What happens with performance when you reach this limit? At least write performance will go down to zero for the next five minutes. I don't think it is totally fair to say the limit is there for performance reasons. I think it is better to say the limit will protect the server from excessive resource usage.
Do you have plans to improve the IMM performance in this area in the next OpenSAF release? For example, switching to some more efficient data structure? Also, I think the limit should be for active CCBs only. From what I understand, the reason for counting finalized CCBs as well is that someone could request the error strings after the CCB has been finished (aborted). Is this the only reason? Well, then the first obvious optimization is that you should only need to store failed CCBs, not successful ones. Secondly, could you optimize by pushing this information from the server out to all the clients that could be interested in it, so that the server can discard it? In this way, you protect the server from excessive resource usage. The limit will become more like a flow control, or "window size" - i.e. how many concurrent CCBs you can have. And in this case the "limit" could be much lower - I don't think anyone will need 10000 concurrent (active) CCBs. regards, Anders Widell On 09/05/2016 12:28 PM, Hung Nguyen wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with Anders that we should let users enable the limit instead of > enabling it automatically. > Maybe we can set default value of those attributes to 0 and IMM will > interpret 0 as unlimited. > It's going to be a defect ticket for #195. > > About the second problem (i.e. the meaning of maxCcbs limit), I think the > limit should be applied on all CCBs as we store them in the same list. > This limit is for pure performance purpose. > > It should be well documented though. > The easiest way for users to check how much resource left is to use 'immadm > -O displayverbose'. > > BR, > Hung Nguyen - DEK Technologies > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Anders widellanders.wid...@ericsson.com > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 9:53PM > To: Zoran Milinkovic, Mahesh Valla, Neelakanta Reddy, Opensaf-devel > > zoran.milinko...@ericsson.com,mahesh.va...@oracle.com,reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com,opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Cc: > > Subject: Re: [devel] Immnd: maximum Ccbs limit 10000 has been reached very > quickly > > > We have to consider the backwards compatibility aspect here. The general > principle is that if an application works fine with one version of > OpenSAF, then it should work fine also with a newer version of OpenSAF. > Mahesh has evidently an example application (a test program) that starts > to fail after upgrading from OpenSAF 5.0 to OpenSAF 5.1.FC. If it is a > pathological example program then you can argue that it is not relevant, > but I don't think it is the case here. You could imagine a real-life > case where someone has written a shell script that runs the immcfg > command in a loop 10000 times. > > The safest approach to introduce a new limit where we previously didn't > have any limit, is to set the default value of the new limit to infinite > (unlimited), and let the user take an active decision to configure a > lower value of the limit. This way, applications will not get unpleasant > surprises after upgrading OpenSAF. > > regards, > > Anders Widell > > On 09/02/2016 10:56 AM, Zoran Milinkovic wrote: >> Hi Mahesh, >> >> Ticket #195 introduced this limitation. >> >> After all, I'm not sure who is right... Neelakanta or me :) >> Earlier, we didn't have any limitation, and limitation is introduced to have >> some reasonable amount of CCB handles in IMM. >> IMM keeps non-used and active CCB handles in the same place. If the amount >> of CCB handles grows a lot, then we will see a degradation of IMM >> performance. >> >> >From earlier discussion with Anders, it's not meant from the beginning that >> >CCB will be used so often. This might be very specific case. That's also >> >the reason why CCB handles are handled in a way that is not good for huge >> >amount of CCB handles. >> >From this point of view, Neelakanta is correct. >> >From my point of view, we should only consider CCBs that can be used. I >> >don't see acceptable that CCB operations cannot be done for minutes if we >> >have a huge amount of closed CCBs. >> >> We can improve CCB handling in the next OpenSAF release. Now it's too late. >> >> For this particular problem, I would go with checking only CCBs that can be >> used (CCB that have SA_AIS_OK on mVeto variable, or calling ->isOk() method >> on CcbInfo struct). This solution may have impact on IMM performance. >> Or we can revert the ticket and implement it in the next release with better >> performance. >> >> I would also like to hear Neelakanta's and Hung's proposals. >> >> Thanks, >> Zoran >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: A V Mahesh [mailto:mahesh.va...@oracle.com] >> Sent: den 2 september 2016 05:56 >> To: Zoran Milinkovic; Neelakanta Reddy;opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> Subject: Re: [devel] Immnd: maximum Ccbs limit 10000 has been reached very >> quickly >> >> Hi Zoran, >> >> Thanks for the update , >> >> you are right ERR_NO_RESOURCES only justifiable if 10000 IMM application >> concurrently holding 10000 CCB`s ( active CCB), in current case agent is >> already finalized. >> >> By the way by roll backing which change set I can continue my testing ? >> >> -AVM >> >> On 9/1/2016 5:52 PM, Zoran Milinkovic wrote: >>> Hi Neelakanta, >>> >>> This is definitely a bug. >>> When CCB is finalized, it's still shown as an active CCB. >>> If you check number of CCBs with resource display functionality, you will >>> see that number of CCBs is not decreasing. >>> >>> BR, >>> Zoran >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Neelakanta Reddy [mailto:reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com] >>> Sent: den 1 september 2016 11:09 >>> To:opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> Subject: Re: [devel] Immnd: maximum Ccbs limit 10000 has been reached >>> very quickly >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think this is not yet documented and will be documented. >>> Try to increase the ccb limits and check. >>> >>> /Neel. >>> >>> On 2016/09/01 02:01 PM, Chani Srivastava wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> With current 5.1 OpenSAF changeset 7997 the issue is reproducible >>>> >>>> ============================================== >>>> Sep 1 12:16:52 OSAF-SC1 osafimmnd[27298]: NO Ccb 10002 COMMITTED >>>> (chaniTestClass) >>>> Sep 1 12:16:52 OSAF-SC1 osafimmnd[27298]: NO Ccb 10003 COMMITTED >>>> (chaniTestClass) >>>> Sep 1 12:16:52 OSAF-SC1 osafimmnd[27298]: NO Ccb 10004 COMMITTED >>>> (chaniTestClass) >>>> Sep 1 12:16:52 OSAF-SC1 osafimmnd[27298]: NO Ccb 10005 COMMITTED >>>> (chaniTestClass) >>>> Sep 1 12:16:52 OSAF-SC1 osafimmnd[27298]: NO ERR_NO_RESOURCES: >>>> maximum Ccbs limit 10000 has been reached for the cluster >>>> =============================================== >>>> >>>> This looks like a candidate for ticket. Let me know i'll raise it in >>>> community. >>>> >>>> -Chani >>>> >>>> On 9/1/2016 1:49 PM, Neelakanta Reddy wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> can you verify the same with 5.1. >>>>> >>>>> /Neel. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2016/09/01 12:58 PM, Chani Srivastava wrote: >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>> I verified this is a break in functionality. In OpenSAF 5.0 I tried >>>>>> creating 15000 objects per CCB and it worked fine. >>>>>> >>>>>> ===================================== >>>>>> Nov 26 15:21:17 SCALE_SLOT-91 osafimmnd[24451]: NO Ccb 237 >>>>>> COMMITTED >>>>>> (chaniTestClass) >>>>>> Nov 26 15:21:17 SCALE_SLOT-91 osafimmnd[24451]: NO Ccb 238 >>>>>> COMMITTED >>>>>> (chaniTestClass) >>>>>> Nov 26 15:21:17 SCALE_SLOT-91 osafimmnd[24451]: NO Ccb 239 >>>>>> COMMITTED >>>>>> (chaniTestClass) >>>>>> Nov 26 15:21:17 SCALE_SLOT-91 osafimmnd[24451]: NO Ccb 240 >>>>>> COMMITTED >>>>>> (chaniTestClass) >>>>>> . >>>>>> . >>>>>> . >>>>>> Nov 26 15:23:05 SCALE_SLOT-91 osafimmnd[24451]: NO Ccb 15230 >>>>>> COMMITTED >>>>>> (chaniTestClass) >>>>>> Nov 26 15:23:05 SCALE_SLOT-91 osafimmnd[24451]: NO Ccb 15231 >>>>>> COMMITTED >>>>>> (chaniTestClass) >>>>>> Nov 26 15:23:05 SCALE_SLOT-91 osafimmnd[24451]: NO Ccb 15232 >>>>>> COMMITTED >>>>>> (chaniTestClass) >>>>>> Nov 26 15:23:05 SCALE_SLOT-91 osafimmnd[24451]: NO Ccb 15233 >>>>>> COMMITTED >>>>>> (chaniTestClass) >>>>>> Nov 26 15:23:05 SCALE_SLOT-91 osafimmnd[24451]: NO Ccb 15234 >>>>>> COMMITTED >>>>>> (chaniTestClass) >>>>>> Nov 26 15:23:05 SCALE_SLOT-91 osafimmnd[24451]: NO Ccb 15235 >>>>>> COMMITTED >>>>>> (chaniTestClass) >>>>>> Nov 26 15:23:05 SCALE_SLOT-91 osafimmnd[24451]: NO Ccb 15236 >>>>>> COMMITTED >>>>>> (chaniTestClass) >>>>>> ====================================== >>>>>> >>>>>> The ticket #195 only makes the MAX parameters configurable. >>>>>> If accepted, I'll raise the ticket in sourceforge. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Chani >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/1/2016 10:59 AM, A V Mahesh wrote: >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was running `immcfg` in a loop to create some object , once it >>>>>>> reaches 10001objects creation Immnd is returning `ERR_NO_RESOURCES: >>>>>>> maximum Ccbs limit 10000 has been reached for the cluster` error >>>>>>> which is unexpected , once `immcfg` reruns , it is expected that >>>>>>> the `maximum Ccbs` will decremented ( this was previous behavior) >>>>>>> , >>>>>>> >>>>>>> can you please check. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ================================================================== >>>>>>> = ====================================== >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for (( i = 1 ; i <=300000; i++)) >>>>>>> immcfg -c PinvId -a pinvPhoneNumber=+46768 pinvRdn=$i >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sep 1 10:43:33 SC-1 osafimmnd[4466]: NO Ccb 9996 COMMITTED >>>>>>> (immcfg_SC-1_2334) >>>>>>> Sep 1 10:43:33 SC-1 osafimmnd[4466]: NO Ccb 9997 COMMITTED >>>>>>> (immcfg_SC-1_2337) >>>>>>> Sep 1 10:43:33 SC-1 osafimmnd[4466]: NO Ccb 9998 COMMITTED >>>>>>> (immcfg_SC-1_2340) >>>>>>> Sep 1 10:43:33 SC-1 osafimmnd[4466]: NO Ccb 9999 COMMITTED >>>>>>> (immcfg_SC-1_2343) >>>>>>> Sep 1 10:43:33 SC-1 osafimmnd[4466]: NO Ccb 10000 COMMITTED >>>>>>> (immcfg_SC-1_2346) >>>>>>> Sep 1 10:43:33 SC-1 osafimmnd[4466]: NO Ccb 10001 COMMITTED >>>>>>> (immcfg_SC-1_2349) >>>>>>> Sep 1 10:43:33 SC-1 osafimmnd[4466]: NO ERR_NO_RESOURCES: maximum >>>>>>> Ccbs limit 10000 has been reached for the cluster Sep 1 10:43:33 >>>>>>> SC-1 osafimmnd[4466]: NO ERR_NO_RESOURCES: maximum Ccbs limit >>>>>>> 10000 has been reached for the cluster Sep 1 10:43:33 SC-1 >>>>>>> osafimmnd[4466]: NO ERR_NO_RESOURCES: maximum Ccbs limit 10000 has >>>>>>> been reached for the cluster >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ================================================================== >>>>>>> = ====================================== >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -AVM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> ----------- _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Opensaf-devel mailing list >>>>>>> Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> - >>>>>> ---------- _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Opensaf-devel mailing list >>>>>> Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> - >>>>> --------- _______________________________________________ >>>>> Opensaf-devel mailing list >>>>> Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> - >>>> -------- _______________________________________________ >>>> Opensaf-devel mailing list >>>> Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -------- _______________________________________________ >>> Opensaf-devel mailing list >>> Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -------- _______________________________________________ >>> Opensaf-devel mailing list >>> Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Opensaf-devel mailing list >> Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Opensaf-devel mailing list > Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
