Bug 2217663
| Summary: | [TestOnly] Support for xmit hash policy for ports in VFLAG mode in NFV deployment scenarios | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat OpenStack | Reporter: | Gurpreet Singh <gurpsing> |
| Component: | rhosp-openvswitch | Assignee: | Miguel Angel Nieto <mnietoji> |
| Status: | CLOSED COMPLETED | QA Contact: | Sanjay Upadhyay <supadhya> |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | high | ||
| Version: | 17.1 (Wallaby) | CC: | apevec, chrisw, ekuris, hakhande, jamsmith, mariel, mburns, mnietoji, pasik, rheslop, rjarry, supadhya |
| Target Milestone: | z4 | Keywords: | FutureFeature, TechPreview, TestOnly, Triaged |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | DFG:NFV | ||
| Fixed In Version: | kernel-5.14.0-283.el9 | Doc Type: | Technology Preview |
| Doc Text: |
In RHOSP 17.1, a technology preview is available for the VF-LAG transmit hash policy offload that enables load balancing at NIC hardware for offloaded traffic/flows. This hash policy is only available for layer3+4 base hashing.
+
To use the technology preview, verify that your templates include a bonding options parameter to enable the xmit hash policy as shown in the following example:
+
----
bonding_options: "mode=802.3ad miimon=100 lacp_rate=fast xmit_hash_policy=layer3+4"
----
|
Story Points: | --- |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2024-12-15 10:36:17 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Gurpreet Singh
2023-06-26 22:05:47 UTC
@gurpsing - we did test for regression and performance on 17.1.4 templates and we did not find any issue. Please note, we do not have a dedicated job for this. We had tested as a one of the thing. Given that this feature is supported by RHEL we should be good to go. IF we need to add a new scenario to cover this test case, then we have yet to do that. regards /sanjay |