diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/requirements')
| -rwxr-xr-x | docs/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml | 964 | ||||
| -rwxr-xr-x | docs/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.txt | 1232 | ||||
| -rwxr-xr-x | docs/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml | 964 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/requirements/index.rst | 10 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/requirements/vswitchperf_ltd.rst | 2195 |
5 files changed, 5365 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml b/docs/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml new file mode 100755 index 00000000..b5f7f833 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml @@ -0,0 +1,964 @@ +<?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&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&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’s configuration… 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’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/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.txt b/docs/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.txt new file mode 100755 index 00000000..b282bbb6 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1232 @@ + + + + +Network Working Group M. Tahhan +Internet-Draft B. O'Mahony +Intended status: Informational Intel +Expires: April 16, 2016 A. Morton + AT&T Labs + October 14, 2015 + + + Benchmarking Virtual Switches in OPNFV + draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01 + +Abstract + + 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. + +Requirements Language + + 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. + +Status of This Memo + + This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the + provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. + + Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering + Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute + working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- + Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. + + Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months + and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any + time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference + material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." + + This Internet-Draft will expire on April 16, 2016. + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 1] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2015 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. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 3. Benchmarking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3.1. Comparison with Physical Network Functions . . . . . . . 4 + 3.2. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks . . . . . . . 4 + 3.3. New Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3.4. Flow classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.5. Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation . . . 7 + 4. VSWITCHPERF Specification Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 5. 3x3 Matrix Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 5.1. Speed of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 5.2. Accuracy of Activation section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 5.3. Reliability of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 5.4. Scale of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 5.5. Speed of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 5.6. Accuracy of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 5.7. Reliability of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 5.8. Scalability of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 5.9. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + + + + + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 2] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + +1. Introduction + + 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. + + 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 [RFC2544] (which depends on [RFC1242]) and + foundation of the benchmarking work in OPNFV is common and strong. + + 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/ + + 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. + + 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. + +2. Scope + + 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). + + + + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 3] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + +3. Benchmarking Considerations + + This section highlights some specific considerations (from + [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. + +3.1. Comparison with Physical Network Functions + + 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. + + 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. + +3.2. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks + + 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. + +3.3. New Configuration Parameters + + A key consideration when conducting any sort of benchmark is trying + to ensure the consistency and repeatability of test results. When + benchmarking the performance of a vSwitch there are many factors that + can affect the consistency of results, one key factor is matching the + various hardware and software details of the SUT. This section lists + some of the many new parameters which this project believes are + critical to report in order to achieve repeatability. + + Hardware details including: + + o Platform details + + o Processor details + + o Memory information (type and size) + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 4] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + + o Number of enabled cores + + o Number of cores used for the test + + o Number of physical NICs, as well as their details (manufacturer, + versions, type and the PCI slot they are plugged into) + + o NIC interrupt configuration + + o BIOS version, release date and any configurations that were + modified + + o CPU microcode level + + o Memory DIMM configurations (quad rank performance may not be the + same as dual rank) in size, freq and slot locations + + o PCI configuration parameters (payload size, early ack option...) + + o Power management at all levels (ACPI sleep states, processor + package, OS...) + + Software details including: + + o OS parameters and behavior (text vs graphical no one typing at the + console on one system) + + o OS version (for host and VNF) + + o Kernel version (for host and VNF) + + o GRUB boot parameters (for host and VNF) + + o Hypervisor details (Type and version) + + o Selected vSwitch, version number or commit id used + + o vSwitch launch command line if it has been parameterised + + o Memory allocation to the vSwitch + + o which NUMA node it is using, and how many memory channels + + o DPDK or any other SW dependency version number or commit id used + + o Memory allocation to a VM - if it's from Hugpages/elsewhere + + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 5] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + + o VM storage type: snapshot/independent persistent/independent non- + persistent + + o Number of VMs + + o Number of Virtual NICs (vNICs), versions, type and driver + + o Number of virtual CPUs and their core affinity on the host + + o Number vNIC interrupt configuration + + o Thread affinitization for the applications (including the vSwitch + itself) on the host + + o Details of Resource isolation, such as CPUs designated for Host/ + Kernel (isolcpu) and CPUs designated for specific processes + (taskset). - Test duration. - Number of flows. + + Test Traffic Information: + + o Traffic type - UDP, TCP, IMIX / Other + + o Packet Sizes + + o Deployment Scenario + +3.4. Flow classification + + 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. + + + + + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 6] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + +3.5. Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation + + This outline describes measurement of baseline with isolated + resources at a high level, which is the intended approach at this + time. + + 1. Baselines: + + * Optional: Benchmark platform forwarding capability without a + vswitch or VNF for at least 72 hours (serves as a means of + platform validation and a means to obtain the base performance + for the platform in terms of its maximum forwarding rate and + latency). + + Benchmark platform forwarding capability + + __ + +--------------------------------------------------+ | + | +------------------------------------------+ | | + | | | | | + | | Simple Forwarding App | | Host + | | | | | + | +------------------------------------------+ | | + | | NIC | | | + +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __| + ^ : + | | + : v + +--------------------------------------------------+ + | | + | traffic generator | + | | + +--------------------------------------------------+ + + * 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. + + + + + + + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 7] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + + Benchmark VNF forwarding capability + + __ + +--------------------------------------------------+ | + | +------------------------------------------+ | | + | | | | | + | | VNF | | | + | | | | | + | +------------------------------------------+ | | + | | Passthrough/SR-IOV | | Host + | +------------------------------------------+ | | + | | NIC | | | + +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __| + ^ : + | | + : v + +--------------------------------------------------+ + | | + | traffic generator | + | | + +--------------------------------------------------+ + + * Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, with other + resources (both HW&SW) disabled Example, vSw and VM are SUT + + * Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, leaving some + resources unused + + * Benchmark with isolated resources and all resources occupied + + 2. Next Steps + + * Limited sharing + + * Production scenarios + + * Stressful scenarios + +4. VSWITCHPERF Specification Summary + + 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: + + o [RFC2544] Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect + Devices + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 8] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + + o [RFC2889] Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching + + o [RFC6201] Device Reset Characterization + + o [RFC5481] Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement + + 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. + + In addition to this, the LTD also re-uses the terminology defined by: + + o [RFC2285] Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices + + o [RFC5481] Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement + + Specifications to be included in future updates of the LTD include: + + o [RFC3918] Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking + + o [RFC4737] Packet Reordering Metrics + + 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. + + 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 [RFC2544] test of Latency is replaced by measurement of a metric + derived from IPPM's [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 [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. + + Tests have been (or will be) designed to collect the metrics below: + + o 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. + + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 9] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + + o Packet and Frame Delay Distribution Tests to measure average, min + and max packet and frame delay for constant loads. + + o Packet Delay Tests to understand latency distribution for + different packet sizes and over an extended test run to uncover + outliers. + + o 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. + + o Stream Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) to measure bulk data transfer + performance, i.e. how fast systems can send and receive data + through the switch. + + o 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). + + o CPU and Memory Consumption Tests to understand the virtual + switch's footprint on the system, usually conducted as auxiliary + measurements with benchmarks above. They include: CPU + utilization, Cache utilization and Memory footprint. + + Future/planned test specs include: + + o Request/Response Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) which measure the + transaction rate through the switch. + + o Noisy Neighbour Tests, to understand the effects of resource + sharing on the performance of a virtual switch. + + o Tests derived from examination of ETSI NFV Draft GS IFA003 + requirements [IFA003] on characterization of acceleration + technologies applied to vswitches. + + 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: + + + + + + + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 10] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + + Physical port to virtual switch to physical port + + __ + +--------------------------------------------------+ | + | +--------------------+ | | + | | | | | + | | v | | Host + | +--------------+ +--------------+ | | + | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | | + +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __| + ^ : + | | + : v + +--------------------------------------------------+ + | | + | traffic generator | + | | + +--------------------------------------------------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 11] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + + Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to physical + port + + __ + +---------------------------------------------------+ | + | | | + | +-------------------------------------------+ | | + | | 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 | + | | + +--------------------------------------------------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 12] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + + Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to VNF to + virtual switch to physical port + + __ + +----------------------+ +----------------------+ | + | 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 | + | | + +--------------------------------------------------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 13] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + + Physical port to virtual switch to VNF + + __ + +---------------------------------------------------+ | + | | | + | +-------------------------------------------+ | | + | | Application | | | + | +-------------------------------------------+ | | + | ^ | | + | | | | Guest + | : | | + | +---------------+ | | + | | logical port 0| | | + +---+---------------+-------------------------------+ __| + ^ + | + : __ + +---+---------------+------------------------------+ | + | | logical port 0| | | + | +---------------+ | | + | ^ | | + | | | | Host + | : | | + | +--------------+ | | + | | phy port | vSwitch | | + +---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ __| + ^ + | + : + +--------------------------------------------------+ + | | + | traffic generator | + | | + +--------------------------------------------------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 14] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + + VNF to virtual switch to physical port + + __ + +---------------------------------------------------+ | + | | | + | +-------------------------------------------+ | | + | | Application | | | + | +-------------------------------------------+ | | + | : | | + | | | | Guest + | v | | + | +---------------+ | | + | | logical port | | | + +-------------------------------+---------------+---+ __| + : + | + v __ + +------------------------------+---------------+---+ | + | | logical port | | | + | +---------------+ | | + | : | | + | | | | Host + | v | | + | +--------------+ | | + | vSwitch | phy port | | | + +-------------------------------+--------------+---+ __| + : + | + v + +--------------------------------------------------+ + | | + | traffic generator | + | | + +--------------------------------------------------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 15] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + + VNF to virtual switch to VNF + + __ + +----------------------+ +----------------------+ | + | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | | + | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | + | | Application | | | | Application | | | + | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | + | | | | ^ | | + | v | | | | | Guests + | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | + | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | | + | | 0 | | | | 0 | | | + +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__| + : ^ + | | + v : _ + +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ | + | | 1 | | 1 | | | + | | logical ports | | logical ports | | | + | +---------------+ +---------------+ | | + | | ^ | | Host + | L-----------------+ | | + | | | + | vSwitch | | + +------------------------------------------------+_| + + A set of Deployment Scenario figures is available on the VSPERF Test + Methodology Wiki page [TestTopo]. + +5. 3x3 Matrix Coverage + + This section organizes the many existing test specifications into the + "3x3" matrix (introduced in [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 tests listed below assess the activation of paths in the data + plane, rather than the control plane. + + A complete list of tests with short summaries is available on the + VSPERF "LTD Test Spec Overview" Wiki page [LTDoverV]. + + + + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 16] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + +5.1. Speed of Activation + + o Activation.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate + + o PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency + +5.2. Accuracy of Activation section + + o CPDP.Coupling.Flow.Addition + +5.3. Reliability of Activation + + o Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime + + o Throughput.RFC2544.ResetTime + +5.4. Scale of Activation + + o Activation.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity + +5.5. Speed of Operation + + o Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRate + + o CPU.RFC2544.0PacketLoss + + o Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRateFrameModification + + o Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames + + o Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate + + o Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure + + o Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding + +5.6. Accuracy of Operation + + o Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering + + o Throughput.RFC2544.Profile + +5.7. Reliability of Operation + + o Throughput.RFC2889.Soak + + o Throughput.RFC2889.SoakFrameModification + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 17] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + + o PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak + +5.8. Scalability of Operation + + o Scalability.RFC2544.0PacketLoss + + o MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability + +5.9. Summary + +|------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | | | | | +| | SPEED | ACCURACY | RELIABILITY | SCALE | +| | | | | | +|------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | | | | | +| Activation | X | X | X | X | +| | | | | | +|------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | | | | | +| Operation | X | X | X | X | +| | | | | | +|------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| | | | | | +| De-activation | | | | | +| | | | | | +|------------------------------------------------------------------------| + +6. Security Considerations + + 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. + + 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. + + Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying + solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. + + 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. + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 18] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + +7. IANA Considerations + + No IANA Action is requested at this time. + +8. Acknowledgements + + The authors acknowledge + +9. References + +9.1. Normative References + + [NFV.PER001] + "Network Function Virtualization: Performance and + Portability Best Practices", Group Specification ETSI GS + NFV-PER 001 V1.1.1 (2014-06), June 2014. + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. + + [RFC2285] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN + Switching Devices", RFC 2285, DOI 10.17487/RFC2285, + February 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2285>. + + [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, + "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>. + + [RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for + Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>. + + [RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way + Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679, + September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>. + + [RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way + Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2680, September 1999, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2680>. + + [RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip + Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681, + September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>. + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 19] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + + [RFC2889] Mandeville, R. and J. Perser, "Benchmarking Methodology + for LAN Switching Devices", RFC 2889, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2889, August 2000, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2889>. + + [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation + Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, + DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3393>. + + [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network + performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, + DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3432>. + + [RFC3918] Stopp, D. and B. Hickman, "Methodology for IP Multicast + Benchmarking", RFC 3918, DOI 10.17487/RFC3918, October + 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3918>. + + [RFC4689] Poretsky, S., Perser, J., Erramilli, S., and S. Khurana, + "Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic + Control Mechanisms", RFC 4689, DOI 10.17487/RFC4689, + October 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4689>. + + [RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov, + S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737, + DOI 10.17487/RFC4737, November 2006, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4737>. + + [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. + Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", + RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>. + + [RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, + "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms + Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>. + + [RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F., and C. Olvera, + "Device Reset Characterization", RFC 6201, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6201>. + + + + + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 20] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + +9.2. Informative References + + [I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net] + Morton, A., "Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual + Network Functions and Their Infrastructure", draft-ietf- + bmwg-virtual-net-01 (work in progress), September 2015. + + [IFA003] "https://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Drafts/ + IFA003_Acceleration_-_vSwitch_Spec/". + + [LTDoverV] + "LTD Test Spec Overview https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/ + vswitchperf_test_spec_review". + + [RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network + Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242, + July 1991, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>. + + [RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation + Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481, + March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481>. + + [RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of + Metrics", RFC 6049, DOI 10.17487/RFC6049, January 2011, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6049>. + + [RFC6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics + (IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6248, April 2011, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6248>. + + [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New + Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>. + + [TestTopo] + "Test Topologies https://wiki.opnfv.org/vsperf/ + test_methodology". + +Authors' Addresses + + Maryam Tahhan + Intel + + Email: maryam.tahhan@intel.com + + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 21] + +Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 + + + Billy O'Mahony + Intel + + Email: billy.o.mahony@intel.com + + + Al Morton + AT&T Labs + 200 Laurel Avenue South + Middletown,, NJ 07748 + USA + + Phone: +1 732 420 1571 + Fax: +1 732 368 1192 + Email: acmorton@att.com + URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 22] diff --git a/docs/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml b/docs/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml new file mode 100755 index 00000000..b5f7f833 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml @@ -0,0 +1,964 @@ +<?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&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&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’s configuration… 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’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/requirements/index.rst b/docs/requirements/index.rst new file mode 100644 index 00000000..3b5683f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/requirements/index.rst @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +****************************** +VSPERF LEVEL TEST DESIGN (LTD) +****************************** + +.. toctree:: + :maxdepth: 3 + :numbered: 5 + + vswitchperf_ltd.rst + diff --git a/docs/requirements/vswitchperf_ltd.rst b/docs/requirements/vswitchperf_ltd.rst new file mode 100644 index 00000000..065851c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/requirements/vswitchperf_ltd.rst @@ -0,0 +1,2195 @@ + +.. 3.1 + +=============== +Introduction +=============== + +The objective of the OPNFV project titled +**“Characterize vSwitch Performance for Telco NFV Use Cases”**, is to +evaluate a virtual switch to identify its suitability for a Telco +Network Function Virtualization (NFV) environment. 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 `Section 2 <#DetailsOfTheLevelTestDesign>`__, preceded by +the `Document identifier <#DocId>`__ and the `Scope <#Scope>`__. + +This document is currently in draft form. + +.. 3.1.1 + +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\_ver\_NUM\_MONTH\_YEAR\_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\_ver\_1.6\_Jan\_15\_DRAFT. + +.. 3.1.2 + +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 the Level Test Design +=================================== + +This section describes the features to be tested ( +:ref:_FeaturesToBeTested), the test approach (:ref:_Approach); +it also identifies the sets of test cases or scenarios ( +:ref:_TestIdentification) along with the pass/fail criteria and +the test deliverables. + +.. 3.2.1 + +.. _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: + + - Includes power consumption of the CPU (in various power states) and + system. + - Includes CPU utilization. + - Includes the number of NIC interfaces supported. + - Includes headroom of VM workload processing cores (i.e. available + for applications). + +.. 3.2.2 + +.. _Approach: + +Approach +============== + +In order to determine the packet transfer characteristics of a virtual +switch, the tests will be broken down into the following categories: + +.. 3.2.2.1 + +Test 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 utilization + * Cache utilization + * Memory footprint + * 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. + +.. 3.2.2.2 + +Deployment Scenarios +-------------------------- +The following represents possible deployments which can help to +determine the performance of both the virtual switch and the datapath +into the VNF: + +.. 3.2.2.2.1 + +Physical port → vSwitch → physical port +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ +.. code-block:: console + + _ + +--------------------------------------------------+ | + | +--------------------+ | | + | | | | | + | | v | | Host + | +--------------+ +--------------+ | | + | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | | + +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ _| + ^ : + | | + : v + +--------------------------------------------------+ + | | + | traffic generator | + | | + +--------------------------------------------------+ + +.. 3.2.2.2.2 + +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 | + | | + +--------------------------------------------------+ + +.. 3.2.2.2.3 + +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 | + | | + +--------------------------------------------------+ + +.. 3.2.2.2.4 + +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 | + | | + +--------------------------------------------------+ + +.. 3.2.2.2.5 + +Physical port → vSwitch → VNF +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +.. code-block:: console + + _ + +---------------------------------------------------+ | + | | | + | +-------------------------------------------+ | | + | | Application | | | + | +-------------------------------------------+ | | + | ^ | | + | | | | Guest + | : | | + | +---------------+ | | + | | logical port 0| | | + +---+---------------+-------------------------------+ _| + ^ + | + : _ + +---+---------------+------------------------------+ | + | | logical port 0| | | + | +---------------+ | | + | ^ | | + | | | | Host + | : | | + | +--------------+ | | + | | phy port | vSwitch | | + +---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ _| + ^ + | + : + +--------------------------------------------------+ + | | + | traffic generator | + | | + +--------------------------------------------------+ + +.. 3.2.2.2.6 + +VNF → vSwitch → physical port +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +.. code-block:: console + + _ + +---------------------------------------------------+ | + | | | + | +-------------------------------------------+ | | + | | Application | | | + | +-------------------------------------------+ | | + | : | | + | | | | Guest + | v | | + | +---------------+ | | + | | logical port | | | + +-------------------------------+---------------+---+ _| + : + | + v _ + +------------------------------+---------------+---+ | + | | logical port | | | + | +---------------+ | | + | : | | + | | | | Host + | v | | + | +--------------+ | | + | vSwitch | phy port | | | + +-------------------------------+--------------+---+ _| + : + | + v + +--------------------------------------------------+ + | | + | traffic generator | + | | + +--------------------------------------------------+ + +.. 3.2.2.2.7 + +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 | | + +-------------------------------------------------------+ _| + +.. 3.2.2.2.8 + +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. + +.. 3.2.2.3 + +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. + +.. 3.2.2.3.1 + +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. + +.. 3.2.2.3.2 + +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. + +.. 3.2.2.3.3 + +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. + +.. 3.2.2.3.4 + +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. + +.. 3.2.2.3.5 + +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. + +.. 3.2.2.3.6 + +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 + +.. 3.2.2.3.7 + +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) + +.. 3.2.2.3.8 + +System isolation and validation +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +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. + +**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. + +.. 3.2.2.4 + +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. + +.. 3.2.2.4.1 + +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. + +.. 3.2.2.4.2 + +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 4K bytes. + +Types of tests are: + +1. Throughput test defines the maximum number of frames per second + that can be transmitted without any error. + +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>`__. + +.. 3.2.2.4.3 + +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. + +.. 3.2.2.4.4 + +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. + +.. 3.2.2.4.5 + +RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ +RFC 3918 outlines a methodology for IP Multicast benchmarking. + +.. 3.2.2.4.6 + +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. + +.. 3.2.2.4.7 + +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. + +.. 3.2.2.4.8 + +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. + +.. 3.2.2.5 + +Details of the Test Report +--------------------------------- + +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. + +.. _TestIdentification: + +.. 3.2.3 + +Test identification +========================= + +.. 3.2.3.1 + +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. + +.. 3.2.3.1.1 + +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 `Default + Test Parameters <#DefaultParams>`__. 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. + +.. 3.2.3.1.2 + +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 `Default + Test Parameters <#DefaultParams>`__. 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. + +.. 3.2.3.1.3 + +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 `Default + Test Parameters <#DefaultParams>`__. + + 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% + + **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. + +.. 3.2.3.1.4 + +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 `Default Test Parameters <#DefaultParams>`__, + 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. + +.. 3.2.3.1.5 + +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 `Default Test Parameters <#DefaultParams>`__, 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. + +.. 3.2.3.1.6 + +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. + +.. 3.2.3.1.7 + +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. + +.. 3.2.3.1.8 + +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 `Default Test + Parameters <#DefaultParams>`__, 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. + +.. 3.2.3.1.9 + +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 `Default Test + Parameters <#DefaultParams>`__. 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. + +.. 3.2.3.1.10 + +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. + +.. 3.2.3.1.11 + +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. + +.. 3.2.3.1.12 + +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 `Default Test Parameters <#DefaultParams>`__, 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. + +.. 3.2.3.2 + +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. + +.. 3.2.3.2.1 + +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. + +.. 3.2.3.2.2 + +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. + +.. 3.2.3.3 + +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. + +.. 3.2.3.3.1 + +Test ID: LTD.Scalability.RFC2544.0PacketLoss +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + **Title**: RFC 2544 0% loss 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 `Default Test + Parameters <#DefaultParams>`__ 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. + +.. 3.2.3.3.2 + +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. + +.. 3.2.3.4 + +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. + +.. 3.2.3.4.1 + +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 `Default Test Parameters <#DefaultParams>`__. + + 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). + +.. 3.2.3.4.2 + +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 `Default Test Parameters <#DefaultParams>`__, 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). + +.. 3.2.3.5 + +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. + +.. 3.2.3.5.1 + +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. + +.. 3.2.3.6 + +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. + +.. 3.2.3.6.1 + +Test ID: LTD.CPU.RFC2544.0PacketLoss +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + **Title**: RFC 2544 0% Loss Compute Test + + **Prerequisite Test**: + + **Priority**: + + **Description**: + + The aim of this test is to understand the overall performance of the + system when a CPU 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 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: + + - 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.) + +.. 3.2.3.7 + +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 + +2. Packet Latency tests + + - Test ID: LTD.PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency + - Test ID: LTD.PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak + +3. Scalability tests + + - Test ID: LTD.Scalability.RFC2544.0PacketLoss + - Test ID: LTD.MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability + +4. Acivation 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.CPU.RFC2544.0PacketLoss |