<div dir="ltr">No worries, I just triggered the test now running OVS compiled out of<div>2.8 branch (2.8.3). I'll post the results and investigate too.</div><div><br></div><div>I have just sent a patch to fix the timing issue we can see in the traces I</div><div>posted. I applied it and it works, I believe it's good to fix as it gives us</div><div>an idea of how frequent the compact is, and also to backport if you</div><div>agree with it.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Ben Pfaff <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:blp@ovn.org" target="_blank">blp@ovn.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">OK, thanks.<br>
<br>
If this is a lot of trouble, let me know and I'll investigate directly<br>
instead of on the basis of a suspected regression.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 07:06:50PM +0100, Daniel Alvarez Sanchez wrote:<br>
> All right, I'll repeat it with code in branch-2.8.<br>
> Will post the results once the test finishes.<br>
> Daniel<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Ben Pfaff <<a href="mailto:blp@ovn.org">blp@ovn.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 05:53:15PM +0100, Daniel Alvarez Sanchez wrote:<br>
> > > Repeated the test with 1000 ports this time. See attached image.<br>
> > > For some reason, the sizes grow while deleting the ports (the<br>
> > > deletion task starts at around x=2500). The weird thing is why<br>
> > > they keep growing and the online compact doesn't work as when<br>
> > > I do it through ovs-appctl tool.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I suspect this is a bug and eventually it will grow and grow unless<br>
> > > we manually compact the db.<br>
> ><br>
> > Would you mind trying out an older ovsdb-server, for example the one<br>
> > from OVS 2.8? Some of the logic in ovsdb-server around compaction<br>
> > changed in OVS 2.9, so it would be nice to know whether this was a<br>
> > regression or an existing bug.<br>
> ><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>