Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology
draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology
Internet Engineering Task Force L. Avramov
INTERNET-DRAFT, Intended Status: Informational Google
Expires December 23,2017 J. Rapp
June 21, 2017 VMware
Data Center Benchmarking Methodology
draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-18
Abstract
The purpose of this informational document is to establish test and
evaluation methodology and measurement techniques for physical
network equipment in the data center. A pre-requisite to this
publication is the terminology document [draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-
terminology]. Many of these terms and methods may be applicable
beyond this publication's scope as the technologies originally
applied in the data center are deployed elsewhere.
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."
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
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.
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Methodology format and repeatability recommendation . . . . 5
2. Line Rate Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Buffering Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3 Reporting format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4 Microburst Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3 Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Head of Line Blocking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3 Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Incast Stateful and Stateless Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.3 Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.2. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction
Traffic patterns in the data center are not uniform and are
constantly changing. They are dictated by the nature and variety of
applications utilized in the data center. It can be largely east-west
traffic flows (server to server inside the data center) in one data
center and north-south (outside of the data center to server) in
another, while others may combine both. Traffic patterns can be
bursty in nature and contain many-to-one, many-to-many, or one-to-
many flows. Each flow may also be small and latency sensitive or
large and throughput sensitive while containing a mix of UDP and TCP
traffic. All of these can coexist in a single cluster and flow
through a single network device simultaneously. Benchmarking of
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
network devices have long used [RFC1242], [RFC2432], [RFC2544],
[RFC2889] and [RFC3918] which have largely been focused around
various latency attributes and Throughput [RFC2889] of the Device
Under Test (DUT) being benchmarked. These standards are good at
measuring theoretical Throughput, forwarding rates and latency under
testing conditions; however, they do not represent real traffic
patterns that may affect these networking devices.
Currently, typical data center networking devices are characterized
by:
-High port density (48 ports of more)
-High speed (up to 100 GB/s currently per port)
-High throughput (line rate on all ports for Layer 2 and/or Layer 3)
-Low latency (in the microsecond or nanosecond range)
-Low amount of buffer (in the MB range per networking device)
-Layer 2 and Layer 3 forwarding capability (Layer 3 not mandatory)
This document provides a methodology for benchmarking Data Center
physical network equipment DUT including congestion scenarios, switch
buffer analysis, microburst, head of line blocking, while also using
a wide mix of traffic conditions. The terminology document [draft-
ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology] is a pre-requisite.
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
1.1. 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].
1.2. Methodology format and repeatability recommendation
The format used for each section of this document is the following:
-Objective
-Methodology
-Reporting Format
For each test methodology described, it is critical to obtain
repeatability in the results. The recommendation is to perform enough
iterations of the given test and to make sure the result is
consistent. This is especially important for section 3, as the
buffering testing has been historically the least reliable. The
number of iterations SHOULD be explicitly reported. The relative
standard deviation SHOULD be below 10%.
2. Line Rate Testing
2.1 Objective
Provide a maximum rate test for the performance values for
Throughput, latency and jitter. It is meant to provide the tests to
perform, and methodology to verify that a DUT is capable of
forwarding packets at line rate under non-congested conditions.
2.2 Methodology
A traffic generator SHOULD be connected to all ports on the DUT. Two
tests MUST be conducted: a port-pair test [RFC 2544/3918 section 15
compliant] and also in a full mesh type of DUT test [2889/3918
section 16 compliant].
For all tests, the test traffic generator sending rate MUST be less
than or equal to 99.98% of the nominal value of Line Rate (with no
further PPM adjustment to account for interface clock tolerances), to
ensure stressing the DUT in reasonable worst case conditions (see RFC
[draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology] section 5 for more details --
note to RFC Editor, please replace all [draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
terminology] references in this document with the future RFC number
of that draft). Tests results at a lower rate MAY be provided for
better understanding of performance increase in terms of latency and
jitter when the rate is lower than 99.98%. The receiving rate of the
traffic SHOULD be captured during this test in % of line rate.
The test MUST provide the statistics of minimum, average and maximum
of the latency distribution, for the exact same iteration of the
test.
The test MUST provide the statistics of minimum, average and maximum
of the jitter distribution, for the exact same iteration of the test.
Alternatively when a traffic generator can not be connected to all
ports on the DUT, a snake test MUST be used for line rate testing,
excluding latency and jitter as those became then irrelevant. The
snake test consists in the following method:
-connect the first and last port of the DUT to a traffic generator
-connect back to back sequentially all the ports in between: port 2
to 3, port 4 to 5 etc to port n-2 to port n-1; where n is the total
number of ports of the DUT
-configure port 1 and 2 in the same vlan X, port 3 and 4 in the same
vlan Y, etc. port n-1 and port n in the same vlan Z.
This snake test provides a capability to test line rate for Layer 2
and Layer 3 RFC 2544/3918 in instance where a traffic generator with
only two ports is available. The latency and jitter are not to be
considered with this test.
2.3 Reporting Format
The report MUST include:
-physical layer calibration information as defined into [draft-ietf-
bmwg-dcbench-terminology] section 4.
-number of ports used
-reading for "Throughput received in percentage of bandwidth", while
sending 99.98% of nominal value of Line Rate on each port, for each
packet size from 64 bytes to 9216 bytes. As guidance, an increment of
64 byte packet size between each iteration being ideal, a 256 byte
and 512 bytes being are also often used. The most common packets
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
sizes order for the report is:
64b,128b,256b,512b,1024b,1518b,4096,8000,9216b.
The pattern for testing can be expressed using [RFC 6985].
-Throughput needs to be expressed in % of total transmitted frames
-For packet drops, they MUST be expressed as a count of packets and
SHOULD be expressed in % of line rate
-For latency and jitter, values expressed in unit of time [usually
microsecond or nanosecond] reading across packet size from 64 bytes
to 9216 bytes
-For latency and jitter, provide minimum, average and maximum values.
If different iterations are done to gather the minimum, average and
maximum, it SHOULD be specified in the report along with a
justification on why the information could not have been gathered at
the same test iteration
-For jitter, a histogram describing the population of packets
measured per latency or latency buckets is RECOMMENDED
-The tests for Throughput, latency and jitter MAY be conducted as
individual independent trials, with proper documentation in the
report but SHOULD be conducted at the same time.
-The methodology makes an assumption that the DUT has at least nine
ports, as certain methodologies require that number of ports or
more.
3. Buffering Testing
3.1 Objective
To measure the size of the buffer of a DUT under
typical|many|multiple conditions. Buffer architectures between
multiple DUTs can differ and include egress buffering, shared egress
buffering SoC (Switch-on-Chip), ingress buffering or a combination.
The test methodology covers the buffer measurement regardless of
buffer architecture used in the DUT.
3.2 Methodology
A traffic generator MUST be connected to all ports on the DUT.
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
The methodology for measuring buffering for a data-center switch is
based on using known congestion of known fixed packet size along with
maximum latency value measurements. The maximum latency will increase
until the first packet drop occurs. At this point, the maximum
latency value will remain constant. This is the point of inflection
of this maximum latency change to a constant value. There MUST be
multiple ingress ports receiving known amount of frames at a known
fixed size, destined for the same egress port in order to create a
known congestion condition. The total amount of packets sent from the
oversubscribed port minus one, multiplied by the packet size
represents the maximum port buffer size at the measured inflection
point.
1) Measure the highest buffer efficiency
The tests described in this section have iterations called "first
iteration", "second iteration" and, "last iteration". The idea is to
show the first two iterations so the reader understands the logic on
how to keep incrementing the iterations. The last iteration shows the
end state of the variables.
First iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2,
while port 3 sending a known low amount of over-subscription traffic
(1% recommended) with a packet size of 64 bytes to egress port 2.
Measure the buffer size value of the number of frames sent from the
port sending the oversubscribed traffic up to the inflection point
multiplied by the frame size.
Second iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2,
while port 3 sending a known low amount of over-subscription traffic
(1% recommended) with same packet size 65 bytes to egress port 2.
Measure the buffer size value of the number of frames sent from the
port sending the oversubscribed traffic up to the inflection point
multiplied by the frame size.
Last iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2,
while port 3 sending a known low amount of over-subscription traffic
(1% recommended) with same packet size B bytes to egress port 2.
Measure the buffer size value of the number of frames sent from the
port sending the oversubscribed traffic up to the inflection point
multiplied by the frame size.
When the B value is found to provide the largest buffer size, then
size B allows the highest buffer efficiency.
2) Measure maximum port buffer size
The tests described in this section have iterations called "first
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
iteration", "second iteration" and, "last iteration". The idea is to
show the first two iterations so the reader understands the logic on
how to keep incrementing the iterations. The last iteration shows the
end state of the variables.
At fixed packet size B determined in procedure 1), for a fixed
default Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP)/Class of Service
(COS) value of 0 and for unicast traffic proceed with the following:
First iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2,
while port 3 sending a known low amount of over-subscription traffic
(1% recommended) with same packet size to the egress port 2. Measure
the buffer size value by multiplying the number of extra frames sent
by the frame size.
Second iteration: ingress port 2 sending line rate to egress port 3,
while port 4 sending a known low amount of over-subscription traffic
(1% recommended) with same packet size to the egress port 3. Measure
the buffer size value by multiplying the number of extra frames sent
by the frame size.
Last iteration: ingress port N-2 sending line rate traffic to egress
port N-1, while port N sending a known low amount of over-
subscription traffic (1% recommended) with same packet size to the
egress port N. Measure the buffer size value by multiplying the
number of extra frames sent by the frame size.
This test series MAY be repeated using all different DSCP/COS values
of traffic and then using Multicast type of traffic, in order to find
if there is any DSCP/COS impact on the buffer size.
3) Measure maximum port pair buffer sizes
The tests described in this section have iterations called "first
iteration", "second iteration" and, "last iteration". The idea is to
show the first two iterations so the reader understands the logic on
how to keep incrementing the iterations. The last iteration shows the
end state of the variables.
First iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2;
ingress port 3 sending line rate to egress port 4 etc. Ingress port
N-1 and N will respectively over subscribe at 1% of line rate egress
port 2 and port 3. Measure the buffer size value by multiplying the
number of extra frames sent by the frame size for each egress port.
Second iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2;
ingress port 3 sending line rate to egress port 4 etc. Ingress port
N-1 and N will respectively over subscribe at 1% of line rate egress
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
port 4 and port 5. Measure the buffer size value by multiplying the
number of extra frames sent by the frame size for each egress port.
Last iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2;
ingress port 3 sending line rate to egress port 4 etc. Ingress port
N-1 and N will respectively over subscribe at 1% of line rate egress
port N-3 and port N-2. Measure the buffer size value by multiplying
the number of extra frames sent by the frame size for each egress
port.
This test series MAY be repeated using all different DSCP/COS values
of traffic and then using Multicast type of traffic.
4) Measure maximum DUT buffer size with many to one ports
The tests described in this section have iterations called "first
iteration", "second iteration" and, "last iteration". The idea is to
show the first two iterations so the reader understands the logic on
how to keep incrementing the iterations. The last iteration shows the
end state of the variables.
First iteration: ingress ports 1,2,... N-1 sending each [(1/[N-
1])*99.98]+[1/[N-1]] % of line rate per port to the N egress port.
Second iteration: ingress ports 2,... N sending each [(1/[N-
1])*99.98]+[1/[N-1]] % of line rate per port to the 1 egress port.
Last iteration: ingress ports N,1,2...N-2 sending each [(1/[N-
1])*99.98]+[1/[N-1]] % of line rate per port to the N-1 egress port.
This test series MAY be repeated using all different COS values of
traffic and then using Multicast type of traffic.
Unicast traffic and then Multicast traffic SHOULD be used in order to
determine the proportion of buffer for documented selection of tests.
Also the COS value for the packets SHOULD be provided for each test
iteration as the buffer allocation size MAY differ per COS value. It
is RECOMMENDED that the ingress and egress ports are varied in a
random, but documented fashion in multiple tests to measure the
buffer size for each port of the DUT.
3.3 Reporting format
The report MUST include:
- The packet size used for the most efficient buffer used, along
with DSCP/COS value
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
- The maximum port buffer size for each port
- The maximum DUT buffer size
- The packet size used in the test
- The amount of over-subscription if different than 1%
- The number of ingress and egress ports along with their location
on the DUT
- The repeatability of the test needs to be indicated: number of
iterations of the same test and percentage of variation between
results for each of the tests (min, max, avg)
The percentage of variation is a metric providing a sense of how big
the difference between the measured value and the previous ones.
For example, for a latency test where the minimum latency is
measured, the percentage of variation of the minimum latency will
indicate by how much this value has varied between the current test
executed and the previous one.
PV=((x2-x1)/x1)*100 where x2 is the minimum latency value in the
current test and x1 is the minimum latency value obtained in the
previous test.
The same formula is used for max and avg variations measured.
4 Microburst Testing
4.1 Objective
To find the maximum amount of packet bursts a DUT can sustain under
various configurations.
This test provides additional methodology to the other RFC tests:
-All bursts should be send with 100% intensity. Note: intensity is
defined in [draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology] section 6.1.1
-All ports of the DUT must be used for this test
-All ports are recommended to be testes simultaneously
4.2 Methodology
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
A traffic generator MUST be connected to all ports on the DUT. In
order to cause congestion, two or more ingress ports MUST send bursts
of packets destined for the same egress port. The simplest of the
setups would be two ingress ports and one egress port (2-to-1).
The burst MUST be sent with an intensity of 100% (intensity is
defined in [draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology] section 6.1.1),
meaning the burst of packets will be sent with a minimum inter-packet
gap. The amount of packet contained in the burst will be trial
variable and increase until there is a non-zero packet loss measured.
The aggregate amount of packets from all the senders will be used to
calculate the maximum amount of microburst the DUT can sustain.
It is RECOMMENDED that the ingress and egress ports are varied in
multiple tests to measure the maximum microburst capacity.
The intensity of a microburst MAY be varied in order to obtain the
microburst capacity at various ingress rates. Intensity of microburst
is defined in [draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology].
It is RECOMMENDED that all ports on the DUT will be tested
simultaneously and in various configurations in order to understand
all the combinations of ingress ports, egress ports and intensities.
An example would be:
First Iteration: N-1 Ingress ports sending to 1 Egress Ports
Second Iterations: N-2 Ingress ports sending to 2 Egress Ports
Last Iterations: 2 Ingress ports sending to N-2 Egress Ports
4.3 Reporting Format
The report MUST include:
- The maximum number of packets received per ingress port with the
maximum burst size obtained with zero packet loss
- The packet size used in the test
- The number of ingress and egress ports along with their location
on the DUT
- The repeatability of the test needs to be indicated: number of
iterations of the same test and percentage of variation between
results (min, max, avg)
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
5. Head of Line Blocking
5.1 Objective
Head-of-line blocking (HOLB) is a performance-limiting phenomenon
that occurs when packets are held-up by the first packet ahead
waiting to be transmitted to a different output port. This is defined
in RFC 2889 section 5.5, Congestion Control. This section expands on
RFC 2889 in the context of Data Center Benchmarking.
The objective of this test is to understand the DUT behavior under
head of line blocking scenario and measure the packet loss.
Here are the differences between this HOLB test and RFC 2889:
-This HOLB starts with 8 ports in two groups of 4, instead of 4 RFC
2889
-This HOLB shifts all the port numbers by one in a second iteration
of the test, this is new compared to RFC 2889. The shifting port
numbers continue until all ports are the first in the group. The
purpose is to make sure to have tested all permutations to cover
differences of behavior in the SoC of the DUT
-Another test in this HOLB expands the group of ports, such that
traffic is divided among 4 ports instead of two (25% instead of 50%
per port)
-Section 5.3 adds additional reporting requirements from Congestion
Control in RFC 2889
5.2 Methodology
In order to cause congestion in the form of head of line blocking,
groups of four ports are used. A group has 2 ingress and 2 egress
ports. The first ingress port MUST have two flows configured each
going to a different egress port. The second ingress port will
congest the second egress port by sending line rate. The goal is to
measure if there is loss on the flow for the first egress port which
is not over-subscribed.
A traffic generator MUST be connected to at least eight ports on the
DUT and SHOULD be connected using all the DUT ports.
1) Measure two groups with eight DUT ports
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
The tests described in this section have iterations called "first
iteration", "second iteration" and, "last iteration". The idea is to
show the first two iterations so the reader understands the logic on
how to keep incrementing the iterations. The last iteration shows the
end state of the variables.
First iteration: measure the packet loss for two groups with
consecutive ports
The first group is composed of: ingress port 1 is sending 50% of
traffic to egress port 3 and ingress port 1 is sending 50% of traffic
to egress port 4. Ingress port 2 is sending line rate to egress port
4. Measure the amount of traffic loss for the traffic from ingress
port 1 to egress port 3.
The second group is composed of: ingress port 5 is sending 50% of
traffic to egress port 7 and ingress port 5 is sending 50% of traffic
to egress port 8. Ingress port 6 is sending line rate to egress port
8. Measure the amount of traffic loss for the traffic from ingress
port 5 to egress port 7.
Second iteration: repeat the first iteration by shifting all the
ports from N to N+1.
The first group is composed of: ingress port 2 is sending 50% of
traffic to egress port 4 and ingress port 2 is sending 50% of traffic
to egress port 5. Ingress port 3 is sending line rate to egress port
5. Measure the amount of traffic loss for the traffic from ingress
port 2 to egress port 4.
The second group is composed of: ingress port 6 is sending 50% of
traffic to egress port 8 and ingress port 6 is sending 50% of traffic
to egress port 9. Ingress port 7 is sending line rate to egress port
9. Measure the amount of traffic loss for the traffic from ingress
port 6 to egress port 8.
Last iteration: when the first port of the first group is connected
on the last DUT port and the last port of the second group is
connected to the seventh port of the DUT.
Measure the amount of traffic loss for the traffic from ingress port
N to egress port 2 and from ingress port 4 to egress port 6.
2) Measure with N/4 groups with N DUT ports
The tests described in this section have iterations called "first
iteration", "second iteration" and, "last iteration". The idea is to
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
show the first two iterations so the reader understands the logic on
how to keep incrementing the iterations. The last iteration shows the
end state of the variables.
The traffic from ingress split across 4 egress ports (100/4=25%).
First iteration: Expand to fully utilize all the DUT ports in
increments of four. Repeat the methodology of 1) with all the group
of ports possible to achieve on the device and measure for each port
group the amount of traffic loss.
Second iteration: Shift by +1 the start of each consecutive ports of
groups
Last iteration: Shift by N-1 the start of each consecutive ports of
groups and measure the traffic loss for each port group.
5.3 Reporting Format
For each test the report MUST include:
- The port configuration including the number and location of ingress
and egress ports located on the DUT
- If HOLB was observed in accordance with the HOLB test in section 5
- Percent of traffic loss
- The repeatability of the test needs to be indicated: number of
iteration of the same test and percentage of variation between
results (min, max, avg)
6. Incast Stateful and Stateless Traffic
6.1 Objective
The objective of this test is to measure the values for TCP Goodput
[1] and latency with a mix of large and small flows. The test is
designed to simulate a mixed environment of stateful flows that
require high rates of goodput and stateless flows that require low
latency. Stateful flows are created by generating TCP traffic and,
stateless flows are created using UDP type of traffic.
6.2 Methodology
In order to simulate the effects of stateless and stateful traffic on
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
the DUT, there MUST be multiple ingress ports receiving traffic
destined for the same egress port. There also MAY be a mix of
stateful and stateless traffic arriving on a single ingress port. The
simplest setup would be 2 ingress ports receiving traffic destined to
the same egress port.
One ingress port MUST be maintaining a TCP connection trough the
ingress port to a receiver connected to an egress port. Traffic in
the TCP stream MUST be sent at the maximum rate allowed by the
traffic generator. At the same time, the TCP traffic is flowing
through the DUT the stateless traffic is sent destined to a receiver
on the same egress port. The stateless traffic MUST be a microburst
of 100% intensity.
It is RECOMMENDED that the ingress and egress ports are varied in
multiple tests to measure the maximum microburst capacity.
The intensity of a microburst MAY be varied in order to obtain the
microburst capacity at various ingress rates.
It is RECOMMENDED that all ports on the DUT be used in the test.
The tests described bellow have iterations called "first iteration",
"second iteration" and, "last iteration". The idea is to show the
first two iterations so the reader understands the logic on how to
keep incrementing the iterations. The last iteration shows the end
state of the variables.
For example:
Stateful Traffic port variation (TCP traffic):
TCP traffic needs to be generated in this section. During Iterations
number of Egress ports MAY vary as well.
First Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1
Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port
Second Iteration: 2 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1
Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port
Last Iteration: N-2 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1
Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port
Stateless Traffic port variation (UDP traffic):
UDP traffic needs to be generated for this test. During Iterations,
the number of Egress ports MAY vary as well.
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
First Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1
Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port
Second Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 2
Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port
Last Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and N-2
Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port
6.3 Reporting Format
The report MUST include the following:
- Number of ingress and egress ports along with designation of
stateful or stateless flow assignment.
- Stateful flow goodput
- Stateless flow latency
- The repeatability of the test needs to be indicated: number of
iterations of the same test and percentage of variation between
results (min, max, avg)
7. Security Considerations
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
technology characterization 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.
Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT specifically for
benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
from the DUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
networks.
8. IANA Considerations
NO IANA Action is requested at this time.
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
9. References
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
9.1. Normative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S. "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", BCP 14, RFC 1242, DOI
10.17487/RFC1242, July 1991, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc1242>
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", BCP 14, RFC 2544, DOI
10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2544>
9.2. Informative References
[draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology] Avramov L. and Rapp J., "Data
Center Benchmarking Terminology", April 2017, RFC "draft-ietf-
bmwg-dcbench-terminology", Date [to be fixed when the RFC is
published and 1 to be replaced by the RFC number
[RFC2889] Mandeville R. and Perser J., "Benchmarking Methodology for
LAN Switching Devices", RFC 2889, August 2000, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2889>
[RFC3918] Stopp D. and Hickman B., "Methodology for IP Multicast
Benchmarking", RFC 3918, October 2004, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc3918>
[RFC 6985] A. Morton, "IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable
Packet Sizes for Additional Testing", RFC 6985, July 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6985>
[1] Yanpei Chen, Rean Griffith, Junda Liu, Randy H. Katz, Anthony D.
Joseph, "Understanding TCP Incast Throughput Collapse in
Datacenter Networks,
"http://yanpeichen.com/professional/usenixLoginIncastReady.pdf"
[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>
[RFC2432] Dubray, K., "Terminology for IP Multicast
Benchmarking", BCP 14, RFC 2432, DOI 10.17487/RFC2432, October
1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2432>
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 19]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Center Benchmarking Methodology June 21, 2017
9.2. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Alfred Morton and Scott Bradner
for their reviews and feedback.
Authors' Addresses
Lucien Avramov
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
United States
Phone: +1 408 774 9077
Email: lucien.avramov@gmail.com
Jacob Rapp
VMware
3401 Hillview Ave
Palo Alto, CA
United States
Phone: +1 650 857 3367
Email: jrapp@vmware.com
Avramov & Rapp Expires December 23, 2017 [Page 20]
