Re: [bmwg] Second WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology and methodology
"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com> Tue, 13 September 2016 19:09 UTC
Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
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 0481412B505 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 12:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.709
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.709 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 umz1sTldPFJ2 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 12:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 414D612B024 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 12:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-255-15.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419AF12024E for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:23:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.255.124]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA1EE331E for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:06:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90%25]) with mapi; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:09:01 -0400
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
To: "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:09:00 -0400
Thread-Topic: [bmwg] Second WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology and methodology
Thread-Index: AdIN7ipUvgcuqLiJQaa1fiP/8uz3cQAA72xQ
Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D4598DC7370@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
References: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D4598DC7356@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D4598DC7356@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D4598DC7370NJFPSRVEXG0re_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/WN4JZMD_lv_6cmSCTZxG6dn-Fdk>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 12:13:30 -0700
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Second WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology and methodology
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 13 Sep 2016 19:09:09 -0000
Hi Lucien and Jacob, Here are my comments on the meth draft, below. Al (as a participant) INTRODUCTION, paragraph 12: OLD: Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. NEW: AM Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Section 1., paragraph 1: OLD: 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 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 can coexist in a single cluster and flow through a single network device all at the same time. Benchmarking of network devices have long used RFC1242, RFC2432, RFC2544, RFC2889 and RFC3918. These benchmarks have largely been focused around various latency attributes and max throughput of the Device Under Test [DUT] being benchmarked. These standards are good at measuring theoretical max throughput, forwarding rates and latency under testing conditions however, they do not represent real traffic patterns that may affect these networking devices. NEW: 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 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 can coexist in a single cluster and flow through a single network device all at the same time. Benchmarking of network devices have AM long used RFC1242, RFC2432, RFC2544, RFC2889 and RFC3918. These <<<add [ref#s] benchmarks have largely been focused around various latency AM attributes and Throughput [2] of the Device Under Test (DUT) being AM benchmarked. These standards are good at measuring theoretical AM Throughput, forwarding rates and latency under testing conditions however, they do not represent real traffic patterns that may affect these networking devices. Section 1.2., paragraph 4: OLD: -Reporting Format NEW: AM -Reporting Format: Additional interpretation of RFC2119 terms: Section 1.2., paragraph 5: OLD: MUST: minimum test for the scenario described NEW: AM MUST: required metric or benchmark for the scenario described (minimum) Section 1.2., paragraph 6: OLD: SHOULD: recommended test for the scenario described NEW: AM SHOULD or RECOMMENDED: strongly suggested metric for the scenario described Section 1.2., paragraph 7: OLD: MAY: ideal test for the scenario described NEW: AM MAY: Comprehensive metric for the scenario described Section 1.2., paragraph 8: OLD: For each test methodology described, it is key to obtain repeatability of the results. The recommendation is to perform enough iterations of the given test to make sure the result is accurate, this is especially important for section 3) as the buffering testing has been historically the least reliable. NEW: AM For each test methodology described, it is critical to obtain AM repeatability in the results. The recommendation is to perform enough AM iterations of the given test and to make sure the result is consistent, AM this is especially important for section 3, as the buffering testing has historically been the least reliable. Section 2.1, paragraph 1: OLD: Provide at maximum rate test for the performance values for throughput, latency and jitter. It is meant to provide the tests to run and methodology to verify that a DUT is capable of forwarding packets at line rate under non-congested conditions. NEW: AM Provide a maximum rate test for the performance values for AM Throughput, latency and jitter. It is meant to provide the tests to AM perform and methodology to verify that a DUT is capable of forwarding packets at line rate under non-congested conditions. Section 2.2, paragraph 1: OLD: A traffic generator SHOULD be connected to all ports on the DUT. Two tests MUST be conducted: a port-pair test [RFC 2544/3918 compliant] and also in a full mesh type of DUT test [RFC 2889/3918 compliant]. NEW: A traffic generator SHOULD be connected to all ports on the DUT. Two AM tests MUST be conducted: a port-pair test [RFC 2544/3918 section ?? compliant] AM and also in a full mesh type of DUT test [RFC 2889/3918 section ?? compliant]. Section 2.2, paragraph 2: OLD: For all tests, the percentage of traffic per port capacity sent MUST be 99.98% at most, with no PPM adjustment to ensure stressing the DUT in worst case conditions. 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 needs to be captured during this test in % of line rate. NEW: For all tests, the percentage of traffic per port capacity sent MUST be 99.98% at most, with no PPM adjustment to ensure stressing the DUT in worst case conditions. 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 AM rate of the traffic should be reported during this test in % of line rate. Section 2.2, paragraph 3: OLD: The test MUST provide the latency values for minimum, average and maximum, for the exact same iteration of the test. NEW: AM The test MUST provide the statistics of minimum, average and AM maximum of the latency distribution, for the exact same iteration of the test. Section 2.2, paragraph 4: OLD: The test MUST provide the jitter values for minimum, average and maximum, for the exact same iteration of the test. NEW: AM The test MUST provide the statistics of minimum, average and AM maximum of the jitter distribution, for the exact same iteration of the test. Section 2.3, paragraph 2: OLD: -physical layer calibration information as defined into (Placeholder for definitions draft) NEW: AM -physical layer calibration information as defined into (Placeholder AM for definitions draft) ????? ref to terms draft section ??? Section 2.3, paragraph 4: OLD: -reading for throughput received in percentage of bandwidth, while sending 99.98% of port capacity on each port, across packet size from 64 byte all the way to 9216. 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 for the report is: 64b,128b,256b,512b,1024b,1518b,4096,8000,9216b. NEW: AM -reading for Throughput received in percentage of bandwidth, while AM sending 99.98% of port capacity on each port, for each packet size from AM 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 for the report is: 64b,128b,256b,512b,1024b,1518b,4096,8000,9216b. Section 2.3, paragraph 5: OLD: The pattern for testing can be expressed using RFC 6985 [IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable Packet Sizes for Additional Testing] NEW: AM For IMIX testing, the pattern for testing can be expressed using RFC 6985 [IMIX Genome: AM Specification of Variable Packet Sizes for Additional Testing] << add to refs! Section 2.3, paragraph 6: OLD: -throughput needs to be expressed in % of total transmitted frames -for packet drops, they MUST be expressed in packet count value and SHOULD be expressed in % of line rate NEW: -throughput needs to be expressed in % of total transmitted frames AM -for packet drops, they MUST be expressed as a count of packets and SHOULD be expressed in % of line rate Section 2.3, paragraph 10: OLD: -The tests for throughput, latency and jitter MAY be conducted as individual independent events, with proper documentation in the report but SHOULD be conducted at the same time. NEW: AM -The tests for Throughput, latency and jitter MAY be conducted as AM individual independent trials, with proper documentation in the report but SHOULD be conducted at the same time. Section 3.2, paragraph 2: OLD: 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 inflexion 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 event. 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 inflexion point. NEW: 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 inflexion 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 AM 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 inflexion point. Section 3.2, paragraph 4: OLD: 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 inflexion point multiplied by the frame size. NEW: First iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2, AM 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 inflexion point multiplied by the frame size. Section 3.2, paragraph 5: OLD: 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 inflexion point multiplied by the frame size. NEW: Second iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2, AM 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 inflexion point multiplied by the frame size. Section 3.2, paragraph 6: OLD: 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 inflexion point multiplied by the frame size.. NEW: AM Continuing iterations: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2, AM 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 inflexion point AM multiplied by the frame size. Section 3.2, paragraph 7: OLD: When the B value is found to provide the highest buffer size, this is the highest buffer efficiency NEW: AM When the B value is found to provide the largest buffer size, then AM size B allows the highest buffer efficiency. Section 3.2, paragraph 9: OLD: At fixed packet size B determined in 3.2.1, for a fixed default COS value of 0 and for unicast traffic proceed with the following: NEW: AM At fixed packet size B determined in procedure 1), for a fixed default DSCP ?? value of 0 and for unicast traffic proceed with the following: Section 3.2, paragraph 10: OLD: 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. NEW: First iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2, AM 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. Section 3.2, paragraph 11: OLD: 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. NEW: Second iteration: ingress port 2 sending line rate to egress port 3, AM 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. Section 3.2, paragraph 12: OLD: 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. NEW: Last iteration: ingress port N-2 sending line rate traffic to egress AM 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. Section 3.2, paragraph 13: OLD: This test series MAY be repeated using all different COS values of traffic and then using Multicast type of traffic, in order to find if there is any COS impact on the buffer size. NEW: AM This test series MAY be repeated using all different DSCP? values of traffic and then using Multicast type of traffic, in order to find if AM there is any DSCP? impact on the buffer size. Section 3.2, paragraph 18: OLD: This test series MAY be repeated using all different COS values of traffic and then using Multicast type of traffic. NEW: AM This test series MAY be repeated using all different DSCP? values of traffic and then using Multicast type of traffic. Section 3.2, paragraph 23: OLD: This test series MAY be repeated using all different COS values of traffic and then using Multicast type of traffic. NEW: AM This test series MAY be repeated using all different DSCP? values of traffic and then using Multicast type of traffic. Section 3.2, paragraph 25: OLD: 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. NEW: AM Also the DSCP? 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. Section 3.3, paragraph 2: OLD: - The packet size used for the most efficient buffer used, along with COS value NEW: - The packet size used for the most efficient buffer used, along AM with DSCP? value Section 3.3, paragraph 6: OLD: - The amount of over subscription if different than 1% NEW: AM - The amount of over-subscription if different than 1% Section 4.2, paragraph 1: OLD: A traffic generator MUST be connected to all ports on the DUT. In order to cause congestion, two or more ingress ports MUST bursts packets destined for the same egress port. The simplest of the setups would be two ingress ports and one egress port (2-to-1). NEW: A traffic generator MUST be connected to all ports on the DUT. In AM 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). Section 4.2, paragraph 2: OLD: The burst MUST be measure with an intensity of 100%, meaning the burst of packets will be sent with a minimum inter-packet gap. The amount of packet contained in the burst will be 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. NEW: AM The burst MUST be sent with an intensity of 100%, meaning the burst of packets will be sent with a minimum inter-packet gap. The AM amount of packets contained in the burst will be trial variable and increased 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. Section 4.3, paragraph 2: OLD: - The maximum value of packets received per ingress port with the maximum burst size obtained with zero packet loss NEW: AM - The maximum number of packets received per ingress port with the maximum burst size obtained with zero packet loss Section 4.3, paragraph 5: OLD: - 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) NEW: - The repeatability of the test needs to be indicated: number of AM iterations of the same test and percentage of variation between results (min, max, avg) Section 5.1, paragraph 1: OLD: Head-of-line blocking (HOL blocking) 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. NEW: Head-of-line blocking (HOL blocking) 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 AM defined in RFC 2889 section 5.5, Congestion Control. This section expands on RFC 2889 in the context of Data Center Benchmarking AM The objective of this test is to understand the DUT behavior under a head of line blocking scenario and measure the packet loss. Section 5.2, paragraph 1: OLD: In order to cause congestion, 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 for the first egress port which is not not oversubscribed. NEW: AM 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 AM on the flow for the first egress port which is not oversubscribed. Section 9., paragraph 3: OLD: 2) Measure with N/4 groups with N DUT ports 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. NEW: 2) Measure with N/4 groups with N DUT ports AM QUESTION: Is the traffic from ingress split across 4 egress ports (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. Section 5.3, paragraph 3: OLD: - If HOLB was observed NEW: AM - If HOLB was observed (Need to say what measurement supports this conclusion) Section 6.1, paragraph 1: OLD: The objective of this test is to measure the effect of TCP Goodput 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. NEW: AM The objective of this test is to measure the values for TCP Goodput 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. Section 6.2, paragraph 8: OLD: First Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1 Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Ports NEW: First Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1 AM Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port Section 6.2, paragraph 9: OLD: Second Iteration: 2 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1 Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Ports NEW: AM Second Iteration: 2 Ingress ports receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1 AM Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port Section 6.2, paragraph 10: OLD: Last Iteration: N-2 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1 Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Ports NEW: AM Last Iteration: N-2 Ingress ports receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1 AM Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port Section 6.2, paragraph 12: OLD: 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 Ports NEW: During Iterations number of Egress ports MAY vary as well. First Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1 AM Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port Section 6.2, paragraph 13: OLD: Second Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 2 Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Ports NEW: Second Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 2 AM Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port Section 6.2, paragraph 14: OLD: Last Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and N-2 Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Ports NEW: Last Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and N-2 AM Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port Section 6.3, paragraph 2: OLD: - Number of ingress and egress ports along with designation of stateful or stateless. NEW: - Number of ingress and egress ports along with designation of AM stateful or stateless flow assignment. Section 6.3, paragraph 3: OLD: - Stateful goodput NEW: AM - Stateful flow goodput Section 6.3, paragraph 4: OLD: - Stateless latency NEW: AM - Stateless flow latency Section 7.2., paragraph 3: OLD: [5] Stopp D. and Hickman B., "Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking", BCP 26, RFC 3918, October 2004. 7.3. URL References NEW: [5] Stopp D. and Hickman B., "Methodology for IP Multicast AM Benchmarking", RFC 3918, October 2004. Section 7.2., paragraph 4: OLD: [6] Yanpei Chen, Rean Griffith, Junda Liu, Randy H. Katz, Anthony D. Joseph, "Understanding TCP Incast Throughput Collapse in Datacenter Networks", http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ychen2/professional/TCPIncastWREN2009.pdf". NEW: AM (7.3 heading removed) [6] Yanpei Chen, Rean Griffith, Junda Liu, Randy H. Katz, Anthony D. Joseph, "Understanding TCP Incast Throughput Collapse in Datacenter Networks", http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ychen2/professional/TCPIncastWREN2009.pdf". > -----Original Message----- > From: bmwg [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of MORTON, ALFRED C > (AL) > Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 2:43 PM > To: bmwg@ietf.org > Subject: [bmwg] Second WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology and > methodology > > *** Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***. > Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more > information. > > BMWG: > > A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Drafts on > Data Center Benchmarking Terminology and Methodology: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-05 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-02 > > will be open from 13 September 2016 through 27 September 2016. > > The first WGLC closed on 8 April 2016 with comments. > > These drafts are continuing the BMWG Last Call Process. See > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg00846.html > > Please read and express your opinion on whether or not these > Internet-Drafts should be forwarded to the Area Directors for > publication as Informational RFCs. Send your comments > to this list or to the co-chairs acmorton@att.com and > sbanks@encrypted.net > > for the co-chairs, > Al > > _______________________________________________ > bmwg mailing list > bmwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
- [bmwg] Second WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-termi… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [bmwg] Second WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-t… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [bmwg] Second WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-t… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [bmwg] Second WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-t… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [bmwg] Second WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-t… Lucien Avramov (lavramov)
- Re: [bmwg] Second WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-t… Marius Georgescu