Description of problem: In our OSP13 deployment, the computes have "virtual-guest" tuning profile, instead of the expected "virtual-host" [root@atl1-cmp001 ~]# tuned-adm active Current active profile: virtual-guest True as per Git - introduced in OSP13 with openstack-tripleo-heat-templates-8.0.7-4.el7ost. [1] https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/blob/stable/queens/roles/Compute.yaml#L14 checking further the ceph nodes have "throughput-performance", and we were wondering whether it would be better to have "latency-performance" as a default. [212587568@atl1-ceph001-sata ~]$ tuned-adm active Current active profile: throughput-performance Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: looking for history/reason behind "virtual-host" to virtual-guest What is the recommendation from Red Hat on these settings? Additional info:
(In reply to Anil Dhingra from comment #0) > Description of problem: > > In our OSP13 deployment, the computes have "virtual-guest" tuning profile, > instead of the expected "virtual-host" > [root@atl1-cmp001 ~]# tuned-adm active > Current active profile: virtual-guest > > True as per Git - introduced in OSP13 > > with openstack-tripleo-heat-templates-8.0.7-4.el7ost. > > [1] > https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/blob/stable/queens/roles/ > Compute.yaml#L14 > I am not sure I understand the current situation. Have you run another overcloud deploy when updating to the new THT and you still have virtual-guest as the profile? If so, do you use a custom role data file which as not the virtual-host set for computes? > > checking further > the ceph nodes have "throughput-performance", and we were wondering whether > it would be better to have "latency-performance" as a default. > > [212587568@atl1-ceph001-sata ~]$ tuned-adm active > Current active profile: throughput-performance This should be a separate BZ as this is a question to the storage team and not compute. > > > Expected results: > > looking for history/reason behind "virtual-host" to virtual-guest > Sorry, don't understand this. Please clarify