Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Questions

  • Why is na-arc-5 using qdisc pfifo_fast for eth0 while all the other na-arc nodes and natest-arc nodes are using qdisc fq_codel for eth0? (see ip addr)
  • na-arc-5 is running the rh-downloader service so its interface would affect all downloads.
  • Should we change it to match with something like tc qdisc replace dev eth0 root fq_codel
  • I see ZeroWindow packets sent from na-arc-5 to nangas13 while downloading a file from nangas13 using wget.  This is na-arc-5 telling nangas13 to wiat because its network buffer is full.
    •   Is this because of qdisc pfifo_fast? No.  Changed eth0 and still seeing ZeroWait packets.
  • Why does natest-arc-3 have ens3 instead of eth0 and why is its speed 100Mb/s?
    • virsh domiflist natest-arc-3 shows the Model as rtl8139 instead of virtio
    • When I run ethtool eth0 on nar-arc-{1..5} natest-arc-{1..2} as root, the result is just Link detected: yes instead of the full report with speed while na-arc-3 shows 100Mb/s.
  • Is putting the production swarm nodes (na-arc-*) on the 10Gb/s network a good idea?  Sure it makes a fast connection to cvsan but it adds one more hop to the nangas servers (e.g. na-arc-1 -> cv-nexus9k -> cv-nexus -> nangas11)
  • When I connect to the container acralmaprod001.azurecr.io/offline-production/rh-download:2022.06.01.2022jun I get errors like unknown user 1009  I get the same errors on the natest-arc-1 container.
  • Can we put 10Gb/s NICs in the nangas nodes?
  • Why does almaportal use ens3 while almascience uses eth0?
  • What if we move the rh-downloader container to a different node?  In fact walk it through all five nodes and test.

...

  • Recreate na-arc-3 so it gets the same performance as other na-arc-* nodes which is apparently at least 10Gb/s. (pmurphy)
    1. 2022-08-11: cloned na-arc-2 and moved the clone to naasc-vs-3 (zbutcher)
    2. 2022-08-11: moved old na-arc-3 to na-arc-3-OLD (thalstea)
    3. 2022-08-11: Renamed the clone to na-arc-3.  We connected it to the swarm successfully, but it had a low connection speed.
    4. 2022-08-11: Changed the model of  na-arc-3's vnet5 interface on naasc-vs-3 from rtl8139 to virtio to match all the other na-arc-* nodes.  Performance was still poor.
    5. 2022-08-11: Changed the MTU of na-arc-3 eth0 to 1500.  This is different than all the other na-arc-* nodes but it was either that or change the p5p1.120 and br97 on naasc-vs-3 from 9000 to 1500 which my have impacted other VM guests on that host.  Performance was now reasonable.  7Gb/s.  I was expecting about 9Gb/s but perhaps the 1500 MTU is affecting performance.
    6. 2022-08-11: Joined na-arc-3 to the swarm and started services (sbooth)
  • Launch services on production swarm (sbooth)
    1. 2022-08-11: Joined na-arc-3 to the swarm and started services (sbooth)
  • Ask other ARC if they use MTU 9000 on 10Gb. (krowe)
    1. JAO uses MTU of 1500
    2. ESO uses two VM hosts running VMware with 10Gb/s and MTU of 1500
  • 2022-08-17 krowe: Changed eth0 on na-arc-5 from qdisc pfifo_fast to qdisc fq_codel to match all the other na-arc and natest-arc nodes.  This seemed to have no affect on performance.
    • tc qdisc replace dev eth0 root fq_codel

People (not necessarily team members)

...