diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/test_spec')
| -rwxr-xr-x | docs/test_spec/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml | 964 | ||||
| -rwxr-xr-x | docs/test_spec/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.txt | 1232 | ||||
| -rwxr-xr-x | docs/test_spec/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml | 964 | ||||
| -rwxr-xr-x | docs/test_spec/index.rst | 17 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/test_spec/vswitchperf_ltd.rst | 2050 |
5 files changed, 0 insertions, 5227 deletions
diff --git a/docs/test_spec/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml b/docs/test_spec/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml deleted file mode 100755 index b5f7f833..00000000 --- a/docs/test_spec/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/test_spec/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.txt b/docs/test_spec/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.txt deleted file mode 100755 index 81ae96c0..00000000 --- a/docs/test_spec/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/test_spec/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml b/docs/test_spec/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml deleted file mode 100755 index b5f7f833..00000000 --- a/docs/test_spec/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/test_spec/index.rst b/docs/test_spec/index.rst deleted file mode 100755 index e36b7d85..00000000 --- a/docs/test_spec/index.rst +++ /dev/null @@ -1,17 +0,0 @@ -========================= -VSPERF Test Specification -========================= - -.. toctree:: - :numbered: - :maxdepth: 4 - - quickstart.rst - installation.rst - NEWS.rst - vswitchperf_ltd.rst - vswitchperf_design.rst - -Revision: _sha1_ - -Build date: |today| diff --git a/docs/test_spec/vswitchperf_ltd.rst b/docs/test_spec/vswitchperf_ltd.rst deleted file mode 100644 index 7adc864f..00000000 --- a/docs/test_spec/vswitchperf_ltd.rst +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2050 +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 → VNF → vSwitch → VNF → physical port -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - .. code-block:: console - - _ - +----------------------+ +----------------------+ | - | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | | - |+-------------------+ | | +-------------------+| | - || Application | | | | Application || | - |+-------------------+ | | +-------------------+| | - | ^ | | | ^ | | | Guests - | | v | | | v | | - |+-------------------+ | | +-------------------+| | - || logical ports | | | | logical ports || | - || 0 1 | | | | 0 1 || | - ++--------------------++ ++--------------------++ _| - ^ : ^ : - (PCI passthrough) | | (PCI passthrough) - | v : | _ - +--------++------------+-+------------++---------+ | - | | || 0 | | 1 || | | | - | | ||logical port| |logical port|| | | | - | | |+------------+ +------------+| | | | - | | | | ^ | | | | - | | | L-----------------+ | | | | - | | | | | | | Host - | | | vSwitch | | | | - | | +-----------------------------+ | | | - | | | | | - | | v | | - | +--------------+ +--------------+ | | - | | phy port/VF | | phy port/VF | | | - +-+--------------+--------------+--------------+-+ _| - ^ : - | | - : v - +--------------------------------------------------+ - | | - | traffic generator | - | | - +--------------------------------------------------+ - -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. For multi-core tests should - consider the number of packet flows based on vSwitch/VNF multi-thread - implementation and behavior. - -- Traffic Types: UDP, SCTP, RTP, GTP and UDP traffic. -- Deployment scenarios are: -- Physical → virtual switch → physical. -- Physical → virtual switch → VNF → virtual switch → physical. -- Physical → virtual switch → VNF → virtual switch → VNF → virtual - switch → physical. -- Physical → VNF → virtual switch → VNF → physical. -- Physical → virtual switch → VNF. -- VNF → virtual switch → Physical. -- VNF → virtual switch → VNF. - -Tests MUST have these parameters unless otherwise stated. **Test cases -with non default parameters will be stated explicitly**. - -**Note**: For throughput tests unless stated otherwise, test -configurations should ensure that traffic traverses the installed flows -through the virtual switch, i.e. flows are installed and have an appropriate -time out that doesn't expire before packet transmission starts. - -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. Please note - a trial must run for a minimum of 2 seconds and should be repeated 50 - times (at a minimum). - - **Expected Result**: - - Tests of back-to-back frames with physical devices have produced - unstable results in some cases. All tests should be repeated in multiple - test sessions and results stability should be examined. - - **Metrics collected** - - The following are the metrics collected for this test: - - - The average back-to-back value across the trials, which is - the number of frames in the longest burst that the DUT will - handle without the loss of any frames. - - CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this - test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system. - - **Deployment scenario**: - - - Physical → virtual switch → physical. - -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 |