Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

bgpd: evpn route detail json display non prett #12684

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 25, 2023

Conversation

chiragshah6
Copy link
Member

For BGP evpn route table detail JSON to use non pretty form of display.

Problem:

In scaled EVPN route table detail JSON dump occupies high resources (CPU + memory) of the system.
In high scale EVPN route dump using pretty form
hogs CPU for a while which can trigger watchfrr
to kill bgpd.

Solution:
Avoid pretty JSON print for detail version dump

Signed-off-by: Chirag Shah chirag@nvidia.com

For BGP evpn route table detail json to use
non pretty form of display.

Problem:
In scaled evpn route table detail json dump
occupies high resources (CPU + memory) of the system.
In high scale evpn route dump using pretty form
hogs CPU for a while which can trigger watchfrr
to kill bgpd.

Solution:
Avoid pretty JSON print for detail version dump

Signed-off-by: Chirag Shah <chirag@nvidia.com>
Copy link
Member

@ton31337 ton31337 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IMO, this is just a temporary fix. Scale != scale, and it can be 3x the next day 😄

@NetDEF-CI
Copy link
Collaborator

NetDEF-CI commented Jan 24, 2023

Continuous Integration Result: FAILED

Continuous Integration Result: FAILED

See below for issues.
CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9370/

This is a comment from an automated CI system.
For questions and feedback in regards to this CI system, please feel free to email
Martin Winter - mwinter (at) opensourcerouting.org.

Get source / Pull Request: Successful

Building Stage: Successful

Basic Tests: Failed

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 5: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO5U18AMD64-9370/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 5
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9370/artifact/TOPO5U18AMD64/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 5: Unknown Log
URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9370/artifact/TOPO5U18AMD64/TopotestDetails/

Successful on other platforms/tests
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 8
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 2
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 7
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 0
  • Static analyzer (clang)
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 8
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 9
  • Ubuntu 20.04 deb pkg check
  • Debian 10 deb pkg check
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 5
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 6
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 1
  • Ubuntu 18.04 deb pkg check
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 1
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 1
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 6
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 6
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 0
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 4
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 4
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 3
  • Debian 9 deb pkg check
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 1
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 4
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 3
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 9
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 9
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 3
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 2
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 5
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 0
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 2
  • Ubuntu 16.04 deb pkg check
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 7
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 8
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 7
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 1
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 7
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 5
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 3
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 2
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 0
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 7
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 5
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 8
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 0
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 3
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 8
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 4
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 9
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 2
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 9
  • Fedora 29 rpm pkg check
  • CentOS 7 rpm pkg check
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 4

@chiragshah6
Copy link
Member Author

IMO, this is just a temporary fix. Scale != scale, and it can be 3x the next day 😄

Ack. but there is no need to have pretty format print for detail route output.

@NetDEF-CI
Copy link
Collaborator

Continuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFUL

Congratulations, this patch passed basic tests

Tested-by: NetDEF / OpenSourceRouting.org CI System

CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9370/

This is a comment from an automated CI system.
For questions and feedback in regards to this CI system, please feel free to email
Martin Winter - mwinter (at) opensourcerouting.org.

@chiragshah6 chiragshah6 requested a review from ton31337 January 24, 2023 16:34
Copy link
Member

@riw777 riw777 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looks good

@ton31337 ton31337 merged commit 88bcd9f into FRRouting:master Jan 25, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants