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