| 2016-03-23 12:53:39 |
Miguel Angel Ajo |
bug |
|
|
added bug |
| 2016-03-23 13:34:31 |
Henry Gessau |
neutron: status |
New |
Confirmed |
|
| 2016-03-23 13:34:35 |
Henry Gessau |
neutron: importance |
Undecided |
Wishlist |
|
| 2016-03-23 13:35:26 |
Henry Gessau |
tags |
|
qos |
|
| 2016-03-30 08:46:58 |
Miguel Angel Ajo |
summary |
[RFE] Minimum bandwidth support |
[RFE] Minimum bandwidth support (ingress) |
|
| 2016-03-30 08:49:55 |
Miguel Angel Ajo |
description |
Minimum bandwidth support (opposed to bandwidth limiting), guarantees a port minimum bandwidth when it's neighbours are consuming egress or ingress traffic and can be throttled in favor of the guaranteed port.
Strict minimum bandwidth support requires scheduling cooperation, to avoid physical interfaces overcommit. This RFE could be probably split in two phases: strict, and non strict.
Use cases
========
NFV/telcos are interested in this type of rules (specially strict), to make sure functions don't overcommit computes, and that any spawn of the same architecture will perform exactly as expected.
CSP could make use of it to provide guaranteed bandwidth for streaming, etc...
Notes
=====
Technologies like SR-IOV support that, and OVS & Linux bridge can be configured to support this type of service. Where in OvS it requires to use veth ports between bridges instead of patch ports, it introduces a performance overhead of a ~20%. Supporting this kind of rule for OvS agents must be made optional, so the administrators can choose it only when they really need it.
SR-IOV seems not to incur in any performance penalty. |
Minimum bandwidth support (opposed to bandwidth limiting), guarantees a port minimum bandwidth when it's neighbours are consuming egress or ingress traffic and can be throttled in favor of the guaranteed port.
Strict minimum bandwidth support requires scheduling cooperation, to avoid physical interfaces overcommit. This RFE could be probably split in two phases: strict, and non strict.
Use cases
========
NFV/telcos are interested in this type of rules (specially strict), to make sure functions don't overcommit computes, and that any spawn of the same architecture will perform exactly as expected.
CSP could make use of it to provide guaranteed bandwidth for streaming, etc...
Notes
=====
Technologies like SR-IOV support that, and OVS & Linux bridge can be configured to support this type of service. Where in OvS it requires to use veth ports between bridges instead of patch ports, it introduces a performance overhead of a ~20%. Supporting this kind of rule for OvS agents must be made optional, so the administrators can choose it only when they really need it.
SR-IOV seems not to incur in any performance penalty.
This RFE title has been corrected to tackle only with instance-egress traffic, as per comments #1 and #2 of this rfe/bug, ingress is problematic, and even if it can be tackled, it's a much more complex beast, @armax knows about it [1]
[1] https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2015/summit-videos/presentation/supporting-network-bandwidth-guarantees-with-openstack-an-implementation-perspective |
|
| 2016-03-30 08:50:37 |
Miguel Angel Ajo |
description |
Minimum bandwidth support (opposed to bandwidth limiting), guarantees a port minimum bandwidth when it's neighbours are consuming egress or ingress traffic and can be throttled in favor of the guaranteed port.
Strict minimum bandwidth support requires scheduling cooperation, to avoid physical interfaces overcommit. This RFE could be probably split in two phases: strict, and non strict.
Use cases
========
NFV/telcos are interested in this type of rules (specially strict), to make sure functions don't overcommit computes, and that any spawn of the same architecture will perform exactly as expected.
CSP could make use of it to provide guaranteed bandwidth for streaming, etc...
Notes
=====
Technologies like SR-IOV support that, and OVS & Linux bridge can be configured to support this type of service. Where in OvS it requires to use veth ports between bridges instead of patch ports, it introduces a performance overhead of a ~20%. Supporting this kind of rule for OvS agents must be made optional, so the administrators can choose it only when they really need it.
SR-IOV seems not to incur in any performance penalty.
This RFE title has been corrected to tackle only with instance-egress traffic, as per comments #1 and #2 of this rfe/bug, ingress is problematic, and even if it can be tackled, it's a much more complex beast, @armax knows about it [1]
[1] https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2015/summit-videos/presentation/supporting-network-bandwidth-guarantees-with-openstack-an-implementation-perspective |
Minimum bandwidth support (opposed to bandwidth limiting), guarantees a port minimum bandwidth when it's neighbours are consuming egress traffic and can be throttled in favor of the guaranteed port.
Strict minimum bandwidth support requires scheduling cooperation, to avoid physical interfaces overcommit. This RFE could be probably split in two phases: strict, and non strict.
Use cases
========
NFV/telcos are interested in this type of rules (specially strict), to make sure functions don't overcommit computes, and that any spawn of the same architecture will perform exactly as expected.
CSP could make use of it to provide guaranteed bandwidth for streaming, etc...
Notes
=====
Technologies like SR-IOV support that, and OVS & Linux bridge can be configured to support this type of service. Where in OvS it requires to use veth ports between bridges instead of patch ports, it introduces a performance overhead of a ~20%. Supporting this kind of rule for OvS agents must be made optional, so the administrators can choose it only when they really need it.
SR-IOV seems not to incur in any performance penalty.
This RFE title has been corrected to tackle only with instance-egress traffic, as per comments #1 and #2 of this rfe/bug, ingress is problematic, and even if it can be tackled, it's a much more complex beast, @armax knows about it [1]
[1] https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2015/summit-videos/presentation/supporting-network-bandwidth-guarantees-with-openstack-an-implementation-perspective |
|
| 2016-03-30 11:41:06 |
Miguel Angel Ajo |
summary |
[RFE] Minimum bandwidth support (ingress) |
[RFE] Minimum bandwidth support (egress) |
|
| 2016-04-13 07:46:25 |
Mathieu Rohon |
bug |
|
|
added subscriber Mathieu Rohon |
| 2016-04-20 12:23:22 |
Miguel Angel Ajo |
tags |
qos |
qos rfe |
|
| 2016-05-04 09:51:32 |
Rodolfo Alonso |
neutron: assignee |
|
Rodolfo Alonso (rodolfo-alonso-hernandez) |
|
| 2016-05-06 09:31:35 |
Miguel Angel Ajo |
description |
Minimum bandwidth support (opposed to bandwidth limiting), guarantees a port minimum bandwidth when it's neighbours are consuming egress traffic and can be throttled in favor of the guaranteed port.
Strict minimum bandwidth support requires scheduling cooperation, to avoid physical interfaces overcommit. This RFE could be probably split in two phases: strict, and non strict.
Use cases
========
NFV/telcos are interested in this type of rules (specially strict), to make sure functions don't overcommit computes, and that any spawn of the same architecture will perform exactly as expected.
CSP could make use of it to provide guaranteed bandwidth for streaming, etc...
Notes
=====
Technologies like SR-IOV support that, and OVS & Linux bridge can be configured to support this type of service. Where in OvS it requires to use veth ports between bridges instead of patch ports, it introduces a performance overhead of a ~20%. Supporting this kind of rule for OvS agents must be made optional, so the administrators can choose it only when they really need it.
SR-IOV seems not to incur in any performance penalty.
This RFE title has been corrected to tackle only with instance-egress traffic, as per comments #1 and #2 of this rfe/bug, ingress is problematic, and even if it can be tackled, it's a much more complex beast, @armax knows about it [1]
[1] https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2015/summit-videos/presentation/supporting-network-bandwidth-guarantees-with-openstack-an-implementation-perspective |
Minimum bandwidth support (opposed to bandwidth limiting), guarantees a port minimum bandwidth when it's neighbours are consuming egress traffic and can be throttled in favor of the guaranteed port.
Strict minimum bandwidth support requires scheduling cooperation, to avoid physical interfaces overcommit. This RFE addresses only the hypervisor side of it. Scheduling cooperation will be addressed in a separate RFE,
this work is a pre-requisite for the 2nd step.
Use cases
========
NFV/telcos are interested in this type of rules to make sure functions don't overcommit computes, and that any spawn of the same architecture will perform exactly as expected.
CSP could make use of it to provide guaranteed bandwidth for streaming, etc...
Notes
=====
Technologies like SR-IOV support that, and OVS & Linux bridge can be configured to support this type of service. Where in OvS it requires to use veth ports between bridges instead of patch ports, it introduces a performance overhead of a ~20%. Supporting this kind of rule for OvS agents must be made optional, so the administrators can choose it only when they really need it.
SR-IOV seems not to incur in any performance penalty.
This RFE title has been corrected to tackle only with instance-egress traffic, as per comments #1 and #2 of this rfe/bug, ingress is problematic, and even if it can be tackled, it's a much more complex beast, @armax knows about it [1]
[1] https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2015/summit-videos/presentation/supporting-network-bandwidth-guarantees-with-openstack-an-implementation-perspective |
|
| 2016-05-06 09:47:08 |
Miguel Angel Ajo |
description |
Minimum bandwidth support (opposed to bandwidth limiting), guarantees a port minimum bandwidth when it's neighbours are consuming egress traffic and can be throttled in favor of the guaranteed port.
Strict minimum bandwidth support requires scheduling cooperation, to avoid physical interfaces overcommit. This RFE addresses only the hypervisor side of it. Scheduling cooperation will be addressed in a separate RFE,
this work is a pre-requisite for the 2nd step.
Use cases
========
NFV/telcos are interested in this type of rules to make sure functions don't overcommit computes, and that any spawn of the same architecture will perform exactly as expected.
CSP could make use of it to provide guaranteed bandwidth for streaming, etc...
Notes
=====
Technologies like SR-IOV support that, and OVS & Linux bridge can be configured to support this type of service. Where in OvS it requires to use veth ports between bridges instead of patch ports, it introduces a performance overhead of a ~20%. Supporting this kind of rule for OvS agents must be made optional, so the administrators can choose it only when they really need it.
SR-IOV seems not to incur in any performance penalty.
This RFE title has been corrected to tackle only with instance-egress traffic, as per comments #1 and #2 of this rfe/bug, ingress is problematic, and even if it can be tackled, it's a much more complex beast, @armax knows about it [1]
[1] https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2015/summit-videos/presentation/supporting-network-bandwidth-guarantees-with-openstack-an-implementation-perspective |
Minimum bandwidth support (opposed to bandwidth limiting), guarantees a port minimum bandwidth when it's neighbours are consuming egress traffic and can be throttled in favor of the guaranteed port.
Strict minimum bandwidth support requires scheduling cooperation, to avoid physical interfaces overcommit. This RFE addresses only the hypervisor side of it. Scheduling cooperation will be addressed in a separate RFE [2] , this work is a pre-requisite for the 2nd step.
Use cases
=========
NFV/telcos are interested in this type of rules to make sure functions don't overcommit computes, and that any spawn of the same architecture will perform exactly as expected. This RFE is a prerequisite for [1].
Which in the mean time will provide a best effort guarantee on minimum bandwidth.
CSP could make use of it to provide guaranteed bandwidth for streaming, etc...
Notes
=====
Technologies like SR-IOV support that, and OVS & Linux bridge can be configured to support this type of service. Where in OvS it requires to use veth ports between bridges instead of patch ports, it introduces a performance overhead of a ~20%. Supporting this kind of rule for OvS agents must be made optional, so the administrators can choose it only when they really need it.
SR-IOV seems not to incur in any performance penalty.
This RFE title has been corrected to tackle only with instance-egress traffic, as per comments #1 and #2 of this rfe/bug, ingress is problematic, and even if it can be tackled, it's a much more complex beast, @armax knows about it [1]
[1] https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2015/summit-videos/presentation/supporting-network-bandwidth-guarantees-with-openstack-an-implementation-perspective
[2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1578989 |
|
| 2016-05-19 09:29:31 |
OpenStack Infra |
neutron: status |
Confirmed |
In Progress |
|
| 2016-05-19 20:55:53 |
Armando Migliaccio |
neutron: status |
In Progress |
Confirmed |
|
| 2016-05-26 17:33:14 |
Armando Migliaccio |
neutron: status |
Confirmed |
Triaged |
|
| 2016-05-27 18:09:27 |
Armando Migliaccio |
tags |
qos rfe |
qos rfe-approved |
|
| 2016-05-27 18:09:33 |
Armando Migliaccio |
neutron: milestone |
|
newton-1 |
|
| 2016-06-01 09:25:58 |
OpenStack Infra |
neutron: status |
Triaged |
In Progress |
|
| 2016-06-03 19:34:58 |
Armando Migliaccio |
neutron: milestone |
newton-1 |
newton-2 |
|
| 2016-06-07 14:29:01 |
Francisco Garcia |
bug |
|
|
added subscriber Francisco Garcia |
| 2016-07-15 23:34:35 |
Armando Migliaccio |
neutron: milestone |
newton-2 |
newton-3 |
|
| 2016-08-29 14:02:59 |
OpenStack Infra |
neutron: assignee |
Rodolfo Alonso (rodolfo-alonso-hernandez) |
David Shaughnessy (david-shaughnessy) |
|
| 2016-08-29 18:26:19 |
OpenStack Infra |
neutron: assignee |
David Shaughnessy (david-shaughnessy) |
Ihar Hrachyshka (ihar-hrachyshka) |
|
| 2016-08-30 12:08:34 |
Ihar Hrachyshka |
neutron: assignee |
Ihar Hrachyshka (ihar-hrachyshka) |
Rodolfo Alonso (rodolfo-alonso-hernandez) |
|
| 2016-09-01 07:54:54 |
OpenStack Infra |
neutron: assignee |
Rodolfo Alonso (rodolfo-alonso-hernandez) |
Ihar Hrachyshka (ihar-hrachyshka) |
|
| 2016-09-01 20:12:20 |
Armando Migliaccio |
neutron: milestone |
newton-3 |
newton-rc1 |
|
| 2016-09-02 06:22:29 |
OpenStack Infra |
neutron: assignee |
Ihar Hrachyshka (ihar-hrachyshka) |
Hirofumi Ichihara (ichihara-hirofumi) |
|
| 2016-09-08 14:48:43 |
OpenStack Infra |
neutron: assignee |
Hirofumi Ichihara (ichihara-hirofumi) |
Rodolfo Alonso (rodolfo-alonso-hernandez) |
|
| 2016-09-13 00:53:36 |
Armando Migliaccio |
neutron: status |
In Progress |
Fix Released |
|
| 2017-02-02 00:53:35 |
Ihar Hrachyshka |
tags |
qos rfe-approved |
neutron-proactive-backport-potential qos rfe-approved |
|
| 2017-02-10 17:22:02 |
Armando Migliaccio |
neutron: milestone |
newton-rc1 |
pike-1 |
|
| 2017-02-10 17:22:05 |
Armando Migliaccio |
neutron: status |
Fix Released |
In Progress |
|
| 2017-05-18 01:20:09 |
Armando Migliaccio |
neutron: milestone |
pike-1 |
pike-2 |
|
| 2017-12-05 15:06:06 |
Slawek Kaplonski |
neutron: assignee |
Rodolfo Alonso (rodolfo-alonso-hernandez) |
|
|
| 2018-01-02 12:57:40 |
Slawek Kaplonski |
neutron: milestone |
pike-2 |
|
|
| 2018-08-30 13:28:43 |
Christophe Fontaine |
bug |
|
|
added subscriber Christophe Fontaine |
| 2018-11-08 17:46:57 |
OpenStack Infra |
neutron: assignee |
|
Rodolfo Alonso (rodolfo-alonso-hernandez) |
|
| 2022-02-23 08:11:04 |
Slawek Kaplonski |
neutron: status |
In Progress |
Fix Released |
|
