You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@cloudstack.apache.org by Olivier GUIN <ol...@gmail.com> on 2020/04/29 10:36:41 UTC
Cloudstack 4.13 Xen 6.5 Xen 7 and XCP-NG
hello Andrija,
I have just set up a Xenserver 7.6 cluster, but I think that the license
problem will be a brake!
- Does Cloudstack work optimally with XCP-NG?
- If YES until which version?
- Will XCP-NG be compatible with the future Cloudstack 4.14?
Cheers,
Olivier
Le 24/04/2020 à 08:59, Andrija Panic a écrit :
> Not necessarily - i.e. you should still observe multiple hundredns of
> megabits/sec with default VR offering, with the routing process.
> I would pay attention to the network throttling set on XS side, as Vivek
> has already suggested in another email.
>
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 13:51, Olivier GUIN <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrija,
>>
>> You wrote that there would be my CPU / RAM ratio which would cause the
>> throttled on my interface.
>> What would be the right CPU / RAM ratio?
>>
>> If you have a recommendation.
>>
>> I think my problem comes from there ..
>> I made a VM with 4GB RAM and 4 vCPU at 2Ghz and it works very well!
>> (Linux/Windows)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Olivier
>>
>> Le 23/04/2020 à 17:33, Andrija Panic a écrit :
>>> (mon français n'est pas si bon) - but if that is a physical server - than
>>> it's a valid test - beside the traffic will go through the VR (from VM
>> via
>>> VR to that external host) - here you have NAT over relatively slow VR
>>> (CPU/RAM) and over the throttled interface most probably.
>>>
>>> In general, you should not keep mixed XS versions (whatever is true for
>>> XenServer alone, irrelevant of the CloudStack), as 7.x is a big
>> difference
>>> to 6.5 and i.e. VM live migrations will not work (and I'm sure many other
>>> things, possibly)
>>>
>>> That being said, make sure to TEST the upgrade (pool master, then slaves,
>>> then see how to reconnect hosts to ACS, etc, etc) - if this is your test
>>> env - better start from scratch.
>>>
>>> 7.1 LTSR is recommended over 7.0 any day.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Andrija
>>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 22:22, Olivier GUIN <ol...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Andrija,
>>>>
>>>> Thank for your anwser ...
>>>>
>>>> 1) My Cloudstack is 4.13
>>>>
>>>> 2) Can I mix a version of xen 6.5 and xen 7 in the same cluster? (I
>> think
>>>> I cannot move a VM from one cluster to another)
>>>>
>>>> 3) 200.13.xxx.xxx est un de mes serveurs sur mon réseau physique
>>>>
>>>> I think the problem comes from my service offerings
>>>>
>>>> I keep looking ...
>>>>
>>>> But I think upgrading my Xen servers from 6.5 to 7 is a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> Point 2 is important !
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Olivier
>>>> Le 23/04/2020 à 16:02, Andrija Panic a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Hi Olivier,
>>>>
>>>> Upgrade to 4.13 should not be a problem here. I would suggest:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - checking traffic shaping on XenServer side - to confirm what is/is not
>>>> in place (we don't know your network offerings/compute offerings network
>>>> rates and such)
>>>> - Confirm VM/drivers used inside VMs are all up to date (6.5 is an
>> ancient
>>>> thing, not supported any more in ACS 4.14 that will be out soon)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are doing: iperf3 -c 200.13.XXX.XXX -p5001
>>>>
>>>> Why are you connecting to the IP of the VR? What kind of testing is this
>>>> supposed to be/show what?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why not starting iperf server on Centos 7 and connect to it from Windows
>>>> 2012 (and the other way around)?
>>>> This traffic is NOT going over the virtual router, but just via the same
>>>> "network" on XS.
>>>>
>>>> I'll try ok
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, you can deploy VPC (multiple isolated networks behind a
>> VR)
>>>> - and have VM1 in network1, VM2 in network2 - and do iperf between them
>>>> (traffic router via VR) - here keep in mind even if your VM's NIC are
>>>> 1Gbps, but your VR NICs are 100 Mbps, you will be limited to the slowest
>>>> nic in the whole path/chain - 100 Mbps.
>>>>
>>>> OK
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Andrija
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 20:34, Olivier Guin <ol...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Some news :
>>>>>
>>>>> from VM to SRV :
>>>>>
>>>>> [root@centos7 centos]# iperf3 -c 200.13.XXX.XXX -p5001
>>>>> Connecting to host 200.13.XXX.XXX, port 5001
>>>>> [ 4] local 10.0.1.42 port 56190 connected to 200.13.XXX.XXX port 5001
>>>>> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr Cwnd
>>>>> [ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 12.9 MBytes 108 Mbits/sec 77 55.1 KBytes
>>>>> [ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 11.9 MBytes 100 Mbits/sec 51 45.2 KBytes
>>>>> [ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 9.96 MBytes 83.6 Mbits/sec 36 28.3 KBytes
>>>>> [ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 9.37 MBytes 78.6 Mbits/sec 33 25.5 KBytes
>>>>> [ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 11.1 MBytes 93.5 Mbits/sec 24 50.9 KBytes
>>>>> [ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.2 Mbits/sec 24 82.0 KBytes
>>>>> [ 4] 6.00-7.07 sec 12.9 MBytes 101 Mbits/sec 38 143 KBytes
>>>>> [ 4] 7.07-8.07 sec 9.03 MBytes 75.2 Mbits/sec 13 123 KBytes
>>>>> [ 4] 8.07-9.00 sec 12.5 MBytes 113 Mbits/sec 24 103 KBytes
>>>>> [ 4] 9.00-10.06 sec 13.6 MBytes 107 Mbits/sec 98 140 KBytes
>>>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>>> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
>>>>> [ 4] 0.00-10.06 sec 114 MBytes 95.4 Mbits/sec 418
>>>>> sender
>>>>> [ 4] 0.00-10.06 sec 114 MBytes 95.4 Mbits/sec
>>>>> receiver
>>>>>
>>>>> from SRV to VM :
>>>>>
>>>>> [root@centos7 centos]# iperf3 -s -p 5001
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Server listening on 5001
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Accepted connection from 200.13.XXX.XXX, port 48782
>>>>> [ 5] local 10.0.1.42 port 5001 connected to 200.13.XXX.XXX port 48784
>>>>> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
>>>>> [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 7.95 MBytes 66.7 Mbits/sec
>>>>> [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 10.6 MBytes 88.7 Mbits/sec
>>>>> [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
>>>>> [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
>>>>> [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
>>>>> [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
>>>>> [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
>>>>> [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
>>>>> [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
>>>>> [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
>>>>> [ 5] 10.00-11.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
>>>>> [ 5] 11.00-11.52 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
>>>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>>> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
>>>>> [ 5] 0.00-11.52 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
>> sender
>>>>> [ 5] 0.00-11.52 sec 18.5 MBytes 13.5 Mbits/sec
>>>>> receiver
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Olivier
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Andrija Panić
>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: Cloudstack 4.13 Xen 6.5 Xen 7 and XCP-NG
Posted by Olivier Guin <ol...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
It's perfect !
XCP-ng 7.6 work fine with 4.13, and network speed it's ok now
cheers
Olivier
Le 29/04/2020 à 11:41, Andrija Panic a écrit :
> XCP-ng 7.4, 7.6 should work just fine with 4.13 - hope that answers all 3
> questions.
>
> XCP-ng 8.x is not yet supported (might be in 4.15/summer LTS release)
>
> cheers
>
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 12:36, Olivier GUIN <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> hello Andrija,
>>
>> I have just set up a Xenserver 7.6 cluster, but I think that the license
>> problem will be a brake!
>> - Does Cloudstack work optimally with XCP-NG?
>> - If YES until which version?
>> - Will XCP-NG be compatible with the future Cloudstack 4.14?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Olivier
>> Le 24/04/2020 à 08:59, Andrija Panic a écrit :
>>
>> Not necessarily - i.e. you should still observe multiple hundredns of
>> megabits/sec with default VR offering, with the routing process.
>> I would pay attention to the network throttling set on XS side, as Vivek
>> has already suggested in another email.
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 13:51, Olivier GUIN <ol...@gmail.com> <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Andrija,
>>
>> You wrote that there would be my CPU / RAM ratio which would cause the
>> throttled on my interface.
>> What would be the right CPU / RAM ratio?
>>
>> If you have a recommendation.
>>
>> I think my problem comes from there ..
>> I made a VM with 4GB RAM and 4 vCPU at 2Ghz and it works very well!
>> (Linux/Windows)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Olivier
>>
>> Le 23/04/2020 à 17:33, Andrija Panic a écrit :
>>
>> (mon français n'est pas si bon) - but if that is a physical server - than
>> it's a valid test - beside the traffic will go through the VR (from VM
>>
>> via
>>
>> VR to that external host) - here you have NAT over relatively slow VR
>> (CPU/RAM) and over the throttled interface most probably.
>>
>> In general, you should not keep mixed XS versions (whatever is true for
>> XenServer alone, irrelevant of the CloudStack), as 7.x is a big
>>
>> difference
>>
>> to 6.5 and i.e. VM live migrations will not work (and I'm sure many other
>> things, possibly)
>>
>> That being said, make sure to TEST the upgrade (pool master, then slaves,
>> then see how to reconnect hosts to ACS, etc, etc) - if this is your test
>> env - better start from scratch.
>>
>> 7.1 LTSR is recommended over 7.0 any day.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Andrija
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 22:22, Olivier GUIN <ol...@gmail.com> <ol...@gmail.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrija,
>>
>> Thank for your anwser ...
>>
>> 1) My Cloudstack is 4.13
>>
>> 2) Can I mix a version of xen 6.5 and xen 7 in the same cluster? (I
>>
>> think
>>
>> I cannot move a VM from one cluster to another)
>>
>> 3) 200.13.xxx.xxx est un de mes serveurs sur mon réseau physique
>>
>> I think the problem comes from my service offerings
>>
>> I keep looking ...
>>
>> But I think upgrading my Xen servers from 6.5 to 7 is a good idea.
>>
>> Point 2 is important !
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
Re: Cloudstack 4.13 Xen 6.5 Xen 7 and XCP-NG
Posted by Andrija Panic <an...@gmail.com>.
XCP-ng 7.4, 7.6 should work just fine with 4.13 - hope that answers all 3
questions.
XCP-ng 8.x is not yet supported (might be in 4.15/summer LTS release)
cheers
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 12:36, Olivier GUIN <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hello Andrija,
>
> I have just set up a Xenserver 7.6 cluster, but I think that the license
> problem will be a brake!
> - Does Cloudstack work optimally with XCP-NG?
> - If YES until which version?
> - Will XCP-NG be compatible with the future Cloudstack 4.14?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Olivier
> Le 24/04/2020 à 08:59, Andrija Panic a écrit :
>
> Not necessarily - i.e. you should still observe multiple hundredns of
> megabits/sec with default VR offering, with the routing process.
> I would pay attention to the network throttling set on XS side, as Vivek
> has already suggested in another email.
>
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 13:51, Olivier GUIN <ol...@gmail.com> <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Andrija,
>
> You wrote that there would be my CPU / RAM ratio which would cause the
> throttled on my interface.
> What would be the right CPU / RAM ratio?
>
> If you have a recommendation.
>
> I think my problem comes from there ..
> I made a VM with 4GB RAM and 4 vCPU at 2Ghz and it works very well!
> (Linux/Windows)
>
> Cheers,
> Olivier
>
> Le 23/04/2020 à 17:33, Andrija Panic a écrit :
>
> (mon français n'est pas si bon) - but if that is a physical server - than
> it's a valid test - beside the traffic will go through the VR (from VM
>
> via
>
> VR to that external host) - here you have NAT over relatively slow VR
> (CPU/RAM) and over the throttled interface most probably.
>
> In general, you should not keep mixed XS versions (whatever is true for
> XenServer alone, irrelevant of the CloudStack), as 7.x is a big
>
> difference
>
> to 6.5 and i.e. VM live migrations will not work (and I'm sure many other
> things, possibly)
>
> That being said, make sure to TEST the upgrade (pool master, then slaves,
> then see how to reconnect hosts to ACS, etc, etc) - if this is your test
> env - better start from scratch.
>
> 7.1 LTSR is recommended over 7.0 any day.
>
> Cheers
> Andrija
>
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 22:22, Olivier GUIN <ol...@gmail.com> <ol...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrija,
>
> Thank for your anwser ...
>
> 1) My Cloudstack is 4.13
>
> 2) Can I mix a version of xen 6.5 and xen 7 in the same cluster? (I
>
> think
>
> I cannot move a VM from one cluster to another)
>
> 3) 200.13.xxx.xxx est un de mes serveurs sur mon réseau physique
>
> I think the problem comes from my service offerings
>
> I keep looking ...
>
> But I think upgrading my Xen servers from 6.5 to 7 is a good idea.
>
> Point 2 is important !
>
> Regards,
>
> Olivier
> Le 23/04/2020 à 16:02, Andrija Panic a écrit :
>
> Hi Olivier,
>
> Upgrade to 4.13 should not be a problem here. I would suggest:
>
>
> - checking traffic shaping on XenServer side - to confirm what is/is not
> in place (we don't know your network offerings/compute offerings network
> rates and such)
> - Confirm VM/drivers used inside VMs are all up to date (6.5 is an
>
> ancient
>
> thing, not supported any more in ACS 4.14 that will be out soon)
>
>
> You are doing: iperf3 -c 200.13.XXX.XXX -p5001
>
> Why are you connecting to the IP of the VR? What kind of testing is this
> supposed to be/show what?
>
>
>
> Why not starting iperf server on Centos 7 and connect to it from Windows
> 2012 (and the other way around)?
> This traffic is NOT going over the virtual router, but just via the same
> "network" on XS.
>
> I'll try ok
>
>
> Alternatively, you can deploy VPC (multiple isolated networks behind a
>
> VR)
>
> - and have VM1 in network1, VM2 in network2 - and do iperf between them
> (traffic router via VR) - here keep in mind even if your VM's NIC are
> 1Gbps, but your VR NICs are 100 Mbps, you will be limited to the slowest
> nic in the whole path/chain - 100 Mbps.
>
> OK
>
>
> Regards,
> Andrija
> -
>
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 20:34, Olivier Guin <ol...@gmail.com> <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Some news :
>
> from VM to SRV :
>
> [root@centos7 centos]# iperf3 -c 200.13.XXX.XXX -p5001
> Connecting to host 200.13.XXX.XXX, port 5001
> [ 4] local 10.0.1.42 port 56190 connected to 200.13.XXX.XXX port 5001
> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr Cwnd
> [ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 12.9 MBytes 108 Mbits/sec 77 55.1 KBytes
> [ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 11.9 MBytes 100 Mbits/sec 51 45.2 KBytes
> [ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 9.96 MBytes 83.6 Mbits/sec 36 28.3 KBytes
> [ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 9.37 MBytes 78.6 Mbits/sec 33 25.5 KBytes
> [ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 11.1 MBytes 93.5 Mbits/sec 24 50.9 KBytes
> [ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.2 Mbits/sec 24 82.0 KBytes
> [ 4] 6.00-7.07 sec 12.9 MBytes 101 Mbits/sec 38 143 KBytes
> [ 4] 7.07-8.07 sec 9.03 MBytes 75.2 Mbits/sec 13 123 KBytes
> [ 4] 8.07-9.00 sec 12.5 MBytes 113 Mbits/sec 24 103 KBytes
> [ 4] 9.00-10.06 sec 13.6 MBytes 107 Mbits/sec 98 140 KBytes
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
> [ 4] 0.00-10.06 sec 114 MBytes 95.4 Mbits/sec 418
> sender
> [ 4] 0.00-10.06 sec 114 MBytes 95.4 Mbits/sec
> receiver
>
> from SRV to VM :
>
> [root@centos7 centos]# iperf3 -s -p 5001
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Server listening on 5001
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Accepted connection from 200.13.XXX.XXX, port 48782
> [ 5] local 10.0.1.42 port 5001 connected to 200.13.XXX.XXX port 48784
> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
> [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 7.95 MBytes 66.7 Mbits/sec
> [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 10.6 MBytes 88.7 Mbits/sec
> [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
> [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
> [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
> [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
> [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
> [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
> [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
> [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
> [ 5] 10.00-11.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
> [ 5] 11.00-11.52 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
> [ 5] 0.00-11.52 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
>
> sender
>
> [ 5] 0.00-11.52 sec 18.5 MBytes 13.5 Mbits/sec
> receiver
>
> Regards,
>
> Olivier
>
>
>
> --
>
> Andrija Panić
>
>
>
>
--
Andrija Panić