Re: question on data center benchmarking draft

"Lucien Avramov (lavramov)" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.bmwg
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi Yang and BMWGers,

The drafts have been updated, thank you for the comments on this thread!

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dcbench-def-02.txt

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-03.txt

Main updates are:
-wording: frames / flows
-definition of stateful / stateless
-buffer methodology
-explanation about COS and buffer testing
-statement about testing repeatability of the tests

Cheers,
Lucien

On 8/14/14, 4:28 AM, shiyang wrote:
> Hi Lucine,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
> We still have 2 questions:
> (1) for the requirement of "traffic generator must be connected to all
> ports on the DUT", in our case, for instance, we have 4 ports on
> traffice generator and 12 ports on DUT, do you think it is a possible
> test standard such like:
> iteration1: ingress port 1 and 2 send line rate to egress port 1 and 2
> seperately.
> iteration2: ingress port 1 and 2 send line rate to egress port 2 and 3
> sepearately.
> ........
> iteration11:ingress port 1 and 2 send line rate to egress port 11 and 12
> sepearately.
> iteration12:ingress port 3 and 4 send line rate to egress port 1 and 2
> sepearately.
> ........
> iteration 23:ingress port 3 and 4 send line rate to egress port 11 and
> 12 sepearately.
> And we measure the latency and jitter each iteration?
>
> (2) In Section 3.2, Measure maximum DUT buffer size with many to
> oneports, we think the equation " sending each [[N-1]/[port
> capacity]*99.98] % of line rate per port to the N egress port "is not
> the right way to represent: for one thing, [N-1] should be on the
> denominator part, for another thing, if you said it's some percentage of
> line rate, then should there be no [port capacity] in the equation?
> We think the better way to express it is: sending each[(1/[N-1])*99.98%]
> of line rate per port.....
>
> Thanks a lot!
> Best,
> Yang
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 在 2014-08-13 03:34:47,"Lucien Avramov (lavramov)" <[email protected]> 写道:
>>Hi Yang Shi,
>>
>>Thank you for reading our draft.
>>Please find answers inline.
>>
>>Lucien
>>
>>On 8/11/14, 8:15 PM, shiyang wrote:
>>> Hi Lucien,
>>>
>>> When reading your draft about the methodology of the data center
>>> benchmarking(draft-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-02), we found it an very
>>> interesting and useful document, and we are trying to apply it into our
>>> experiments with DC switches.
>>>
>>> However, there are some questions:
>>>
>>> (1) what does PORT CAPACITY mean in section 2.2 ?
>>Port Capacity is the speed capability for this given port; for example
>>1GE, 10GE, 40GE, 100GE etc.
>>
>>>
>>> (2) why latency and jitter are not considered if the traffic generator
>>> can not be connected to all ports on the DUT in section 2.2?
>>Because the idea is to have a standard and comprehensive way to measure
>>these two parameters. For example a switch can have an architecture that
>>will provide different values depending on what ports are tested
>>[multi-stage ASIC architecture for example], and therefore all ports
>>should be tested in order to measure with accuracy latency and jitter.
>>>
>>>       In our case, we'd like to test the relationship between the frame
>>> latency and the switch while we only have a generator with not so many
>>> ports.
>>
>>You can use also a snake test as depicted in section 2.2 this will move
>>traffic accross all ports.
>>
>>>
>>> (3) In Section 3.2, Measure maximum DUT buffer size with many to one
>>> ports, what does the equation ((N-1)/port capacity * 99.98)% in the
>>> iteration mean? What do you expect from the setting?
>>The reason this is mentioned is to cover what rate should be send on
>>each port in order to not have an oversubcription. For example if you
>>test two ports that support 10GE speed [N=2] [port capacity = 10GE], you
>>should send 4.999 GE traffic from these two ports going to the third
>>destination port [which will make it 9.998GE of traffic on that egress
>>port, so it's not naturally oversubcribed]
>>>
>>> (4) In section 6, what is the definition of stateful and stateless flow
>>> from the generator side of view? There are only unofficial descriptions
>>> like “large and small flows” in the text, but in practice, like how can
>>> we use in testing setup to produce  the large and small flow?
>>Stateful traffic is TCP
>>Stateless traffic is UDP
>>
>>Idea is that you generate large MTU TCP packets [for example 1500 or
>>9216 bytes] and at the same time small UDP packets [100's of bytes]. and
>>you would care to measure the latency/jitter of the UDP packets while
>>measuring the goodput on the TCP packets.
>>>
>>> (5) There is no clear definition for “flow latency”. Is it the same as
>>> the frame latency definition defined in the metric draft
>>> (draft-dcbench-def-01)?
>>A flow is a sequence of frame defining an application. Averaging the
>>frame latencies measured for a given application during this test would
>>give us the flow latency. That's the concept we are behind.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you very much!
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Yang Shi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.