[bmwg] AD review of draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology
Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Tue, 30 May 2017 16:52 UTC
Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 297A7129AC6 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 May 2017 09:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bOK-4w05mhLv for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 May 2017 09:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22d.google.com (mail-vk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65FD0129AC5 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 May 2017 09:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id x71so48351991vkd.0 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 May 2017 09:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=A3q74rOqGyrDbMF/OqiFQnEkW1ZnoCCJ8F5ZsmXLIX0=; b=1RNoy4hSWuuCdPmEYOo7eiEPYvUbNOZDhpQ2INim6gyHkY/VRBJMjdCjRqIpxRja7A YRQvgFcQ7SAILkgl8VM2GUDzn+TEz693j6WA3BXHUCprYEDPnLH/UpcYNKjGPG5kb1ky MnPalNx2yzrSERJsady59/bxyNMYxP3tf1A5aAdSzdrZMXC5JB73M3K9vn00+/J/Pnn2 Jg6HcZjJom5RYQSKNXjnvo9LnOcqlLx9rMfq3XmVw2N2OAxoluMwHvGi/fli2tJblKsQ /MjOrI7F3nge9dYLpMMek6aXi32VAOt5FcqECdssx7Cqf47kZLgqSlEUJnvLMnMmM11Z DGAQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=A3q74rOqGyrDbMF/OqiFQnEkW1ZnoCCJ8F5ZsmXLIX0=; b=GluzqwOD18qkSo8BEmfIYycZ88B+hq/pEg/sFNMgeTz/xXq+FoTnZD05zSxYoRsfCi Qv4Bg3iIfLC0asPkvffUmBAF3x4MGqNkWzJLITuVANr/+fl47evF9SFbtitbT2ZDpoAe 9CoEJOx0PiRvsomtZs+TbGQ64nM7VZrjbqwYHgCtNzRb3fUO4Q67hgZMwX5x9ir13vAz wnBA598HBu00fj76M5dphYZ7BsBhnsheodN4en0QaZq6RrTe2sG8k7xJqLxcr00Rw80o T3ejBpOBNGlq/1i6Ua5afXPaMvkC+zv5cWxyrJkFqPIJqSdXGzBV/dSNa5G1EZ+FXttT /tww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAJjMMtsbIARAUwqxeKbYMkn3JdGb2zL9uqFTp6g6nMh+gS7ZdW YO6/9E7ku8+lhbPjwd3mcEhknECNoyL4
X-Received: by 10.31.3.77 with SMTP id 74mr8774335vkd.80.1496163123394; Tue, 30 May 2017 09:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.71.83 with HTTP; Tue, 30 May 2017 09:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 12:51:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_i+JfGnLfs9xMgUax=VQGoOZ8hnADuztrQ0ZVdwuFEDGgQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology.all@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/4WUdKjTLFz7ovqxgGMuq4ZZL00I>
Subject: [bmwg] AD review of draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:52:06 -0000
Hi there, Thanks for another clear document - this makes a nice companion to draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology, and I'd like to progress them together.... I have a number of suggested edits to make the document even more readable / clearer. In a few instances I wasn't quite sure what the document was trying to say, so please let me know if any of the suggestions don't make sense, or change the text meaning... Also, please poke me once updated, so that I can progress it to IETF LC... ------ 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 in one data center and north-south in another, while some may combine both. Traffic patterns can be bursty in nature and [O] some [P] others [R] clarity 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 which [O] which [P] these [R] grammar can coexist in a single cluster and flow through a single network device all at the same time. Benchmarking of network devices have [O] all at the same time [P] simultaneously [R] clarity long used [RFC1242], [RFC2432], [RFC2544], [2] and [3] which have largely been focused around various latency attributes and Throughput [2] 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 [O] conditions however, [P] conditions; however, [R] grammar traffic patterns that may affect these networking devices. .... 1.2. Methodology format and repeatability recommendation 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 [O] consistent, this [P] consistent. This [R] grammar 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 [O] perform and methodology to verify [P] perform, and methodology to verify, [R] grammar packets at line rate under non-congested conditions. 2.3 Reporting Format -reading for Throughput received in percentage of bandwidth, while [C]: Perhaps something like: - reading for "Throughput received in percentage of bandwidth", while... (to make it clear where the "term" is)> sending 99.98% of port capacity 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 also often time used, the most common packets sizes order [O] being also often time used, the [P] are also often used. The [R] grammar for the report is: 64b,128b,256b,512b,1024b,1518b,4096,8000,9216b. 6. Incast Stateful and Stateless Traffic 6.2 Methodology In order to simulate the effects of stateless and stateful traffic on the DUT there MUST be multiple ingress ports receiving traffic [O] the DUT there [P] the DUT, there [R] grammar 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 [O] trough [P] through [R] typo 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 [O] At the same time the [P] At the same time, the [R] grammar 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. Stateless Traffic port variation: During Iterations number of Egress ports MAY vary as well. First [O] During Iterations number [P] During Iterations, the number [R] grammar Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1 Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port ---- Thanks. Please poke me when integrated and I'll start the IETF LC on both. W -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
- [bmwg] AD review of draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-metho… Warren Kumari
- Re: [bmwg] AD review of draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-m… Lucien Avramov