aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/docs/testing/developer/requirements
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorTrevor Cooper <trevor.cooper@intel.com>2017-08-22 15:29:08 -0700
committerTrevor Cooper <trevor.cooper@intel.com>2017-08-22 15:34:54 -0700
commitffc0fc7902e2f46cb5982f55aacd262073f08e1c (patch)
treeb91bfb15e64665d43bc9597d202931e40bb1cdae /docs/testing/developer/requirements
parent1375b9eff007b51af9b04b4c36975c39cc04cde8 (diff)
Moved devguide for consitency with docs dir structure for all testing projects
Updated RFC description based on IETF approval of Internet Draft Change-Id: Ifd37da946866f350b8968bbbe8c5a3f5ce762cfa Signed-off-by: Trevor Cooper <trevor.cooper@intel.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/testing/developer/requirements')
-rw-r--r--docs/testing/developer/requirements/LICENSE2
-rw-r--r--docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/LICENSE12
-rw-r--r--docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml1016
-rw-r--r--docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml1027
-rw-r--r--docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml964
-rw-r--r--docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml1016
-rw-r--r--docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-02.xml1016
-rw-r--r--docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_alternative_benchmark.pngbin104244 -> 0 bytes
-rw-r--r--docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_benchmark.pngbin80797 -> 0 bytes
-rw-r--r--docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_hypervisor_benchmark.pngbin122975 -> 0 bytes
-rw-r--r--docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_virtual_interface_benchmark.pngbin99544 -> 0 bytes
-rw-r--r--docs/testing/developer/requirements/vswitchperf_ltd.rst1712
-rw-r--r--docs/testing/developer/requirements/vswitchperf_ltp.rst1344
13 files changed, 0 insertions, 8109 deletions
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/LICENSE b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/LICENSE
deleted file mode 100644
index 7bc572ce..00000000
--- a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/LICENSE
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,2 +0,0 @@
-This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
-http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/LICENSE b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/LICENSE
deleted file mode 100644
index 7fc9ae14..00000000
--- a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/LICENSE
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,12 +0,0 @@
-Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
-document authors. All rights reserved.
-
-This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
-Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
-(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
-publication of this document. Please review these documents
-carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
-to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
-include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
-the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
-described in the Simplified BSD License.
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml
deleted file mode 100644
index 2259b23c..00000000
--- a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,1016 +0,0 @@
-<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
-<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
-<?rfc toc="yes"?>
-<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
-<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
-<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
-<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
-<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
-<?rfc comments="yes"?>
-<?rfc inline="yes"?>
-<?rfc compact="yes"?>
-<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
-<rfc category="info" docName="draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00"
- ipr="trust200902">
- <front>
- <title abbrev="Benchmarking vSwitches">Benchmarking Virtual Switches in
- OPNFV</title>
-
- <author fullname="Maryam Tahhan" initials="M." surname="Tahhan">
- <organization>Intel</organization>
-
- <address>
- <postal>
- <street/>
-
- <city/>
-
- <region/>
-
- <code/>
-
- <country/>
- </postal>
-
- <phone/>
-
- <facsimile/>
-
- <email>maryam.tahhan@intel.com</email>
-
- <uri/>
- </address>
- </author>
-
- <author fullname="Billy O'Mahony" initials="B." surname="O'Mahony">
- <organization>Intel</organization>
-
- <address>
- <postal>
- <street/>
-
- <city/>
-
- <region/>
-
- <code/>
-
- <country/>
- </postal>
-
- <phone/>
-
- <facsimile/>
-
- <email>billy.o.mahony@intel.com</email>
-
- <uri/>
- </address>
- </author>
-
- <author fullname="Al Morton" initials="A." surname="Morton">
- <organization>AT&amp;T Labs</organization>
-
- <address>
- <postal>
- <street>200 Laurel Avenue South</street>
-
- <city>Middletown,</city>
-
- <region>NJ</region>
-
- <code>07748</code>
-
- <country>USA</country>
- </postal>
-
- <phone>+1 732 420 1571</phone>
-
- <facsimile>+1 732 368 1192</facsimile>
-
- <email>acmorton@att.com</email>
-
- <uri>http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/</uri>
- </address>
- </author>
-
- <date day="8" month="July" year="2016"/>
-
- <abstract>
- <t>This memo describes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV)
- project on virtual switch performance "VSWITCHPERF". This project
- intends to build on the current and completed work of the Benchmarking
- Methodology Working Group in IETF, by referencing existing literature.
- The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group has traditionally conducted
- laboratory characterization of dedicated physical implementations of
- internetworking functions. Therefore, this memo begins to describe the
- additional considerations when virtual switches are implemented in
- general-purpose hardware. The expanded tests and benchmarks are also
- influenced by the OPNFV mission to support virtualization of the "telco"
- infrastructure.</t>
- </abstract>
-
- <note title="Requirements Language">
- <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
- "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
- document are to be interpreted as described in <xref
- target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.</t>
-
- <t/>
- </note>
- </front>
-
- <middle>
- <section title="Introduction">
- <t>Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) has traditionally
- conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated physical
- implementations of internetworking functions. The Black-box Benchmarks
- of Throughput, Latency, Forwarding Rates and others have served our
- industry for many years. Now, Network Function Virtualization (NFV) has
- the goal to transform how internetwork functions are implemented, and
- therefore has garnered much attention.</t>
-
- <t>This memo summarizes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV
- (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance characterization,
- "VSWITCHPERF", through the Brahmaputra (second) release <xref
- target="BrahRel"/>. 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 often
- referenced RFC is <xref target="RFC2544"/> (which depends on <xref
- target="RFC1242"/>) and foundation of the benchmarking work in OPNFV is
- common and strong.</t>
-
- <t>See
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/characterize_vswitch_performance_for_telco_nfv_use_cases
- for more background, and the OPNFV website for general information:
- https://www.opnfv.org/</t>
-
- <t>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 emphasis on performance
- dimensions when compared to cloud computing: support for and transfer of
- isochronous media streams is one example.</t>
-
- <t>Note also that the move to NFV Infrastructure has resulted in many
- new benchmarking initiatives across the industry. The authors are
- currently doing their best to maintain alignment with many other
- projects, and this Internet Draft is one part of the efforts. We
- acknowledge the early work in <xref
- target="I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance"/>, and useful
- discussion with the authors.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Scope">
- <t>The primary purpose and scope of the memo is to inform the industry
- of work-in-progress that builds on the body of extensive BMWG literature
- and experience, and describe the extensions needed for benchmarking
- virtual switches. Inital feedback indicates that many of these
- extensions may be applicable beyond the current scope (to hardware
- switches in the NFV Infrastructure and to virtual routers, for example).
- Additionally, this memo serves as a vehicle to include more detail and
- commentary from BMWG and other Open Source communities, under BMWG's
- chartered work to characterize the NFV Infrastructure (a virtual switch
- is an important aspect of that infrastructure).</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Benchmarking Considerations">
- <t>This section highlights some specific considerations (from <xref
- 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.</t>
-
- <section title="Comparison with Physical Network Functions">
- <t>To compare the performance of virtual designs and implementations
- with their physical counterparts, identical benchmarks are needed.
- BMWG has developed specifications for many network functions this memo
- re-uses existing benchmarks through references, and expands them
- 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.</t>
-
- <t>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.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks">
- <t>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.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="New Configuration Parameters">
- <t>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.</t>
-
- <t>Hardware details including:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Platform details</t>
-
- <t>Processor details</t>
-
- <t>Memory information (type and size)</t>
-
- <t>Number of enabled cores</t>
-
- <t>Number of cores used for the test</t>
-
- <t>Number of physical NICs, as well as their details
- (manufacturer, versions, type and the PCI slot they are plugged
- into)</t>
-
- <t>NIC interrupt configuration</t>
-
- <t>BIOS version, release date and any configurations that were
- modified</t>
-
- <t>CPU microcode level</t>
-
- <t>Memory DIMM configurations (quad rank performance may not be
- the same as dual rank) in size, freq and slot locations</t>
-
- <t>PCI configuration parameters (payload size, early ack
- option...)</t>
-
- <t>Power management at all levels (ACPI sleep states, processor
- package, OS...)</t>
- </list>Software details including:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>OS parameters and behavior (text vs graphical no one typing at
- the console on one system)</t>
-
- <t>OS version (for host and VNF)</t>
-
- <t>Kernel version (for host and VNF)</t>
-
- <t>GRUB boot parameters (for host and VNF)</t>
-
- <t>Hypervisor details (Type and version)</t>
-
- <t>Selected vSwitch, version number or commit id used</t>
-
- <t>vSwitch launch command line if it has been parameterised</t>
-
- <t>Memory allocation to the vSwitch</t>
-
- <t>which NUMA node it is using, and how many memory channels</t>
-
- <t>DPDK or any other SW dependency version number or commit id
- used</t>
-
- <t>Memory allocation to a VM - if it's from Hugpages/elsewhere</t>
-
- <t>VM storage type: snapshot/independent persistent/independent
- non-persistent</t>
-
- <t>Number of VMs</t>
-
- <t>Number of Virtual NICs (vNICs), versions, type and driver</t>
-
- <t>Number of virtual CPUs and their core affinity on the host</t>
-
- <t>Number vNIC interrupt configuration</t>
-
- <t>Thread affinitization for the applications (including the
- vSwitch itself) on the host</t>
-
- <t>Details of Resource isolation, such as CPUs designated for
- Host/Kernel (isolcpu) and CPUs designated for specific processes
- (taskset). - Test duration. - Number of flows.</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Test Traffic Information:<list style="symbols">
- <t>Traffic type - UDP, TCP, IMIX / Other</t>
-
- <t>Packet Sizes</t>
-
- <t>Deployment Scenario</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t/>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Flow classification">
- <t>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
- (5-tuple) 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.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation">
- <t>This outline describes measurement of baseline with isolated
- resources at a high level, which is the intended approach at this
- time.</t>
-
- <t><list style="numbers">
- <t>Baselines: <list style="symbols">
- <t>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). <figure>
- <preamble>Benchmark platform forwarding
- capability</preamble>
-
- <artwork align="right"><![CDATA[ __
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | Simple Forwarding App | | Host
- | | | | |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | NIC | | |
- +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
-
- <postamble/>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t>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. <figure align="right">
- <preamble>Benchmark VNF forwarding capability</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | VNF | | |
- | | | | |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Passthrough/SR-IOV | | Host
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | NIC | | |
- +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
-
- <postamble/>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t>Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, with other
- resources (both HW&amp;SW) disabled Example, vSw and VM are
- SUT</t>
-
- <t>Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, leaving some
- resources unused</t>
-
- <t>Benchmark with isolated resources and all resources
- occupied</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Next Steps<list style="symbols">
- <t>Limited sharing</t>
-
- <t>Production scenarios</t>
-
- <t>Stressful scenarios</t>
- </list></t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
- </section>
-
- <section title="VSWITCHPERF Specification Summary">
- <t>The overall specification in preparation is referred to as a Level
- 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:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t><xref target="RFC2544"/> Benchmarking Methodology for Network
- Interconnect Devices</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC2889"/> Benchmarking Methodology for LAN
- Switching</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC6201"/> Device Reset Characterization</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC5481"/> Packet Delay Variation Applicability
- Statement</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Some of the above/newer RFCs are being applied in benchmarking for
- the first time, and represent a development challenge for test equipment
- developers. Fortunately, many members of the testing system community
- have engaged on the VSPERF project, including an open source test
- system.</t>
-
- <t>In addition to this, the LTD also re-uses the terminology defined
- by:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t><xref target="RFC2285"/> Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
- Switching Devices</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC5481"/> Packet Delay Variation Applicability
- Statement</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t/>
-
- <t>Specifications to be included in future updates of the LTD
- include:<list style="symbols">
- <t><xref target="RFC3918"/> Methodology for IP Multicast
- Benchmarking</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC4737"/> Packet Reordering Metrics</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>As one might expect, the most fundamental internetworking
- characteristics of Throughput and Latency remain important when the
- switch is virtualized, and these benchmarks figure prominently in the
- specification.</t>
-
- <t>When considering characteristics important to "telco" network
- functions, we must begin to consider additional performance metrics. In
- this case, the project specifications have referenced metrics from the
- IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) literature. This means that the <xref
- target="RFC2544"/> test of Latency is replaced by measurement of a
- metric derived from IPPM's <xref target="RFC2679"/>, where a set of
- statistical summaries will be provided (mean, max, min, etc.). Further
- metrics planned to be benchmarked include packet delay variation as
- defined by <xref target="RFC5481"/> , reordering, burst behaviour, DUT
- availability, DUT capacity and packet loss in long term testing at
- Throughput level, where some low-level of background loss may be present
- and characterized.</t>
-
- <t>Tests have been (or will be) designed to collect the metrics
- below:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput Tests to measure the maximum forwarding rate (in
- frames per second or fps) and bit rate (in Mbps) for a constant load
- (as defined by <xref target="RFC1242"/>) without traffic loss.</t>
-
- <t>Packet and Frame Delay Distribution Tests to measure average, min
- and max packet and frame delay for constant loads.</t>
-
- <t>Packet Delay Tests to understand latency distribution for
- different packet sizes and over an extended test run to uncover
- outliers.</t>
-
- <t>Scalability Tests to understand how the virtual switch performs
- as the number of flows, active ports, complexity of the forwarding
- logic&rsquo;s configuration&hellip; it has to deal with
- increases.</t>
-
- <t>Stream Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) to measure bulk data transfer
- performance, i.e. how fast systems can send and receive data through
- the switch.</t>
-
- <t>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).</t>
-
- <t>CPU and Memory Consumption Tests to understand the virtual
- switch&rsquo;s footprint on the system, usually conducted as
- auxiliary measurements with benchmarks above. They include: CPU
- utilization, Cache utilization and Memory footprint.</t>
-
- <t>The so-called "Soak" tests, where the selected test is conducted
- over a long period of time (with an ideal duration of 24 hours, and
- at least 6 hours). The purpose of soak tests is to capture transient
- changes in performance which may occur due to infrequent processes
- or the low probability coincidence of two or more processes. The
- performance must be evaluated periodically during continuous
- testing, and this results in use of <xref target="RFC2889"/> Frame
- Rate metrics instead of <xref target="RFC2544"/> Throughput (which
- requires stopping traffic to allow time for all traffic to exit
- internal queues).</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Future/planned test specs include:<list style="symbols">
- <t>Request/Response Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) which measure the
- transaction rate through the switch.</t>
-
- <t>Noisy Neighbour Tests, to understand the effects of resource
- sharing on the performance of a virtual switch.</t>
-
- <t>Tests derived from examination of ETSI NFV Draft GS IFA003
- requirements <xref target="IFA003"/> on characterization of
- acceleration technologies applied to vswitches.</t>
- </list>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:</t>
-
- <t><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to physical
- port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +--------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | v | | Host
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch
- to physical port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | ^ : | |
- | | | | | Guest
- | : v | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | |
- +---+---------------+-----------+---------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v __
- +---+---------------+----------+---------------+---+ |
- | | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | ^ : | |
- | | | | | Host
- | : v | |
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch
- to VNF to virtual switch to physical port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
- | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | Application | | | | Application | | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | | | ^ | | |
- | | v | | | v | | Guests
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | |
- | | 0 1 | | | | 0 1 | | |
- +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__|
- ^ : ^ :
- | | | |
- : v : v _
- +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
- | | 0 1 | | 3 4 | | |
- | | logical ports | | logical ports | | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | ^ | | | Host
- | | |-----------------| v | |
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy ports | vSwitch | phy ports | | |
- +---+--------------+----------+--------------+---+_|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | ^ | |
- | | | | Guest
- | : | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port 0| | |
- +---+---------------+-------------------------------+ __|
- ^
- |
- : __
- +---+---------------+------------------------------+ |
- | | logical port 0| | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | |
- | | | | Host
- | : | |
- | +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | |
- +---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ __|
- ^
- |
- :
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>VNF to virtual switch to physical port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | : | |
- | | | | Guest
- | v | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port | | |
- +-------------------------------+---------------+---+ __|
- :
- |
- v __
- +------------------------------+---------------+---+ |
- | | logical port | | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | : | |
- | | | | Host
- | v | |
- | +--------------+ | |
- | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +-------------------------------+--------------+---+ __|
- :
- |
- v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>VNF to virtual switch to VNF</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
- | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | Application | | | | Application | | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | | | ^ | |
- | v | | | | | Guests
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | |
- | | 0 | | | | 0 | | |
- +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__|
- : ^
- | |
- v : _
- +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
- | | 1 | | 1 | | |
- | | logical ports | | logical ports | | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | | ^ | | Host
- | L-----------------+ | |
- | | |
- | vSwitch | |
- +------------------------------------------------+_|]]></artwork>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t>A set of Deployment Scenario figures is available on the VSPERF Test
- Methodology Wiki page <xref target="TestTopo"/>.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="3x3 Matrix Coverage">
- <t>This section organizes the many existing test specifications into the
- "3x3" matrix (introduced in <xref target="I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net"/>).
- 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
- when displaying the coverage of many metrics/benchmarks). The current
- version of the LTD specification is available <xref target="LTD"/>.</t>
-
- <t>The tests listed below assess the activation of paths in the data
- plane, rather than the control plane.</t>
-
- <t>A complete list of tests with short summaries is available on the
- VSPERF "LTD Test Spec Overview" Wiki page <xref target="LTDoverV"/>.</t>
-
- <section title="Speed of Activation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Activation.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate</t>
-
- <t>PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Accuracy of Activation section">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>CPDP.Coupling.Flow.Addition</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Reliability of Activation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.ResetTime</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Scale of Activation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Activation.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Speed of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRate</t>
-
- <t>CPU.RFC2544.0PacketLoss</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRateFrameModification</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Accuracy of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.Profile</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Reliability of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.Soak</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.SoakFrameModification</t>
-
- <t>PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Scalability of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Scalability.RFC2544.0PacketLoss</t>
-
- <t>MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Summary">
- <t><figure>
- <artwork><![CDATA[|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| | SPEED | ACCURACY | RELIABILITY | SCALE |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| Activation | X | X | X | X |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| Operation | X | X | X | X |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| De-activation | | | | |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|]]></artwork>
- </figure></t>
- </section>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Security Considerations">
- <t>Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
- technology characterization of a Device Under Test/System Under Test
- (DUT/SUT) using controlled stimuli in a laboratory environment, with
- dedicated address space and the constraints specified in the sections
- above.</t>
-
- <t>The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
- and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test traffic
- into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test management
- network.</t>
-
- <t>Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
- solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.</t>
-
- <t>Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
- benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
- from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
- networks.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
- <t>No IANA Action is requested at this time.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Acknowledgements">
- <t>The authors appreciate and acknowledge comments from Scott Bradner,
- Marius Georgescu, Ramki Krishnan, Doug Montgomery, Martin Klozik,
- Christian Trautman, and others for their reviews.</t>
- </section>
- </middle>
-
- <back>
- <references title="Normative References">
- <?rfc ?>
-
- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
-
- <?rfc ?>
-
- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2330"?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2544'?>
-
- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2679"?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2680'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3393'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3432'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2681'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5905'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4689'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4737'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5357'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2889'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3918'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6201'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2285'?>
-
- <reference anchor="NFV.PER001">
- <front>
- <title>Network Function Virtualization: Performance and Portability
- Best Practices</title>
-
- <author fullname="ETSI NFV" initials="" surname="">
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date month="June" year="2014"/>
- </front>
-
- <seriesInfo name="Group Specification"
- value="ETSI GS NFV-PER 001 V1.1.1 (2014-06)"/>
-
- <format type="PDF"/>
- </reference>
- </references>
-
- <references title="Informative References">
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.1242'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5481'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6049'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6248'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6390'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance'?>
-
- <reference anchor="TestTopo">
- <front>
- <title>Test Topologies
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/vsperf/test_methodology</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="LTDoverV">
- <front>
- <title>LTD Test Spec Overview
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/vswitchperf_test_spec_review</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="LTD">
- <front>
- <title>LTD Test Specification
- http://artifacts.opnfv.org/vswitchperf/docs/requirements/index.html</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="BrahRel">
- <front>
- <title>Brahmaputra, Second OPNFV Release
- https://www.opnfv.org/brahmaputra</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="IFA003">
- <front>
- <title>https://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Drafts/IFA003_Acceleration_-_vSwitch_Spec/</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
- </references>
- </back>
-</rfc>
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml
deleted file mode 100644
index c8a3d99b..00000000
--- a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,1027 +0,0 @@
-<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
-<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
-<?rfc toc="yes"?>
-<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
-<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
-<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
-<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
-<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
-<?rfc comments="yes"?>
-<?rfc inline="yes"?>
-<?rfc compact="yes"?>
-<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
-<rfc category="info" docName="draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01"
- ipr="trust200902">
- <front>
- <title abbrev="Benchmarking vSwitches">Benchmarking Virtual Switches in
- OPNFV</title>
-
- <author fullname="Maryam Tahhan" initials="M." surname="Tahhan">
- <organization>Intel</organization>
-
- <address>
- <postal>
- <street/>
-
- <city/>
-
- <region/>
-
- <code/>
-
- <country/>
- </postal>
-
- <phone/>
-
- <facsimile/>
-
- <email>maryam.tahhan@intel.com</email>
-
- <uri/>
- </address>
- </author>
-
- <author fullname="Billy O'Mahony" initials="B." surname="O'Mahony">
- <organization>Intel</organization>
-
- <address>
- <postal>
- <street/>
-
- <city/>
-
- <region/>
-
- <code/>
-
- <country/>
- </postal>
-
- <phone/>
-
- <facsimile/>
-
- <email>billy.o.mahony@intel.com</email>
-
- <uri/>
- </address>
- </author>
-
- <author fullname="Al Morton" initials="A." surname="Morton">
- <organization>AT&amp;T Labs</organization>
-
- <address>
- <postal>
- <street>200 Laurel Avenue South</street>
-
- <city>Middletown,</city>
-
- <region>NJ</region>
-
- <code>07748</code>
-
- <country>USA</country>
- </postal>
-
- <phone>+1 732 420 1571</phone>
-
- <facsimile>+1 732 368 1192</facsimile>
-
- <email>acmorton@att.com</email>
-
- <uri>http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/</uri>
- </address>
- </author>
-
- <date day="10" month="October" year="2016"/>
-
- <abstract>
- <t>This memo describes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV)
- project on virtual switch performance "VSWITCHPERF". This project
- intends to build on the current and completed work of the Benchmarking
- Methodology Working Group in IETF, by referencing existing literature.
- The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group has traditionally conducted
- laboratory characterization of dedicated physical implementations of
- internetworking functions. Therefore, this memo begins to describe the
- additional considerations when virtual switches are implemented in
- general-purpose hardware. The expanded tests and benchmarks are also
- influenced by the OPNFV mission to support virtualization of the "telco"
- infrastructure.</t>
- </abstract>
-
- <note title="Requirements Language">
- <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
- "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
- document are to be interpreted as described in <xref
- target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.</t>
-
- <t/>
- </note>
- </front>
-
- <middle>
- <section title="Introduction">
- <t>Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) has traditionally
- conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated physical
- implementations of internetworking functions. The Black-box Benchmarks
- of Throughput, Latency, Forwarding Rates and others have served our
- industry for many years. Now, Network Function Virtualization (NFV) has
- the goal to transform how internetwork functions are implemented, and
- therefore has garnered much attention.</t>
-
- <t>This memo summarizes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV
- (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance characterization,
- "VSWITCHPERF", through the Brahmaputra (second) release <xref
- target="BrahRel"/>. 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 often
- referenced RFC is <xref target="RFC2544"/> (which depends on <xref
- target="RFC1242"/>) and foundation of the benchmarking work in OPNFV is
- common and strong.</t>
-
- <t>See
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/characterize_vswitch_performance_for_telco_nfv_use_cases
- for more background, and the OPNFV website for general information:
- https://www.opnfv.org/</t>
-
- <t>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 emphasis on performance
- dimensions when compared to cloud computing: support for and transfer of
- isochronous media streams is one example.</t>
-
- <t>Note also that the move to NFV Infrastructure has resulted in many
- new benchmarking initiatives across the industry. The authors are
- currently doing their best to maintain alignment with many other
- projects, and this Internet Draft is one part of the efforts. We
- acknowledge the early work in <xref
- target="I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance"/>, and useful
- discussion with the authors.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Scope">
- <t>The primary purpose and scope of the memo is to inform the industry
- of work-in-progress that builds on the body of extensive BMWG literature
- and experience, and describe the extensions needed for benchmarking
- virtual switches. Inital feedback indicates that many of these
- extensions may be applicable beyond the current scope (to hardware
- switches in the NFV Infrastructure and to virtual routers, for example).
- Additionally, this memo serves as a vehicle to include more detail and
- commentary from BMWG and other Open Source communities, under BMWG's
- chartered work to characterize the NFV Infrastructure (a virtual switch
- is an important aspect of that infrastructure).</t>
-
- <t>The benchmarking covered in this memo should be applicable to many
- types of vswitches, and remain vswitch-agnostic to great degree. There
- has been no attempt to track and test all features of any specific
- vswitch implementation.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Benchmarking Considerations">
- <t>This section highlights some specific considerations (from <xref
- 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.</t>
-
- <section title="Comparison with Physical Network Functions">
- <t>To compare the performance of virtual designs and implementations
- with their physical counterparts, identical benchmarks are needed.
- BMWG has developed specifications for many network functions this memo
- re-uses existing benchmarks through references, and expands them
- 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.</t>
-
- <t>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.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks">
- <t>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.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="New Configuration Parameters">
- <t>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.</t>
-
- <t>Hardware details including:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Platform details</t>
-
- <t>Processor details</t>
-
- <t>Memory information (type and size)</t>
-
- <t>Number of enabled cores</t>
-
- <t>Number of cores used for the test</t>
-
- <t>Number of physical NICs, as well as their details
- (manufacturer, versions, type and the PCI slot they are plugged
- into)</t>
-
- <t>NIC interrupt configuration</t>
-
- <t>BIOS version, release date and any configurations that were
- modified</t>
-
- <t>CPU microcode level</t>
-
- <t>Memory DIMM configurations (quad rank performance may not be
- the same as dual rank) in size, freq and slot locations</t>
-
- <t>PCI configuration parameters (payload size, early ack
- option...)</t>
-
- <t>Power management at all levels (ACPI sleep states, processor
- package, OS...)</t>
- </list>Software details including:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>OS parameters and behavior (text vs graphical no one typing at
- the console on one system)</t>
-
- <t>OS version (for host and VNF)</t>
-
- <t>Kernel version (for host and VNF)</t>
-
- <t>GRUB boot parameters (for host and VNF)</t>
-
- <t>Hypervisor details (Type and version)</t>
-
- <t>Selected vSwitch, version number or commit id used</t>
-
- <t>vSwitch launch command line if it has been parameterised</t>
-
- <t>Memory allocation to the vSwitch</t>
-
- <t>which NUMA node it is using, and how many memory channels</t>
-
- <t>DPDK or any other SW dependency version number or commit id
- used</t>
-
- <t>Memory allocation to a VM - if it's from Hugpages/elsewhere</t>
-
- <t>VM storage type: snapshot/independent persistent/independent
- non-persistent</t>
-
- <t>Number of VMs</t>
-
- <t>Number of Virtual NICs (vNICs), versions, type and driver</t>
-
- <t>Number of virtual CPUs and their core affinity on the host</t>
-
- <t>Number vNIC interrupt configuration</t>
-
- <t>Thread affinitization for the applications (including the
- vSwitch itself) on the host</t>
-
- <t>Details of Resource isolation, such as CPUs designated for
- Host/Kernel (isolcpu) and CPUs designated for specific processes
- (taskset). - Test duration. - Number of flows.</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Test Traffic Information:<list style="symbols">
- <t>Traffic type - UDP, TCP, IMIX / Other</t>
-
- <t>Packet Sizes</t>
-
- <t>Deployment Scenario</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t/>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Flow classification">
- <t>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
- (5-tuple) 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.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation">
- <t>This outline describes measurement of baseline with isolated
- resources at a high level, which is the intended approach at this
- time.</t>
-
- <t><list style="numbers">
- <t>Baselines: <list style="symbols">
- <t>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). <figure>
- <preamble>Benchmark platform forwarding
- capability</preamble>
-
- <artwork align="right"><![CDATA[ __
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | Simple Forwarding App | | Host
- | | | | |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | NIC | | |
- +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
-
- <postamble/>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t>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. <figure align="right">
- <preamble>Benchmark VNF forwarding capability</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | VNF | | |
- | | | | |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Passthrough/SR-IOV | | Host
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | NIC | | |
- +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
-
- <postamble/>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t>Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, with other
- resources (both HW&amp;SW) disabled Example, vSw and VM are
- SUT</t>
-
- <t>Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, leaving some
- resources unused</t>
-
- <t>Benchmark with isolated resources and all resources
- occupied</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Next Steps<list style="symbols">
- <t>Limited sharing</t>
-
- <t>Production scenarios</t>
-
- <t>Stressful scenarios</t>
- </list></t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
- </section>
-
- <section title="VSWITCHPERF Specification Summary">
- <t>The overall specification in preparation is referred to as a Level
- 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:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t><xref target="RFC2544"/> Benchmarking Methodology for Network
- Interconnect Devices</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC2889"/> Benchmarking Methodology for LAN
- Switching</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC6201"/> Device Reset Characterization</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC5481"/> Packet Delay Variation Applicability
- Statement</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Some of the above/newer RFCs are being applied in benchmarking for
- the first time, and represent a development challenge for test equipment
- developers. Fortunately, many members of the testing system community
- have engaged on the VSPERF project, including an open source test
- system.</t>
-
- <t>In addition to this, the LTD also re-uses the terminology defined
- by:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t><xref target="RFC2285"/> Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
- Switching Devices</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC5481"/> Packet Delay Variation Applicability
- Statement</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t/>
-
- <t>Specifications to be included in future updates of the LTD
- include:<list style="symbols">
- <t><xref target="RFC3918"/> Methodology for IP Multicast
- Benchmarking</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC4737"/> Packet Reordering Metrics</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>As one might expect, the most fundamental internetworking
- characteristics of Throughput and Latency remain important when the
- switch is virtualized, and these benchmarks figure prominently in the
- specification.</t>
-
- <t>When considering characteristics important to "telco" network
- functions, we must begin to consider additional performance metrics. In
- this case, the project specifications have referenced metrics from the
- IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) literature. This means that the <xref
- target="RFC2544"/> test of Latency is replaced by measurement of a
- metric derived from IPPM's <xref target="RFC2679"/>, where a set of
- statistical summaries will be provided (mean, max, min, etc.). Further
- metrics planned to be benchmarked include packet delay variation as
- defined by <xref target="RFC5481"/> , reordering, burst behaviour, DUT
- availability, DUT capacity and packet loss in long term testing at
- Throughput level, where some low-level of background loss may be present
- and characterized.</t>
-
- <t>Tests have been (or will be) designed to collect the metrics
- below:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput Tests to measure the maximum forwarding rate (in
- frames per second or fps) and bit rate (in Mbps) for a constant load
- (as defined by <xref target="RFC1242"/>) without traffic loss.</t>
-
- <t>Packet and Frame Delay Distribution Tests to measure average, min
- and max packet and frame delay for constant loads.</t>
-
- <t>Packet Delay Tests to understand latency distribution for
- different packet sizes and over an extended test run to uncover
- outliers.</t>
-
- <t>Scalability Tests to understand how the virtual switch performs
- as the number of flows, active ports, complexity of the forwarding
- logic&rsquo;s configuration&hellip; it has to deal with
- increases.</t>
-
- <t>Stream Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) to measure bulk data transfer
- performance, i.e. how fast systems can send and receive data through
- the switch.</t>
-
- <t>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).</t>
-
- <t>CPU and Memory Consumption Tests to understand the virtual
- switch&rsquo;s footprint on the system, usually conducted as
- auxiliary measurements with benchmarks above. They include: CPU
- utilization, Cache utilization and Memory footprint.</t>
-
- <t>The so-called "Soak" tests, where the selected test is conducted
- over a long period of time (with an ideal duration of 24 hours, but
- only long enough to determine that stability issues exist when
- found; there is no requirement to continue a test when a DUT
- exhibits instability over time). The key performance characteristics
- and benchmarks for a DUT are determined (using short duration tests)
- prior to conducting soak tests. The purpose of soak tests is to
- capture transient changes in performance which may occur due to
- infrequent processes, memory leaks, or the low probability
- coincidence of two or more processes. The stability of the DUT is
- the paramount consideration, so performance must be evaluated
- periodically during continuous testing, and this results in use of
- <xref target="RFC2889"/> Frame Rate metrics instead of <xref
- target="RFC2544"/> Throughput (which requires stopping traffic to
- allow time for all traffic to exit internal queues), for
- example.</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Future/planned test specs include:<list style="symbols">
- <t>Request/Response Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) which measure the
- transaction rate through the switch.</t>
-
- <t>Noisy Neighbour Tests, to understand the effects of resource
- sharing on the performance of a virtual switch.</t>
-
- <t>Tests derived from examination of ETSI NFV Draft GS IFA003
- requirements <xref target="IFA003"/> on characterization of
- acceleration technologies applied to vswitches.</t>
- </list>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:</t>
-
- <t><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to physical
- port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +--------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | v | | Host
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch
- to physical port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | ^ : | |
- | | | | | Guest
- | : v | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | |
- +---+---------------+-----------+---------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v __
- +---+---------------+----------+---------------+---+ |
- | | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | ^ : | |
- | | | | | Host
- | : v | |
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch
- to VNF to virtual switch to physical port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
- | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | Application | | | | Application | | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | | | ^ | | |
- | | v | | | v | | Guests
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | |
- | | 0 1 | | | | 0 1 | | |
- +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__|
- ^ : ^ :
- | | | |
- : v : v _
- +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
- | | 0 1 | | 3 4 | | |
- | | logical ports | | logical ports | | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | ^ | | | Host
- | | |-----------------| v | |
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy ports | vSwitch | phy ports | | |
- +---+--------------+----------+--------------+---+_|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | ^ | |
- | | | | Guest
- | : | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port 0| | |
- +---+---------------+-------------------------------+ __|
- ^
- |
- : __
- +---+---------------+------------------------------+ |
- | | logical port 0| | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | |
- | | | | Host
- | : | |
- | +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | |
- +---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ __|
- ^
- |
- :
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>VNF to virtual switch to physical port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | : | |
- | | | | Guest
- | v | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port | | |
- +-------------------------------+---------------+---+ __|
- :
- |
- v __
- +------------------------------+---------------+---+ |
- | | logical port | | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | : | |
- | | | | Host
- | v | |
- | +--------------+ | |
- | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +-------------------------------+--------------+---+ __|
- :
- |
- v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>VNF to virtual switch to VNF</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
- | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | Application | | | | Application | | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | | | ^ | |
- | v | | | | | Guests
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | |
- | | 0 | | | | 0 | | |
- +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__|
- : ^
- | |
- v : _
- +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
- | | 1 | | 1 | | |
- | | logical ports | | logical ports | | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | | ^ | | Host
- | L-----------------+ | |
- | | |
- | vSwitch | |
- +------------------------------------------------+_|]]></artwork>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t>A set of Deployment Scenario figures is available on the VSPERF Test
- Methodology Wiki page <xref target="TestTopo"/>.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="3x3 Matrix Coverage">
- <t>This section organizes the many existing test specifications into the
- "3x3" matrix (introduced in <xref target="I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net"/>).
- 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
- when displaying the coverage of many metrics/benchmarks). The current
- version of the LTD specification is available <xref target="LTD"/>.</t>
-
- <t>The tests listed below assess the activation of paths in the data
- plane, rather than the control plane.</t>
-
- <t>A complete list of tests with short summaries is available on the
- VSPERF "LTD Test Spec Overview" Wiki page <xref target="LTDoverV"/>.</t>
-
- <section title="Speed of Activation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Activation.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate</t>
-
- <t>PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Accuracy of Activation section">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>CPDP.Coupling.Flow.Addition</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Reliability of Activation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.ResetTime</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Scale of Activation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Activation.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Speed of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRate</t>
-
- <t>CPU.RFC2544.0PacketLoss</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRateFrameModification</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Accuracy of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.Profile</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Reliability of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.Soak</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.SoakFrameModification</t>
-
- <t>PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Scalability of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Scalability.RFC2544.0PacketLoss</t>
-
- <t>MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Summary">
- <t><figure>
- <artwork><![CDATA[|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| | SPEED | ACCURACY | RELIABILITY | SCALE |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| Activation | X | X | X | X |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| Operation | X | X | X | X |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| De-activation | | | | |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|]]></artwork>
- </figure></t>
- </section>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Security Considerations">
- <t>Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
- technology characterization of a Device Under Test/System Under Test
- (DUT/SUT) using controlled stimuli in a laboratory environment, with
- dedicated address space and the constraints specified in the sections
- above.</t>
-
- <t>The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
- and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test traffic
- into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test management
- network.</t>
-
- <t>Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
- solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.</t>
-
- <t>Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
- benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
- from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
- networks.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
- <t>No IANA Action is requested at this time.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Acknowledgements">
- <t>The authors appreciate and acknowledge comments from Scott Bradner,
- Marius Georgescu, Ramki Krishnan, Doug Montgomery, Martin Klozik,
- Christian Trautman, and others for their reviews.</t>
- </section>
- </middle>
-
- <back>
- <references title="Normative References">
- <?rfc ?>
-
- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
-
- <?rfc ?>
-
- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2330"?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2544'?>
-
- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2679"?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2680'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3393'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3432'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2681'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5905'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4689'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4737'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5357'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2889'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3918'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6201'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2285'?>
-
- <reference anchor="NFV.PER001">
- <front>
- <title>Network Function Virtualization: Performance and Portability
- Best Practices</title>
-
- <author fullname="ETSI NFV" initials="" surname="">
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date month="June" year="2014"/>
- </front>
-
- <seriesInfo name="Group Specification"
- value="ETSI GS NFV-PER 001 V1.1.1 (2014-06)"/>
-
- <format type="PDF"/>
- </reference>
- </references>
-
- <references title="Informative References">
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.1242'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5481'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6049'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6248'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6390'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance'?>
-
- <reference anchor="TestTopo">
- <front>
- <title>Test Topologies
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/vsperf/test_methodology</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="LTDoverV">
- <front>
- <title>LTD Test Spec Overview
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/vswitchperf_test_spec_review</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="LTD">
- <front>
- <title>LTD Test Specification
- http://artifacts.opnfv.org/vswitchperf/brahmaputra/docs/requirements/index.html</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="BrahRel">
- <front>
- <title>Brahmaputra, Second OPNFV Release
- https://www.opnfv.org/brahmaputra</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="IFA003">
- <front>
- <title>https://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Drafts/IFA003_Acceleration_-_vSwitch_Spec/</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
- </references>
- </back>
-</rfc>
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml
deleted file mode 100644
index b5f7f833..00000000
--- a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,964 +0,0 @@
-<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
-<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
-<?rfc toc="yes"?>
-<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
-<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
-<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
-<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
-<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
-<?rfc comments="yes"?>
-<?rfc inline="yes"?>
-<?rfc compact="yes"?>
-<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
-<rfc category="info" docName="draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01"
- ipr="trust200902">
- <front>
- <title abbrev="Benchmarking vSwitches">Benchmarking Virtual Switches in
- OPNFV</title>
-
- <author fullname="Maryam Tahhan" initials="M." surname="Tahhan">
- <organization>Intel</organization>
-
- <address>
- <postal>
- <street/>
-
- <city/>
-
- <region/>
-
- <code/>
-
- <country/>
- </postal>
-
- <phone/>
-
- <facsimile/>
-
- <email>maryam.tahhan@intel.com</email>
-
- <uri/>
- </address>
- </author>
-
- <author fullname="Billy O'Mahony" initials="B." surname="O'Mahony">
- <organization>Intel</organization>
-
- <address>
- <postal>
- <street/>
-
- <city/>
-
- <region/>
-
- <code/>
-
- <country/>
- </postal>
-
- <phone/>
-
- <facsimile/>
-
- <email>billy.o.mahony@intel.com</email>
-
- <uri/>
- </address>
- </author>
-
- <author fullname="Al Morton" initials="A." surname="Morton">
- <organization>AT&amp;T Labs</organization>
-
- <address>
- <postal>
- <street>200 Laurel Avenue South</street>
-
- <city>Middletown,</city>
-
- <region>NJ</region>
-
- <code>07748</code>
-
- <country>USA</country>
- </postal>
-
- <phone>+1 732 420 1571</phone>
-
- <facsimile>+1 732 368 1192</facsimile>
-
- <email>acmorton@att.com</email>
-
- <uri>http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/</uri>
- </address>
- </author>
-
- <date day="14" month="October" year="2015"/>
-
- <abstract>
- <t>This memo describes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV)
- project on virtual switch performance "VSWITCHPERF". This project
- intends to build on the current and completed work of the Benchmarking
- Methodology Working Group in IETF, by referencing existing literature.
- The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group has traditionally conducted
- laboratory characterization of dedicated physical implementations of
- internetworking functions. Therefore, this memo begins to describe the
- additional considerations when virtual switches are implemented in
- general-purpose hardware. The expanded tests and benchmarks are also
- influenced by the OPNFV mission to support virtualization of the "telco"
- infrastructure.</t>
- </abstract>
-
- <note title="Requirements Language">
- <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
- "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
- document are to be interpreted as described in <xref
- target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.</t>
-
- <t/>
- </note>
- </front>
-
- <middle>
- <section title="Introduction">
- <t>Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) has traditionally
- conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated physical
- implementations of internetworking functions. The Black-box Benchmarks
- of Throughput, Latency, Forwarding Rates and others have served our
- industry for many years. Now, Network Function Virtualization (NFV) has
- the goal to transform how internetwork functions are implemented, and
- therefore has garnered much attention.</t>
-
- <t>This memo describes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV)
- project on virtual switch performance characterization, "VSWITCHPERF".
- 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 often referenced RFC is
- <xref target="RFC2544"/> (which depends on <xref target="RFC1242"/>) and
- foundation of the benchmarking work in OPNFV is common and strong.</t>
-
- <t>See
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/characterize_vswitch_performance_for_telco_nfv_use_cases
- for more background, and the OPNFV website for general information:
- https://www.opnfv.org/</t>
-
- <t>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 emphasis on performance
- dimensions when compared to cloud computing: support for and transfer of
- isochronous media streams is one example.</t>
-
- <t>Note also that the move to NFV Infrastructure has resulted in many
- new benchmarking initiatives across the industry, and the authors are
- currently doing their best to maintain alignment with many other
- projects, and this Internet Draft is evidence of the efforts.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Scope">
- <t>The primary purpose and scope of the memo is to inform BMWG of
- work-in-progress that builds on the body of extensive literature and
- experience. Additionally, once the initial information conveyed here is
- received, this memo may be expanded to include more detail and
- commentary from both BMWG and OPNFV communities, under BMWG's chartered
- work to characterize the NFV Infrastructure (a virtual switch is an
- important aspect of that infrastructure).</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Benchmarking Considerations">
- <t>This section highlights some specific considerations (from <xref
- 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.</t>
-
- <section title="Comparison with Physical Network Functions">
- <t>To compare the performance of virtual designs and implementations
- with their physical counterparts, identical benchmarks are needed.
- BMWG has developed specifications for many network functions this memo
- re-uses existing benchmarks through references, and expands them
- 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.</t>
-
- <t>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.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks">
- <t>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.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="New Configuration Parameters">
- <t>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.</t>
-
- <t>Hardware details including:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Platform details</t>
-
- <t>Processor details</t>
-
- <t>Memory information (type and size)</t>
-
- <t>Number of enabled cores</t>
-
- <t>Number of cores used for the test</t>
-
- <t>Number of physical NICs, as well as their details
- (manufacturer, versions, type and the PCI slot they are plugged
- into)</t>
-
- <t>NIC interrupt configuration</t>
-
- <t>BIOS version, release date and any configurations that were
- modified</t>
-
- <t>CPU microcode level</t>
-
- <t>Memory DIMM configurations (quad rank performance may not be
- the same as dual rank) in size, freq and slot locations</t>
-
- <t>PCI configuration parameters (payload size, early ack
- option...)</t>
-
- <t>Power management at all levels (ACPI sleep states, processor
- package, OS...)</t>
- </list>Software details including:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>OS parameters and behavior (text vs graphical no one typing at
- the console on one system)</t>
-
- <t>OS version (for host and VNF)</t>
-
- <t>Kernel version (for host and VNF)</t>
-
- <t>GRUB boot parameters (for host and VNF)</t>
-
- <t>Hypervisor details (Type and version)</t>
-
- <t>Selected vSwitch, version number or commit id used</t>
-
- <t>vSwitch launch command line if it has been parameterised</t>
-
- <t>Memory allocation to the vSwitch</t>
-
- <t>which NUMA node it is using, and how many memory channels</t>
-
- <t>DPDK or any other SW dependency version number or commit id
- used</t>
-
- <t>Memory allocation to a VM - if it's from Hugpages/elsewhere</t>
-
- <t>VM storage type: snapshot/independent persistent/independent
- non-persistent</t>
-
- <t>Number of VMs</t>
-
- <t>Number of Virtual NICs (vNICs), versions, type and driver</t>
-
- <t>Number of virtual CPUs and their core affinity on the host</t>
-
- <t>Number vNIC interrupt configuration</t>
-
- <t>Thread affinitization for the applications (including the
- vSwitch itself) on the host</t>
-
- <t>Details of Resource isolation, such as CPUs designated for
- Host/Kernel (isolcpu) and CPUs designated for specific processes
- (taskset). - Test duration. - Number of flows.</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Test Traffic Information:<list style="symbols">
- <t>Traffic type - UDP, TCP, IMIX / Other</t>
-
- <t>Packet Sizes</t>
-
- <t>Deployment Scenario</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t/>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Flow classification">
- <t>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.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation">
- <t>This outline describes measurement of baseline with isolated
- resources at a high level, which is the intended approach at this
- time.</t>
-
- <t><list style="numbers">
- <t>Baselines: <list style="symbols">
- <t>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). <figure>
- <preamble>Benchmark platform forwarding
- capability</preamble>
-
- <artwork align="right"><![CDATA[ __
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | Simple Forwarding App | | Host
- | | | | |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | NIC | | |
- +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
-
- <postamble/>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t>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. <figure align="right">
- <preamble>Benchmark VNF forwarding capability</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | VNF | | |
- | | | | |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Passthrough/SR-IOV | | Host
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | NIC | | |
- +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
-
- <postamble/>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t>Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, with other
- resources (both HW&amp;SW) disabled Example, vSw and VM are
- SUT</t>
-
- <t>Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, leaving some
- resources unused</t>
-
- <t>Benchmark with isolated resources and all resources
- occupied</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Next Steps<list style="symbols">
- <t>Limited sharing</t>
-
- <t>Production scenarios</t>
-
- <t>Stressful scenarios</t>
- </list></t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
- </section>
-
- <section title="VSWITCHPERF Specification Summary">
- <t>The overall specification in preparation is referred to as a Level
- 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:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t><xref target="RFC2544"/> Benchmarking Methodology for Network
- Interconnect Devices</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC2889"/> Benchmarking Methodology for LAN
- Switching</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC6201"/> Device Reset Characterization</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC5481"/> Packet Delay Variation Applicability
- Statement</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Some of the above/newer RFCs are being applied in benchmarking for
- the first time, and represent a development challenge for test equipment
- developers. Fortunately, many members of the testing system community
- have engaged on the VSPERF project, including an open source test
- system.</t>
-
- <t>In addition to this, the LTD also re-uses the terminology defined
- by:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t><xref target="RFC2285"/> Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
- Switching Devices</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC5481"/> Packet Delay Variation Applicability
- Statement</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t/>
-
- <t>Specifications to be included in future updates of the LTD
- include:<list style="symbols">
- <t><xref target="RFC3918"/> Methodology for IP Multicast
- Benchmarking</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC4737"/> Packet Reordering Metrics</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>As one might expect, the most fundamental internetworking
- characteristics of Throughput and Latency remain important when the
- switch is virtualized, and these benchmarks figure prominently in the
- specification.</t>
-
- <t>When considering characteristics important to "telco" network
- functions, we must begin to consider additional performance metrics. In
- this case, the project specifications have referenced metrics from the
- IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) literature. This means that the <xref
- target="RFC2544"/> test of Latency is replaced by measurement of a
- metric derived from IPPM's <xref target="RFC2679"/>, where a set of
- statistical summaries will be provided (mean, max, min, etc.). Further
- metrics planned to be benchmarked include packet delay variation as
- defined by <xref target="RFC5481"/> , reordering, burst behaviour, DUT
- availability, DUT capacity and packet loss in long term testing at
- Throughput level, where some low-level of background loss may be present
- and characterized.</t>
-
- <t>Tests have been (or will be) designed to collect the metrics
- below:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput Tests to measure the maximum forwarding rate (in
- frames per second or fps) and bit rate (in Mbps) for a constant load
- (as defined by RFC1242) without traffic loss.</t>
-
- <t>Packet and Frame Delay Distribution Tests to measure average, min
- and max packet and frame delay for constant loads.</t>
-
- <t>Packet Delay Tests to understand latency distribution for
- different packet sizes and over an extended test run to uncover
- outliers.</t>
-
- <t>Scalability Tests to understand how the virtual switch performs
- as the number of flows, active ports, complexity of the forwarding
- logic&rsquo;s configuration&hellip; it has to deal with
- increases.</t>
-
- <t>Stream Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) to measure bulk data transfer
- performance, i.e. how fast systems can send and receive data through
- the switch.</t>
-
- <t>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).</t>
-
- <t>CPU and Memory Consumption Tests to understand the virtual
- switch&rsquo;s footprint on the system, usually conducted as
- auxiliary measurements with benchmarks above. They include: CPU
- utilization, Cache utilization and Memory footprint.</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Future/planned test specs include:<list style="symbols">
- <t>Request/Response Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) which measure the
- transaction rate through the switch.</t>
-
- <t>Noisy Neighbour Tests, to understand the effects of resource
- sharing on the performance of a virtual switch.</t>
-
- <t>Tests derived from examination of ETSI NFV Draft GS IFA003
- requirements <xref target="IFA003"/> on characterization of
- acceleration technologies applied to vswitches.</t>
- </list>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:</t>
-
- <t><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to physical
- port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +--------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | v | | Host
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch
- to physical port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | ^ : | |
- | | | | | Guest
- | : v | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | |
- +---+---------------+-----------+---------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v __
- +---+---------------+----------+---------------+---+ |
- | | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | ^ : | |
- | | | | | Host
- | : v | |
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch
- to VNF to virtual switch to physical port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
- | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | Application | | | | Application | | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | | | ^ | | |
- | | v | | | v | | Guests
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | |
- | | 0 1 | | | | 0 1 | | |
- +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__|
- ^ : ^ :
- | | | |
- : v : v _
- +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
- | | 0 1 | | 3 4 | | |
- | | logical ports | | logical ports | | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | ^ | | | Host
- | | |-----------------| v | |
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy ports | vSwitch | phy ports | | |
- +---+--------------+----------+--------------+---+_|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | ^ | |
- | | | | Guest
- | : | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port 0| | |
- +---+---------------+-------------------------------+ __|
- ^
- |
- : __
- +---+---------------+------------------------------+ |
- | | logical port 0| | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | |
- | | | | Host
- | : | |
- | +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | |
- +---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ __|
- ^
- |
- :
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>VNF to virtual switch to physical port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | : | |
- | | | | Guest
- | v | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port | | |
- +-------------------------------+---------------+---+ __|
- :
- |
- v __
- +------------------------------+---------------+---+ |
- | | logical port | | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | : | |
- | | | | Host
- | v | |
- | +--------------+ | |
- | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +-------------------------------+--------------+---+ __|
- :
- |
- v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>VNF to virtual switch to VNF</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
- | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | Application | | | | Application | | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | | | ^ | |
- | v | | | | | Guests
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | |
- | | 0 | | | | 0 | | |
- +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__|
- : ^
- | |
- v : _
- +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
- | | 1 | | 1 | | |
- | | logical ports | | logical ports | | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | | ^ | | Host
- | L-----------------+ | |
- | | |
- | vSwitch | |
- +------------------------------------------------+_|]]></artwork>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t>A set of Deployment Scenario figures is available on the VSPERF Test
- Methodology Wiki page <xref target="TestTopo"/>. </t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="3x3 Matrix Coverage">
- <t>This section organizes the many existing test specifications into the
- "3x3" matrix (introduced in <xref target="I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net"/>).
- 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
- when displaying the coverage of many metrics/benchmarks).</t>
-
- <t>The tests listed below assess the activation of paths in the data
- plane, rather than the control plane.</t>
-
- <t>A complete list of tests with short summaries is available on the
- VSPERF "LTD Test Spec Overview" Wiki page <xref target="LTDoverV"/>.</t>
-
- <section title="Speed of Activation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Activation.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate</t>
-
- <t>PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Accuracy of Activation section">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>CPDP.Coupling.Flow.Addition</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Reliability of Activation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.ResetTime</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Scale of Activation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Activation.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Speed of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRate</t>
-
- <t>CPU.RFC2544.0PacketLoss</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRateFrameModification</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Accuracy of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.Profile</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Reliability of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.Soak</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.SoakFrameModification</t>
-
- <t>PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Scalability of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Scalability.RFC2544.0PacketLoss</t>
-
- <t>MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Summary">
- <t><figure>
- <artwork><![CDATA[|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| | SPEED | ACCURACY | RELIABILITY | SCALE |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| Activation | X | X | X | X |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| Operation | X | X | X | X |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| De-activation | | | | |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|]]></artwork>
- </figure></t>
- </section>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Security Considerations">
- <t>Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
- technology characterization of a Device Under Test/System Under Test
- (DUT/SUT) using controlled stimuli in a laboratory environment, with
- dedicated address space and the constraints specified in the sections
- above.</t>
-
- <t>The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
- and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test traffic
- into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test management
- network.</t>
-
- <t>Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
- solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.</t>
-
- <t>Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
- benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
- from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
- networks.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
- <t>No IANA Action is requested at this time.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Acknowledgements">
- <t>The authors acknowledge</t>
- </section>
- </middle>
-
- <back>
- <references title="Normative References">
- <?rfc ?>
-
- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
-
- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2330"?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2544'?>
-
- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2679"?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2680'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3393'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3432'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2681'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5905'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4689'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4737'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5357'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2889'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3918'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6201'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2285'?>
-
- <reference anchor="NFV.PER001">
- <front>
- <title>Network Function Virtualization: Performance and Portability
- Best Practices</title>
-
- <author fullname="ETSI NFV" initials="" surname="">
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date month="June" year="2014"/>
- </front>
-
- <seriesInfo name="Group Specification"
- value="ETSI GS NFV-PER 001 V1.1.1 (2014-06)"/>
-
- <format type="PDF"/>
- </reference>
- </references>
-
- <references title="Informative References">
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.1242'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5481'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6049'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6248'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6390'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net'?>
-
- <reference anchor="TestTopo">
- <front>
- <title>Test Topologies
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/vsperf/test_methodology</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="LTDoverV">
- <front>
- <title>LTD Test Spec Overview
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/vswitchperf_test_spec_review </title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="IFA003">
- <front>
- <title>https://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Drafts/IFA003_Acceleration_-_vSwitch_Spec/</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
- </references>
- </back>
-</rfc>
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml
deleted file mode 100644
index a9405a77..00000000
--- a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,1016 +0,0 @@
-<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
-<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
-<?rfc toc="yes"?>
-<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
-<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
-<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
-<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
-<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
-<?rfc comments="yes"?>
-<?rfc inline="yes"?>
-<?rfc compact="yes"?>
-<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
-<rfc category="info" docName="draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-02"
- ipr="trust200902">
- <front>
- <title abbrev="Benchmarking vSwitches">Benchmarking Virtual Switches in
- OPNFV</title>
-
- <author fullname="Maryam Tahhan" initials="M." surname="Tahhan">
- <organization>Intel</organization>
-
- <address>
- <postal>
- <street/>
-
- <city/>
-
- <region/>
-
- <code/>
-
- <country/>
- </postal>
-
- <phone/>
-
- <facsimile/>
-
- <email>maryam.tahhan@intel.com</email>
-
- <uri/>
- </address>
- </author>
-
- <author fullname="Billy O'Mahony" initials="B." surname="O'Mahony">
- <organization>Intel</organization>
-
- <address>
- <postal>
- <street/>
-
- <city/>
-
- <region/>
-
- <code/>
-
- <country/>
- </postal>
-
- <phone/>
-
- <facsimile/>
-
- <email>billy.o.mahony@intel.com</email>
-
- <uri/>
- </address>
- </author>
-
- <author fullname="Al Morton" initials="A." surname="Morton">
- <organization>AT&amp;T Labs</organization>
-
- <address>
- <postal>
- <street>200 Laurel Avenue South</street>
-
- <city>Middletown,</city>
-
- <region>NJ</region>
-
- <code>07748</code>
-
- <country>USA</country>
- </postal>
-
- <phone>+1 732 420 1571</phone>
-
- <facsimile>+1 732 368 1192</facsimile>
-
- <email>acmorton@att.com</email>
-
- <uri>http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/</uri>
- </address>
- </author>
-
- <date day="20" month="March" year="2016"/>
-
- <abstract>
- <t>This memo describes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV)
- project on virtual switch performance "VSWITCHPERF". This project
- intends to build on the current and completed work of the Benchmarking
- Methodology Working Group in IETF, by referencing existing literature.
- The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group has traditionally conducted
- laboratory characterization of dedicated physical implementations of
- internetworking functions. Therefore, this memo begins to describe the
- additional considerations when virtual switches are implemented in
- general-purpose hardware. The expanded tests and benchmarks are also
- influenced by the OPNFV mission to support virtualization of the "telco"
- infrastructure.</t>
- </abstract>
-
- <note title="Requirements Language">
- <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
- "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
- document are to be interpreted as described in <xref
- target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.</t>
-
- <t/>
- </note>
- </front>
-
- <middle>
- <section title="Introduction">
- <t>Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) has traditionally
- conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated physical
- implementations of internetworking functions. The Black-box Benchmarks
- of Throughput, Latency, Forwarding Rates and others have served our
- industry for many years. Now, Network Function Virtualization (NFV) has
- the goal to transform how internetwork functions are implemented, and
- therefore has garnered much attention.</t>
-
- <t>This memo summarizes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV
- (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance characterization,
- "VSWITCHPERF", through the Brahmaputra (second) release <xref
- target="BrahRel"/>. 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 often
- referenced RFC is <xref target="RFC2544"/> (which depends on <xref
- target="RFC1242"/>) and foundation of the benchmarking work in OPNFV is
- common and strong.</t>
-
- <t>See
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/characterize_vswitch_performance_for_telco_nfv_use_cases
- for more background, and the OPNFV website for general information:
- https://www.opnfv.org/</t>
-
- <t>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 emphasis on performance
- dimensions when compared to cloud computing: support for and transfer of
- isochronous media streams is one example.</t>
-
- <t>Note also that the move to NFV Infrastructure has resulted in many
- new benchmarking initiatives across the industry. The authors are
- currently doing their best to maintain alignment with many other
- projects, and this Internet Draft is one part of the efforts. We
- acknowledge the early work in <xref
- target="I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance"/>, and useful
- discussion with the authors.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Scope">
- <t>The primary purpose and scope of the memo is to inform the industry
- of work-in-progress that builds on the body of extensive BMWG literature
- and experience, and describe the extensions needed for benchmarking
- virtual switches. Inital feedback indicates that many of these
- extensions may be applicable beyond the current scope (to hardware
- switches in the NFV Infrastructure and to virtual routers, for example).
- Additionally, this memo serves as a vehicle to include more detail and
- commentary from BMWG and other Open Source communities, under BMWG's
- chartered work to characterize the NFV Infrastructure (a virtual switch
- is an important aspect of that infrastructure).</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Benchmarking Considerations">
- <t>This section highlights some specific considerations (from <xref
- 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.</t>
-
- <section title="Comparison with Physical Network Functions">
- <t>To compare the performance of virtual designs and implementations
- with their physical counterparts, identical benchmarks are needed.
- BMWG has developed specifications for many network functions this memo
- re-uses existing benchmarks through references, and expands them
- 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.</t>
-
- <t>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.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks">
- <t>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.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="New Configuration Parameters">
- <t>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.</t>
-
- <t>Hardware details including:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Platform details</t>
-
- <t>Processor details</t>
-
- <t>Memory information (type and size)</t>
-
- <t>Number of enabled cores</t>
-
- <t>Number of cores used for the test</t>
-
- <t>Number of physical NICs, as well as their details
- (manufacturer, versions, type and the PCI slot they are plugged
- into)</t>
-
- <t>NIC interrupt configuration</t>
-
- <t>BIOS version, release date and any configurations that were
- modified</t>
-
- <t>CPU microcode level</t>
-
- <t>Memory DIMM configurations (quad rank performance may not be
- the same as dual rank) in size, freq and slot locations</t>
-
- <t>PCI configuration parameters (payload size, early ack
- option...)</t>
-
- <t>Power management at all levels (ACPI sleep states, processor
- package, OS...)</t>
- </list>Software details including:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>OS parameters and behavior (text vs graphical no one typing at
- the console on one system)</t>
-
- <t>OS version (for host and VNF)</t>
-
- <t>Kernel version (for host and VNF)</t>
-
- <t>GRUB boot parameters (for host and VNF)</t>
-
- <t>Hypervisor details (Type and version)</t>
-
- <t>Selected vSwitch, version number or commit id used</t>
-
- <t>vSwitch launch command line if it has been parameterised</t>
-
- <t>Memory allocation to the vSwitch</t>
-
- <t>which NUMA node it is using, and how many memory channels</t>
-
- <t>DPDK or any other SW dependency version number or commit id
- used</t>
-
- <t>Memory allocation to a VM - if it's from Hugpages/elsewhere</t>
-
- <t>VM storage type: snapshot/independent persistent/independent
- non-persistent</t>
-
- <t>Number of VMs</t>
-
- <t>Number of Virtual NICs (vNICs), versions, type and driver</t>
-
- <t>Number of virtual CPUs and their core affinity on the host</t>
-
- <t>Number vNIC interrupt configuration</t>
-
- <t>Thread affinitization for the applications (including the
- vSwitch itself) on the host</t>
-
- <t>Details of Resource isolation, such as CPUs designated for
- Host/Kernel (isolcpu) and CPUs designated for specific processes
- (taskset). - Test duration. - Number of flows.</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Test Traffic Information:<list style="symbols">
- <t>Traffic type - UDP, TCP, IMIX / Other</t>
-
- <t>Packet Sizes</t>
-
- <t>Deployment Scenario</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t/>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Flow classification">
- <t>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.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation">
- <t>This outline describes measurement of baseline with isolated
- resources at a high level, which is the intended approach at this
- time.</t>
-
- <t><list style="numbers">
- <t>Baselines: <list style="symbols">
- <t>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). <figure>
- <preamble>Benchmark platform forwarding
- capability</preamble>
-
- <artwork align="right"><![CDATA[ __
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | Simple Forwarding App | | Host
- | | | | |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | NIC | | |
- +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
-
- <postamble/>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t>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. <figure align="right">
- <preamble>Benchmark VNF forwarding capability</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | VNF | | |
- | | | | |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Passthrough/SR-IOV | | Host
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | NIC | | |
- +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
-
- <postamble/>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t>Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, with other
- resources (both HW&amp;SW) disabled Example, vSw and VM are
- SUT</t>
-
- <t>Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, leaving some
- resources unused</t>
-
- <t>Benchmark with isolated resources and all resources
- occupied</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Next Steps<list style="symbols">
- <t>Limited sharing</t>
-
- <t>Production scenarios</t>
-
- <t>Stressful scenarios</t>
- </list></t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
- </section>
-
- <section title="VSWITCHPERF Specification Summary">
- <t>The overall specification in preparation is referred to as a Level
- 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:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t><xref target="RFC2544"/> Benchmarking Methodology for Network
- Interconnect Devices</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC2889"/> Benchmarking Methodology for LAN
- Switching</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC6201"/> Device Reset Characterization</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC5481"/> Packet Delay Variation Applicability
- Statement</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Some of the above/newer RFCs are being applied in benchmarking for
- the first time, and represent a development challenge for test equipment
- developers. Fortunately, many members of the testing system community
- have engaged on the VSPERF project, including an open source test
- system.</t>
-
- <t>In addition to this, the LTD also re-uses the terminology defined
- by:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t><xref target="RFC2285"/> Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
- Switching Devices</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC5481"/> Packet Delay Variation Applicability
- Statement</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t/>
-
- <t>Specifications to be included in future updates of the LTD
- include:<list style="symbols">
- <t><xref target="RFC3918"/> Methodology for IP Multicast
- Benchmarking</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC4737"/> Packet Reordering Metrics</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>As one might expect, the most fundamental internetworking
- characteristics of Throughput and Latency remain important when the
- switch is virtualized, and these benchmarks figure prominently in the
- specification.</t>
-
- <t>When considering characteristics important to "telco" network
- functions, we must begin to consider additional performance metrics. In
- this case, the project specifications have referenced metrics from the
- IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) literature. This means that the <xref
- target="RFC2544"/> test of Latency is replaced by measurement of a
- metric derived from IPPM's <xref target="RFC2679"/>, where a set of
- statistical summaries will be provided (mean, max, min, etc.). Further
- metrics planned to be benchmarked include packet delay variation as
- defined by <xref target="RFC5481"/> , reordering, burst behaviour, DUT
- availability, DUT capacity and packet loss in long term testing at
- Throughput level, where some low-level of background loss may be present
- and characterized.</t>
-
- <t>Tests have been (or will be) designed to collect the metrics
- below:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput Tests to measure the maximum forwarding rate (in
- frames per second or fps) and bit rate (in Mbps) for a constant load
- (as defined by <xref target="RFC1242"/>) without traffic loss.</t>
-
- <t>Packet and Frame Delay Distribution Tests to measure average, min
- and max packet and frame delay for constant loads.</t>
-
- <t>Packet Delay Tests to understand latency distribution for
- different packet sizes and over an extended test run to uncover
- outliers.</t>
-
- <t>Scalability Tests to understand how the virtual switch performs
- as the number of flows, active ports, complexity of the forwarding
- logic&rsquo;s configuration&hellip; it has to deal with
- increases.</t>
-
- <t>Stream Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) to measure bulk data transfer
- performance, i.e. how fast systems can send and receive data through
- the switch.</t>
-
- <t>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).</t>
-
- <t>CPU and Memory Consumption Tests to understand the virtual
- switch&rsquo;s footprint on the system, usually conducted as
- auxiliary measurements with benchmarks above. They include: CPU
- utilization, Cache utilization and Memory footprint.</t>
-
- <t>The so-called "Soak" tests, where the selected test is conducted
- over a long period of time (with an ideal duration of 24 hours, and
- at least 6 hours). The purpose of soak tests is to capture transient
- changes in performance which may occur due to infrequent processes
- or the low probability coincidence of two or more processes. The
- performance must be evaluated periodically during continuous
- testing, and this results in use of <xref target="RFC2889"/> Frame
- Rate metrics instead of <xref target="RFC2544"/> Throughput (which
- requires stopping traffic to allow time for all traffic to exit
- internal queues).</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Future/planned test specs include:<list style="symbols">
- <t>Request/Response Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) which measure the
- transaction rate through the switch.</t>
-
- <t>Noisy Neighbour Tests, to understand the effects of resource
- sharing on the performance of a virtual switch.</t>
-
- <t>Tests derived from examination of ETSI NFV Draft GS IFA003
- requirements <xref target="IFA003"/> on characterization of
- acceleration technologies applied to vswitches.</t>
- </list>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:</t>
-
- <t><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to physical
- port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +--------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | v | | Host
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch
- to physical port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | ^ : | |
- | | | | | Guest
- | : v | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | |
- +---+---------------+-----------+---------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v __
- +---+---------------+----------+---------------+---+ |
- | | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | ^ : | |
- | | | | | Host
- | : v | |
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch
- to VNF to virtual switch to physical port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
- | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | Application | | | | Application | | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | | | ^ | | |
- | | v | | | v | | Guests
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | |
- | | 0 1 | | | | 0 1 | | |
- +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__|
- ^ : ^ :
- | | | |
- : v : v _
- +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
- | | 0 1 | | 3 4 | | |
- | | logical ports | | logical ports | | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | ^ | | | Host
- | | |-----------------| v | |
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy ports | vSwitch | phy ports | | |
- +---+--------------+----------+--------------+---+_|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | ^ | |
- | | | | Guest
- | : | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port 0| | |
- +---+---------------+-------------------------------+ __|
- ^
- |
- : __
- +---+---------------+------------------------------+ |
- | | logical port 0| | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | |
- | | | | Host
- | : | |
- | +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | |
- +---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ __|
- ^
- |
- :
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>VNF to virtual switch to physical port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | : | |
- | | | | Guest
- | v | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port | | |
- +-------------------------------+---------------+---+ __|
- :
- |
- v __
- +------------------------------+---------------+---+ |
- | | logical port | | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | : | |
- | | | | Host
- | v | |
- | +--------------+ | |
- | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +-------------------------------+--------------+---+ __|
- :
- |
- v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>VNF to virtual switch to VNF</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
- | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | Application | | | | Application | | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | | | ^ | |
- | v | | | | | Guests
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | |
- | | 0 | | | | 0 | | |
- +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__|
- : ^
- | |
- v : _
- +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
- | | 1 | | 1 | | |
- | | logical ports | | logical ports | | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | | ^ | | Host
- | L-----------------+ | |
- | | |
- | vSwitch | |
- +------------------------------------------------+_|]]></artwork>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t>A set of Deployment Scenario figures is available on the VSPERF Test
- Methodology Wiki page <xref target="TestTopo"/>.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="3x3 Matrix Coverage">
- <t>This section organizes the many existing test specifications into the
- "3x3" matrix (introduced in <xref target="I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net"/>).
- 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
- when displaying the coverage of many metrics/benchmarks). The current
- version of the LTD specification is available <xref target="LTD"/>.</t>
-
- <t>The tests listed below assess the activation of paths in the data
- plane, rather than the control plane.</t>
-
- <t>A complete list of tests with short summaries is available on the
- VSPERF "LTD Test Spec Overview" Wiki page <xref target="LTDoverV"/>.</t>
-
- <section title="Speed of Activation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Activation.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate</t>
-
- <t>PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Accuracy of Activation section">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>CPDP.Coupling.Flow.Addition</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Reliability of Activation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.ResetTime</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Scale of Activation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Activation.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Speed of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRate</t>
-
- <t>CPU.RFC2544.0PacketLoss</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRateFrameModification</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Accuracy of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.Profile</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Reliability of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.Soak</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.SoakFrameModification</t>
-
- <t>PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Scalability of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Scalability.RFC2544.0PacketLoss</t>
-
- <t>MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Summary">
- <t><figure>
- <artwork><![CDATA[|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| | SPEED | ACCURACY | RELIABILITY | SCALE |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| Activation | X | X | X | X |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| Operation | X | X | X | X |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| De-activation | | | | |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|]]></artwork>
- </figure></t>
- </section>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Security Considerations">
- <t>Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
- technology characterization of a Device Under Test/System Under Test
- (DUT/SUT) using controlled stimuli in a laboratory environment, with
- dedicated address space and the constraints specified in the sections
- above.</t>
-
- <t>The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
- and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test traffic
- into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test management
- network.</t>
-
- <t>Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
- solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.</t>
-
- <t>Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
- benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
- from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
- networks.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
- <t>No IANA Action is requested at this time.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Acknowledgements">
- <t>The authors appreciate and acknowledge comments from Scott Bradner,
- Marius Georgescu, Ramki Krishnan, and Doug Montgomery, and others for
- their reviews.</t>
- </section>
- </middle>
-
- <back>
- <references title="Normative References">
- <?rfc ?>
-
- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
-
- <?rfc ?>
-
- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2330"?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2544'?>
-
- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2679"?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2680'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3393'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3432'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2681'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5905'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4689'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4737'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5357'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2889'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3918'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6201'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2285'?>
-
- <reference anchor="NFV.PER001">
- <front>
- <title>Network Function Virtualization: Performance and Portability
- Best Practices</title>
-
- <author fullname="ETSI NFV" initials="" surname="">
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date month="June" year="2014"/>
- </front>
-
- <seriesInfo name="Group Specification"
- value="ETSI GS NFV-PER 001 V1.1.1 (2014-06)"/>
-
- <format type="PDF"/>
- </reference>
- </references>
-
- <references title="Informative References">
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.1242'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5481'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6049'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6248'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6390'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance'?>
-
- <reference anchor="TestTopo">
- <front>
- <title>Test Topologies
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/vsperf/test_methodology</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="LTDoverV">
- <front>
- <title>LTD Test Spec Overview
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/vswitchperf_test_spec_review</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="LTD">
- <front>
- <title>LTD Test Specification
- http://artifacts.opnfv.org/vswitchperf/docs/requirements/index.html</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="BrahRel">
- <front>
- <title>Brahmaputra, Second OPNFV Release
- https://www.opnfv.org/brahmaputra</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="IFA003">
- <front>
- <title>https://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Drafts/IFA003_Acceleration_-_vSwitch_Spec/</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
- </references>
- </back>
-</rfc>
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-02.xml b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-02.xml
deleted file mode 100644
index 9157763e..00000000
--- a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-02.xml
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,1016 +0,0 @@
-<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
-<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
-<?rfc toc="yes"?>
-<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
-<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
-<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
-<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
-<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
-<?rfc comments="yes"?>
-<?rfc inline="yes"?>
-<?rfc compact="yes"?>
-<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
-<rfc category="info" docName="draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-02"
- ipr="trust200902">
- <front>
- <title abbrev="Benchmarking vSwitches">Benchmarking Virtual Switches in
- OPNFV</title>
-
- <author fullname="Maryam Tahhan" initials="M." surname="Tahhan">
- <organization>Intel</organization>
-
- <address>
- <postal>
- <street/>
-
- <city/>
-
- <region/>
-
- <code/>
-
- <country/>
- </postal>
-
- <phone/>
-
- <facsimile/>
-
- <email>maryam.tahhan@intel.com</email>
-
- <uri/>
- </address>
- </author>
-
- <author fullname="Billy O'Mahony" initials="B." surname="O'Mahony">
- <organization>Intel</organization>
-
- <address>
- <postal>
- <street/>
-
- <city/>
-
- <region/>
-
- <code/>
-
- <country/>
- </postal>
-
- <phone/>
-
- <facsimile/>
-
- <email>billy.o.mahony@intel.com</email>
-
- <uri/>
- </address>
- </author>
-
- <author fullname="Al Morton" initials="A." surname="Morton">
- <organization>AT&amp;T Labs</organization>
-
- <address>
- <postal>
- <street>200 Laurel Avenue South</street>
-
- <city>Middletown,</city>
-
- <region>NJ</region>
-
- <code>07748</code>
-
- <country>USA</country>
- </postal>
-
- <phone>+1 732 420 1571</phone>
-
- <facsimile>+1 732 368 1192</facsimile>
-
- <email>acmorton@att.com</email>
-
- <uri>http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/</uri>
- </address>
- </author>
-
- <date day="21" month="March" year="2016"/>
-
- <abstract>
- <t>This memo describes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV)
- project on virtual switch performance "VSWITCHPERF". This project
- intends to build on the current and completed work of the Benchmarking
- Methodology Working Group in IETF, by referencing existing literature.
- The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group has traditionally conducted
- laboratory characterization of dedicated physical implementations of
- internetworking functions. Therefore, this memo begins to describe the
- additional considerations when virtual switches are implemented in
- general-purpose hardware. The expanded tests and benchmarks are also
- influenced by the OPNFV mission to support virtualization of the "telco"
- infrastructure.</t>
- </abstract>
-
- <note title="Requirements Language">
- <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
- "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
- document are to be interpreted as described in <xref
- target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.</t>
-
- <t/>
- </note>
- </front>
-
- <middle>
- <section title="Introduction">
- <t>Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) has traditionally
- conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated physical
- implementations of internetworking functions. The Black-box Benchmarks
- of Throughput, Latency, Forwarding Rates and others have served our
- industry for many years. Now, Network Function Virtualization (NFV) has
- the goal to transform how internetwork functions are implemented, and
- therefore has garnered much attention.</t>
-
- <t>This memo summarizes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV
- (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance characterization,
- "VSWITCHPERF", through the Brahmaputra (second) release <xref
- target="BrahRel"/>. 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 often
- referenced RFC is <xref target="RFC2544"/> (which depends on <xref
- target="RFC1242"/>) and foundation of the benchmarking work in OPNFV is
- common and strong.</t>
-
- <t>See
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/characterize_vswitch_performance_for_telco_nfv_use_cases
- for more background, and the OPNFV website for general information:
- https://www.opnfv.org/</t>
-
- <t>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 emphasis on performance
- dimensions when compared to cloud computing: support for and transfer of
- isochronous media streams is one example.</t>
-
- <t>Note also that the move to NFV Infrastructure has resulted in many
- new benchmarking initiatives across the industry. The authors are
- currently doing their best to maintain alignment with many other
- projects, and this Internet Draft is one part of the efforts. We
- acknowledge the early work in <xref
- target="I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance"/>, and useful
- discussion with the authors.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Scope">
- <t>The primary purpose and scope of the memo is to inform the industry
- of work-in-progress that builds on the body of extensive BMWG literature
- and experience, and describe the extensions needed for benchmarking
- virtual switches. Inital feedback indicates that many of these
- extensions may be applicable beyond the current scope (to hardware
- switches in the NFV Infrastructure and to virtual routers, for example).
- Additionally, this memo serves as a vehicle to include more detail and
- commentary from BMWG and other Open Source communities, under BMWG's
- chartered work to characterize the NFV Infrastructure (a virtual switch
- is an important aspect of that infrastructure).</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Benchmarking Considerations">
- <t>This section highlights some specific considerations (from <xref
- 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.</t>
-
- <section title="Comparison with Physical Network Functions">
- <t>To compare the performance of virtual designs and implementations
- with their physical counterparts, identical benchmarks are needed.
- BMWG has developed specifications for many network functions this memo
- re-uses existing benchmarks through references, and expands them
- 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.</t>
-
- <t>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.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks">
- <t>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.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="New Configuration Parameters">
- <t>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.</t>
-
- <t>Hardware details including:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Platform details</t>
-
- <t>Processor details</t>
-
- <t>Memory information (type and size)</t>
-
- <t>Number of enabled cores</t>
-
- <t>Number of cores used for the test</t>
-
- <t>Number of physical NICs, as well as their details
- (manufacturer, versions, type and the PCI slot they are plugged
- into)</t>
-
- <t>NIC interrupt configuration</t>
-
- <t>BIOS version, release date and any configurations that were
- modified</t>
-
- <t>CPU microcode level</t>
-
- <t>Memory DIMM configurations (quad rank performance may not be
- the same as dual rank) in size, freq and slot locations</t>
-
- <t>PCI configuration parameters (payload size, early ack
- option...)</t>
-
- <t>Power management at all levels (ACPI sleep states, processor
- package, OS...)</t>
- </list>Software details including:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>OS parameters and behavior (text vs graphical no one typing at
- the console on one system)</t>
-
- <t>OS version (for host and VNF)</t>
-
- <t>Kernel version (for host and VNF)</t>
-
- <t>GRUB boot parameters (for host and VNF)</t>
-
- <t>Hypervisor details (Type and version)</t>
-
- <t>Selected vSwitch, version number or commit id used</t>
-
- <t>vSwitch launch command line if it has been parameterised</t>
-
- <t>Memory allocation to the vSwitch</t>
-
- <t>which NUMA node it is using, and how many memory channels</t>
-
- <t>DPDK or any other SW dependency version number or commit id
- used</t>
-
- <t>Memory allocation to a VM - if it's from Hugpages/elsewhere</t>
-
- <t>VM storage type: snapshot/independent persistent/independent
- non-persistent</t>
-
- <t>Number of VMs</t>
-
- <t>Number of Virtual NICs (vNICs), versions, type and driver</t>
-
- <t>Number of virtual CPUs and their core affinity on the host</t>
-
- <t>Number vNIC interrupt configuration</t>
-
- <t>Thread affinitization for the applications (including the
- vSwitch itself) on the host</t>
-
- <t>Details of Resource isolation, such as CPUs designated for
- Host/Kernel (isolcpu) and CPUs designated for specific processes
- (taskset). - Test duration. - Number of flows.</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Test Traffic Information:<list style="symbols">
- <t>Traffic type - UDP, TCP, IMIX / Other</t>
-
- <t>Packet Sizes</t>
-
- <t>Deployment Scenario</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t/>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Flow classification">
- <t>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.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation">
- <t>This outline describes measurement of baseline with isolated
- resources at a high level, which is the intended approach at this
- time.</t>
-
- <t><list style="numbers">
- <t>Baselines: <list style="symbols">
- <t>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). <figure>
- <preamble>Benchmark platform forwarding
- capability</preamble>
-
- <artwork align="right"><![CDATA[ __
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | Simple Forwarding App | | Host
- | | | | |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | NIC | | |
- +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
-
- <postamble/>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t>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. <figure align="right">
- <preamble>Benchmark VNF forwarding capability</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | VNF | | |
- | | | | |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Passthrough/SR-IOV | | Host
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | NIC | | |
- +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
-
- <postamble/>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t>Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, with other
- resources (both HW&amp;SW) disabled Example, vSw and VM are
- SUT</t>
-
- <t>Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, leaving some
- resources unused</t>
-
- <t>Benchmark with isolated resources and all resources
- occupied</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Next Steps<list style="symbols">
- <t>Limited sharing</t>
-
- <t>Production scenarios</t>
-
- <t>Stressful scenarios</t>
- </list></t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
- </section>
-
- <section title="VSWITCHPERF Specification Summary">
- <t>The overall specification in preparation is referred to as a Level
- 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:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t><xref target="RFC2544"/> Benchmarking Methodology for Network
- Interconnect Devices</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC2889"/> Benchmarking Methodology for LAN
- Switching</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC6201"/> Device Reset Characterization</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC5481"/> Packet Delay Variation Applicability
- Statement</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Some of the above/newer RFCs are being applied in benchmarking for
- the first time, and represent a development challenge for test equipment
- developers. Fortunately, many members of the testing system community
- have engaged on the VSPERF project, including an open source test
- system.</t>
-
- <t>In addition to this, the LTD also re-uses the terminology defined
- by:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t><xref target="RFC2285"/> Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
- Switching Devices</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC5481"/> Packet Delay Variation Applicability
- Statement</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t/>
-
- <t>Specifications to be included in future updates of the LTD
- include:<list style="symbols">
- <t><xref target="RFC3918"/> Methodology for IP Multicast
- Benchmarking</t>
-
- <t><xref target="RFC4737"/> Packet Reordering Metrics</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>As one might expect, the most fundamental internetworking
- characteristics of Throughput and Latency remain important when the
- switch is virtualized, and these benchmarks figure prominently in the
- specification.</t>
-
- <t>When considering characteristics important to "telco" network
- functions, we must begin to consider additional performance metrics. In
- this case, the project specifications have referenced metrics from the
- IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) literature. This means that the <xref
- target="RFC2544"/> test of Latency is replaced by measurement of a
- metric derived from IPPM's <xref target="RFC2679"/>, where a set of
- statistical summaries will be provided (mean, max, min, etc.). Further
- metrics planned to be benchmarked include packet delay variation as
- defined by <xref target="RFC5481"/> , reordering, burst behaviour, DUT
- availability, DUT capacity and packet loss in long term testing at
- Throughput level, where some low-level of background loss may be present
- and characterized.</t>
-
- <t>Tests have been (or will be) designed to collect the metrics
- below:</t>
-
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput Tests to measure the maximum forwarding rate (in
- frames per second or fps) and bit rate (in Mbps) for a constant load
- (as defined by <xref target="RFC1242"/>) without traffic loss.</t>
-
- <t>Packet and Frame Delay Distribution Tests to measure average, min
- and max packet and frame delay for constant loads.</t>
-
- <t>Packet Delay Tests to understand latency distribution for
- different packet sizes and over an extended test run to uncover
- outliers.</t>
-
- <t>Scalability Tests to understand how the virtual switch performs
- as the number of flows, active ports, complexity of the forwarding
- logic&rsquo;s configuration&hellip; it has to deal with
- increases.</t>
-
- <t>Stream Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) to measure bulk data transfer
- performance, i.e. how fast systems can send and receive data through
- the switch.</t>
-
- <t>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).</t>
-
- <t>CPU and Memory Consumption Tests to understand the virtual
- switch&rsquo;s footprint on the system, usually conducted as
- auxiliary measurements with benchmarks above. They include: CPU
- utilization, Cache utilization and Memory footprint.</t>
-
- <t>The so-called "Soak" tests, where the selected test is conducted
- over a long period of time (with an ideal duration of 24 hours, and
- at least 6 hours). The purpose of soak tests is to capture transient
- changes in performance which may occur due to infrequent processes
- or the low probability coincidence of two or more processes. The
- performance must be evaluated periodically during continuous
- testing, and this results in use of <xref target="RFC2889"/> Frame
- Rate metrics instead of <xref target="RFC2544"/> Throughput (which
- requires stopping traffic to allow time for all traffic to exit
- internal queues).</t>
- </list></t>
-
- <t>Future/planned test specs include:<list style="symbols">
- <t>Request/Response Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) which measure the
- transaction rate through the switch.</t>
-
- <t>Noisy Neighbour Tests, to understand the effects of resource
- sharing on the performance of a virtual switch.</t>
-
- <t>Tests derived from examination of ETSI NFV Draft GS IFA003
- requirements <xref target="IFA003"/> on characterization of
- acceleration technologies applied to vswitches.</t>
- </list>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:</t>
-
- <t><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to physical
- port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +--------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | v | | Host
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch
- to physical port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | ^ : | |
- | | | | | Guest
- | : v | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | |
- +---+---------------+-----------+---------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v __
- +---+---------------+----------+---------------+---+ |
- | | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | ^ : | |
- | | | | | Host
- | : v | |
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch
- to VNF to virtual switch to physical port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
- | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | Application | | | | Application | | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | | | ^ | | |
- | | v | | | v | | Guests
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | |
- | | 0 1 | | | | 0 1 | | |
- +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__|
- ^ : ^ :
- | | | |
- : v : v _
- +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
- | | 0 1 | | 3 4 | | |
- | | logical ports | | logical ports | | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | ^ | | | Host
- | | |-----------------| v | |
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy ports | vSwitch | phy ports | | |
- +---+--------------+----------+--------------+---+_|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | ^ | |
- | | | | Guest
- | : | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port 0| | |
- +---+---------------+-------------------------------+ __|
- ^
- |
- : __
- +---+---------------+------------------------------+ |
- | | logical port 0| | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | |
- | | | | Host
- | : | |
- | +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | |
- +---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ __|
- ^
- |
- :
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>VNF to virtual switch to physical port</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | : | |
- | | | | Guest
- | v | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port | | |
- +-------------------------------+---------------+---+ __|
- :
- |
- v __
- +------------------------------+---------------+---+ |
- | | logical port | | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | : | |
- | | | | Host
- | v | |
- | +--------------+ | |
- | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +-------------------------------+--------------+---+ __|
- :
- |
- v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork>
- </figure><figure>
- <preamble>VNF to virtual switch to VNF</preamble>
-
- <artwork><![CDATA[ __
- +----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
- | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | Application | | | | Application | | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | | | ^ | |
- | v | | | | | Guests
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | |
- | | 0 | | | | 0 | | |
- +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__|
- : ^
- | |
- v : _
- +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
- | | 1 | | 1 | | |
- | | logical ports | | logical ports | | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | | ^ | | Host
- | L-----------------+ | |
- | | |
- | vSwitch | |
- +------------------------------------------------+_|]]></artwork>
- </figure></t>
-
- <t>A set of Deployment Scenario figures is available on the VSPERF Test
- Methodology Wiki page <xref target="TestTopo"/>.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="3x3 Matrix Coverage">
- <t>This section organizes the many existing test specifications into the
- "3x3" matrix (introduced in <xref target="I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net"/>).
- 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
- when displaying the coverage of many metrics/benchmarks). The current
- version of the LTD specification is available <xref target="LTD"/>.</t>
-
- <t>The tests listed below assess the activation of paths in the data
- plane, rather than the control plane.</t>
-
- <t>A complete list of tests with short summaries is available on the
- VSPERF "LTD Test Spec Overview" Wiki page <xref target="LTDoverV"/>.</t>
-
- <section title="Speed of Activation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Activation.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate</t>
-
- <t>PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Accuracy of Activation section">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>CPDP.Coupling.Flow.Addition</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Reliability of Activation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.ResetTime</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Scale of Activation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Activation.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Speed of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRate</t>
-
- <t>CPU.RFC2544.0PacketLoss</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRateFrameModification</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Accuracy of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2544.Profile</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Reliability of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.Soak</t>
-
- <t>Throughput.RFC2889.SoakFrameModification</t>
-
- <t>PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Scalability of Operation">
- <t><list style="symbols">
- <t>Scalability.RFC2544.0PacketLoss</t>
-
- <t>MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability</t>
- </list></t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Summary">
- <t><figure>
- <artwork><![CDATA[|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| | SPEED | ACCURACY | RELIABILITY | SCALE |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| Activation | X | X | X | X |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| Operation | X | X | X | X |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-| | | | | |
-| De-activation | | | | |
-| | | | | |
-|------------------------------------------------------------------------|]]></artwork>
- </figure></t>
- </section>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Security Considerations">
- <t>Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
- technology characterization of a Device Under Test/System Under Test
- (DUT/SUT) using controlled stimuli in a laboratory environment, with
- dedicated address space and the constraints specified in the sections
- above.</t>
-
- <t>The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
- and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test traffic
- into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test management
- network.</t>
-
- <t>Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
- solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.</t>
-
- <t>Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
- benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
- from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
- networks.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
- <t>No IANA Action is requested at this time.</t>
- </section>
-
- <section title="Acknowledgements">
- <t>The authors appreciate and acknowledge comments from Scott Bradner,
- Marius Georgescu, Ramki Krishnan, Doug Montgomery, Martin Klozik,
- Christian Trautman, and others for their reviews.</t>
- </section>
- </middle>
-
- <back>
- <references title="Normative References">
- <?rfc ?>
-
- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
-
- <?rfc ?>
-
- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2330"?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2544'?>
-
- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2679"?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2680'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3393'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3432'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2681'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5905'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4689'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4737'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5357'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2889'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3918'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6201'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2285'?>
-
- <reference anchor="NFV.PER001">
- <front>
- <title>Network Function Virtualization: Performance and Portability
- Best Practices</title>
-
- <author fullname="ETSI NFV" initials="" surname="">
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date month="June" year="2014"/>
- </front>
-
- <seriesInfo name="Group Specification"
- value="ETSI GS NFV-PER 001 V1.1.1 (2014-06)"/>
-
- <format type="PDF"/>
- </reference>
- </references>
-
- <references title="Informative References">
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.1242'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5481'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6049'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6248'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6390'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net'?>
-
- <?rfc include='reference.I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance'?>
-
- <reference anchor="TestTopo">
- <front>
- <title>Test Topologies
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/vsperf/test_methodology</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="LTDoverV">
- <front>
- <title>LTD Test Spec Overview
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/vswitchperf_test_spec_review</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="LTD">
- <front>
- <title>LTD Test Specification
- http://artifacts.opnfv.org/vswitchperf/docs/requirements/index.html</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="BrahRel">
- <front>
- <title>Brahmaputra, Second OPNFV Release
- https://www.opnfv.org/brahmaputra</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
-
- <reference anchor="IFA003">
- <front>
- <title>https://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Drafts/IFA003_Acceleration_-_vSwitch_Spec/</title>
-
- <author>
- <organization/>
- </author>
-
- <date/>
- </front>
- </reference>
- </references>
- </back>
-</rfc>
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_alternative_benchmark.png b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_alternative_benchmark.png
deleted file mode 100644
index d21334ba..00000000
--- a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_alternative_benchmark.png
+++ /dev/null
Binary files differ
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_benchmark.png b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_benchmark.png
deleted file mode 100644
index 3a85e51f..00000000
--- a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_benchmark.png
+++ /dev/null
Binary files differ
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_hypervisor_benchmark.png b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_hypervisor_benchmark.png
deleted file mode 100644
index b5b76e8a..00000000
--- a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_hypervisor_benchmark.png
+++ /dev/null
Binary files differ
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_virtual_interface_benchmark.png b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_virtual_interface_benchmark.png
deleted file mode 100644
index 55294af6..00000000
--- a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_virtual_interface_benchmark.png
+++ /dev/null
Binary files differ
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vswitchperf_ltd.rst b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vswitchperf_ltd.rst
deleted file mode 100644
index e1372520..00000000
--- a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vswitchperf_ltd.rst
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,1712 +0,0 @@
-.. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
-.. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
-.. (c) OPNFV, Intel Corporation, AT&T and others.
-
-******************************
-VSPERF LEVEL TEST DESIGN (LTD)
-******************************
-
-.. 3.1
-
-============
-Introduction
-============
-
-The intention of this Level Test Design (LTD) document is to specify the set of
-tests to carry out in order to objectively measure the current characteristics
-of a virtual switch in the Network Function Virtualization Infrastructure
-(NFVI) as well as the test pass criteria. The detailed test cases will be
-defined in details-of-LTD_, preceded by the doc-id-of-LTD_ and the scope-of-LTD_.
-
-This document is currently in draft form.
-
-.. 3.1.1
-
-
-.. _doc-id-of-LTD:
-
-Document identifier
-===================
-
-The document id will be used to uniquely
-identify versions of the LTD. The format for the document id will be:
-OPNFV\_vswitchperf\_LTD\_REL\_STATUS, where by the
-status is one of: draft, reviewed, corrected or final. The document id
-for this version of the LTD is:
-OPNFV\_vswitchperf\_LTD\_Brahmaputra\_REVIEWED.
-
-.. 3.1.2
-
-.. _scope-of-LTD:
-
-Scope
-=====
-
-The main purpose of this project is to specify a suite of
-performance tests in order to objectively measure the current packet
-transfer characteristics of a virtual switch in the NFVI. The intent of
-the project is to facilitate testing of any virtual switch. Thus, a
-generic suite of tests shall be developed, with no hard dependencies to
-a single implementation. In addition, the test case suite shall be
-architecture independent.
-
-The test cases developed in this project shall not form part of a
-separate test framework, all of these tests may be inserted into the
-Continuous Integration Test Framework and/or the Platform Functionality
-Test Framework - if a vSwitch becomes a standard component of an OPNFV
-release.
-
-.. 3.1.3
-
-References
-==========
-
-* `RFC 1242 Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection
- Devices <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1242.txt>`__
-* `RFC 2544 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect
- Devices <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__
-* `RFC 2285 Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
- Devices <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2285.txt>`__
-* `RFC 2889 Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching
- Devices <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2889.txt>`__
-* `RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast
- Benchmarking <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3918.txt>`__
-* `RFC 4737 Packet Reordering
- Metrics <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4737.txt>`__
-* `RFC 5481 Packet Delay Variation Applicability
- Statement <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__
-* `RFC 6201 Device Reset
- Characterization <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6201>`__
-
-.. 3.2
-
-.. _details-of-LTD:
-
-================================
-Details of the Level Test Design
-================================
-
-This section describes the features to be tested (FeaturesToBeTested-of-LTD_), and
-identifies the sets of test cases or scenarios (TestIdentification-of-LTD_).
-
-.. 3.2.1
-
-.. _FeaturesToBeTested-of-LTD:
-
-Features to be tested
-=====================
-
-Characterizing virtual switches (i.e. Device Under Test (DUT) in this document)
-includes measuring the following performance metrics:
-
-- Throughput
-- Packet delay
-- Packet delay variation
-- Packet loss
-- Burst behaviour
-- Packet re-ordering
-- Packet correctness
-- Availability and capacity of the DUT
-
-.. 3.2.2
-
-.. _TestIdentification-of-LTD:
-
-Test identification
-===================
-
-.. 3.2.2.1
-
-Throughput tests
-----------------
-
-The following tests aim to determine the maximum forwarding rate that
-can be achieved with a virtual switch. The list is not exhaustive but
-should indicate the type of tests that should be required. It is
-expected that more will be added.
-
-.. 3.2.2.1.1
-
-.. _PacketLossRatio:
-
-Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC 2544 X% packet loss ratio Throughput and Latency Test
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- This test determines the DUT's maximum forwarding rate with X% traffic
- loss for a constant load (fixed length frames at a fixed interval time).
- The default loss percentages to be tested are: - X = 0% - X = 10^-7%
-
- Note: Other values can be tested if required by the user.
-
- The selected frame sizes are those previously defined under
- :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
- The test can also be used to determine the average latency of the traffic.
-
- Under the `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__
- test methodology, the test duration will
- include a number of trials; each trial should run for a minimum period
- of 60 seconds. A binary search methodology must be applied for each
- trial to obtain the final result.
-
- **Expected Result**: At the end of each trial, the presence or absence
- of loss determines the modification of offered load for the next trial,
- converging on a maximum rate, or
- `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__ Throughput with X%
- loss.
- The Throughput load is re-used in related
- `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__ tests and other
- tests.
-
- **Metrics Collected**:
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - The maximum forwarding rate in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps of
- the DUT for each frame size with X% packet loss.
- - The average latency of the traffic flow when passing through the DUT
- (if testing for latency, note that this average is different from the
- test specified in Section 26.3 of
- `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__).
- - CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
- test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
-
-.. 3.2.2.1.2
-
-.. _PacketLossRatioFrameModification:
-
-Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatioFrameModification
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC 2544 X% packet loss Throughput and Latency Test with
- packet modification
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- This test determines the DUT's maximum forwarding rate with X% traffic
- loss for a constant load (fixed length frames at a fixed interval time).
- The default loss percentages to be tested are: - X = 0% - X = 10^-7%
-
- Note: Other values can be tested if required by the user.
-
- The selected frame sizes are those previously defined under
- :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
- The test can also be used to determine the average latency of the traffic.
-
- Under the `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__
- test methodology, the test duration will
- include a number of trials; each trial should run for a minimum period
- of 60 seconds. A binary search methodology must be applied for each
- trial to obtain the final result.
-
- During this test, the DUT must perform the following operations on the
- traffic flow:
-
- - Perform packet parsing on the DUT's ingress port.
- - Perform any relevant address look-ups on the DUT's ingress ports.
- - Modify the packet header before forwarding the packet to the DUT's
- egress port. Packet modifications include:
-
- - Modifying the Ethernet source or destination MAC address.
- - Modifying/adding a VLAN tag. (**Recommended**).
- - Modifying/adding a MPLS tag.
- - Modifying the source or destination ip address.
- - Modifying the TOS/DSCP field.
- - Modifying the source or destination ports for UDP/TCP/SCTP.
- - Modifying the TTL.
-
- **Expected Result**: The Packet parsing/modifications require some
- additional degree of processing resource, therefore the
- `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__
- Throughput is expected to be somewhat lower than the Throughput level
- measured without additional steps. The reduction is expected to be
- greatest on tests with the smallest packet sizes (greatest header
- processing rates).
-
- **Metrics Collected**:
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - The maximum forwarding rate in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps of
- the DUT for each frame size with X% packet loss and packet
- modification operations being performed by the DUT.
- - The average latency of the traffic flow when passing through the DUT
- (if testing for latency, note that this average is different from the
- test specified in Section 26.3 of
- `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__).
- - The `RFC5481 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__
- PDV form of delay variation on the traffic flow,
- using the 99th percentile.
- - CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
- test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
-
-.. 3.2.2.1.3
-
-Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.Profile
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC 2544 Throughput and Latency Profile
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- This test reveals how throughput and latency degrades as the offered
- rate varies in the region of the DUT's maximum forwarding rate as
- determined by LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio (0% Packet Loss).
- For example it can be used to determine if the degradation of throughput
- and latency as the offered rate increases is slow and graceful or sudden
- and severe.
-
- The selected frame sizes are those previously defined under
- :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
-
- The offered traffic rate is described as a percentage delta with respect
- to the DUT's RFC 2544 Throughput as determined by
- LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLoss Ratio (0% Packet Loss case). A delta
- of 0% is equivalent to an offered traffic rate equal to the RFC 2544
- Maximum Throughput; A delta of +50% indicates an offered rate half-way
- between the Maximum RFC2544 Throughput and line-rate, whereas a delta of
- -50% indicates an offered rate of half the RFC 2544 Maximum Throughput.
- Therefore the range of the delta figure is natuarlly bounded at -100%
- (zero offered traffic) and +100% (traffic offered at line rate).
-
- The following deltas to the maximum forwarding rate should be applied:
-
- - -50%, -10%, 0%, +10% & +50%
-
- **Expected Result**: For each packet size a profile should be produced
- of how throughput and latency vary with offered rate.
-
- **Metrics Collected**:
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - The forwarding rate in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps of the DUT
- for each delta to the maximum forwarding rate and for each frame
- size.
- - The average latency for each delta to the maximum forwarding rate and
- for each frame size.
- - CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
- test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
- - Any failures experienced (for example if the vSwitch crashes, stops
- processing packets, restarts or becomes unresponsive to commands)
- when the offered load is above Maximum Throughput MUST be recorded
- and reported with the results.
-
-.. 3.2.2.1.4
-
-Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC 2544 System Recovery Time Test
-
- **Prerequisite Test** LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- The aim of this test is to determine the length of time it takes the DUT
- to recover from an overload condition for a constant load (fixed length
- frames at a fixed interval time). The selected frame sizes are those
- previously defined under :ref:`default-test-parameters`,
- traffic should be sent to the DUT under normal conditions. During the
- duration of the test and while the traffic flows are passing though the
- DUT, at least one situation leading to an overload condition for the DUT
- should occur. The time from the end of the overload condition to when
- the DUT returns to normal operations should be measured to determine
- recovery time. Prior to overloading the DUT, one should record the
- average latency for 10,000 packets forwarded through the DUT.
-
- The overload condition SHOULD be to transmit traffic at a very high
- frame rate to the DUT (150% of the maximum 0% packet loss rate as
- determined by LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio or line-rate
- whichever is lower), for at least 60 seconds, then reduce the frame rate
- to 75% of the maximum 0% packet loss rate. A number of time-stamps
- should be recorded: - Record the time-stamp at which the frame rate was
- reduced and record a second time-stamp at the time of the last frame
- lost. The recovery time is the difference between the two timestamps. -
- Record the average latency for 10,000 frames after the last frame loss
- and continue to record average latency measurements for every 10,000
- frames, when latency returns to within 10% of pre-overload levels record
- the time-stamp.
-
- **Expected Result**:
-
- **Metrics collected**
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - The length of time it takes the DUT to recover from an overload
- condition.
- - The length of time it takes the DUT to recover the average latency to
- pre-overload conditions.
-
- **Deployment scenario**:
-
- - Physical → virtual switch → physical.
-
-.. 3.2.2.1.5
-
-.. _BackToBackFrames:
-
-Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC2544 Back To Back Frames Test
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: N
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- The aim of this test is to characterize the ability of the DUT to
- process back-to-back frames. For each frame size previously defined
- under :ref:`default-test-parameters`, a burst of traffic
- is sent to the DUT with the minimum inter-frame gap between each frame.
- If the number of received frames equals the number of frames that were
- transmitted, the burst size should be increased and traffic is sent to
- the DUT again. The value measured is the back-to-back value, that is the
- maximum burst size the DUT can handle without any frame loss. Please note
- a trial must run for a minimum of 2 seconds and should be repeated 50
- times (at a minimum).
-
- **Expected Result**:
-
- Tests of back-to-back frames with physical devices have produced
- unstable results in some cases. All tests should be repeated in multiple
- test sessions and results stability should be examined.
-
- **Metrics collected**
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - The average back-to-back value across the trials, which is
- the number of frames in the longest burst that the DUT will
- handle without the loss of any frames.
- - CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
- test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
-
- **Deployment scenario**:
-
- - Physical → virtual switch → physical.
-
-.. 3.2.2.1.6
-
-Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRateSoak
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC 2889 X% packet loss Max Forwarding Rate Soak Test
-
- **Prerequisite Test** LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- The aim of this test is to understand the Max Forwarding Rate stability
- over an extended test duration in order to uncover any outliers. To allow
- for an extended test duration, the test should ideally run for 24 hours
- or, if this is not possible, for at least 6 hours. For this test, each frame
- size must be sent at the highest Throughput rate with X% packet loss, as
- determined in the prerequisite test. The default loss percentages to be
- tested are: - X = 0% - X = 10^-7%
-
- Note: Other values can be tested if required by the user.
-
- **Expected Result**:
-
- **Metrics Collected**:
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - Max Forwarding Rate stability of the DUT.
-
- - This means reporting the number of packets lost per time interval
- and reporting any time intervals with packet loss. The
- `RFC2889 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2289.txt>`__
- Forwarding Rate shall be measured in each interval.
- An interval of 60s is suggested.
-
- - CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
- test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
- - The `RFC5481 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__
- PDV form of delay variation on the traffic flow,
- using the 99th percentile.
-
-.. 3.2.2.1.7
-
-Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRateSoakFrameModification
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC 2889 Max Forwarding Rate Soak Test with Frame Modification
-
- **Prerequisite Test**:
- LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatioFrameModification (0% Packet Loss)
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- The aim of this test is to understand the Max Forwarding Rate stability over an
- extended test duration in order to uncover any outliers. To allow for an
- extended test duration, the test should ideally run for 24 hours or, if
- this is not possible, for at least 6 hour. For this test, each frame
- size must be sent at the highest Throughput rate with 0% packet loss, as
- determined in the prerequisite test.
-
- During this test, the DUT must perform the following operations on the
- traffic flow:
-
- - Perform packet parsing on the DUT's ingress port.
- - Perform any relevant address look-ups on the DUT's ingress ports.
- - Modify the packet header before forwarding the packet to the DUT's
- egress port. Packet modifications include:
-
- - Modifying the Ethernet source or destination MAC address.
- - Modifying/adding a VLAN tag (**Recommended**).
- - Modifying/adding a MPLS tag.
- - Modifying the source or destination ip address.
- - Modifying the TOS/DSCP field.
- - Modifying the source or destination ports for UDP/TCP/SCTP.
- - Modifying the TTL.
-
- **Expected Result**:
-
- **Metrics Collected**:
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - Max Forwarding Rate stability of the DUT.
-
- - This means reporting the number of packets lost per time interval
- and reporting any time intervals with packet loss. The
- `RFC2889 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2289.txt>`__
- Forwarding Rate shall be measured in each interval.
- An interval of 60s is suggested.
-
- - CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
- test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
- - The `RFC5481 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__
- PDV form of delay variation on the traffic flow, using the 99th
- percentile.
-
-.. 3.2.2.1.8
-
-Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC6201.ResetTime
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC 6201 Reset Time Test
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- The aim of this test is to determine the length of time it takes the DUT
- to recover from a reset.
-
- Two reset methods are defined - planned and unplanned. A planned reset
- requires stopping and restarting the virtual switch by the usual
- 'graceful' method defined by it's documentation. An unplanned reset
- requires simulating a fatal internal fault in the virtual switch - for
- example by using kill -SIGKILL on a Linux environment.
-
- Both reset methods SHOULD be exercised.
-
- For each frame size previously defined under :ref:`default-test-parameters`,
- traffic should be sent to the DUT under
- normal conditions. During the duration of the test and while the traffic
- flows are passing through the DUT, the DUT should be reset and the Reset
- time measured. The Reset time is the total time that a device is
- determined to be out of operation and includes the time to perform the
- reset and the time to recover from it (cf. `RFC6201
- <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6201.txt>`__).
-
- `RFC6201 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6201.txt>`__ defines two methods
- to measure the Reset time:
-
- - Frame-Loss Method: which requires the monitoring of the number of
- lost frames and calculates the Reset time based on the number of
- frames lost and the offered rate according to the following
- formula:
-
- .. code-block:: console
-
- Frames_lost (packets)
- Reset_time = -------------------------------------
- Offered_rate (packets per second)
-
- - Timestamp Method: which measures the time from which the last frame
- is forwarded from the DUT to the time the first frame is forwarded
- after the reset. This involves time-stamping all transmitted frames
- and recording the timestamp of the last frame that was received prior
- to the reset and also measuring the timestamp of the first frame that
- is received after the reset. The Reset time is the difference between
- these two timestamps.
-
- According to `RFC6201 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6201.txt>`__ the
- choice of method depends on the test tool's capability; the Frame-Loss
- method SHOULD be used if the test tool supports:
-
- * Counting the number of lost frames per stream.
- * Transmitting test frame despite the physical link status.
-
- whereas the Timestamp method SHOULD be used if the test tool supports:
-
- * Timestamping each frame.
- * Monitoring received frame's timestamp.
- * Transmitting frames only if the physical link status is up.
-
- **Expected Result**:
-
- **Metrics collected**
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- * Average Reset Time over the number of trials performed.
-
- Results of this test should include the following information:
-
- * The reset method used.
- * Throughput in Fps and Mbps.
- * Average Frame Loss over the number of trials performed.
- * Average Reset Time in milliseconds over the number of trials performed.
- * Number of trials performed.
- * Protocol: IPv4, IPv6, MPLS, etc.
- * Frame Size in Octets
- * Port Media: Ethernet, Gigabit Ethernet (GbE), etc.
- * Port Speed: 10 Gbps, 40 Gbps etc.
- * Interface Encapsulation: Ethernet, Ethernet VLAN, etc.
-
- **Deployment scenario**:
-
- * Physical → virtual switch → physical.
-
-.. 3.2.2.1.9
-
-Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC2889 Forwarding Rate Test
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- This test measures the DUT's Max Forwarding Rate when the Offered Load
- is varied between the throughput and the Maximum Offered Load for fixed
- length frames at a fixed time interval. The selected frame sizes are
- those previously defined under :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
- The throughput is the maximum offered
- load with 0% frame loss (measured by the prerequisite test), and the
- Maximum Offered Load (as defined by
- `RFC2285 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2285.txt>`__) is *"the highest
- number of frames per second that an external source can transmit to a
- DUT/SUT for forwarding to a specified output interface or interfaces"*.
-
- Traffic should be sent to the DUT at a particular rate (TX rate)
- starting with TX rate equal to the throughput rate. The rate of
- successfully received frames at the destination counted (in FPS). If the
- RX rate is equal to the TX rate, the TX rate should be increased by a
- fixed step size and the RX rate measured again until the Max Forwarding
- Rate is found.
-
- The trial duration for each iteration should last for the period of time
- needed for the system to reach steady state for the frame size being
- tested. Under `RFC2889 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2289.txt>`__
- (Sec. 5.6.3.1) test methodology, the test
- duration should run for a minimum period of 30 seconds, regardless
- whether the system reaches steady state before the minimum duration
- ends.
-
- **Expected Result**: According to
- `RFC2889 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2289.txt>`__ The Max Forwarding
- Rate is the highest forwarding rate of a DUT taken from an iterative set of
- forwarding rate measurements. The iterative set of forwarding rate measurements
- are made by setting the intended load transmitted from an external source and
- measuring the offered load (i.e what the DUT is capable of forwarding). If the
- Throughput == the Maximum Offered Load, it follows that Max Forwarding Rate is
- equal to the Maximum Offered Load.
-
- **Metrics Collected**:
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - The Max Forwarding Rate for the DUT for each packet size.
- - CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
- test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
-
- **Deployment scenario**:
-
- - Physical → virtual switch → physical. Note: Full mesh tests with
- multiple ingress and egress ports are a key aspect of RFC 2889
- benchmarks, and scenarios with both 2 and 4 ports should be tested.
- In any case, the number of ports used must be reported.
-
-.. 3.2.2.1.10
-
-Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC2889 Forward Pressure Test
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- The aim of this test is to determine if the DUT transmits frames with an
- inter-frame gap that is less than 12 bytes. This test overloads the DUT
- and measures the output for forward pressure. Traffic should be
- transmitted to the DUT with an inter-frame gap of 11 bytes, this will
- overload the DUT by 1 byte per frame. The forwarding rate of the DUT
- should be measured.
-
- **Expected Result**: The forwarding rate should not exceed the maximum
- forwarding rate of the DUT collected by
- LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate.
-
- **Metrics collected**
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - Forwarding rate of the DUT in FPS or Mbps.
- - CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
- test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
-
- **Deployment scenario**:
-
- - Physical → virtual switch → physical.
-
-.. 3.2.2.1.11
-
-Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC2889 Error Frames Filtering Test
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- The aim of this test is to determine whether the DUT will propagate any
- erroneous frames it receives or whether it is capable of filtering out
- the erroneous frames. Traffic should be sent with erroneous frames
- included within the flow at random intervals. Illegal frames that must
- be tested include: - Oversize Frames. - Undersize Frames. - CRC Errored
- Frames. - Dribble Bit Errored Frames - Alignment Errored Frames
-
- The traffic flow exiting the DUT should be recorded and checked to
- determine if the erroneous frames where passed through the DUT.
-
- **Expected Result**: Broken frames are not passed!
-
- **Metrics collected**
-
- No Metrics are collected in this test, instead it determines:
-
- - Whether the DUT will propagate erroneous frames.
- - Or whether the DUT will correctly filter out any erroneous frames
- from traffic flow with out removing correct frames.
-
- **Deployment scenario**:
-
- - Physical → virtual switch → physical.
-
-.. 3.2.2.1.12
-
-Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC2889 Broadcast Frame Forwarding Test
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: N
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- The aim of this test is to determine the maximum forwarding rate of the
- DUT when forwarding broadcast traffic. For each frame previously defined
- under :ref:`default-test-parameters`, the traffic should
- be set up as broadcast traffic. The traffic throughput of the DUT should
- be measured.
-
- The test should be conducted with at least 4 physical ports on the DUT.
- The number of ports used MUST be recorded.
-
- As broadcast involves forwarding a single incoming packet to several
- destinations, the latency of a single packet is defined as the average
- of the latencies for each of the broadcast destinations.
-
- The incoming packet is transmitted on each of the other physical ports,
- it is not transmitted on the port on which it was received. The test MAY
- be conducted using different broadcasting ports to uncover any
- performance differences.
-
- **Expected Result**:
-
- **Metrics collected**:
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - The forwarding rate of the DUT when forwarding broadcast traffic.
- - The minimum, average & maximum packets latencies observed.
-
- **Deployment scenario**:
-
- - Physical → virtual switch 3x physical. In the Broadcast rate testing,
- four test ports are required. One of the ports is connected to the test
- device, so it can send broadcast frames and listen for miss-routed frames.
-
-.. 3.2.2.1.13
-
-Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.WorstN-BestN
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: Modified RFC 2544 X% packet loss ratio Throughput and Latency Test
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- This test determines the DUT's maximum forwarding rate with X% traffic
- loss for a constant load (fixed length frames at a fixed interval time).
- The default loss percentages to be tested are: X = 0%, X = 10^-7%
-
- Modified RFC 2544 throughput benchmarking methodology aims to quantify
- the throughput measurement variations observed during standard RFC 2544
- benchmarking measurements of virtual switches and VNFs. The RFC2544
- binary search algorithm is modified to use more samples per test trial
- to drive the binary search and yield statistically more meaningful
- results. This keeps the heart of the RFC2544 methodology, still relying
- on the binary search of throughput at specified loss tolerance, while
- providing more useful information about the range of results seen in
- testing. Instead of using a single traffic trial per iteration step,
- each traffic trial is repeated N times and the success/failure of the
- iteration step is based on these N traffic trials. Two types of revised
- tests are defined - *Worst-of-N* and *Best-of-N*.
-
- **Worst-of-N**
-
- *Worst-of-N* indicates the lowest expected maximum throughput for (
- packet size, loss tolerance) when repeating the test.
-
- 1. Repeat the same test run N times at a set packet rate, record each
- result.
- 2. Take the WORST result (highest packet loss) out of N result samples,
- called the Worst-of-N sample.
- 3. If Worst-of-N sample has loss less than the set loss tolerance, then
- the step is successful - increase the test traffic rate.
- 4. If Worst-of-N sample has loss greater than the set loss tolerance
- then the step failed - decrease the test traffic rate.
- 5. Go to step 1.
-
- **Best-of-N**
-
- *Best-of-N* indicates the highest expected maximum throughput for (
- packet size, loss tolerance) when repeating the test.
-
- 1. Repeat the same traffic run N times at a set packet rate, record
- each result.
- 2. Take the BEST result (least packet loss) out of N result samples,
- called the Best-of-N sample.
- 3. If Best-of-N sample has loss less than the set loss tolerance, then
- the step is successful - increase the test traffic rate.
- 4. If Best-of-N sample has loss greater than the set loss tolerance,
- then the step failed - decrease the test traffic rate.
- 5. Go to step 1.
-
- Performing both Worst-of-N and Best-of-N benchmark tests yields lower
- and upper bounds of expected maximum throughput under the operating
- conditions, giving a very good indication to the user of the
- deterministic performance range for the tested setup.
-
- **Expected Result**: At the end of each trial series, the presence or
- absence of loss determines the modification of offered load for the
- next trial series, converging on a maximum rate, or
- `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__ Throughput
- with X% loss.
- The Throughput load is re-used in related
- `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__ tests and other
- tests.
-
- **Metrics Collected**:
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - The maximum forwarding rate in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps of
- the DUT for each frame size with X% packet loss.
- - The average latency of the traffic flow when passing through the DUT
- (if testing for latency, note that this average is different from the
- test specified in Section 26.3 of
- `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__).
- - Following may also be collected as part of this test, to determine
- the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system:
-
- - CPU core utilization.
- - CPU cache utilization.
- - Memory footprint.
- - System bus (QPI, PCI, ...) utilization.
- - CPU cycles consumed per packet.
-
-.. 3.2.2.1.14
-
-Test ID: LTD.Throughput.Overlay.Network.<tech>.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: <tech> Overlay Network RFC 2544 X% packet loss ratio Throughput and Latency Test
-
-
- NOTE: Throughout this test, four interchangeable overlay technologies are covered by the
- same test description. They are: VXLAN, GRE, NVGRE and GENEVE.
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
- This test evaluates standard switch performance benchmarks for the scenario where an
- Overlay Network is deployed for all paths through the vSwitch. Overlay Technologies covered
- (replacing <tech> in the test name) include:
-
- - VXLAN
- - GRE
- - NVGRE
- - GENEVE
-
- Performance will be assessed for each of the following overlay network functions:
-
- - Encapsulation only
- - De-encapsulation only
- - Both Encapsulation and De-encapsulation
-
- For each native packet, the DUT must perform the following operations:
-
- - Examine the packet and classify its correct overlay net (tunnel) assignment
- - Encapsulate the packet
- - Switch the packet to the correct port
-
- For each encapsulated packet, the DUT must perform the following operations:
-
- - Examine the packet and classify its correct native network assignment
- - De-encapsulate the packet, if required
- - Switch the packet to the correct port
-
- The selected frame sizes are those previously defined under
- :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
-
- Thus, each test comprises an overlay technology, a network function,
- and a packet size *with* overlay network overhead included
- (but see also the discussion at
- https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/vSwitchTestsDrafts ).
-
- The test can also be used to determine the average latency of the traffic.
-
- Under the `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__
- test methodology, the test duration will
- include a number of trials; each trial should run for a minimum period
- of 60 seconds. A binary search methodology must be applied for each
- trial to obtain the final result for Throughput.
-
- **Expected Result**: At the end of each trial, the presence or absence
- of loss determines the modification of offered load for the next trial,
- converging on a maximum rate, or
- `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__ Throughput with X%
- loss (where the value of X is typically equal to zero).
- The Throughput load is re-used in related
- `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__ tests and other
- tests.
-
- **Metrics Collected**:
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - The maximum Throughput in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps of
- the DUT for each frame size with X% packet loss.
- - The average latency of the traffic flow when passing through the DUT
- and VNFs (if testing for latency, note that this average is different from the
- test specified in Section 26.3 of
- `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__).
- - CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
- test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
-
-.. 3.2.3.1.15
-
-Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.MatchAction.PacketLossRatio
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC 2544 X% packet loss ratio match action Throughput and Latency Test
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- The aim of this test is to determine the cost of carrying out match
- action(s) on the DUT’s RFC2544 Throughput with X% traffic loss for
- a constant load (fixed length frames at a fixed interval time).
-
- Each test case requires:
-
- * selection of a specific match action(s),
- * specifying a percentage of total traffic that is elligible
- for the match action,
- * determination of the specific test configuration (number
- of flows, number of test ports, presence of an external
- controller, etc.), and
- * measurement of the RFC 2544 Throughput level with X% packet
- loss: Traffic shall be bi-directional and symmetric.
-
- Note: It would be ideal to verify that all match action-elligible
- traffic was forwarded to the correct port, and if forwarded to
- an unintended port it should be considered lost.
-
- A match action is an action that is typically carried on a frame
- or packet that matches a set of flow classification parameters
- (typically frame/packet header fields). A match action may or may
- not modify a packet/frame. Match actions include [1]:
-
- * output : outputs a packet to a particular port.
- * normal: Subjects the packet to traditional L2/L3 processing
- (MAC learning).
- * flood: Outputs the packet on all switch physical ports
- other than the port on which it was received and any ports
- on which flooding is disabled.
- * all: Outputs the packet on all switch physical ports other
- than the port on which it was received.
- * local: Outputs the packet on the ``local port``, which
- corresponds to the network device that has the same name as
- the bridge.
- * in_port: Outputs the packet on the port from which it was
- received.
- * Controller: Sends the packet and its metadata to the
- OpenFlow controller as a ``packet in`` message.
- * enqueue: Enqueues the packet on the specified queue
- within port.
- * drop: discard the packet.
-
- Modifications include [1]:
-
- * mod vlan: covered by LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatioFrameModification
- * mod_dl_src: Sets the source Ethernet address.
- * mod_dl_dst: Sets the destination Ethernet address.
- * mod_nw_src: Sets the IPv4 source address.
- * mod_nw_dst: Sets the IPv4 destination address.
- * mod_tp_src: Sets the TCP or UDP or SCTP source port.
- * mod_tp_dst: Sets the TCP or UDP or SCTP destination port.
- * mod_nw_tos: Sets the DSCP bits in the IPv4 ToS/DSCP or
- IPv6 traffic class field.
- * mod_nw_ecn: Sets the ECN bits in the appropriate IPv4 or
- IPv6 field.
- * mod_nw_ttl: Sets the IPv4 TTL or IPv6 hop limit field.
-
- Note: This comprehensive list requires extensive traffic generator
- capabilities.
-
- The match action(s) that were applied as part of the test should be
- reported in the final test report.
-
- During this test, the DUT must perform the following operations on
- the traffic flow:
-
- * Perform packet parsing on the DUT’s ingress port.
- * Perform any relevant address look-ups on the DUT’s ingress
- ports.
- * Carry out one or more of the match actions specified above.
-
- The default loss percentages to be tested are: - X = 0% - X = 10^-7%
- Other values can be tested if required by the user. The selected
- frame sizes are those previously defined under
- :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
-
- The test can also be used to determine the average latency of the
- traffic when a match action is applied to packets in a flow. Under
- the RFC2544 test methodology, the test duration will include a
- number of trials; each trial should run for a minimum period of 60
- seconds. A binary search methodology must be applied for each
- trial to obtain the final result.
-
- **Expected Result:**
-
- At the end of each trial, the presence or absence of loss
- determines the modification of offered load for the next trial,
- converging on a maximum rate, or RFC2544Throughput with X% loss.
- The Throughput load is re-used in related RFC2544 tests and other
- tests.
-
- **Metrics Collected:**
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- * The RFC 2544 Throughput in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps
- of the DUT for each frame size with X% packet loss.
- * The average latency of the traffic flow when passing through
- the DUT (if testing for latency, note that this average is
- different from the test specified in Section 26.3 ofRFC2544).
- * CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of
- this test, to determine the vSwitch’s performance footprint
- on the system.
-
- The metrics collected can be compared to that of the prerequisite
- test to determine the cost of the match action(s) in the pipeline.
-
- **Deployment scenario**:
-
- - Physical → virtual switch → physical (and others are possible)
-
- [1] ovs-ofctl - administer OpenFlow switches
- [http://openvswitch.org/support/dist-docs/ovs-ofctl.8.txt ]
-
-
-.. 3.2.2.2
-
-Packet Latency tests
---------------------
-
-These tests will measure the store and forward latency as well as the packet
-delay variation for various packet types through the virtual switch. The
-following list is not exhaustive but should indicate the type of tests
-that should be required. It is expected that more will be added.
-
-.. 3.2.2.2.1
-
-Test ID: LTD.PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: Initial Packet Processing Latency
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- In some virtual switch architectures, the first packets of a flow will
- take the system longer to process than subsequent packets in the flow.
- This test determines the latency for these packets. The test will
- measure the latency of the packets as they are processed by the
- flow-setup-path of the DUT. There are two methods for this test, a
- recommended method and a nalternative method that can be used if it is
- possible to disable the fastpath of the virtual switch.
-
- Recommended method: This test will send 64,000 packets to the DUT, each
- belonging to a different flow. Average packet latency will be determined
- over the 64,000 packets.
-
- Alternative method: This test will send a single packet to the DUT after
- a fixed interval of time. The time interval will be equivalent to the
- amount of time it takes for a flow to time out in the virtual switch
- plus 10%. Average packet latency will be determined over 1,000,000
- packets.
-
- This test is intended only for non-learning virtual switches; For learning
- virtual switches use RFC2889.
-
- For this test, only unidirectional traffic is required.
-
- **Expected Result**: The average latency for the initial packet of all
- flows should be greater than the latency of subsequent traffic.
-
- **Metrics Collected**:
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - Average latency of the initial packets of all flows that are
- processed by the DUT.
-
- **Deployment scenario**:
-
- - Physical → Virtual Switch → Physical.
-
-.. 3.2.2.2.2
-
-Test ID: LTD.PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: Packet Delay Variation Soak Test
-
- **Prerequisite Tests**: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio (0% Packet Loss)
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- The aim of this test is to understand the distribution of packet delay
- variation for different frame sizes over an extended test duration and
- to determine if there are any outliers. To allow for an extended test
- duration, the test should ideally run for 24 hours or, if this is not
- possible, for at least 6 hour. For this test, each frame size must be
- sent at the highest possible throughput with 0% packet loss, as
- determined in the prerequisite test.
-
- **Expected Result**:
-
- **Metrics Collected**:
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - The packet delay variation value for traffic passing through the DUT.
- - The `RFC5481 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__
- PDV form of delay variation on the traffic flow,
- using the 99th percentile, for each 60s interval during the test.
- - CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
- test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
-
-.. 3.2.2.3
-
-Scalability tests
------------------
-
-The general aim of these tests is to understand the impact of large flow
-table size and flow lookups on throughput. The following list is not
-exhaustive but should indicate the type of tests that should be required.
-It is expected that more will be added.
-
-.. 3.2.2.3.1
-
-.. _Scalability0PacketLoss:
-
-Test ID: LTD.Scalability.Flows.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC 2544 0% loss Flow Scalability throughput test
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio, IF the
- delta Throughput between the single-flow RFC2544 test and this test with
- a variable number of flows is desired.
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- The aim of this test is to measure how throughput changes as the number
- of flows in the DUT increases. The test will measure the throughput
- through the fastpath, as such the flows need to be installed on the DUT
- before passing traffic.
-
- For each frame size previously defined under :ref:`default-test-parameters`
- and for each of the following number of flows:
-
- - 1,000
- - 2,000
- - 4,000
- - 8,000
- - 16,000
- - 32,000
- - 64,000
- - Max supported number of flows.
-
- This test will be conducted under two conditions following the
- establishment of all flows as required by RFC 2544, regarding the flow
- expiration time-out:
-
- 1) The time-out never expires during each trial.
-
- 2) The time-out expires for all flows periodically. This would require a
- short time-out compared with flow re-appearance for a small number of
- flows, and may not be possible for all flow conditions.
-
- The maximum 0% packet loss Throughput should be determined in a manner
- identical to LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio.
-
- **Expected Result**:
-
- **Metrics Collected**:
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - The maximum number of frames per second that can be forwarded at the
- specified number of flows and the specified frame size, with zero
- packet loss.
-
-.. 3.2.2.3.2
-
-Test ID: LTD.MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC 2544 0% loss Memory Bandwidth Scalability test
-
- **Prerequisite Tests**: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio, IF the
- delta Throughput between an undisturbed RFC2544 test and this test with
- the Throughput affected by cache and memory bandwidth contention is desired.
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- The aim of this test is to understand how the DUT's performance is
- affected by cache sharing and memory bandwidth between processes.
-
- During the test all cores not used by the vSwitch should be running a
- memory intensive application. This application should read and write
- random data to random addresses in unused physical memory. The random
- nature of the data and addresses is intended to consume cache, exercise
- main memory access (as opposed to cache) and exercise all memory buses
- equally. Furthermore:
-
- - the ratio of reads to writes should be recorded. A ratio of 1:1
- SHOULD be used.
- - the reads and writes MUST be of cache-line size and be cache-line aligned.
- - in NUMA architectures memory access SHOULD be local to the core's node.
- Whether only local memory or a mix of local and remote memory is used
- MUST be recorded.
- - the memory bandwidth (reads plus writes) used per-core MUST be recorded;
- the test MUST be run with a per-core memory bandwidth equal to half the
- maximum system memory bandwidth divided by the number of cores. The test
- MAY be run with other values for the per-core memory bandwidth.
- - the test MAY also be run with the memory intensive application running
- on all cores.
-
- Under these conditions the DUT's 0% packet loss throughput is determined
- as per LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio.
-
- **Expected Result**:
-
- **Metrics Collected**:
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - The DUT's 0% packet loss throughput in the presence of cache sharing and
- memory bandwidth between processes.
-
-.. 3.2.2.3.3
-
-Test ID: LTD.Scalability.VNF.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: VNF Scalability RFC 2544 X% packet loss ratio Throughput and
- Latency Test
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- This test determines the DUT's throughput rate with X% traffic loss for
- a constant load (fixed length frames at a fixed interval time) when the
- number of VNFs on the DUT increases. The default loss percentages
- to be tested are: - X = 0% - X = 10^-7% . The minimum number of
- VNFs to be tested are 3.
-
- Flow classification should be conducted with L2, L3 and L4 matching
- to understand the matching and scaling capability of the vSwitch. The
- matching fields which were used as part of the test should be reported
- as part of the benchmark report.
-
- The vSwitch is responsible for forwarding frames between the VNFs
-
- The SUT (vSwitch and VNF daisy chain) operation should be validated
- before running the test. This may be completed by running a burst or
- continuous stream of traffic through the SUT to ensure proper operation
- before a test.
-
- **Note**: The traffic rate used to validate SUT operation should be low
- enough not to stress the SUT.
-
- **Note**: Other values can be tested if required by the user.
-
- **Note**: The same VNF should be used in the "daisy chain" formation.
- Each addition of a VNF should be conducted in a new test setup (The DUT
- is brought down, then the DUT is brought up again). An atlernative approach
- would be to continue to add VNFs without bringing down the DUT. The
- approach used needs to be documented as part of the test report.
-
- The selected frame sizes are those previously defined under
- :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
- The test can also be used to determine the average latency of the traffic.
-
- Under the `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__
- test methodology, the test duration will
- include a number of trials; each trial should run for a minimum period
- of 60 seconds. A binary search methodology must be applied for each
- trial to obtain the final result for Throughput.
-
- **Expected Result**: At the end of each trial, the presence or absence
- of loss determines the modification of offered load for the next trial,
- converging on a maximum rate, or
- `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__ Throughput with X%
- loss.
- The Throughput load is re-used in related
- `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__ tests and other
- tests.
-
- If the test VNFs are rather light-weight in terms of processing, the test
- provides a view of multiple passes through the vswitch on logical
- interfaces. In other words, the test produces an optimistic count of
- daisy-chained VNFs, but the cumulative effect of traffic on the vSwitch is
- "real" (assuming that the vSwitch has some dedicated resources, and the
- effects on shared resources is understood).
-
-
- **Metrics Collected**:
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - The maximum Throughput in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps of
- the DUT for each frame size with X% packet loss.
- - The average latency of the traffic flow when passing through the DUT
- and VNFs (if testing for latency, note that this average is different from the
- test specified in Section 26.3 of
- `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__).
- - CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
- test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
-
-.. 3.2.2.3.4
-
-Test ID: LTD.Scalability.VNF.RFC2544.PacketLossProfile
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: VNF Scalability RFC 2544 Throughput and Latency Profile
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- This test reveals how throughput and latency degrades as the number
- of VNFs increases and offered rate varies in the region of the DUT's
- maximum forwarding rate as determined by
- LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio (0% Packet Loss).
- For example it can be used to determine if the degradation of throughput
- and latency as the number of VNFs and offered rate increases is slow
- and graceful, or sudden and severe. The minimum number of VNFs to
- be tested is 3.
-
- The selected frame sizes are those previously defined under
- :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
-
- The offered traffic rate is described as a percentage delta with respect
- to the DUT's RFC 2544 Throughput as determined by
- LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLoss Ratio (0% Packet Loss case). A delta
- of 0% is equivalent to an offered traffic rate equal to the RFC 2544
- Throughput; A delta of +50% indicates an offered rate half-way
- between the Throughput and line-rate, whereas a delta of
- -50% indicates an offered rate of half the maximum rate. Therefore the
- range of the delta figure is natuarlly bounded at -100% (zero offered
- traffic) and +100% (traffic offered at line rate).
-
- The following deltas to the maximum forwarding rate should be applied:
-
- - -50%, -10%, 0%, +10% & +50%
-
- **Note**: Other values can be tested if required by the user.
-
- **Note**: The same VNF should be used in the "daisy chain" formation.
- Each addition of a VNF should be conducted in a new test setup (The DUT
- is brought down, then the DUT is brought up again). An atlernative approach
- would be to continue to add VNFs without bringing down the DUT. The
- approach used needs to be documented as part of the test report.
-
- Flow classification should be conducted with L2, L3 and L4 matching
- to understand the matching and scaling capability of the vSwitch. The
- matching fields which were used as part of the test should be reported
- as part of the benchmark report.
-
- The SUT (vSwitch and VNF daisy chain) operation should be validated
- before running the test. This may be completed by running a burst or
- continuous stream of traffic through the SUT to ensure proper operation
- before a test.
-
- **Note**: the traffic rate used to validate SUT operation should be low
- enough not to stress the SUT
-
- **Expected Result**: For each packet size a profile should be produced
- of how throughput and latency vary with offered rate.
-
- **Metrics Collected**:
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - The forwarding rate in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps of the DUT
- for each delta to the maximum forwarding rate and for each frame
- size.
- - The average latency for each delta to the maximum forwarding rate and
- for each frame size.
- - CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
- test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
- - Any failures experienced (for example if the vSwitch crashes, stops
- processing packets, restarts or becomes unresponsive to commands)
- when the offered load is above Maximum Throughput MUST be recorded
- and reported with the results.
-
-.. 3.2.2.4
-
-Activation tests
-----------------
-
-The general aim of these tests is to understand the capacity of the
-and speed with which the vswitch can accommodate new flows.
-
-.. 3.2.2.4.1
-
-Test ID: LTD.Activation.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC2889 Address Caching Capacity Test
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- Please note this test is only applicable to virtual switches that are capable of
- MAC learning. The aim of this test is to determine the address caching
- capacity of the DUT for a constant load (fixed length frames at a fixed
- interval time). The selected frame sizes are those previously defined
- under :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
-
- In order to run this test the aging time, that is the maximum time the
- DUT will keep a learned address in its flow table, and a set of initial
- addresses, whose value should be >= 1 and <= the max number supported by
- the implementation must be known. Please note that if the aging time is
- configurable it must be longer than the time necessary to produce frames
- from the external source at the specified rate. If the aging time is
- fixed the frame rate must be brought down to a value that the external
- source can produce in a time that is less than the aging time.
-
- Learning Frames should be sent from an external source to the DUT to
- install a number of flows. The Learning Frames must have a fixed
- destination address and must vary the source address of the frames. The
- DUT should install flows in its flow table based on the varying source
- addresses. Frames should then be transmitted from an external source at
- a suitable frame rate to see if the DUT has properly learned all of the
- addresses. If there is no frame loss and no flooding, the number of
- addresses sent to the DUT should be increased and the test is repeated
- until the max number of cached addresses supported by the DUT
- determined.
-
- **Expected Result**:
-
- **Metrics collected**:
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - Number of cached addresses supported by the DUT.
- - CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
- test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
-
- **Deployment scenario**:
-
- - Physical → virtual switch → 2 x physical (one receiving, one listening).
-
-.. 3.2.2.4.2
-
-Test ID: LTD.Activation.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC2889 Address Learning Rate Test
-
- **Prerequisite Test**: LTD.Memory.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- Please note this test is only applicable to virtual switches that are capable of
- MAC learning. The aim of this test is to determine the rate of address
- learning of the DUT for a constant load (fixed length frames at a fixed
- interval time). The selected frame sizes are those previously defined
- under :ref:`default-test-parameters`, traffic should be
- sent with each IPv4/IPv6 address incremented by one. The rate at which
- the DUT learns a new address should be measured. The maximum caching
- capacity from LTD.Memory.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity should be taken
- into consideration as the maximum number of addresses for which the
- learning rate can be obtained.
-
- **Expected Result**: It may be worthwhile to report the behaviour when
- operating beyond address capacity - some DUTs may be more friendly to
- new addresses than others.
-
- **Metrics collected**:
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - The address learning rate of the DUT.
-
- **Deployment scenario**:
-
- - Physical → virtual switch → 2 x physical (one receiving, one listening).
-
-.. 3.2.2.5
-
-Coupling between control path and datapath Tests
-------------------------------------------------
-
-The following tests aim to determine how tightly coupled the datapath
-and the control path are within a virtual switch. The following list
-is not exhaustive but should indicate the type of tests that should be
-required. It is expected that more will be added.
-
-.. 3.2.2.5.1
-
-Test ID: LTD.CPDPCouplingFlowAddition
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: Control Path and Datapath Coupling
-
- **Prerequisite Test**:
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- The aim of this test is to understand how exercising the DUT's control
- path affects datapath performance.
-
- Initially a certain number of flow table entries are installed in the
- vSwitch. Then over the duration of an RFC2544 throughput test
- flow-entries are added and removed at the rates specified below. No
- traffic is 'hitting' these flow-entries, they are simply added and
- removed.
-
- The test MUST be repeated with the following initial number of
- flow-entries installed: - < 10 - 1000 - 100,000 - 10,000,000 (or the
- maximum supported number of flow-entries)
-
- The test MUST be repeated with the following rates of flow-entry
- addition and deletion per second: - 0 - 1 (i.e. 1 addition plus 1
- deletion) - 100 - 10,000
-
- **Expected Result**:
-
- **Metrics Collected**:
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - The maximum forwarding rate in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps of
- the DUT.
- - The average latency of the traffic flow when passing through the DUT
- (if testing for latency, note that this average is different from the
- test specified in Section 26.3 of
- `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__).
- - CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
- test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
-
- **Deployment scenario**:
-
- - Physical → virtual switch → physical.
-
-.. 3.2.2.6
-
-CPU and memory consumption
---------------------------
-
-The following tests will profile a virtual switch's CPU and memory
-utilization under various loads and circumstances. The following
-list is not exhaustive but should indicate the type of tests that
-should be required. It is expected that more will be added.
-
-.. 3.2.2.6.1
-
-.. _CPU0PacketLoss:
-
-Test ID: LTD.Stress.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- **Title**: RFC 2544 0% Loss CPU OR Memory Stress Test
-
- **Prerequisite Test**:
-
- **Priority**:
-
- **Description**:
-
- The aim of this test is to understand the overall performance of the
- system when a CPU or Memory intensive application is run on the same DUT as
- the Virtual Switch. For each frame size, an
- LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio (0% Packet Loss) test should be
- performed. Throughout the entire test a CPU or Memory intensive application
- should be run on all cores on the system not in use by the Virtual Switch.
- For NUMA system only cores on the same NUMA node are loaded.
-
- It is recommended that stress-ng be used for loading the non-Virtual
- Switch cores but any stress tool MAY be used.
-
- **Expected Result**:
-
- **Metrics Collected**:
-
- The following are the metrics collected for this test:
-
- - Memory and CPU utilization of the cores running the Virtual Switch.
- - The number of identity of the cores allocated to the Virtual Switch.
- - The configuration of the stress tool (for example the command line
- parameters used to start it.)
-
- **Note:** Stress in the test ID can be replaced with the name of the
- component being stressed, when reporting the results:
- LTD.CPU.RFC2544.0PacketLoss or LTD.Memory.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
-
-.. 3.2.2.7
-
-Summary List of Tests
----------------------
-
-1. Throughput tests
-
- - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
- - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatioFrameModification
- - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.Profile
- - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime
- - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames
- - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.Soak
- - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.SoakFrameModification
- - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC6201.ResetTime
- - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate
- - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure
- - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering
- - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding
- - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.WorstN-BestN
- - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.Overlay.Network.<tech>.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
-
-2. Packet Latency tests
-
- - Test ID: LTD.PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency
- - Test ID: LTD.PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak
-
-3. Scalability tests
-
- - Test ID: LTD.Scalability.Flows.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
- - Test ID: LTD.MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability
- - LTD.Scalability.VNF.RFC2544.PacketLossProfile
- - LTD.Scalability.VNF.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
-
-4. Activation tests
-
- - Test ID: LTD.Activation.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity
- - Test ID: LTD.Activation.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate
-
-5. Coupling between control path and datapath Tests
-
- - Test ID: LTD.CPDPCouplingFlowAddition
-
-6. CPU and memory consumption
-
- - Test ID: LTD.Stress.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vswitchperf_ltp.rst b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vswitchperf_ltp.rst
deleted file mode 100644
index e5147bea..00000000
--- a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vswitchperf_ltp.rst
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,1344 +0,0 @@
-.. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
-.. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
-.. (c) OPNFV, Intel Corporation, AT&T and others.
-
-.. 3.1
-
-*****************************
-VSPERF LEVEL TEST PLAN (LTP)
-*****************************
-
-===============
-Introduction
-===============
-
-The objective of the OPNFV project titled
-**Characterize vSwitch Performance for Telco NFV Use Cases**, is to
-evaluate the performance of virtual switches to identify its suitability for a
-Telco Network Function Virtualization (NFV) environment. The intention of this
-Level Test Plan (LTP) document is to specify the scope, approach, resources,
-and schedule of the virtual switch performance benchmarking activities in
-OPNFV. The test cases will be identified in a separate document called the
-Level Test Design (LTD) document.
-
-This document is currently in draft form.
-
-.. 3.1.1
-
-
-.. _doc-id:
-
-Document identifier
-=========================
-
-The document id will be used to uniquely identify versions of the LTP. The
-format for the document id will be: OPNFV\_vswitchperf\_LTP\_REL\_STATUS, where
-by the status is one of: draft, reviewed, corrected or final. The document id
-for this version of the LTP is: OPNFV\_vswitchperf\_LTP\_Colorado\_REVIEWED.
-
-.. 3.1.2
-
-.. _scope:
-
-Scope
-==========
-
-The main purpose of this project is to specify a suite of
-performance tests in order to objectively measure the current packet
-transfer characteristics of a virtual switch in the NFVI. The intent of
-the project is to facilitate the performance testing of any virtual switch.
-Thus, a generic suite of tests shall be developed, with no hard dependencies to
-a single implementation. In addition, the test case suite shall be
-architecture independent.
-
-The test cases developed in this project shall not form part of a
-separate test framework, all of these tests may be inserted into the
-Continuous Integration Test Framework and/or the Platform Functionality
-Test Framework - if a vSwitch becomes a standard component of an OPNFV
-release.
-
-.. 3.1.3
-
-References
-===============
-
-* `RFC 1242 Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection
- Devices <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1242.txt>`__
-* `RFC 2544 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect
- Devices <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__
-* `RFC 2285 Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
- Devices <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2285.txt>`__
-* `RFC 2889 Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching
- Devices <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2889.txt>`__
-* `RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast
- Benchmarking <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3918.txt>`__
-* `RFC 4737 Packet Reordering
- Metrics <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4737.txt>`__
-* `RFC 5481 Packet Delay Variation Applicability
- Statement <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__
-* `RFC 6201 Device Reset
- Characterization <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6201>`__
-
-.. 3.1.4
-
-Level in the overall sequence
-===============================
-The level of testing conducted by vswitchperf in the overall testing sequence (among
-all the testing projects in OPNFV) is the performance benchmarking of a
-specific component (the vswitch) in the OPNFV platfrom. It's expected that this
-testing will follow on from the functional and integration testing conducted by
-other testing projects in OPNFV, namely Functest and Yardstick.
-
-.. 3.1.5
-
-Test classes and overall test conditions
-=========================================
-A benchmark is defined by the IETF as: A standardized test that serves as a
-basis for performance evaluation and comparison. It's important to note that
-benchmarks are not Functional tests. They do not provide PASS/FAIL criteria,
-and most importantly ARE NOT performed on live networks, or performed with live
-network traffic.
-
-In order to determine the packet transfer characteristics of a virtual switch,
-the benchmarking tests will be broken down into the following categories:
-
-- **Throughput Tests** to measure the maximum forwarding rate (in
- frames per second or fps) and bit rate (in Mbps) for a constant load
- (as defined by `RFC1242 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1242.txt>`__)
- without traffic loss.
-- **Packet and Frame Delay Tests** to measure average, min and max
- packet and frame delay for constant loads.
-- **Stream Performance Tests** (TCP, UDP) to measure bulk data transfer
- performance, i.e. how fast systems can send and receive data through
- the virtual switch.
-- **Request/Response Performance** Tests (TCP, UDP) the measure the
- transaction rate through the virtual switch.
-- **Packet Delay Tests** to understand latency distribution for
- different packet sizes and over an extended test run to uncover
- outliers.
-- **Scalability Tests** to understand how the virtual switch performs
- as the number of flows, active ports, complexity of the forwarding
- logic's configuration... it has to deal with increases.
-- **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.
-- **CPU and Memory Consumption Tests** to understand the virtual
- switch’s footprint on the system, this includes:
-
- * CPU core utilization.
- * CPU cache utilization.
- * Memory footprint.
- * System bus (QPI, PCI, ..) utilization.
- * Memory lanes utilization.
- * CPU cycles consumed per packet.
- * Time To Establish Flows Tests.
-
-- **Noisy Neighbour Tests**, to understand the effects of resource
- sharing on the performance of a virtual switch.
-
-**Note:** some of the tests above can be conducted simultaneously where
-the combined results would be insightful, for example Packet/Frame Delay
-and Scalability.
-
-
-
-.. 3.2
-
-.. _details-of-LTP:
-
-===================================
-Details of the Level Test Plan
-===================================
-
-This section describes the following items:
-* Test items and their identifiers (TestItems_)
-* Test Traceability Matrix (TestMatrix_)
-* Features to be tested (FeaturesToBeTested_)
-* Features not to be tested (FeaturesNotToBeTested_)
-* Approach (Approach_)
-* Item pass/fail criteria (PassFailCriteria_)
-* Suspension criteria and resumption requirements (SuspensionResumptionReqs_)
-
-.. 3.2.1
-
-.. _TestItems:
-
-Test items and their identifiers
-==================================
-The test item/application vsperf is trying to test are virtual switches and in
-particular their performance in an nfv environment. vsperf will first try to
-measure the maximum achievable performance by a virtual switch and then it will
-focus in on usecases that are as close to real life deployment scenarios as
-possible.
-
-.. 3.2.2
-
-.. _TestMatrix:
-
-Test Traceability Matrix
-==========================
-vswitchperf leverages the "3x3" matrix (introduced in
-https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-virtual-net-02) to achieve test
-traceability. The matrix was expanded to 3x4 to accommodate scale metrics when
-displaying the coverage of many metrics/benchmarks). Test case covreage in the
-LTD is tracked using the following catagories:
-
-
-+---------------+-------------+------------+---------------+-------------+
-| | | | | |
-| | SPEED | ACCURACY | RELIABILITY | SCALE |
-| | | | | |
-+---------------+-------------+------------+---------------+-------------+
-| | | | | |
-| Activation | X | X | X | X |
-| | | | | |
-+---------------+-------------+------------+---------------+-------------+
-| | | | | |
-| Operation | X | X | X | X |
-| | | | | |
-+---------------+-------------+------------+---------------+-------------+
-| | | | | |
-| De-activation | | | | |
-| | | | | |
-+---------------+-------------+------------+---------------+-------------+
-
-X = denotes a test catagory that has 1 or more test cases defined.
-
-.. 3.2.3
-
-.. _FeaturesToBeTested:
-
-Features to be tested
-==========================
-
-Characterizing virtual switches (i.e. Device Under Test (DUT) in this document)
-includes measuring the following performance metrics:
-
-- **Throughput** as defined by `RFC1242
- <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1242.txt>`__: The maximum rate at which
- **none** of the offered frames are dropped by the DUT. The maximum frame
- rate and bit rate that can be transmitted by the DUT without any error
- should be recorded. Note there is an equivalent bit rate and a specific
- layer at which the payloads contribute to the bits. Errors and
- improperly formed frames or packets are dropped.
-- **Packet delay** introduced by the DUT and its cumulative effect on
- E2E networks. Frame delay can be measured equivalently.
-- **Packet delay variation**: measured from the perspective of the
- VNF/application. Packet delay variation is sometimes called "jitter".
- However, we will avoid the term "jitter" as the term holds different
- meaning to different groups of people. In this document we will
- simply use the term packet delay variation. The preferred form for this
- metric is the PDV form of delay variation defined in `RFC5481
- <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__. The most relevant
- measurement of PDV considers the delay variation of a single user flow,
- as this will be relevant to the size of end-system buffers to compensate
- for delay variation. The measurement system's ability to store the
- delays of individual packets in the flow of interest is a key factor
- that determines the specific measurement method. At the outset, it is
- ideal to view the complete PDV distribution. Systems that can capture
- and store packets and their delays have the freedom to calculate the
- reference minimum delay and to determine various quantiles of the PDV
- distribution accurately (in post-measurement processing routines).
- Systems without storage must apply algorithms to calculate delay and
- statistical measurements on the fly. For example, a system may store
- temporary estimates of the mimimum delay and the set of (100) packets
- with the longest delays during measurement (to calculate a high quantile,
- and update these sets with new values periodically.
- In some cases, a limited number of delay histogram bins will be
- available, and the bin limits will need to be set using results from
- repeated experiments. See section 8 of `RFC5481
- <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__.
-- **Packet loss** (within a configured waiting time at the receiver): All
- packets sent to the DUT should be accounted for.
-- **Burst behaviour**: measures the ability of the DUT to buffer packets.
-- **Packet re-ordering**: measures the ability of the device under test to
- maintain sending order throughout transfer to the destination.
-- **Packet correctness**: packets or Frames must be well-formed, in that
- they include all required fields, conform to length requirements, pass
- integrity checks, etc.
-- **Availability and capacity** of the DUT i.e. when the DUT is fully “up”
- and connected, following measurements should be captured for
- DUT without any network packet load:
-
- - Includes average power consumption of the CPUs (in various power states) and
- system over specified period of time. Time period should not be less
- than 60 seconds.
- - Includes average per core CPU utilization over specified period of time.
- Time period should not be less than 60 seconds.
- - Includes the number of NIC interfaces supported.
- - Includes headroom of VM workload processing cores (i.e. available
- for applications).
-
-.. 3.2.4
-
-.. _FeaturesNotToBeTested:
-
-Features not to be tested
-==========================
-vsperf doesn't intend to define or perform any functional tests. The aim is to
-focus on performance.
-
-.. 3.2.5
-
-.. _Approach:
-
-Approach
-==============
-The testing approach adoped by the vswitchperf project is black box testing,
-meaning the test inputs can be generated and the outputs captured and
-completely evaluated from the outside of the System Under Test. Some metrics
-can be collected on the SUT, such as cpu or memory utilization if the
-collection has no/minimal impact on benchmark.
-This section will look at the deployment scenarios and the general methodology
-used by vswitchperf. In addition, this section will also specify the details of
-the Test Report that must be collected for each of the test cases.
-
-.. 3.2.5.1
-
-Deployment Scenarios
---------------------------
-The following represents possible deployment test scenarios which can
-help to determine the performance of both the virtual switch and the
-datapaths to physical ports (to NICs) and to logical ports (to VNFs):
-
-.. 3.2.5.1.1
-
-.. _Phy2Phy:
-
-Physical port → vSwitch → physical port
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-.. code-block:: console
-
- _
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +--------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | v | | Host
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ _|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+
-
-.. 3.2.5.1.2
-
-.. _PVP:
-
-Physical port → vSwitch → VNF → vSwitch → physical port
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-.. code-block:: console
-
- _
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | ^ : | |
- | | | | | Guest
- | : v | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | |
- +---+---------------+-----------+---------------+---+ _|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v _
- +---+---------------+----------+---------------+---+ |
- | | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | ^ : | |
- | | | | | Host
- | : v | |
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ _|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+
-
-.. 3.2.5.1.3
-
-.. _PVVP:
-
-Physical port → vSwitch → VNF → vSwitch → VNF → vSwitch → physical port
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-.. code-block:: console
-
- _
- +----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
- | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | Application | | | | Application | | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | | | ^ | | |
- | | v | | | v | | Guests
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | |
- | | 0 1 | | | | 0 1 | | |
- +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+ _|
- ^ : ^ :
- | | | |
- : v : v _
- +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
- | | 0 1 | | 3 4 | | |
- | | logical ports | | logical ports | | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | ^ | | | Host
- | | L-----------------+ v | |
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy ports | vSwitch | phy ports | | |
- +---+--------------+----------+--------------+---+ _|
- ^ ^ : :
- | | | |
- : : v v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+
-
-.. 3.2.5.1.4
-
-Physical port → VNF → vSwitch → VNF → physical port
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-.. code-block:: console
-
- _
- +----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
- | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
- |+-------------------+ | | +-------------------+| |
- || Application | | | | Application || |
- |+-------------------+ | | +-------------------+| |
- | ^ | | | ^ | | | Guests
- | | v | | | v | |
- |+-------------------+ | | +-------------------+| |
- || logical ports | | | | logical ports || |
- || 0 1 | | | | 0 1 || |
- ++--------------------++ ++--------------------++ _|
- ^ : ^ :
- (PCI passthrough) | | (PCI passthrough)
- | v : | _
- +--------++------------+-+------------++---------+ |
- | | || 0 | | 1 || | | |
- | | ||logical port| |logical port|| | | |
- | | |+------------+ +------------+| | | |
- | | | | ^ | | | |
- | | | L-----------------+ | | | |
- | | | | | | | Host
- | | | vSwitch | | | |
- | | +-----------------------------+ | | |
- | | | | |
- | | v | |
- | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port/VF | | phy port/VF | | |
- +-+--------------+--------------+--------------+-+ _|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+
-
-.. 3.2.5.1.5
-
-Physical port → vSwitch → VNF
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-.. code-block:: console
-
- _
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | ^ | |
- | | | | Guest
- | : | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port 0| | |
- +---+---------------+-------------------------------+ _|
- ^
- |
- : _
- +---+---------------+------------------------------+ |
- | | logical port 0| | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | |
- | | | | Host
- | : | |
- | +--------------+ | |
- | | phy port | vSwitch | |
- +---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ _|
- ^
- |
- :
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+
-
-.. 3.2.5.1.6
-
-VNF → vSwitch → physical port
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-.. code-block:: console
-
- _
- +---------------------------------------------------+ |
- | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Application | | |
- | +-------------------------------------------+ | |
- | : | |
- | | | | Guest
- | v | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port | | |
- +-------------------------------+---------------+---+ _|
- :
- |
- v _
- +------------------------------+---------------+---+ |
- | | logical port | | |
- | +---------------+ | |
- | : | |
- | | | | Host
- | v | |
- | +--------------+ | |
- | vSwitch | phy port | | |
- +-------------------------------+--------------+---+ _|
- :
- |
- v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+
-
-.. 3.2.5.1.7
-
-VNF → vSwitch → VNF → vSwitch
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-.. code-block:: console
-
- _
- +-------------------------+ +-------------------------+ |
- | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
- | +-----------------+ | | +-----------------+ | |
- | | Application | | | | Application | | |
- | +-----------------+ | | +-----------------+ | |
- | : | | ^ | |
- | | | | | | | Guest
- | v | | : | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical port 0| | | | logical port 0| | |
- +-----+---------------+---+ +---+---------------+-----+ _|
- : ^
- | |
- v : _
- +----+---------------+------------+---------------+-----+ |
- | | port 0 | | port 1 | | |
- | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
- | : ^ | |
- | | | | | Host
- | +--------------------+ | |
- | | |
- | vswitch | |
- +-------------------------------------------------------+ _|
-
-.. 3.2.5.1.8
-
-HOST 1(Physical port → virtual switch → VNF → virtual switch → Physical port)
-→ HOST 2(Physical port → virtual switch → VNF → virtual switch → Physical port)
-
-HOST 1 (PVP) → HOST 2 (PVP)
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-.. code-block:: console
-
- _
- +----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
- | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | Application | | | | Application | | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | | | ^ | | |
- | | v | | | v | | Guests
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | |
- | | 0 1 | | | | 0 1 | | |
- +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+ _|
- ^ : ^ :
- | | | |
- : v : v _
- +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+ |
- | | 0 1 | | | | 3 4 | | |
- | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | |
- | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
- | ^ | | | ^ | | | Hosts
- | | v | | | v | |
- | +--------------+ | | +--------------+ | |
- | | phy ports | | | | phy ports | | |
- +---+--------------+---+ +---+--------------+---+ _|
- ^ : : :
- | +-----------------+ |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+
-
-
-
-**Note:** For tests where the traffic generator and/or measurement
-receiver are implemented on VM and connected to the virtual switch
-through vNIC, the issues of shared resources and interactions between
-the measurement devices and the device under test must be considered.
-
-**Note:** Some RFC 2889 tests require a full-mesh sending and receiving
-pattern involving more than two ports. This possibility is illustrated in the
-Physical port → vSwitch → VNF → vSwitch → VNF → vSwitch → physical port
-diagram above (with 2 sending and 2 receiving ports, though all ports
-could be used bi-directionally).
-
-**Note:** When Deployment Scenarios are used in RFC 2889 address learning
-or cache capacity testing, an additional port from the vSwitch must be
-connected to the test device. This port is used to listen for flooded
-frames.
-
-.. 3.2.5.2
-
-General Methodology:
---------------------------
-To establish the baseline performance of the virtual switch, tests would
-initially be run with a simple workload in the VNF (the recommended
-simple workload VNF would be `DPDK <http://www.dpdk.org/>`__'s testpmd
-application forwarding packets in a VM or vloop\_vnf a simple kernel
-module that forwards traffic between two network interfaces inside the
-virtualized environment while bypassing the networking stack).
-Subsequently, the tests would also be executed with a real Telco
-workload running in the VNF, which would exercise the virtual switch in
-the context of higher level Telco NFV use cases, and prove that its
-underlying characteristics and behaviour can be measured and validated.
-Suitable real Telco workload VNFs are yet to be identified.
-
-.. 3.2.5.2.1
-
-.. _default-test-parameters:
-
-Default Test Parameters
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-The following list identifies the default parameters for suite of
-tests:
-
-- Reference application: Simple forwarding or Open Source VNF.
-- Frame size (bytes): 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518, 2K, 4k OR
- Packet size based on use-case (e.g. RTP 64B, 256B) OR Mix of packet sizes as
- maintained by the Functest project <https://wiki.opnfv.org/traffic_profile_management>.
-- Reordering check: Tests should confirm that packets within a flow are
- not reordered.
-- Duplex: Unidirectional / Bidirectional. Default: Full duplex with
- traffic transmitting in both directions, as network traffic generally
- does not flow in a single direction. By default the data rate of
- transmitted traffic should be the same in both directions, please
- note that asymmetric traffic (e.g. downlink-heavy) tests will be
- mentioned explicitly for the relevant test cases.
-- Number of Flows: Default for non scalability tests is a single flow.
- For scalability tests the goal is to test with maximum supported
- flows but where possible will test up to 10 Million flows. Start with
- a single flow and scale up. By default flows should be added
- sequentially, tests that add flows simultaneously will explicitly
- call out their flow addition behaviour. Packets are generated across
- the flows uniformly with no burstiness. For multi-core tests should
- consider the number of packet flows based on vSwitch/VNF multi-thread
- implementation and behavior.
-
-- Traffic Types: UDP, SCTP, RTP, GTP and UDP traffic.
-- Deployment scenarios are:
-- Physical → virtual switch → physical.
-- Physical → virtual switch → VNF → virtual switch → physical.
-- Physical → virtual switch → VNF → virtual switch → VNF → virtual
- switch → physical.
-- Physical → VNF → virtual switch → VNF → physical.
-- Physical → virtual switch → VNF.
-- VNF → virtual switch → Physical.
-- VNF → virtual switch → VNF.
-
-Tests MUST have these parameters unless otherwise stated. **Test cases
-with non default parameters will be stated explicitly**.
-
-**Note**: For throughput tests unless stated otherwise, test
-configurations should ensure that traffic traverses the installed flows
-through the virtual switch, i.e. flows are installed and have an appropriate
-time out that doesn't expire before packet transmission starts.
-
-.. 3.2.5.2.2
-
-Flow Classification
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-Virtual switches classify packets into flows by processing and matching
-particular header fields in the packet/frame and/or the input port where
-the packets/frames arrived. The vSwitch then carries out an action on
-the group of packets that match the classification parameters. Thus a
-flow is considered to be a sequence of packets that have a shared set of
-header field values or have arrived on the same port and have the same
-action applied to them. Performance results can vary based on the
-parameters the vSwitch uses to match for a flow. The recommended flow
-classification parameters for L3 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
-time-out time on a vSwitch before conducting any performance tests that
-do not measure the flow set-up time. Normally the first packet of a
-particular flow will install the flow in the vSwitch 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.
-
-.. 3.2.5.2.3
-
-Test Priority
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-Tests will be assigned a priority in order to determine which tests
-should be implemented immediately and which tests implementations
-can be deferred.
-
-Priority can be of following types: - Urgent: Must be implemented
-immediately. - High: Must be implemented in the next release. - Medium:
-May be implemented after the release. - Low: May or may not be
-implemented at all.
-
-.. 3.2.5.2.4
-
-SUT Setup
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-The SUT should be configured to its "default" state. The
-SUT's configuration or set-up must not change between tests in any way
-other than what is required to do the test. All supported protocols must
-be configured and enabled for each test set up.
-
-.. 3.2.5.2.5
-
-Port Configuration
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-The DUT should be configured with n ports where
-n is a multiple of 2. Half of the ports on the DUT should be used as
-ingress ports and the other half of the ports on the DUT should be used
-as egress ports. Where a DUT has more than 2 ports, the ingress data
-streams should be set-up so that they transmit packets to the egress
-ports in sequence so that there is an even distribution of traffic
-across ports. For example, if a DUT has 4 ports 0(ingress), 1(ingress),
-2(egress) and 3(egress), the traffic stream directed at port 0 should
-output a packet to port 2 followed by a packet to port 3. The traffic
-stream directed at port 1 should also output a packet to port 2 followed
-by a packet to port 3.
-
-.. 3.2.5.2.6
-
-Frame Formats
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-**Frame formats Layer 2 (data link layer) protocols**
-
-- Ethernet II
-
-.. code-block:: console
-
- +---------------------------+-----------+
- | Ethernet Header | Payload | Check Sum |
- +-----------------+---------+-----------+
- |_________________|_________|___________|
- 14 Bytes 46 - 1500 4 Bytes
- Bytes
-
-
-**Layer 3 (network layer) protocols**
-
-- IPv4
-
-.. code-block:: console
-
- +-----------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
- | Ethernet Header | IP Header | Payload | Checksum |
- +-----------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
- |_________________|___________|_________|___________|
- 14 Bytes 20 bytes 26 - 1480 4 Bytes
- Bytes
-
-- IPv6
-
-.. code-block:: console
-
- +-----------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
- | Ethernet Header | IP Header | Payload | Checksum |
- +-----------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
- |_________________|___________|_________|___________|
- 14 Bytes 40 bytes 26 - 1460 4 Bytes
- Bytes
-
-**Layer 4 (transport layer) protocols**
-
- - TCP
- - UDP
- - SCTP
-
-.. code-block:: console
-
- +-----------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+-----------+
- | Ethernet Header | IP Header | Layer 4 Header | Payload | Checksum |
- +-----------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+-----------+
- |_________________|___________|_________________|_________|___________|
- 14 Bytes 40 bytes 20 Bytes 6 - 1460 4 Bytes
- Bytes
-
-
-**Layer 5 (application layer) protocols**
-
- - RTP
- - GTP
-
-.. code-block:: console
-
- +-----------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+-----------+
- | Ethernet Header | IP Header | Layer 4 Header | Payload | Checksum |
- +-----------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+-----------+
- |_________________|___________|_________________|_________|___________|
- 14 Bytes 20 bytes 20 Bytes >= 6 Bytes 4 Bytes
-
-.. 3.2.5.2.7
-
-Packet Throughput
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-There is a difference between an Ethernet frame,
-an IP packet, and a UDP datagram. In the seven-layer OSI model of
-computer networking, packet refers to a data unit at layer 3 (network
-layer). The correct term for a data unit at layer 2 (data link layer) is
-a frame, and at layer 4 (transport layer) is a segment or datagram.
-
-Important concepts related to 10GbE performance are frame rate and
-throughput. The MAC bit rate of 10GbE, defined in the IEEE standard 802
-.3ae, is 10 billion bits per second. Frame rate is based on the bit rate
-and frame format definitions. Throughput, defined in IETF RFC 1242, is
-the highest rate at which the system under test can forward the offered
-load, without loss.
-
-The frame rate for 10GbE is determined by a formula that divides the 10
-billion bits per second by the preamble + frame length + inter-frame
-gap.
-
-The maximum frame rate is calculated using the minimum values of the
-following parameters, as described in the IEEE 802 .3ae standard:
-
-- Preamble: 8 bytes \* 8 = 64 bits
-- Frame Length: 64 bytes (minimum) \* 8 = 512 bits
-- Inter-frame Gap: 12 bytes (minimum) \* 8 = 96 bits
-
-Therefore, Maximum Frame Rate (64B Frames)
-= MAC Transmit Bit Rate / (Preamble + Frame Length + Inter-frame Gap)
-= 10,000,000,000 / (64 + 512 + 96)
-= 10,000,000,000 / 672
-= 14,880,952.38 frame per second (fps)
-
-.. 3.2.5.3
-
-RFCs for testing virtual switch performance
---------------------------------------------------
-
-The starting point for defining the suite of tests for benchmarking the
-performance of a virtual switch is to take existing RFCs and standards
-that were designed to test their physical counterparts and adapting them
-for testing virtual switches. The rationale behind this is to establish
-a fair comparison between the performance of virtual and physical
-switches. This section outlines the RFCs that are used by this
-specification.
-
-.. 3.2.5.3.1
-
-RFC 1242 Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Devices RFC 1242 defines the terminology that is used in describing
-performance benchmarking tests and their results. Definitions and
-discussions covered include: Back-to-back, bridge, bridge/router,
-constant load, data link frame size, frame loss rate, inter frame gap,
-latency, and many more.
-
-.. 3.2.5.3.2
-
-RFC 2544 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-RFC 2544 outlines a benchmarking methodology for network Interconnect
-Devices. The methodology results in performance metrics such as latency,
-frame loss percentage, and maximum data throughput.
-
-In this document network “throughput” (measured in millions of frames
-per second) is based on RFC 2544, unless otherwise noted. Frame size
-refers to Ethernet frames ranging from smallest frames of 64 bytes to
-largest frames of 9K bytes.
-
-Types of tests are:
-
-1. Throughput test defines the maximum number of frames per second
- that can be transmitted without any error, or 0% loss ratio.
- In some Throughput tests (and those tests with long duration),
- evaluation of an additional frame loss ratio is suggested. The
- current ratio (10^-7 %) is based on understanding the typical
- user-to-user packet loss ratio needed for good application
- performance and recognizing that a single transfer through a
- vswitch must contribute a tiny fraction of user-to-user loss.
- Further, the ratio 10^-7 % also recognizes practical limitations
- when measuring loss ratio.
-
-2. Latency test measures the time required for a frame to travel from
- the originating device through the network to the destination device.
- Please note that RFC2544 Latency measurement will be superseded with
- a measurement of average latency over all successfully transferred
- packets or frames.
-
-3. Frame loss test measures the network’s
- response in overload conditions - a critical indicator of the
- network’s ability to support real-time applications in which a
- large amount of frame loss will rapidly degrade service quality.
-
-4. Burst test assesses the buffering capability of a virtual switch. It
- measures the maximum number of frames received at full line rate
- before a frame is lost. In carrier Ethernet networks, this
- measurement validates the excess information rate (EIR) as defined in
- many SLAs.
-
-5. System recovery to characterize speed of recovery from an overload
- condition.
-
-6. Reset to characterize speed of recovery from device or software
- reset. This type of test has been updated by `RFC6201
- <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6201.txt>`__ as such,
- the methodology defined by this specification will be that of RFC 6201.
-
-Although not included in the defined RFC 2544 standard, another crucial
-measurement in Ethernet networking is packet delay variation. The
-definition set out by this specification comes from
-`RFC5481 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__.
-
-.. 3.2.5.3.3
-
-RFC 2285 Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-RFC 2285 defines the terminology that is used to describe the
-terminology for benchmarking a LAN switching device. It extends RFC
-1242 and defines: DUTs, SUTs, Traffic orientation and distribution,
-bursts, loads, forwarding rates, etc.
-
-.. 3.2.5.3.4
-
-RFC 2889 Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-RFC 2889 outlines a benchmarking methodology for LAN switching, it
-extends RFC 2544. The outlined methodology gathers performance
-metrics for forwarding, congestion control, latency, address handling
-and finally filtering.
-
-.. 3.2.5.3.5
-
-RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-RFC 3918 outlines a methodology for IP Multicast benchmarking.
-
-.. 3.2.5.3.6
-
-RFC 4737 Packet Reordering Metrics
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-RFC 4737 describes metrics for identifying and counting re-ordered
-packets within a stream, and metrics to measure the extent each
-packet has been re-ordered.
-
-.. 3.2.5.3.7
-
-RFC 5481 Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-RFC 5481 defined two common, but different forms of delay variation
-metrics, and compares the metrics over a range of networking
-circumstances and tasks. The most suitable form for vSwitch
-benchmarking is the "PDV" form.
-
-.. 3.2.5.3.8
-
-RFC 6201 Device Reset Characterization
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-RFC 6201 extends the methodology for characterizing the speed of
-recovery of the DUT from device or software reset described in RFC
-2544.
-
-.. 3.2.6:
-
-.. _PassFailCriteria:
-
-Item pass/fail criteria
-=========================
-
-vswitchperf does not specify Pass/Fail criteria for the tests in terms of a
-threshold, as benchmarks do not (and should not do this). The results/metrics
-for a test are simply reported. If it had to be defined, a test is considered
-to have passed if it succesfully completed and a relavent metric was
-recorded/reported for the SUT.
-
-.. 3.2.7:
-
-.. _SuspensionResumptionReqs:
-
-Suspension criteria and resumption requirements
-================================================
-In the case of a throughput test, a test should be suspended if a virtual
-switch is failing to forward any traffic. A test should be restarted from a
-clean state if the intention is to carry out the test again.
-
-.. 3.2.8:
-
-.. _TestDelierables:
-
-Test deliverables
-==================
-Each test should produce a test report that details SUT information as well as
-the test results. There are a number of parameters related to the system, DUT
-and tests that can affect the repeatability of a test results and should be
-recorded. In order to minimise the variation in the results of a test,
-it is recommended that the test report includes the following information:
-
-- Hardware details including:
-
- - Platform details.
- - Processor details.
- - Memory information (see below)
- - 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.
-
-- Software details including:
-
- - 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.
- - Where the vswitch is built from source: compiler details including
- versions and the flags that were used to compile the vSwitch.
- - 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).
-
-- Memory Details
-
- - Total memory
- - Type of memory
- - Used memory
- - Active memory
- - Inactive memory
- - Free memory
- - Buffer memory
- - Swap cache
- - Total swap
- - Used swap
- - Free swap
-
-- Test duration.
-- Number of flows.
-- Traffic Information:
-
- - Traffic type - UDP, TCP, IMIX / Other.
- - Packet Sizes.
-
-- Deployment Scenario.
-
-**Note**: Tests that require additional parameters to be recorded will
-explicitly specify this.
-
-
-.. 3.3:
-
-.. _TestManagement:
-
-Test management
-=================
-This section will detail the test activities that will be conducted by vsperf
-as well as the infrastructure that will be used to complete the tests in OPNFV.
-
-.. 3.3.1:
-
-Planned activities and tasks; test progression
-=================================================
-A key consideration when conducting any sort of benchmark is trying to
-ensure the consistency and repeatability of test results between runs.
-When benchmarking the performance of a virtual switch there are many
-factors that can affect the consistency of results. This section
-describes these factors and the measures that can be taken to limit
-their effects. In addition, this section will outline some system tests
-to validate the platform and the VNF before conducting any vSwitch
-benchmarking tests.
-
-**System Isolation:**
-
-When conducting a benchmarking test on any SUT, it is essential to limit
-(and if reasonable, eliminate) any noise that may interfere with the
-accuracy of the metrics collected by the test. This noise may be
-introduced by other hardware or software (OS, other applications), and
-can result in significantly varying performance metrics being collected
-between consecutive runs of the same test. In the case of characterizing
-the performance of a virtual switch, there are a number of configuration
-parameters that can help increase the repeatability and stability of
-test results, including:
-
-- OS/GRUB configuration:
-
- - maxcpus = n where n >= 0; limits the kernel to using 'n'
- processors. Only use exactly what you need.
- - isolcpus: Isolate CPUs from the general scheduler. Isolate all
- CPUs bar one which will be used by the OS.
- - use taskset to affinitize the forwarding application and the VNFs
- onto isolated cores. VNFs and the vSwitch should be allocated
- their own cores, i.e. must not share the same cores. vCPUs for the
- VNF should be affinitized to individual cores also.
- - Limit the amount of background applications that are running and
- set OS to boot to runlevel 3. Make sure to kill any unnecessary
- system processes/daemons.
- - Only enable hardware that you need to use for your test – to
- ensure there are no other interrupts on the system.
- - Configure NIC interrupts to only use the cores that are not
- allocated to any other process (VNF/vSwitch).
-
-- NUMA configuration: Any unused sockets in a multi-socket system
- should be disabled.
-- CPU pinning: The vSwitch and the VNF should each be affinitized to
- separate logical cores using a combination of maxcpus, isolcpus and
- taskset.
-- BIOS configuration: BIOS should be configured for performance where
- an explicit option exists, sleep states should be disabled, any
- virtualization optimization technologies should be enabled, and
- hyperthreading should also be enabled, turbo boost and overclocking
- should be disabled.
-
-**System Validation:**
-
-System validation is broken down into two sub-categories: Platform
-validation and VNF validation. The validation test itself involves
-verifying the forwarding capability and stability for the sub-system
-under test. The rationale behind system validation is two fold. Firstly
-to give a tester confidence in the stability of the platform or VNF that
-is being tested; and secondly to provide base performance comparison
-points to understand the overhead introduced by the virtual switch.
-
-* Benchmark platform forwarding capability: This is an OPTIONAL test
- used to verify the platform and measure the base performance (maximum
- forwarding rate in fps and latency) that can be achieved by the
- platform without a vSwitch or a VNF. The following diagram outlines
- the set-up for benchmarking Platform forwarding capability:
-
- .. code-block:: console
-
- __
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | l2fw or DPDK L2FWD app | | Host
- | | | | |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | NIC | | |
- +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+
-
-* Benchmark VNF forwarding capability: This test is used to verify
- the VNF and measure the base performance (maximum forwarding rate in
- fps and latency) that can be achieved by the VNF without a vSwitch.
- The performance metrics collected by this test will serve as a key
- comparison point for NIC passthrough technologies and vSwitches. VNF
- in this context refers to the hypervisor and the VM. The following
- diagram outlines the set-up for benchmarking VNF forwarding
- capability:
-
- .. code-block:: console
-
- __
- +--------------------------------------------------+ |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | | | |
- | | VNF | | |
- | | | | |
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | Passthrough/SR-IOV | | Host
- | +------------------------------------------+ | |
- | | NIC | | |
- +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
- ^ :
- | |
- : v
- +--------------------------------------------------+
- | |
- | traffic generator |
- | |
- +--------------------------------------------------+
-
-
-**Methodology to benchmark Platform/VNF forwarding capability**
-
-
-The recommended methodology for the platform/VNF validation and
-benchmark is: - Run `RFC2889 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2289.txt>`__
-Maximum Forwarding Rate test, this test will produce maximum
-forwarding rate and latency results that will serve as the
-expected values. These expected values can be used in
-subsequent steps or compared with in subsequent validation tests. -
-Transmit bidirectional traffic at line rate/max forwarding rate
-(whichever is higher) for at least 72 hours, measure throughput (fps)
-and latency. - Note: Traffic should be bidirectional. - Establish a
-baseline forwarding rate for what the platform can achieve. - Additional
-validation: After the test has completed for 72 hours run bidirectional
-traffic at the maximum forwarding rate once more to see if the system is
-still functional and measure throughput (fps) and latency. Compare the
-measure the new obtained values with the expected values.
-
-**NOTE 1**: How the Platform is configured for its forwarding capability
-test (BIOS settings, GRUB configuration, runlevel...) is how the
-platform should be configured for every test after this
-
-**NOTE 2**: How the VNF is configured for its forwarding capability test
-(# of vCPUs, vNICs, Memory, affinitization…) is how it should be
-configured for every test that uses a VNF after this.
-
-**Methodology to benchmark the VNF to vSwitch to VNF deployment scenario**
-
-vsperf has identified the following concerns when benchmarking the VNF to
-vSwitch to VNF deployment scenario:
-
-* The accuracy of the timing synchronization between VNFs/VMs.
-* The clock accuracy of a VNF/VM if they were to be used as traffic generators.
-* VNF traffic generator/receiver may be using resources of the system under
- test, causing at least three forms of workload to increase as the traffic
- load increases (generation, switching, receiving).
-
-The recommendation from vsperf is that tests for this sceanario must
-include an external HW traffic generator to act as the tester/traffic transmitter
-and receiver. The perscribed methodology to benchmark this deployment scanrio with
-an external tester involves the following three steps:
-
-#. Determine the forwarding capability and latency through the virtual interface
-connected to the VNF/VM.
-
-.. Figure:: vm2vm_virtual_interface_benchmark.png
-
- Virtual interfaces performance benchmark
-
-#. Determine the forwarding capability and latency through the VNF/hypervisor.
-
-.. Figure:: vm2vm_hypervisor_benchmark.png
-
- Hypervisor performance benchmark
-
-#. Determine the forwarding capability and latency for the VNF to vSwitch to VNF
- taking the information from the previous two steps into account.
-
-.. Figure:: vm2vm_benchmark.png
-
- VNF to vSwitch to VNF performance benchmark
-
-vsperf also identified an alternative configuration for the final step:
-
-.. Figure:: vm2vm_alternative_benchmark.png
-
- VNF to vSwitch to VNF alternative performance benchmark
-
-.. 3.3.2:
-
-Environment/infrastructure
-============================
-VSPERF CI jobs are run using the OPNFV lab infrastructure as described by the
-'Pharos Project <https://www.opnfv.org/community/projects/pharos>`_ .
-A VSPERF POD is described here https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/pharos/VSPERF+in+Intel+Pharos+Lab+-+Pod+12
-
-vsperf CI
----------
-vsperf CI jobs are broken down into:
-
- * Daily job:
-
- * Runs everyday takes about 10 hours to complete.
- * TESTCASES_DAILY='phy2phy_tput back2back phy2phy_tput_mod_vlan
- phy2phy_scalability pvp_tput pvp_back2back pvvp_tput pvvp_back2back'.
- * TESTPARAM_DAILY='--test-params TRAFFICGEN_PKT_SIZES=(64,128,512,1024,1518)'.
-
- * Merge job:
-
- * Runs whenever patches are merged to master.
- * Runs a basic Sanity test.
-
- * Verify job:
-
- * Runs every time a patch is pushed to gerrit.
- * Builds documentation.
-
-Scripts:
---------
-There are 2 scripts that are part of VSPERFs CI:
-
- * build-vsperf.sh: Lives in the VSPERF repository in the ci/ directory and is
- used to run vsperf with the appropriate cli parameters.
- * vswitchperf.yml: YAML description of our jenkins job. lives in the RELENG
- repository.
-
-More info on vsperf CI can be found here:
-https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vsperf/VSPERF+CI
-
-.. 3.3.3:
-
-Responsibilities and authority
-===============================
-The group responsible for managing, designing, preparing and executing the
-tests listed in the LTD are the vsperf committers and contributors. The vsperf
-committers and contributors should work with the relavent OPNFV projects to
-ensure that the infrastructure is in place for testing vswitches, and that the
-results are published to common end point (a results database).
-