#opendaylight-meeting: tws

Meeting started by colindixon at 17:00:10 UTC (full logs).

Meeting summary

  1. agenda bashing (colindixon, 17:00:59)
    1. https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Tech_Work_Stream:Main#Upcoming_Meeting_Agendas (colindixon, 17:01:29)
    2. if people have ideas for future meetings, feel free to post them there or bring them up during the beginning/end of TWS calls (colindixon, 17:01:57)
    3. the other topic for today is maros and jmedved on the performance of NETCONF (colindixon, 17:05:37)

  2. netconf performance (colindixon, 17:09:58)
    1. netconf scale testing (colindixon, 17:11:23)
    2. connecting to 10,000 devices, it took about 15 minutes to connect to every device, then 5-6 inutes to make an RPC call to each device (colindixon, 17:12:13)
    3. all tests using 4 core CPU with 6G of RAM for ODL (colindixon, 17:12:23)
    4. the above was with the clustered data store (colindixon, 17:12:36)
    5. with the in-memory data store, it took ~13 minutes (vs. 15 to do the same thing) (colindixon, 17:12:55)
    6. can mount 12-12.5k devices total with 4G of RAM (colindixon, 17:13:31)
    7. colindixon asks where these scripts are running, maros says so far private, but working on getting them into integration (colindixon, 17:13:57)
    8. netconf peformance testing (colindixon, 17:14:09)
    9. netconf-test-client => netconf server in ODL => MD-SAL’s data store (in-memory) (colindixon, 17:14:26)
    10. running on 16 core, 32G RAM machine (colindixon, 17:14:34)
    11. data writes are simple L2-FIB-style data (colindixon, 17:14:58)
    12. without baching, we get to 2400 writes/sec sync and 5600 writes/sec async (colindixon, 17:15:31)
    13. could get more than 40,000 writes/sec with async and batching 1000 writes/sec (colindixon, 17:16:04)
    14. jmedved points out that this is vs. ~1000-1500 writes/sec in OpenFlow (colindixon, 17:17:02)
    15. colindixon asks why that’s the case since they should both be just writing to the data sore (colindixon, 17:17:19)
    16. jmedved says part of that was that with openflow it’s a write, read, and then write, with batching the number goes 10-12k writes per second even with openflow, which begins to look not too dissimilar (colindixon, 17:18:15)
    17. with multiple clients and batching, it goes as high as 130,000+ writes/second (colindixon, 17:18:36)
    18. how many L2-FIB-link entries could be stored in limited memory something like 1.4 million decreasing to 300k as you go from 2G RAM to 500M RAM (colindixon, 17:19:34)
    19. netconf notification performance (colindixon, 17:19:46)
    20. notifications are basically a summary of a few routes (colindixon, 17:20:11)
    21. notifications/second range from 3k notifications/second to 22k notifications/second (increase due to smaller size and reduced complexity) (colindixon, 17:21:17)
    22. end-to-end netconf performance (colindixon, 17:21:28)
    23. restconf-test-client => restconf => MD-SAL binding aware app => netconf connector => netconf device (colindixon, 17:21:59)
    24. simulated netconf device was parsing data and throwing it way (colindixon, 17:22:26)
    25. data was also a list of routes (colindixon, 17:22:33)
    26. ranging from 600 routes/second without batching, multiple clients, or asynchrony to 6000 routes/second with things tuned up (colindixon, 17:23:19)
    27. this went up to 180,000 routes/second when moving to something avoiding restconf, restconf seems to be what’s slowling things down (colindixon, 17:24:00)
    28. jmedved asks when memory constrained, what was the peformance, maros says it was pretty fast until it got to ~90% of capacity (colindixon, 17:24:24)
    29. jmedved points out that this would be useful for the honeycomb ideas (colindixon, 17:24:37)
    30. colindixon asks about memory efficiency, it looks like we use ~1.5G RAM to store ~1,000,000 extra L2 FIB entries, which is ~1.5KB/entry, which isn’t great, but probably OK of Java (colindixon, 17:27:26)
    31. jmedved asks rovarga what could be done to further optimize memory usage, rovarga said we could use custom data structures or wait for Java 9 and some of it’s features (colindixon, 17:28:15)
    32. points out we should look into this more deeply for honeycomb and what the trade-offs (colindixon, 17:31:07)
    33. there are some discussions about the relative reasons for openflow vs. netfconf performance differences (colindixon, 17:32:06)
    34. LuisGomez asks if it will get into ODL CI, Maros says yes that’s the plan (colindixon, 17:32:25)
    35. Art says he’d like to put out tutorials of how NETCONF would work so he can help out, would like somebody to reach out to him (colindixon, 17:34:17)
    36. jmedved and Art will connect (colindixon, 17:34:30)

  3. user stories (colindixon, 17:34:39)
    1. https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/UserStories:Main (julim, 17:35:16)
    2. https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/UserStories:Main the user stories we’re going to go through (colindixon, 17:35:29)
    3. julim says that this is a list of user stories around OpenDaylight and OpenStack primarily, there are a variety of roles defined (colindixon, 17:36:58)
    4. each user story is a list of scenarios that are either not yet covered by opendaylight or only partially covered (colindixon, 17:37:41)
    5. nyechiel says these are the basic table stakes for working with OpenStack (colindixon, 17:37:58)
    6. https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/File:ODL_User_Stories.pdf this is the full backlog of user stories that they have put together (colindixon, 17:38:14)
    7. edwarnicke asks about the first one, he was under the impression that security groups were working (colindixon, 17:39:32)
    8. edwarnicke asks they to check with group-based policy working (colindixon, 17:39:49)
    9. nyechiel points out that so far this is mostly looking at OVSDB, no GBP, but he’ll look at that (colindixon, 17:40:10)
    10. edwarnicke notes that he’s pretty sure that GBP supports security groups and IPv6 security groups fully working (colindixon, 17:40:42)
    11. edwarnicke believes everything here is working insofar as he knows except for DHCP/IPAM and conntracking features that require new OVS (colindixon, 17:43:15)
    12. nyechiel and julim say that this isn’t so much about these items, although they might be useful, but more that this is likely a better model for how to set priorities and focus in OpenDaylight (colindixon, 17:43:55)
    13. nyechiel and julim also point out that if we want tration with the openstack community (and their users) this is likely a good approach (colindixon, 17:44:40)
    14. https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/UserStories:Explanation put some really basic information about how to appraoch things with user stories (courtesy of julim) (colindixon, 17:45:24)
    15. Prem_ asks how this changes with the big tent approach in OpenStack (colindixon, 17:45:45)
    16. nyechiel says that’s a longer discussion, but he doesn’t thing we’re far enough along in our user story planning for that to dramatically affect us (colindixon, 17:46:24)
    17. art says he really likes this, but he’d love to see this drift even further up the stack from feature-level things to even more use cases (colindixon, 17:50:05)
    18. julim says that soudns great, and ask for any next steps (colindixon, 17:50:16)
    19. art says he is trying to come up with a first stab at well-define use caes and is hoping for feedback soon (colindixon, 17:50:35)
    20. dneary asks if there are any high-priority use cases missing from here? (colindixon, 17:51:05)
    21. edwarnicke asks about NFV use cases, he sees NFV as the end-game and OpenStack is just stepping stone (colindixon, 17:52:22)
    22. edwarnicke says one idea about how to be more story/user-oriented would be to make sure we at least acknowledge when we do meet them (colindixon, 17:55:42)
    23. vishnoianil__ says that we have a broad set of good ideas and ways forward for things, but we often don’t end up with effective places to discuss the ideas and requirements in a single place (colindixon, 17:56:28)
    24. colindixon assuems that added onto vishnoianil__’s comments is the idea that we could attach user stories to it (colindixon, 17:56:55)
    25. edwarnicke says that odlforge would help a lot as having a way to place code somewhere that could be played with (colindixon, 17:57:18)
    26. phrobb says that these other comments point to a broader thing about how to break down what we’re doing from a user-oriented, requirements-driven, approach for features (colindixon, 18:00:30)
    27. art asks how we do feature requests today, colindixon says maybe that would be a good topic for a future call (colindixon, 18:02:00)


Meeting ended at 18:02:22 UTC (full logs).

Action items

  1. (none)


People present (lines said)

  1. colindixon (87)
  2. julim (19)
  3. odl_meetbot (5)
  4. nyechiel (4)
  5. edwarnicke (2)
  6. rovarga (1)
  7. phrobb (0)
  8. tbachman (0)


Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.