Re: [bmwg] draft-cprjgf-bmwg-powerbench-01

[LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO <[e-mail]>]

Dear authors,

I have gone through the document. Some few comments from my side:


  *   I find the formulation in 2.1 and 2.2 a bit confusing. I understand that Ti represents each of the active interfaces in the router. What is not evident for me is the applied weights for each interface, the Bi values. What is represented by these weights? All sum up 1, but the weights of the ingress interfaces is equivalent to the egress ones?
  *   The value “m”, identified as number of traffic load levels, I assume is different from the “m” suffix used for Ti and Bi, right?
  *   I think 2.1 and 2.2 would benefit from a numerical example.
  *   Regarding traffic loads it is proposed to consider 100%, 30% and 0%. Thinking on operational situations, I think some values are informative but not useful at all. Let me explain. As rule of thumb, operational networks are usually kept to a maximum load of 50% (roughly speaking) in a way that if some link or node fails, the protection paths / nodes can absorb the excess traffic. This should be something exceptional, and I think that the in such circumstances is more critical to guarantee no traffic losses than being efficient in terms of energy consumption, assuming that situations are temporal. So probably is better to concentrate in what would be the typical working regimes in terms of network occupancy (peak, valley and average values) rather than consider the extreme cases (which are good to know but less relevant in the day-by-day operation).
  *   Interestingly, you count on a power meter as reference system or ground truth of the energy consumption. I think a missing benchmarking test is the one assessing the validity of the energy / power values reported by the node sensors. I mention this because thinking on possible ways of automating optimization actions in the network, the sensors’ information is the one that can be retrieved automatically from production nodes. So understanding how close / far are those from the reference provided by the power meter is quite interesting.
  *   In section 6.2 you comment about the base power. Here we can find different situations. On one hand, the monolithic routers / switches, and on the other hand, the modular ones. For monolithic equipment section 6.2 is fine. For modular ones, probably it would be a good practice to determine on one hand the base power of the basic elements (processors, fans, etc) and then the increments due to each of the used cards, without and with traffic.
  *   It is described the fact of heat dissipation. Maybe temperature of the equipment could be also a interesting data to be reported, taking into account that some equipment should work under extreme temperature conditions in certain environments.
  *   While the benchmarking is performed determining common traffic load levels, other common principles should probably apply: usage of transceivers of the same kind, same set of protocols / configuration, etc.

Thanks, best regards

Luis

De: bmwg <[e-mail]> En nombre de Carlos Pignataro
Enviado el: lunes, 4 de marzo de 2024 23:53
Para: [e-mail]
Asunto: [bmwg] draft-cprjgf-bmwg-powerbench-01

Hi, BMWG,

Today, we posted a new revision of:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cprjgf-bmwg-powerbench-01
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-cprjgf-bmwg-powerbench-01.html

and we welcome your review, feedback, suggestions, and input!

Thanks!

Carlos, Romain, Giuseppe, and Qin.

________________________________

Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is confidential and privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição