From: Al Morton Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 09:54:44 +0000 (+0100) Subject: IETFSummary: Expand IETF summary of LTD Sec 3 X-Git-Tag: brahmaputra.1.0~144 X-Git-Url: https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/gitweb?a=commitdiff_plain;h=refs%2Fchanges%2F86%2F886%2F9;p=vswitchperf.git IETFSummary: Expand IETF summary of LTD Sec 3 Added a section on new concfiguration parameters and a another section on flow classification/matching. Fixed diagrams to match starting offset. JIRA: VSPERF-43 Change-Id: Iad8742810c37ffe33de4005e3b2150593fe2defe Signed-off-by: Maryam Tahhan Signed-off-by: Billy O'Mahony Signed-off-by: Al Morton --- diff --git a/test_spec/ietf_summary/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml b/test_spec/ietf_summary/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml index e4057410..c44e93e4 100755 --- a/test_spec/ietf_summary/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml +++ b/test_spec/ietf_summary/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ - + This memo describes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV) @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ This project intends to build on the current and completed work of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group in IETF, by referencing existing literature. For example, currently the most referenced RFC is (which depens on ) and + target="RFC2544"/> (which depends on ) and foundation of the benchmarking work in OPNFV is common and strong. See @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ The authors note that OPNFV distinguishes itself from other open source compute and networking projects through its emphasis on existing "telco" services as opposed to cloud-computing. There are many ways in - which telco requirements have different emhasis on performance + which telco requirements have different emphasis on performance dimensions when compared to cloud computing: support for and transfer of isochronous media streams is one example. @@ -168,8 +168,10 @@
This section highlights some specific considerations (from )related to Benchmarks for virtual - switches. + target="I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net"/>)related to Benchmarks for virtual + switches. The OPNFV project is sharing its present view on these areas, + as they develop their specifications in the Level Test Design (LTD) + document.
To compare the performance of virtual designs and implementations @@ -179,26 +181,270 @@ during development of new methods. A key configuration aspect is the number of parallel cores required to achieve comparable performance with a given physical device, or whether some limit of scale was - reached before the cores could achieve the comparable level. + reached before the cores could achieve the comparable level. It's unlikely that the virtual switch will be the only application running on the SUT, so CPU utilization, Cache utilization, and Memory footprint should also be recorded for the virtual implementations of - internetworking functions. + internetworking functions.
External observations remain essential as the basis for Benchmarks. Internal observations with fixed specification and interpretation will be provided in parallel to assist the development of operations - procedures when the technology is deployed. + procedures when the technology is deployed. +
+ +
+ A key consideration when conducting any sort of benchmark is trying + to ensure the consistency and repeatability of test results. When + benchmarking the performance of a vSwitch there are many factors that + can affect the consistency of results, one key factor is matching the + various hardware and software details of the SUT. This section lists + some of the many new parameters which this project believes are + critical to report in order to achieve repeatability. + + Hardware details including: + + + Platform details + + Processor details + + Memory information (type and size) + + Number of enabled cores + + Number of cores used for the test + + Number of physical NICs, as well as their details + (manufacturer, versions, type and the PCI slot they are plugged + into) + + NIC interrupt configuration + + BIOS version, release date and any configurations that were + modified + + CPU microcode level + + Memory DIMM configurations (quad rank performance may not be + the same as dual rank) in size, freq and slot locations + + PCI configuration parameters (payload size, early ack + option...) + + Power management at all levels (ACPI sleep states, processor + package, OS...) + Software details including: + + + OS parameters and behavior (text vs graphical no one typing at + the console on one system) + + OS version (for host and VNF) + + Kernel version (for host and VNF) + + GRUB boot parameters (for host and VNF) + + Hypervisor details (Type and version) + + Selected vSwitch, version number or commit id used + + vSwitch launch command line if it has been parameterised + + Memory allocation to the vSwitch + + which NUMA node it is using, and how many memory channels + + DPDK or any other SW dependency version number or commit id + used + + Memory allocation to a VM - if it's from Hugpages/elsewhere + + VM storage type: snapshot/independent persistent/independent + non-persistent + + Number of VMs + + Number of Virtual NICs (vNICs), versions, type and driver + + Number of virtual CPUs and their core affinity on the host + + Number vNIC interrupt configuration + + Thread affinitization for the applications (including the + vSwitch itself) on the host + + Details of Resource isolation, such as CPUs designated for + Host/Kernel (isolcpu) and CPUs designated for specific processes + (taskset). - Test duration. - Number of flows. + + + Test Traffic Information: + Traffic type - UDP, TCP, IMIX / Other + + Packet Sizes + + Deployment Scenario + + + +
+ +
+ Virtual switches group packets into flows by processing and + matching particular packet or frame header information, or by matching + packets based on the input ports. Thus a flow can be thought of a + sequence of packets that have the same set of header field values or + have arrived on the same port. Performance results can vary based on + the parameters the vSwitch uses to match for a flow. The recommended + flow classification parameters for any vSwitch performance tests are: + the input port, the source IP address, the destination IP address and + the ethernet protocol type field. It is essential to increase the flow + timeout time on a vSwitch before conducting any performance tests that + do not measure the flow setup time. Normally the first packet of a + particular stream will install the flow in the virtual switch which + adds an additional latency, subsequent packets of the same flow are + not subject to this latency if the flow is already installed on the + vSwitch. +
+ +
+ This outline describes measurement of baseline with isolated + resources at a high level, which is the intended approach at this + time. + + + Baselines: + Optional: Benchmark platform forwarding capability without + a vswitch or VNF for at least 72 hours (serves as a means of + platform validation and a means to obtain the base performance + for the platform in terms of its maximum forwarding rate and + latency).
+ Benchmark platform forwarding + capability + + + + +
+ + Benchmark VNF forwarding capability with direct + connectivity (vSwitch bypass, e.g., SR/IOV) for at least 72 + hours (serves as a means of VNF validation and a means to + obtain the base performance for the VNF in terms of its + maximum forwarding rate and latency). The metrics gathered + from this test will serve as a key comparison point for + vSwitch bypass technologies performance and vSwitch + performance.
+ Benchmark VNF forwarding capability + + + + +
+ + Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, with other + resources (both HW&SW) disabled Example, vSw and VM are + SUT + + Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, leaving some + resources unused + + Benchmark with isolated resources and all resources + occupied + + + Next Steps + Limited sharing + + Production scenarios + + Stressful scenarios + +
The overall specification in preparation is referred to as a Level - Test Design (LTD) document, which will contain a suite of performace - tests. + Test Design (LTD) document, which will contain a suite of performance + tests. The base performance tests in the LTD are based on the + pre-existing specifications developed by BMWG to test the performance of + physical switches. These specifications include: + + + Benchmarking Methodology for Network + Interconnect Devices + + Benchmarking Methodology for LAN + Switching + + Device Reset Characterization + + Packet Delay Variation Applicability + Statement + + + + + In addition to this, the LTD also re-uses the terminology defined + by: + + + Benchmarking Terminology for LAN + Switching Devices + + Packet Delay Variation Applicability + Statement + + + + + Specifications to be included in future updates of the LTD + include: + Methodology for IP Multicast + Benchmarking + + Packet Reordering Metrics + As one might expect, the most fundamental internetworking characteristics of Throughput and Latency remain important when the @@ -242,25 +488,25 @@ performance, i.e. how fast systems can send and receive data through the switch. - Request/Response Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) the measure the - transaction rate through the switch. - Control Path and Datapath Coupling Tests, to understand how closely coupled the datapath and the control path are as well as the effect of this coupling on the performance of the DUT (example: delay of the initial packet of a flow). - Noisy Neighbour Tests, to understand the effects of resource - sharing on the performance of a virtual switch. - CPU and Memory Consumption Tests to understand the virtual switch’s footprint on the system, usually conducted as - auxilliary measurements with benchmarks above. They include: CPU + auxiliary measurements with benchmarks above. They include: CPU utilization, Cache utilization and Memory footprint. - The felixability of deployemnt of a virtual switch within a network - means that the BMWG IETF existing literature needs to be used to + Future/planned test specs include: + Request/Response Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) which measure the + transaction rate through the switch. + + Noisy Neighbour Tests, to understand the effects of resource + sharing on the performance of a virtual switch. + The flexibility of deployment of a virtual switch within a + network means that the BMWG IETF existing literature needs to be used to characterize the performance of a switch in various deployment scenarios. The deployment scenarios under consideration include: @@ -268,60 +514,60 @@ Physical port to virtual switch to physical port - +
Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to physical port - +
Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to physical port @@ -346,13 +592,13 @@ | | logical ports | | logical ports | | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ | | | ^ | ^ | | | Host - | | L-----------------+ v | | + | | |-----------------| v | | | +--------------+ +--------------+ | | | | phy ports | vSwitch | phy ports | | | +---+--------------+----------+--------------+---+_| - ^ : ^ : - | | | | - : v : v + ^ : + | | + : v +--------------------------------------------------+ | | | traffic generator | @@ -361,75 +607,75 @@
Physical port to virtual switch to VNF - + : + +--------------------------------------------------+ + | | + | traffic generator | + | | + +--------------------------------------------------+]]>
VNF to virtual switch to physical port - +
- VNF to virtual switch to VNF + VNF to virtual switch to VNF + +------------------------------------------------+_|]]>
+
+ This section organizes the many existing test specifications into the + "3x3" matrix (introduced in ). + Because the LTD specification ID names are quite long, this section is + organized into lists for each occupied cell of the matrix (not all are + occupied, also the matrix has grown to 3x4 to accommodate scale + metrics). + + The tests listed below assess the activation of paths in the data + plane, rather than the control plane. + + (Editor's Note: a complete list of tests is available here: + https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/vswitchperf_test_spec_review ) + +
+ + Throughput.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate + + Throughput.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity + + PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency + + + +
+ +
+ + Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime + + Throughput.RFC2544.ResetTime + +
+ +
+ + Throughput.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity + + + +
+ +
+ + Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRate + + Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRateFrameModification + + Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames + + Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardingRate + + Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure + + Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding + + RFC2889 Broadcast Frame Latency test + +
+ +
+ + Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering + + + +
+ +
+ + Throughput.RFC2544.Soak + + Throughput.RFC2544.SoakFrameModification + + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+
+
+
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to technology characterization of a Device Under Test/System Under Test @@ -518,6 +863,14 @@ + + + + + + + + Network Function Virtualization: Performance and Portability @@ -548,7 +901,7 @@ <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6390'?> - <?rfc include='reference.ID.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net'?> + <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net'?> </references> </back> </rfc>