IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Packet Number Encryption Performance

Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 22 June 2018 00:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B65212F1AC for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_06=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 Beg4FxQo06mM for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22d.google.com (mail-it0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::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 86DAD1294D0 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id a195-v6so667716itd.3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EeVblIsSgk6vLB+TUwUDTad6e00SMyQRIIQtfY2eyf8=; b=LCUTahBM6dYx+JKykScn8FYsrDzY/SEXQhiztHNAFDH9gRE+tnBcNWGLYd9Fd1ZnED QPr6VEqnpAjLKaHywjKHknOqFnUp9eqpCuFpOKdItDsSh9RSZ736Bv1Nb8NIAhUjvGz8 mX5UAOWskdJJNf9FvlqUZq/vMppg44xm2NI4RTUg1u4etkOjhUxPKi8WPSMMkIAizDnQ L9z8LwF7XpCVGXr3y4q26UVL4mZrg0Q26RtsZso87CaYNSZqN9Ki+Pp5CXsSec4BsGh5 M6H/4iIIoZzy0D/31ZKM3PgR831d4r1Yvnu1PXOXbJC9DTZOnlGvbU/qZLb2DsRuVkkP WrxA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EeVblIsSgk6vLB+TUwUDTad6e00SMyQRIIQtfY2eyf8=; b=TjnIBUd0deVi0XyoS/AjJIrfekwjU4XIunbYxi8KtuA2ZIzXi7WHS318k72aXh/2y+ 65w0ePPbHiRV+m7QQG3LPiGLIL33uQ6aDsevQ0qZO5M8Ox1PTlP4u1yryjkBdZ2djmBj SNGibHQjmFA3e73eAUcKlrYgAoY//z7p/RpAM5em7/EbXr7V74nAvGS4atYEecIkzsnM yoEOMlsf3f8W0S5v3Wt+YyBT3b3/MrdYuMAkWcoqC/qrNW4WeuW19SdPpJk9yynjYlMq jSvvGf7dCcDWWtocDfjqDjAYf8T/gL0UMJUIwUCb6phcySQ4gjyfRgrQp6HZiD/0hQdW YFEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1Ppc9euerlbOgvPnVo4xuTAa/6T9B1IDwBaI85SKBHWMpznBLa s2vH2xdHnbPZ9hq0yRrkgYo+7Zi6lsQIxX9/bdw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKICfnFCGxP9mMflVNrsYiiSaSkP/d+/TMuBSC9p+enTXYBBHdCrK9B8FfNzSADoP7+qvEePCZJeMd5SuxuwKbw=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:1643:: with SMTP id a64-v6mr7458877ita.101.1529628956188; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM5PR2101MB0901FCB1094A124818A0B1FEB3760@DM5PR2101MB0901.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <1F436ED13A22A246A59CA374CBC543998B843999@ORSMSX111.amr.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <1F436ED13A22A246A59CA374CBC543998B843999@ORSMSX111.amr.corp.intel.com>
From: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:55:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CACpbDccFycAywCGh9pfjinRRJOA0_qnZtTGSgx-3kYeK8zqxPw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Packet Number Encryption Performance
To: "Deval, Manasi" <manasi.deval@intel.com>
Cc: nibanks=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="0000000000009295d1056f307eae"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/6eb3rDCZr1ekP6wYI8qZqOkd-Uw>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 00:56:01 -0000

Thanks for sharing these numbers, Nick! A few questions:
1. It's quite possibly I'm missing something basic, but: Assuming the same
number of packets (10M in your experiments), why do smaller packets result
in lower rates? Shouldn't encrypting the same number of smaller packets
result in a higher rate?
2. PNE seems to add about 700-800ms of latency, which understandably
decreases as % overhead as the packet size increases. But the difference in
rates seems to increase as the packet size increases, which is exactly
counter-intuitive. How do you compute rate?
3. What's the PN size used?


On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 4:25 PM Deval, Manasi <manasi.deval@intel.com>
wrote:

> The 10% increase on server may be quite significant on a client machine.
> This may be an issue for mobile devices.
>
>
>
> Manasi
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* QUIC [mailto:quic-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Nick Banks
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 21, 2018 1:48 PM
> *To:* quic@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Packet Number Encryption Performance
>
>
>
> Hello QUIC WG,
>
>
>
> I recently implemented PNE for WinQuic (using bcrypt APIs) and I decided
> to get some performance numbers to see what the overhead of PNE was. I
> figured the rest of the WG might be interested.
>
>
>
> My test just encrypts the same buffer (size dependent on the test case)
> 10,000,000 times and measured the time it took. The test then did the same
> thing, but also encrypted the packet number as well. I ran all that 10
> times in total. I then collected the best times for each category to
> produce the following graphs and tables (full excel doc attached):
>
>
>
>
>
> *Time (ms)*
>
> *Rate (Mbps)*
>
> *Bytes*
>
> *NO PNE*
>
> *PNE*
>
> *PNE Overhead*
>
> *No PNE*
>
> *PNE*
>
> *4*
>
> 2284.671
>
> 3027.657
>
> 33%
>
> 140.064
>
> 105.692
>
> *16*
>
> 2102.402
>
> 2828.204
>
> 35%
>
> 608.827
>
> 452.584
>
> *64*
>
> 2198.883
>
> 2907.577
>
> 32%
>
> 2328.45
>
> 1760.92
>
> *256*
>
> 2758.3
>
> 3490.28
>
> 27%
>
> 7424.86
>
> 5867.72
>
> *600*
>
> 4669.283
>
> 5424.539
>
> 16%
>
> 10280
>
> 8848.68
>
> *1000*
>
> 6130.139
>
> 6907.805
>
> 13%
>
> 13050.3
>
> 11581.1
>
> *1200*
>
> 6458.679
>
> 7229.672
>
> 12%
>
> 14863.7
>
> 13278.6
>
> *1450*
>
> 7876.312
>
> 8670.16
>
> 10%
>
> 14727.7
>
> 13379.2
>
>
>
> I used a server grade lab machine I had at my disposal, running the latest
> Windows 10 Server DataCenter build. Again, these numbers are for crypto
> only. No QUIC or UDP is included.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Nick
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email