From owner-freebsd-cloud@freebsd.org Wed Nov 8 00:59:27 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-cloud@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC824E695B9 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 00:59:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from raf@rafal.net) Received: from smtp-out-1.mxes.net (smtp-out-1.mxes.net [67.222.241.250]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86E607CD48 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 00:59:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from raf@rafal.net) Received: from [192.168.40.37] (86-40-118-125-dynamic.agg2.bri.bbh-prp.eircom.net [86.40.118.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2207B2753C; Tue, 7 Nov 2017 19:59:24 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\)) Subject: Re: AWS c5.class unsupported? From: Rafal Lukawiecki In-Reply-To: <0100015f99189134-61e4c63e-1f35-4854-ad9c-b4b62bb084a0-000000@email.amazonses.com> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 00:59:23 +0000 Cc: Pete Wright , freebsd-cloud@freebsd.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <22772d45-812b-4592-87b7-7e9bafcc86f7@email.android.com> <53A5CAA0-B37C-4BAE-A42A-338C04D9612E@rafal.net> <0100015f99189134-61e4c63e-1f35-4854-ad9c-b4b62bb084a0-000000@email.amazonses.com> To: Colin Percival X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7) X-BeenThere: freebsd-cloud@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "FreeBSD on cloud platforms \(EC2, GCE, Azure, etc.\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:59:27 -0000 > On 8 Nov 2017, at 00:47, Colin Percival wrote: >=20 > Actually no -- the problem I'm aware of has nothing to do with = user-data > scripts and should not affect instance launching. I wouldn't be = surprised > if some instance launches are failing due to capacity issues though -- = EC2 > often has such problems when they launch a new instance family. >=20 > The problem I'm tracking with C5 relates to disk hotplug: If you add = an EBS > volume, FreeBSD will not notice it until you run 'devctl rescan pci0', = and > if you remove an EBS volume FreeBSD will panic. Warner is working on = fixing > the "hotunplug" path in the nvme driver in order to correct the panic; = we > were hoping to have it fixed in HEAD before C5 was launched, but I = thought > we had a few weeks left. >=20 > If you have a good test case for user-data script problems, please let = me > know (off-list). Given how much new hardware and software there is in = the C5 > instances I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few bugs lurking, and = I'm > sure my contacts at EC2 will be happy to receive reports. >=20 > (FWIW, C5 not being available in the Marketplace images is probably = just a > case of the Marketplace taking a while to get up to speed; I marked = those > images as "make these available on all new instances". But I'll = probably go > in and disable C5 for now due to the disk attach/detach issues.) >=20 > --=20 > Colin Percival > Security Officer Emeritus, FreeBSD | The power to serve > Founder, Tarsnap | www.tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly = paranoid It was odd. Your cloudconfig seemed not to run *some* of the scripts (or = *none* of the scripts) that it got from the tar instance user-data. It = could have been related to a fluke co-incidence. During the project = development, I have, so far, launched 150+ t2.medium and c4.large and I = have never had this issue. Today I thought of testing c5.large but I = have only launched 12 of them. I had this problem in 1 case out of the = 12. On a side note, the performance our optimised web heads running FreeBSD = 11.1 + PHP 7 + Drupal 7 got from c5.large was on-par or a little worse = than from t2.medium in a short but intensive load test. I was surprised, = so perhaps there are some other issues lurking beneath. I was also = hoping the slowish EFS access would be faster, but it is no different at = the low-end of EFS storage it seems. Of course, t2 is limited to bursts, = so this is not a fair comparison to c5, but I was still hoping to see = better results even in a 5 min load. More testing needed, results inconclusive, I suppose. I am on a deadline = to complete the project this week, so I won=E2=80=99t go back to c5 = testing but happy to do that in about 5 weeks from now. Rafal=