpenStack-operators mailing list
>>> > > > OpenStack-operators at lists.__openstack.org
>>> <mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
>>> <mailto:OpenStack-operators at __lists.openstack.org
>>> <mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>>
>>> > > >
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/__cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/__
>>> openstack-operators
>>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
>>> openstack-operators>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pozdrawiam
>>> Sławek Kapłonski
>>> slawek at kaplonski.pl <mailto:slawek at kaplonski.pl>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Pozdrawiam
>> Sławek Kapłonski
>> slawek at kaplonski.pl
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20150123/6283b94e/attachment.html>
More information about the OpenStack-operators
mailing list