diff options
| author |   Ramprasad Velavarthipati <ram.v@freescale.com> | 2015-10-23 14:22:31 +0530 |
|---|---|---|
| committer |   Maryam Tahhan <maryam.tahhan@intel.com> | 2015-11-04 10:55:53 +0000 |
| commit | 0e1a01a606ed2374574b5b30d9cea4e96084230b (patch) | |
| tree | 6966d0fee0290e2ecacba22f8c75e662dbddab19 /docs/to-be-reorganized | |
| parent | 305ca81ee9058cb3daa96706ba9cb9c071e3e41c (diff) | |
docs: reorganize docs for the sphinx build
Reorganize docs into the appropriate folders for the new sphinx build.
JIRA: VSPERF-80
Change-Id: I9dcd74e092ce52546a0986b92a1ebb2b5b7419bf
Signed-off-by: Ramprasad Velavarthipati <ram.v@freescale.com>
Signed-off-by: Maryam Tahhan <maryam.tahhan@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Trinath Somanchi <trinath.somanchi@gmail.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/to-be-reorganized')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/to-be-reorganized/NEWS.rst | 71 | ||||
| -rwxr-xr-x | docs/to-be-reorganized/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml | 964 | ||||
| -rwxr-xr-x | docs/to-be-reorganized/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.txt | 1232 | ||||
| -rwxr-xr-x | docs/to-be-reorganized/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml | 964 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/to-be-reorganized/images/TCLServerProperties.png | bin | 11667 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/to-be-reorganized/index.rst | 33 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/to-be-reorganized/installation.rst | 44 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/to-be-reorganized/quickstart.rst | 336 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/to-be-reorganized/vswitchperf_design.rst | 204 | ||||
| -rwxr-xr-x | docs/to-be-reorganized/vswitchperf_ltd.rst | 2002 |
10 files changed, 0 insertions, 5850 deletions
diff --git a/docs/to-be-reorganized/NEWS.rst b/docs/to-be-reorganized/NEWS.rst deleted file mode 100644 index 0fe9e22b..00000000 --- a/docs/to-be-reorganized/NEWS.rst +++ /dev/null @@ -1,71 +0,0 @@ -October 2015 -============== -New ---- -- Support of PVP and PVVP deployment scenarios using Vanilla OVS - -September 2015 -============== -New ---- -- Implementation of system statistics based upon pidstat command line tool. -- Support of PVVP deployment scenario using bhost-cuse and vhost user access - methods - -August 2015 -=========== -New ---- -- Backport and enhancement of reporting -- PVP deployment scenario testing using vhost-cuse as guest access method -- Implementation of LTD.Scalability.RFC2544.0PacketLoss testcase -- Support for background load generation with command line tools like stress - and stress-ng - -July 2015 -========= -New ---- -- PVP deployment scenario testing using vhost-user as guest access method - - Verified on CentOS7 and Fedora 20 - - Requires QEMU 2.2.0 and DPDK 2.0 - -May 2015 -======== - -This is the initial release of a re-designed version of the software -based on community feedback. This initial release supports only the -Phy2Phy deployment scenario and the -LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio test - both described in the -OPNFV vswitchperf 'CHARACTERIZE VSWITCH PERFORMANCE FOR TELCO NFV USE -CASES LEVEL TEST DESIGN'. The intention is that more test cases will -follow once the community has digested the initial release. - -New ---- - -- Performance testing with continuous stream -- Vanilla OVS support added. - - - Support for non-DPDK OVS build. - - Build and installation support through Makefile will be added via - next patch(Currently it is possible to manually build ovs and - setting it in vsperf configuration files). - - PvP scenario is not yet implemented. - -- CentOS7 support -- Verified on CentOS7 -- Install & Quickstart documentation - -- Better support for mixing tests types with Deployment Scenarios -- Re-work based on community feedback of TOIT -- Framework support for other vSwitches -- Framework support for non-Ixia traffic generators -- Framework support for different VNFs -- Python3 -- Support for biDirectional functionality for ixnet interface - -Missing -------- - -- xmlunit output is currently disabled diff --git a/docs/to-be-reorganized/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml b/docs/to-be-reorganized/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml deleted file mode 100755 index b5f7f833..00000000 --- a/docs/to-be-reorganized/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml +++ /dev/null @@ -1,964 +0,0 @@ -<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?> -<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd"> -<?rfc toc="yes"?> -<?rfc tocompact="yes"?> -<?rfc tocdepth="3"?> -<?rfc tocindent="yes"?> -<?rfc symrefs="yes"?> -<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?> -<?rfc comments="yes"?> -<?rfc inline="yes"?> -<?rfc compact="yes"?> -<?rfc subcompact="no"?> -<rfc category="info" docName="draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01" - ipr="trust200902"> - <front> - <title abbrev="Benchmarking vSwitches">Benchmarking Virtual Switches in - OPNFV</title> - - <author fullname="Maryam Tahhan" initials="M." surname="Tahhan"> - <organization>Intel</organization> - - <address> - <postal> - <street/> - - <city/> - - <region/> - - <code/> - - <country/> - </postal> - - <phone/> - - <facsimile/> - - <email>maryam.tahhan@intel.com</email> - - <uri/> - </address> - </author> - - <author fullname="Billy O'Mahony" initials="B." surname="O'Mahony"> - <organization>Intel</organization> - - <address> - <postal> - <street/> - - <city/> - - <region/> - - <code/> - - <country/> - </postal> - - <phone/> - - <facsimile/> - - <email>billy.o.mahony@intel.com</email> - - <uri/> - </address> - </author> - - <author fullname="Al Morton" initials="A." surname="Morton"> - <organization>AT&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/to-be-reorganized/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.txt b/docs/to-be-reorganized/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.txt deleted file mode 100755 index 81ae96c0..00000000 --- a/docs/to-be-reorganized/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1232 +0,0 @@ - - - - -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/to-be-reorganized/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml b/docs/to-be-reorganized/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml deleted file mode 100755 index b5f7f833..00000000 --- a/docs/to-be-reorganized/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml +++ /dev/null @@ -1,964 +0,0 @@ -<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?> -<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd"> -<?rfc toc="yes"?> -<?rfc tocompact="yes"?> -<?rfc tocdepth="3"?> -<?rfc tocindent="yes"?> -<?rfc symrefs="yes"?> -<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?> -<?rfc comments="yes"?> -<?rfc inline="yes"?> -<?rfc compact="yes"?> -<?rfc subcompact="no"?> -<rfc category="info" docName="draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01" - ipr="trust200902"> - <front> - <title abbrev="Benchmarking vSwitches">Benchmarking Virtual Switches in - OPNFV</title> - - <author fullname="Maryam Tahhan" initials="M." surname="Tahhan"> - <organization>Intel</organization> - - <address> - <postal> - <street/> - - <city/> - - <region/> - - <code/> - - <country/> - </postal> - - <phone/> - - <facsimile/> - - <email>maryam.tahhan@intel.com</email> - - <uri/> - </address> - </author> - - <author fullname="Billy O'Mahony" initials="B." surname="O'Mahony"> - <organization>Intel</organization> - - <address> - <postal> - <street/> - - <city/> - - <region/> - - <code/> - - <country/> - </postal> - - <phone/> - - <facsimile/> - - <email>billy.o.mahony@intel.com</email> - - <uri/> - </address> - </author> - - <author fullname="Al Morton" initials="A." surname="Morton"> - <organization>AT&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/to-be-reorganized/images/TCLServerProperties.png b/docs/to-be-reorganized/images/TCLServerProperties.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 682de7c5..00000000 --- a/docs/to-be-reorganized/images/TCLServerProperties.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/docs/to-be-reorganized/index.rst b/docs/to-be-reorganized/index.rst deleted file mode 100644 index 1594d741..00000000 --- a/docs/to-be-reorganized/index.rst +++ /dev/null @@ -1,33 +0,0 @@ -.. OPNFV Release Engineering documentation, created by - sphinx-quickstart on Tue Jun 9 19:12:31 2015. - You can adapt this file completely to your liking, but it should at least - contain the root `toctree` directive. - -.. image:: ../etc/opnfv-logo.png - :height: 40 - :width: 200 - :alt: OPNFV - :align: left - -Example Documentation table of contents -======================================= - -Contents: - -.. toctree:: - :numbered: - :maxdepth: 4 - - quickstart.rst - NEWS.rst - vswitchperf_ltd.rst - installation.rst - -Indices and tables -================== - -* :ref:`search` - -Revision: _sha1_ - -Build date: |today| diff --git a/docs/to-be-reorganized/installation.rst b/docs/to-be-reorganized/installation.rst deleted file mode 100644 index 272993ef..00000000 --- a/docs/to-be-reorganized/installation.rst +++ /dev/null @@ -1,44 +0,0 @@ -Installing vswitchperf -====================== - -The test suite requires Python 3.3 and relies on a number of other -packages. These need to be installed for the test suite to function. To -install Python 3.3 in CentOS 7, an additional repository, Software -Collections (see -https://www.softwarecollections.org/en/scls/rhscl/python33) should be -enabled. - -Installation of required packages and preparation of Python 3 virtual -environment is performed by systems/build_base_machine.sh. It should be -executed under user account, which will be used for vsperf execution. -Password less sudo access must be configured for given user account -before script is executed. - -Execution of installation script: - -.. code:: bash - - cd systems - ./build_base_machine.sh - -You need to activate the virtual environment every time you start a new -shell session. To activate, simple run: - -.. code:: bash - - scl enable python33 bash - cd vsperfenv - source bin/activate - --------------- - -Working Behind a Proxy -====================== - -If you're behind a proxy, you'll likely want to configure this before -running any of the above. For example: - - .. code:: bash - - export http_proxy=proxy.mycompany.com:123 - export https_proxy=proxy.mycompany.com:123 diff --git a/docs/to-be-reorganized/quickstart.rst b/docs/to-be-reorganized/quickstart.rst deleted file mode 100644 index 2a071d4f..00000000 --- a/docs/to-be-reorganized/quickstart.rst +++ /dev/null @@ -1,336 +0,0 @@ -Getting Started with 'vsperf' -============================= - -Hardware Requirements ---------------------- - -VSPERF requires one of the following traffic generators to run tests: - -- IXIA traffic generator (IxNetwork hardware) and a machine that runs the IXIA client software -- Spirent traffic generator (TestCenter hardware chassis or TestCenter virtual in a VM) and a -VM to run the Spirent Virtual Deployment Service image, formerly known as "Spirent LabServer". - -Both test configurations, above, also require a CentOS Linux release 7.1.1503 (Core) host. - -vSwitch Requirements --------------------- - -The vSwitch must support Open Flow 1.3 or greater. - -Installation ------------- - -Follow the `installation instructions <installation.html>`__ to install. - -IXIA Setup ----------- - -On the CentOS 7 system -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -You need to install IxNetworkTclClient$(VER\_NUM)Linux.bin.tgz. - -On the IXIA client software system -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -Find the IxNetwork TCL server app (start -> All Programs -> IXIA -> -IxNetwork -> IxNetwork\_$(VER\_NUM) -> IxNetwork TCL Server) - -Right click on IxNetwork TCL Server, select properties - Under shortcut tab in -the Target dialogue box make sure there is the argument "-tclport xxxx" -where xxxx is your port number (take note of this port number you will -need it for the 10\_custom.conf file). - -|Alt text| - -Hit Ok and start the TCL server application - -Spirent Setup -------------- - -Spirent installation files and instructions are available on the -Spirent support website at: - -http://support.spirent.com - -Select a version of Spirent TestCenter software to utilize. This example -will use Spirent TestCenter v4.57 as an example. Substitute the appropriate -version in place of 'v4.57' in the examples, below. - -On the CentOS 7 System -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -Download and install the following: - -Spirent TestCenter Application, v4.57 for 64-bit Linux Client - -Spirent Virtual Deployment Service (VDS) -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -Spirent VDS is required for both TestCenter hardware and virtual -chassis in the vsperf environment. For installation, select the version -that matches the Spirent TestCenter Application version. For v4.57, -the matching VDS version is 1.0.55. Download either the ova (VMware) -or qcow2 (QEMU) image and create a VM with it. Initialize the VM -according to Spirent installation instructions. - -Using Spirent TestCenter Virtual (STCv) -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -STCv is available in both ova (VMware) and qcow2 (QEMU) formats. For -VMware, download: - -Spirent TestCenter Virtual Machine for VMware, v4.57 for Hypervisor - VMware ESX.ESXi - -Virtual test port performance is affected by the hypervisor configuration. For -best practice results in deploying STCv, the following is suggested: - -- Create a single VM with two test ports rather than two VMs with one port each -- Set STCv in DPDK mode -- Give STCv 2*n + 1 cores, where n = the number of ports. For vsperf, cores = 5. -- Turning off hyperthreading and pinning these cores will improve performance -- Give STCv 2 GB of RAM - -To get the highest performance and accuracy, Spirent TestCenter hardware is -recommended. vsperf can run with either stype test ports. - -Cloning and building src dependencies -------------------------------------- - -In order to run VSPERF, you will need to download DPDK and OVS. You can -do this manually and build them in a preferred location, or you could -use vswitchperf/src. The vswitchperf/src directory contains makefiles -that will allow you to clone and build the libraries that VSPERF depends -on, such as DPDK and OVS. To clone and build simply: - - .. code-block:: console - - cd src - make - -VSPERF can be used with OVS without DPDK support. In this case you have -to specify path to the kernel sources by WITH\_LINUX parameter: - - .. code-block:: console - - cd src - make WITH_LINUX=/lib/modules/`uname -r`/build - -To build DPDK and OVS for PVP and PVVP testing with vhost_user as the guest -access method, use: - - .. code-block:: console - - make VHOST_USER=y - -To delete a src subdirectory and its contents to allow you to re-clone simply -use: - - .. code-block:: console - - make clobber - -Configure the ``./conf/10_custom.conf`` file --------------------------------------------- - -The supplied ``10_custom.conf`` file must be modified, as it contains -configuration items for which there are no reasonable default values. - -The configuration items that can be added is not limited to the initial -contents. Any configuration item mentioned in any .conf file in -``./conf`` directory can be added and that item will be overridden by -the custom configuration value. - -Using a custom settings file ----------------------------- - -Alternatively a custom settings file can be passed to ``vsperf`` via the -``--conf-file`` argument. - - .. code-block:: console - - ./vsperf --conf-file <path_to_settings_py> ... - -Note that configuration passed in via the environment (``--load-env``) -or via another command line argument will override both the default and -your custom configuration files. This "priority hierarchy" can be -described like so (1 = max priority): - -1. Command line arguments -2. Environment variables -3. Configuration file(s) - --------------- - -Executing tests ---------------- - -Before running any tests make sure you have root permissions by adding -the following line to /etc/sudoers: - - .. code-block:: console - - username ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD: ALL - -username in the example above should be replaced with a real username. - -To list the available tests: - - .. code-block:: console - - ./vsperf --list-tests - -To run a group of tests, for example all tests with a name containing -'RFC2544': - - .. code-block:: console - - ./vsperf --conf-file=user_settings.py --tests="RFC2544" - -To run all tests: - - .. code-block:: console - - ./vsperf --conf-file=user_settings.py - -Some tests allow for configurable parameters, including test duration -(in seconds) as well as packet sizes (in bytes). - -.. code:: bash - - ./vsperf --conf-file user_settings.py - --tests RFC2544Tput - --test-param "rfc2544_duration=10;packet_sizes=128" - -For all available options, check out the help dialog: - - .. code-block:: console - - ./vsperf --help - -Executing PVP and PVVP tests ----------------------------- -To run tests using vhost-user as guest access method: - -1. Set VHOST_METHOD and VNF of your settings file to: - - .. code-block:: console - - VHOST_METHOD='user' - VNF = 'QemuDpdkVhost' - -2. Recompile src for VHOST USER testing - - .. code-block:: console - - cd src - make cleanse - make VHOST_USER=y - -3. Run test: - - .. code-block:: console - - ./vsperf --conf-file <path_to_settings_py> - -To run tests using vhost-cuse as guest access method: - -1. Set VHOST_METHOD and VNF of your settings file to: - - .. code-block:: console - - VHOST_METHOD='cuse' - VNF = 'QemuDpdkVhostCuse' - -2. Recompile src for VHOST USER testing - - .. code-block:: console - - cd src - make cleanse - make VHOST_USER=n - -3. Run test: - - .. code-block:: console - - ./vsperf --conf-file <path_to_settings_py> - -Executing PVP tests using Vanilla OVS -------------------------------------- -To run tests using Vanilla OVS: - -1. Set the following variables: - - .. code-block:: console - - VSWITCH = 'OvsVanilla' - VNF = 'QemuVirtioNet' - - VANILLA_TGEN_PORT1_IP = n.n.n.n - VANILLA_TGEN_PORT1_MAC = nn:nn:nn:nn:nn:nn - - VANILLA_TGEN_PORT2_IP = n.n.n.n - VANILLA_TGEN_PORT2_MAC = nn:nn:nn:nn:nn:nn - - VANILLA_BRIDGE_IP = n.n.n.n - - or use --test-param - - ./vsperf --conf-file user_settings.py - --test-param "vanilla_tgen_tx_ip=n.n.n.n; - vanilla_tgen_tx_mac=nn:nn:nn:nn:nn:nn" - - -2. Recompile src for Vanilla OVS testing - - .. code-block:: console - - cd src - make cleanse - make WITH_LINUX=/lib/modules/`uname -r`/build - -3. Run test: - - .. code-block:: console - - ./vsperf --conf-file <path_to_settings_py> - -Code change verification by pylint ----------------------------------- -Every developer participating in VSPERF project should run -pylint before his python code is submitted for review. Project -specific configuration for pylint is available at 'pylint.rc'. - -Example of manual pylint invocation: - - .. code-block:: console - - pylint --rcfile ./pylintrc ./vsperf - -GOTCHAs: --------- - -OVS with DPDK and QEMU -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -If you encounter the following error: "before (last 100 chars): -'-path=/dev/hugepages,share=on: unable to map backing store for -hugepages: Cannot allocate memory\r\n\r\n" with the PVP or PVVP -deployment scenario, check the amount of hugepages on your system: - -.. code:: bash - - cat /proc/meminfo | grep HugePages - - -By default the vswitchd is launched with 1Gb of memory, to change -this, modify --socket-mem parameter in conf/02_vswitch.conf to allocate -an appropriate amount of memory: - -.. code:: bash - - VSWITCHD_DPDK_ARGS = ['-c', '0x4', '-n', '4', '--socket-mem 1024,0'] - --------------- - -.. |Alt text| image:: images/TCLServerProperties.png diff --git a/docs/to-be-reorganized/vswitchperf_design.rst b/docs/to-be-reorganized/vswitchperf_design.rst deleted file mode 100644 index 689c2098..00000000 --- a/docs/to-be-reorganized/vswitchperf_design.rst +++ /dev/null @@ -1,204 +0,0 @@ -Intended Audience -================= - -This document is intended to aid those who want to modify the vsperf code. Or to extend it - for example to add support for new traffic generators, deployment scenarios and so on. - -Usage -===== - -Example Command Lines ---------------------- - -List all the cli options: - - .. code-block:: console - - $ ./vsperf -h - -Run all tests that have ``tput`` in their name - ``p2p_tput``, ``pvp_tput`` etc.: - - .. code-block:: console - - $ ./vsperf --tests 'tput' - -As above but override default configuration with settings in 'my_settings.py'. This is useful as modifying configuration directly in the configuration files in ``conf/NN_*.py`` shows up as changes under git source control: - - .. code-block:: console - - $ ./vsperf --conf-file my_settings.py --tests 'tput' - -Override specific test parameters. Useful for shortening the duration of tests for development purposes: - - .. code-block:: console - - $ ./vsperf --test-params 'rfc2544_duration=10;rfc2544_trials=1;packet_sizes=64' --tests 'pvp_tput' - -Typical Test Sequence -===================== - -This is a typical flow of control for a test. - -.. image:: images/vsperf.png - - -Configuration -============= - -The conf package contains the configuration files (``*.conf``) for all system components, it also provides a ``settings`` object that exposes all of these settings. - -Settings are not passed from component to component. Rather they are available globally to all components once they import the conf package. - - .. code-block:: python - - from conf import settings - ... - log_file = settings.getValue('LOG_FILE_DEFAULT') - -Settings files (``*.conf``) are valid python code so can be set to complex types such as lists and dictionaries as well as scalar types: - - .. code-block:: python - - first_packet_size = settings.getValue('PACKET_SIZE_LIST')[0] - -Configuration Procedure and Precedence --------------------------------------- - -Configuration files follow a strict naming convention that allows them to be processed in a specific order. All the .conf files are named ``NN_name.conf``, where NN is a decimal digit. The files are processed in order from 00_name.conf to 99_name.conf so that if the name setting is given in both a lower and higher numbered conf file then the higher numbered file is the effective setting as it is processed after the setting in the lower numbered file. - -The values in the file specified by ``--conf-file`` takes precedence over all the other configuration files and does not have to follow the naming convention. - - -Other Configuration -------------------- - -``conf.settings`` also loads configuration from the command line and from the environment. - -VM, vSwitch, Traffic Generator Independence -=========================================== - -VSPERF supports different vSwithes, Traffic Generators and VNFs by using standard object-oriented polymorphism: - - * Support for vSwitches is implemented by a class inheriting from IVSwitch. - * Support for Traffic Generators is implemented by a class inheriting from ITrafficGenerator. - * Support for VNF is implemented by a class inheriting from IVNF. - -By dealing only with the abstract interfaces the core framework can support many implementations of different vSwitches, Traffic Generators and VNFs. - -IVSwitch --------- - - .. code-block:: python - - class IVSwitch: - start(self) - stop(self) - add_switch(switch_name) - del_switch(switch_name) - add_phy_port(switch_name) - add_vport(switch_name) - get_ports(switch_name) - del_port(switch_name, port_name) - add_flow(switch_name, flow) - del_flow(switch_name, flow=None) - -ITrafficGenerator ------------------ - - .. code-block:: python - - class ITrafficGenerator: - connect() - disconnect() - - send_burst_traffic(traffic, numpkts, time, framerate) - - send_cont_traffic(traffic, time, framerate) - start_cont_traffic(traffic, time, framerate) - stop_cont_traffic(self): - - send_rfc2544_throughput(traffic, trials, duration, lossrate) - start_rfc2544_throughput(traffic, trials, duration, lossrate) - wait_rfc2544_throughput(self) - - send_rfc2544_back2back(traffic, trials, duration, lossrate) - start_rfc2544_back2back(traffic, , trials, duration, lossrate) - wait_rfc2544_back2back() - -Note ``send_xxx()`` blocks whereas ``start_xxx()`` does not and must be followed by a subsequent call to ``wait_xxx()``. - -IVnf ----- - - .. code-block:: python - - class IVnf: - start(memory, cpus, - monitor_path, shared_path_host, - shared_path_guest, guest_prompt) - stop() - execute(command) - wait(guest_prompt) - execute_and_wait (command) - -Controllers ------------ - -Controllers are used in conjunction with abstract interfaces as way of decoupling the control of vSwtiches, VNFs and TrafficGenerators from other components. - -The controlled classes provide basic primitive operations. The Controllers sequence and co-ordinate these primitive operation in to useful actions. For instance the vswitch_controller_PVP can be used to bring any vSwitch (that implements the primitives defined in IVSwitch) into the configuration required by the Phy-to-Phy Deployment Scenario. - -In order to support a new vSwitch only a new implementation of IVSwitch needs be created for the new vSwitch to be capable of fulfilling all the Deployment Scenarios provided for by existing or future vSwitch Controllers. - -Similarly if a new Deployment Scenario is required it only needs to be written once as a new vSwitch Controller and it will immediately be capable of controlling all existing and future vSwitches in to that Deployment Scenario. - -Similarly the Traffic Controllers can be used to co-ordinate basic operations provided by implementers of ITrafficGenerator to provide useful tests. Though traffic generators generally already implement full test cases i.e. they both generate suitable traffic and analyse returned traffic in order to implement a test which has typically been predefined in an RFC document. However the Traffic Controller class allows for the possibility of further enhancement - such as iterating over tests for various packet sizes or creating new tests. - -Traffic Controller's Role -------------------------- - -.. image:: images/traffic_controller.png - - -Loader & Component Factory --------------------------- - -The working of the Loader package (which is responsible for *finding* arbitrary classes based on configuration data) and the Component Factory which is responsible for *choosing* the correct class for a particular situation - e.g. Deployment Scenario can be seen in this diagram. - -.. image:: images/factory_and_loader.png - -Routing Tables -============== - -Vsperf uses a standard set of routing tables in order to allow tests to easily mix and match Deployment Scenarios (PVP, P2P topology), Tuple Matching and Frame Modification requirements. - -:: - - +--------------+ - | | - | Table 0 | table#0 - Match table. Flows designed to force 5 & 10 tuple matches go here. - | | - +--------------+ - | - | - v - +--------------+ table#1 - Routing table. Flows to route packets between ports goes here. - | | The chosen port is communicated to subsequent tables by setting the - | Table 1 | metadata value to the egress port number. Generally this table - | | is set-up by by the vSwitchController. - +--------------+ - | - | - v - +--------------+ table#2 - Frame modification table. Frame modification flow rules are - | | isolated in this table so that they can be turned on or off - | Table 2 | without affecting the routing or tuple-matching flow rules. - | | This allows the frame modification and tuple matching required by the - +--------------+ tests in the VSWITCH PERFORMANCE FOR TELCO NFV test specification - | to be independent of the Deployment Scenario set up by the vSwitchController. - | - v - +--------------+ - | | - | Table 3 | table#3 - Egress table. Egress packets on the ports setup in Table 1. - | | - +--------------+ diff --git a/docs/to-be-reorganized/vswitchperf_ltd.rst b/docs/to-be-reorganized/vswitchperf_ltd.rst deleted file mode 100755 index 15c1de5c..00000000 --- a/docs/to-be-reorganized/vswitchperf_ltd.rst +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2002 +0,0 @@ -CHARACTERIZE VSWITCH PERFORMANCE FOR TELCO NFV USE CASES LEVEL TEST DESIGN -========================================================================== - -.. contents:: Table of Contents - -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. - -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. - -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. - -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>`__ - -2. Details of the Level Test Design -=================================== - -This section describes the features to be tested (`cf. 2.1 -<#FeaturesToBeTested>`__), the test approach (`cf. 2.2 <#Approach>`__); -it also identifies the sets of test cases or scenarios (`cf. 2.3 -<#TestIdentification>`__) along with the pass/fail criteria (`cf. 2.4 -<#PassFail>`__) and the test deliverables (`cf. 2.5 <#TestDeliverables>`__). - -2.1. 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). - - -2.2. Approach -============== - -In order to determine the packet transfer characteristics of a virtual -switch, the tests will be broken down into the following categories: - -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. - -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: - -Physical port → vSwitch → physical port -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - .. code-block:: console - - _ - +--------------------------------------------------+ | - | +--------------------+ | | - | | | | | - | | v | | Host - | +--------------+ +--------------+ | | - | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | | - +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ _| - ^ : - | | - : v - +--------------------------------------------------+ - | | - | traffic generator | - | | - +--------------------------------------------------+ - - -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 | - | | - +--------------------------------------------------+ - - -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 | - | | - +--------------------------------------------------+ - - -Physical port → vSwitch → VNF -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - .. code-block:: console - - _ - +---------------------------------------------------+ | - | | | - | +-------------------------------------------+ | | - | | Application | | | - | +-------------------------------------------+ | | - | ^ | | - | | | | Guest - | : | | - | +---------------+ | | - | | logical port 0| | | - +---+---------------+-------------------------------+ _| - ^ - | - : _ - +---+---------------+------------------------------+ | - | | logical port 0| | | - | +---------------+ | | - | ^ | | - | | | | Host - | : | | - | +--------------+ | | - | | phy port | vSwitch | | - +---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ _| - ^ - | - : - +--------------------------------------------------+ - | | - | traffic generator | - | | - +--------------------------------------------------+ - -VNF → vSwitch → physical port -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - .. code-block:: console - - _ - +---------------------------------------------------+ | - | | | - | +-------------------------------------------+ | | - | | Application | | | - | +-------------------------------------------+ | | - | : | | - | | | | Guest - | v | | - | +---------------+ | | - | | logical port | | | - +-------------------------------+---------------+---+ _| - : - | - v _ - +------------------------------+---------------+---+ | - | | logical port | | | - | +---------------+ | | - | : | | - | | | | Host - | v | | - | +--------------+ | | - | vSwitch | phy port | | | - +-------------------------------+--------------+---+ _| - : - | - v - +--------------------------------------------------+ - | | - | traffic generator | - | | - +--------------------------------------------------+ - -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 | | - +-------------------------------------------------------+ _| - -HOST 1(Physical port → virtual switch → VNF → virtual switch → -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -Physical port) → HOST 2(Physical port → virtual switch → VNF → -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -virtual switch → 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 | | | - | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | - | ^ | | | ^ | | | 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. - -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. - -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. -- 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 → 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. - -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. - -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. - -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. - -2.2.3.4.1 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. - -2.2.3.4.2 Frame Formats -^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - -Frame formats Layer 2 (data link layer) protocols -++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -- Ethernet II - - .. code-block:: console - - +---------------------+--------------------+-----------+ - | Ethernet Header | Payload | Check Sum | - +---------------------+--------------------+-----------+ - |_____________________|____________________|___________| - 14 Bytes 46 - 1500 Bytes 4 Bytes - -Layer 3 (network layer) protocols -++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ - -- IPv4 - - .. code-block:: console - - +---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+ - | Ethernet Header | IP Header | Payload | Check Sum | - +---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+ - |_____________________|____________________|____________________|___________| - 14 Bytes 20 bytes 26 - 1480 Bytes 4 Bytes - -- IPv6 - - .. code-block:: console - - +---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+ - | Ethernet Header | IP Header | Payload | Check Sum | - +---------------------+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+ - |_____________________|____________________|____________________|___________| - 14 Bytes 40 bytes 26 - 1460 Bytes 4 Bytes - -Layer 4 (transport layer) protocols -++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ - - TCP - - UDP - - SCTP - - .. code-block:: console - - +---------------------+--------------------+-----------------+--------------------+-----------+ - | Ethernet Header | IP Header | Layer 4 Header | Payload | Check Sum | - +---------------------+--------------------+-----------------+--------------------+-----------+ - |_____________________|____________________|_________________|____________________|___________| - 14 Bytes 40 bytes 20 Bytes 6 - 1460 Bytes 4 Bytes - -Layer 5 (application layer) protocols -+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ - - RTP - - GTP - - .. code-block:: console - - +---------------------+--------------------+-----------------+--------------------+-----------+ - | Ethernet Header | IP Header | Layer 4 Header | Payload | Check Sum | - +---------------------+--------------------+-----------------+--------------------+-----------+ - |_____________________|____________________|_________________|____________________|___________| - 14 Bytes 20 bytes 20 Bytes Min 6 Bytes 4 Bytes - - -2.2.3.4.3 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) - -2.2.3.4.4 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. - -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. - -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. - -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>`__. - -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. - -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. - -RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking -^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -RFC 3918 outlines a methodology for IP Multicast benchmarking. - -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. - -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. - -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. - -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. - -2.3. Test identification ------------------------- -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. - -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. - -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. - -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. - -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. - -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. - - **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 back-to-back value, which is the 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. - -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. - -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. - -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. - -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. - - -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. - - -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. - -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. - -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. - -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. - -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. - -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. - -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. - -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. - -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 accomodate new flows. - -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). - -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). - - -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. - -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. - -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. - -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.) - -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 |
