[Snappi] Modified pfcwd basic helper to add warm-up traffic#7499
[Snappi] Modified pfcwd basic helper to add warm-up traffic#7499yxieca merged 1 commit intosonic-net:masterfrom
Conversation
|
The pre-commit check detected issues in the files touched by this pull request. For old issues, it is not mandatory to fix them because they were not caused by this change. It is unfair to blame Detailed pre-commit check results: To run the pre-commit checks locally, you can follow below steps:
|
|
Can you please also update https://github.com/sonic-net/sonic-mgmt/blob/master/docs/testplan/pfcwd/PFCWD_BASIC.md in another PR? |
Description of PR Summary: During the pfc watch dog (pfcwd) basic tests, pfc watch dog was being triggered by fake alerts i.e. when it was not supposed to be triggered. This was causing unnecessary test failures. To curb this issue, warm-up data traffic is initially sent before any other traffic (pfc pause storm and data traffic) to prevent pfcwd fake alerts caused by non-incremented packet counters during the pfcwd polling interval. Approach What is the motivation for this PR? Existing issue with certain switches where PFC watch dog was being triggered by fake alerts. How did you do it? Added warm-up data traffic before any other traffic (pfc pause storm and data traffic) to prevent pfcwd fake alerts caused by non-incremented packet counters during the pfcwd polling interval. How did you verify/test it? All pfcwd basic tests pass
Description of PR Summary: During the pfc watch dog (pfcwd) basic tests, pfc watch dog was being triggered by fake alerts i.e. when it was not supposed to be triggered. This was causing unnecessary test failures. To curb this issue, warm-up data traffic is initially sent before any other traffic (pfc pause storm and data traffic) to prevent pfcwd fake alerts caused by non-incremented packet counters during the pfcwd polling interval. Approach What is the motivation for this PR? Existing issue with certain switches where PFC watch dog was being triggered by fake alerts. How did you do it? Added warm-up data traffic before any other traffic (pfc pause storm and data traffic) to prevent pfcwd fake alerts caused by non-incremented packet counters during the pfcwd polling interval. How did you verify/test it? All pfcwd basic tests pass
Description of PR
Summary: During the pfc watch dog (pfcwd) basic tests, pfc watch dog was being triggered by fake alerts i.e. when it was not supposed to be triggered. This was causing unnecessary test failures. To curb this issue, warm-up data traffic is initially sent before any other traffic (pfc pause storm and data traffic) to prevent pfcwd fake alerts caused by non-incremented packet counters during the pfcwd polling interval.
Type of change
Back port request
Approach
What is the motivation for this PR?
Existing issue with certain switches where PFC watch dog was being triggered by fake alerts.
How did you do it?
Added warm-up data traffic before any other traffic (pfc pause storm and data traffic) to prevent pfcwd fake alerts caused by non-incremented packet counters during the pfcwd polling interval.
How did you verify/test it?
All pfcwd basic tests pass
============= 22 passed in 6207.35 seconds ===============
Any platform specific information?
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
Documentation