Hi Thomas,
Then I'll await your findings while running 2.11 ourselves. If the new
build works well at you end I'll roll out several nodes using that one
for testing.
Apart from 100% CPU usage we didn't have issues, by the way.
K.
On 18-03-2020 19:18, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I've fixed *one*
On 3/18/20 10:35 AM, Kees Meijs wrote:
>
> On 17-03-2020 14:37, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> You may have notice my last upload of OVS in buster-proposed-updates.
>> This upload fixes at least one of the crashes which leads to vswitchd
>> taking 100% of one core.
>>
>> However, there's still some
Good morning Thomas,
The past few weeks have been intense at least so I did not. Same for
comparing 2.10 with 2.11 code. Much appreciated you point out the upload.
To save valuable time our cluster is running 2.11 where possible but it
would be best to go back to the stock Debian packages.
What
Hi Kees,
You may have notice my last upload of OVS in buster-proposed-updates.
This upload fixes at least one of the crashes which leads to vswitchd
taking 100% of one core.
However, there's still some other issues we've experienced in
production. Soon, we'll test the latest version of OVS 2.10,
Hi Thomas,
You're absolutely right in terms of the correct way of fixing things.
I'll take a look in the upstream changelog and maybe will diff the
source as well. Hopefully the fix itself is trivial.
Cheers,
Kees
On 27-01-2020 11:06, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Have you investigated to know which
On 1/25/20 8:33 PM, Kees Meijs wrote:
> Is upgrading to 2.11 in stable a viable option?
No it's not. The release team wont let this happen.
> (The backports team felt
> this bug is severe enough and the upgrade is only very minor.)
Uploading to stable-backports is *not* the way to fix bugs in
Package: openvswitch-switch
Version: 2.10.0+2018.08.28+git.8ca7c82b7d+ds1-12
Hi there,
We extensively use Open vSwitch in our OpenStack and Ceph environments
and noticed version 2.10 "eats up" a CPU core with 100% utilisation on
buster.
For example:
>
7 matches
Mail list logo
