top button
Flag Notify
    Connect to us
      Site Registration

Site Registration

IPERF problem in openstack between VMs?

+1 vote
1,238 views

In VEPC, in openstack I created three VM's and when I pump data using iperf, client is sending data in application layer and the data is going through our LTE stack in receiver side it is reaching till UE ( downlink ) but iperf server is not showing the receiving data, why?
Is it a problem with mtu size? What should I change in openstack?

posted Jul 18, 2016 by Ramachandran A

Looking for an answer?  Promote on:
Facebook Share Button Twitter Share Button LinkedIn Share Button
yes i was able to get the desired output.The same when i run in VEPC  ( ie) in openstack using vm iperf server is not receiving  the downlink data in the UE side. But UE is receiving data. why?
I can only make a guess from here as I have no access of your system...
From the statement it seems UE is dropping the Data so not reaching to the server. Now reason could be many so narrow down the possibilities and then debug.
1. Connectivity between UE and iperf have issues.
2. message size UE is receiving beyond limit.
mtu size is approximate to 1550 with headers
Debug at UE by just sending few packets and you should be able to get the reasoning.  From outside its difficult to comment...

Similar Questions
+1 vote

When I used mysql as the keystone's backend in openstack, iI found that the 'token' table saved 29 millions record (using myisam as engine,the size of token.MYD is 100G) and have 4 new token save per second. That result to the slow query of a token .since of inserting new token frequently, how could I set the configure to speed up the query operation.

the token's struct is id,expires,extra,valid,user_id with index {expires,valid}
and the select sql is select id,expires,extra,valid,user_id from token where valid=1 and expires >='XXXX-XX-XX XX:XX:XX' and user_id ='XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX';with often return 2 results.

Here is some db status data in a real openstack environment with 381 active VMs:

+-----------------------+-------------+ 
| Variable_name | Value | 
+-----------------------+-------------+ 
| Handler_read_first | 259573419 | 
| Handler_read_key | ********** | 
| Handler_read_next | ********** | 
| Handler_read_prev | 1235 | 
| Handler_read_rnd | 1951101 | 
| Handler_read_rnd_next | ********** | 
+-----------------------+-------------+ 

and

+-------------------------+------------+ 
| Variable_name | Value | 
+-------------------------+------------+ 
| Qcache_free_blocks | 498 | 
| Qcache_free_memory | 1192512 | 
| Qcache_hits | ********** | 
| Qcache_inserts | 352700155 | 
| Qcache_lowmem_prunes | 34145019 | 
| Qcache_not_cached | ********** | 
| Qcache_queries_in_cache | 1681 | 
| Qcache_total_blocks | 4949 | 
+-------------------------+------------+

it seems that the 'insert' operation of saving new token affects the query buffer,and result of a low-level of query-hit's rate.

Please help me?

+2 votes

What is the difference between:

  1. using "the Command-line interface to the OpenStack APIs" through the command "openstack"
    and
  2. using the separate APIs of the different components (for example using the command-line interface to the Neutron APIs directly)?

Advantages and disadvantages?

0 votes

What kind of different output came out from these two commands and what is the significance of each field of the output ?

...