In fact, nova should be careful about changing number of retries for neutron client. It's known that under significant load (people test serial VM creation) neutron client may timeout on POST operation which does port creation; retrying this again leads to multiple fixed IPs assigned to a VM
Thanks, Eugene. On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Kyle Mestery <mest...@noironetworks.com>wrote: > I'm not aware of any such change at the moment, no. > > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Paul Ward <wpw...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > Great! Do you know if there's any corresponding nova changes to support > > this as a conf option that gets passed in to this new parm? > > > > > > > > Kyle Mestery <mest...@noironetworks.com> wrote on 05/27/2014 01:56:12 > PM: > > > >> From: Kyle Mestery <mest...@noironetworks.com> > >> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > >> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>, > >> Date: 05/27/2014 02:00 PM > >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Supporting retries in > neutronclient > > > > > >> > >> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Paul Ward <wpw...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >> > Currently, neutronclient is hardcoded to only try a request once in > >> > retry_request by virtue of the fact that it uses self.retries as the > >> > retry > >> > count, and that's initialized to 0 and never changed. We've seen an > >> > issue > >> > where we get an ssl handshaking error intermittently (seems like more > of > >> > an > >> > ssl bug) and a retry would probably have worked. Yet, since > >> > neutronclient > >> > only tries once and gives up, it fails the entire operation. Here is > >> > the > >> > code in question: > >> > > >> > https://github.com/openstack/python-neutronclient/blob/master/ > >> neutronclient/v2_0/client.py#L1296 > >> > > >> > Does anybody know if there's some explicit reason we don't currently > >> > allow > >> > configuring the number of retries? If not, I'm inclined to propose a > >> > change > >> > for just that. > >> > > >> There is a review to address this in place now [1]. I've given a -1 > >> due to a trivial reason which I hope Jakub will address soon so we can > >> land this patch in the client code. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Kyle > >> > >> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90104/ > >> > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >> > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
