Re: [bmwg] [Newsletter] Re: Query about 50% values in [Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance draft 02]
Gábor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Wed, 03 June 2020 20:54 UTC
Return-Path: <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
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 6F2EF3A0F95 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 JF5KxtdO7A9S for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94E5C3A0F96 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (host-79-121-42-113.kabelnet.hu [79.121.42.113]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 053Ks2HD050230 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 22:54:07 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host host-79-121-42-113.kabelnet.hu [79.121.42.113] claimed to be [192.168.1.101]
To: bmwg@ietf.org
References: <DBBPR09MB30618401FAD3184921486E79B6880@DBBPR09MB3061.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com> <027801d639b7$0d4ac290$27e047b0$@netsecopen.org> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF0108A5F74A@njmtexg5.research.att.com> <CAGiD7R7UeKa79pe-Y0BEXCvrDhiAnm329scxWkfu9GZ=7Jh5cA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gábor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
Message-ID: <dd3ac998-feba-7a4d-838e-8c1c79e28971@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 22:53:56 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGiD7R7UeKa79pe-Y0BEXCvrDhiAnm329scxWkfu9GZ=7Jh5cA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------8B546F37EC9F21EC48331992"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.101.2 at frogstar.hit.bme.hu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Received-SPF: pass (frogstar.hit.bme.hu: authenticated connection) receiver=frogstar.hit.bme.hu; client-ip=79.121.42.113; helo=[192.168.1.101]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10;
X-DCC--Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/FC2VOpS-4HqDUBzZAYtkmJUHsPU>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] [Newsletter] Re: Query about 50% values in [Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance draft 02]
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 20:54:22 -0000
Dear Alex Samonte, Is it absolutely necessary to use only a single value? Perhaps using multiple latency values at a few different working points (like 25%, 50%, 75%) could give more information about the behavior of the system. Best regards, Gábor Lencse On 6/3/2020 21:53, Alex Samonte wrote: > The main rationale is to see what the nominal latency is.. > > As we all know the latency, will rise dramatically (and be > unpredictable) when something gets close to bottlenecking. That > doesn't mean things will fail, but you start getting ugly behavior. > > from 0%-XX% the latency is fairly reliable (XX to be guessed at > later). This means the latency doesn't change dramatically as you > increase that percentage. Usually it's something linear with a slope > of much less than 1. When you get to XX%-100%, the latency becomes > unstable and it varies wildly as various components of the system have > a bottleneck. When that happens, other things compensate, and then > they become a bottleneck (when the first thing is not) and it > oscillates all over the place. This is what leads to the unstable > latency. The difference of the latency at 1% vs XX% is small compared > to the latency at XX% and some of the unstable latency at 100%. > > So the question is how to we determine XX%? Unfortunately, all DUTs > are different, have different limits, bottlenecks, and features that > may change XX%. It's not the same from vendor to vendor, nor even > model to model within the same vendor. > > A couple big examples to point out. > 1) multi core CPUs. Because of the way that most stateful devices > behave, a single session will probably be handled by a single > core/thread of a CPU. If a device has 8 cores, if there is only 1 > session, 7 cores will likely go unused. If there are 9 sessions, 1 > core will be handling 2 sessions, and the others will be handling 1 > (50% difference). If there are 8001 sessions, then it's 1001, and > others 1000, and the uneveness does not matter. However, if one of > those sessions is 'harder' or more difficult to process. Or the > number of sessions on a single core may be harder to process, that > core may reach 100% capacity before the others do. Lets' say I have > 100%, 50%, 50%, 50% in a 4 core case. Here we will experience > unstable latency. The sessions that go through the core at 100% will > experience additional latency, where the sessions going through the > other 3 cores will not, leading to unstable latency. > > 2) internal buffers. Depending on the protocol different protocols > may have different buffers associated with them, so when buffers fill > up, more latency is added, but because they can be differently > allocated for different protocols, you will see variable latency > depending on which is exhausted and which is not. > > 3) interface (internal or external) limits. When you approach 100% > of a certain speed link (be it internal or external to the DUT) you > can also experience additional latency. It's hard to determine what a > particular DUT's internal architecture is(nor do we really want to try > to figure that out), So we generally do not want to push it to 100% > because we know we will incur > > > So what we've said is that: > 0%-XX% the latencies are reliable / not unstable > XX%-100% the latency are unstable > > People looking to benchmark are generally interested in the largest > stable value (XX). 100% (or near it) is generally not a > representative value of the normal case of traffic. 0% (or 1%) is > also generally not representative of the normal case for traffic. > > Ideally XX% is what we're trying to get, but it's different for each > model. Since 0-XX% represents the stable side, i'd rather err on > that side, than the XX%-100%. > > When doing the benchmark we're finding the various max values (without > failure), but that does not necessarily mean stable latency. In > order to get ot that range we're going to back off from 100%. > > Now what could that value be? 95% 75% 50%? This was purposefully > set low so we would not encounter any other bottlenecks that would > make the latency unstable. > > I've tested lots of different devices over the years, both my own and > other vendors, and the lower you make that number, the higher the > number of devices will stay in the 'stable' area of latency. > > so 50% was chosen as the least likely to cause unstable latency, and > still representative of real customer usage (plenty of customers have > no issue of using a device that is at 50% capacity). At 75% and much > more so at 95% customers are looking to change/upgrade their equipment > so they are not nearing the top of what the device is capable of. So > again it makes me less interested in the latency there. > > > Hopefully that makes sense, and while it could be shorter in the > explanation, i'm not sure I could make it into a 2 sentence one. > > -Alex > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 9:12 AM MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) > <acm@research.att.com <mailto:acm@research.att.com>> wrote: > > Thanks for your question, Simon, and the history, Brian. > > I confess that this question (why 50%?) has occurred to me in > other contexts, and it may help to add a sentence to two of > rationale. So if the technical folks can help with suggestions, > that would be great! > > regards, > > Al > > *From:* bmwg [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org > <mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of > *bmonkman@netsecopen.org <mailto:bmonkman@netsecopen.org> > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 3, 2020 10:56 AM > *To:* 'Simon Edwards' <simon@selabs.uk <mailto:simon@selabs.uk>> > *Cc:* bmwg@ietf.org <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [bmwg] Query about 50% values in [Benchmarking > Methodology for Network Security Device Performance draft 02] > > Simon, > > This requirement was agreed to and adopted by the working group > within NetSecOPEN. It first appeared in the IETF individual draft > on October 14, 2018. > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance-05 > <https://urldefense..proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dbalarajah-2Dbmwg-2Dngfw-2Dperformance-2D05&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=mylQC4CnyBjr1JS-Qbiw5d392Llnmp_6LxMRXJO8NVI&s=8ElQf-XUyhkke33v7BvLLf5mEBDCEU2mlwlFDpxHJD8&e=>). > It was clarified and expanded on March 5, 2019 in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-00 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dbmwg-2Dngfw-2Dperformance-2D00&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=mylQC4CnyBjr1JS-Qbiw5d392Llnmp_6LxMRXJO8NVI&s=xbiPb0v60VZvEM2cumbN3J41IrOw2hMUK7HHaR-HN8o&e=>. > It’s form has largely been unchanged since then. > > I will leave it to the technical folks to expand on this more. > However, I am saying all of this because it has been in the > position to be reviewed and commented on by the BMWG community for > awhile. Our assumption is that given no one appears to have an > issue with it that we hit the mark. > > Brian > > *From:*bmwg <bmwg-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org>> > *On Behalf Of *Simon Edwards > *Sent:* June 3, 2020 5:10 AM > *To:* bmwg@ietf.org <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org> > *Subject:* [bmwg] Query about 50% values in [Benchmarking > Methodology for Network Security Device Performance draft 02] > > Hi all, > > In a number of sections, but specifically '7.8.3.2. Test > Equipment Configuration Parameters', there are requirements to > measure with 50% of the maximum connections/ sec measured in the > HTTP/S throughput tests > > E.g. "Target objective for scenarios 1 and 2: 50% of the maximum > connections per second measured in test scenario..." > > I'm sure this 50% value is the product of much thought and > discussion, rather than an arbitrary choice. Is anyone able to > explain the reason for the specific '50%' value (as opposed to > 25%, 75% or whatever) or could you please point to documentation > around that decision made by the group? > > I'm asking just to understand. I don't disagree with the decision : ) > > Very best wishes, > > Simon > > _______________________________________________ > bmwg mailing list > bmwg@ietf.org <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg > > > > -- > > Alex Samonte > Director Of Technical Architecture > > FortinetLogosig1550861636.png > <http://www.fortinet.com/?utm_source=email-signature&utm_medium=sigstr&utm_campaign=fortinet-logo> > > E: asamonte@fortinet.com <mailto:asamonte@fortinet.com> > M: +1 408-475-8737 > Skype: asamonteFN > www.fortinet.com > <https://www.fortinet.com/?utm_source=email-signature&utm_medium=sigstr-company-url&utm_campaign=sd-wan> > Fortinetsocialtwitternew1550866064.png > <https://twitter.com/fortinet?utm_source=email-signature&utm_medium=sigstr&utm_campaign=social-twitter> > Fortinetsociallinkedinnew1550866125.png > <http://www.linkedin.com/company/fortinet?utm_source=email-signature&utm_medium=sigstr&utm_campaign=social-linkedin> > Fortinetsocialfbnew1550866196.png > <http://www.facebook.com/fortinet?utm_source=email-signature&utm_medium=sigstr&utm_campaign=social-facebook> > Fortinetsocialinstagramnew1550866291.png > <https://www.instagram.com/behindthefirewall/?utm_source=email-signature&utm_medium=sigstr&utm_campaign=social-instagram> > Fortinetsocialblognew1550866342.png > <https://www.fortinet.com/blog?utm_source=email-signature&utm_medium=sigstr&utm_campaign=social-blog> > > > Secure Remote Access for Your Workforce at Scale > <http://signatures.fortinet.com/uc/5e868f6230170c1cb4a71ffb> > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *** Please note that this message and any attachments may contain > confidential and proprietary material and information and are intended > only for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, > disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and > any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > email in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy this > e-mail and any attachments and all copies, whether electronic or > printed. Please also note that any views, opinions, conclusions or > commitments expressed in this message are those of the individual > sender and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fortinet, Inc., its > affiliates, and emails are not binding on Fortinet and only a writing > manually signed by Fortinet's General Counsel can be a binding > commitment of Fortinet to Fortinet's customers or partners. Thank you. > *** > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > * > > _______________________________________________ > bmwg mailing list > bmwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
- [bmwg] Query about 50% values in [Benchmarking Me… Simon Edwards
- Re: [bmwg] Query about 50% values in [Benchmarkin… bmonkman
- Re: [bmwg] Query about 50% values in [Benchmarkin… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [bmwg] Query about 50% values in [Benchmarkin… Brian Monkman
- Re: [bmwg] Query about 50% values in [Benchmarkin… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [bmwg] Query about 50% values in [Benchmarkin… bmonkman
- Re: [bmwg] Query about 50% values in [Benchmarkin… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [bmwg] [Newsletter] Re: Query about 50% value… Alex Samonte
- Re: [bmwg] [Newsletter] Re: Query about 50% value… Gábor LENCSE
- Re: [bmwg] [Newsletter] Re: Query about 50% value… Van Den Breekel, Jurrie
- Re: [bmwg] [Newsletter] Re: [Newsletter] Re: Quer… Alex Samonte
- Re: [bmwg] [Newsletter] Re: Query about 50% value… Ryan Liles (ryliles)