Considerations for Benchmarking Network Performance in Containerized Infrastructures
draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-06
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | KJ Sun , Hyunsik Yang , Jangwon Lee , Trần Minh Ngọc , Younghan Kim | ||
| Last updated | 2021-08-09 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-06
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group K. Sun
Internet-Draft Soongsil University
Intended status: Informational H. Yang
Expires: 10 February 2022 KT
J. Lee
T. Ngoc
Y. Kim
Soongsil University
9 August 2021
Considerations for Benchmarking Network Performance in Containerized
Infrastructures
draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-06
Abstract
This draft describes considerations for benchmarking network
performance in containerized infrastructures. In the containerized
infrastructure, Virtualized Network Functions(VNFs) are deployed on
an operating-system-level virtualization platform by abstracting the
user namespace as opposed to virtualization using a hypervisor.
Leveraging this, the system configurations and networking scenarios
for benchmarking will be partially changed by the way in which the
resource allocation and network technologies are specified for
containerized VNFs. In this draft, we compare the state of the art
in a container networking architecture with networking on VM-based
virtualized systems and provide several test scenarios for
benchmarking network performance in containerized infrastructures.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 10 February 2022.
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Containerized Infrastructure Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Networking Models in Containerized Infrastructure . . . . . . 8
4.1. Kernel-space vSwitch Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. User-space vSwitch Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Smart-NIC Acceleration Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Performance Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. CPU Isolation / NUMA Affinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Hugepages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Appendix A: Benchmarking Experience(Contiv-VPP) . . 15
A.1. Benchmarking Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.2. Trouble shooting and Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix B. Appendix B: Benchmarking Experience(SR-IOV with
DPDK) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
B.1. Benchmarking Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
B.2. Trouble shooting and Result(SR-IoV-DPDK) . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
1. Introduction
The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group(BMWG) has recently
expanded its benchmarking scope from Physical Network Function(PNF)
running on a dedicated hardware system to Network Function
Virtualization(NFV) infrastructure and Virtualized Network
Function(VNF). [RFC8172] described considerations for configuring
NFV infrastructure and benchmarking metrics, and [RFC8204] gives
guidelines for benchmarking virtual switch which connects VNFs in
Open Platform for NFV(OPNFV).
Recently NFV infrastructure has evolved to include a lightweight
virtualized platform called the containerized infrastructure, where
VNFs share the same host Operating System(OS) and are logically
isolated by using a different namespace. While previous NFV
infrastructure uses a hypervisor to allocate resources for Virtual
Machine(VMs) and instantiate VNFs on it, the containerized
infrastructure virtualizes resources without a hypervisor, therefore
making containers very lightweight and more efficient in
infrastructure resource utilization compared to the VM-based NFV
infrastructure. When we consider benchmarking for VNFs in the
containerized infrastructure, it may have a different System Under
Test(SUT) and Device Under Test(DUT) configuration compared with both
black-box benchmarking and VM-based NFV infrastructure as described
in [RFC8172]. Accordingly, additional configuration parameters and
testing strategies may be required.
In the containerized infrastructure, a VNF network is implemented by
running both switch and router functions in the host system. For
example, the internal communication between VNFs in the same host
uses the L2 bridge function, while communication with external
node(s) uses the L3 router function. For container networking, the
host system may use a virtual switch(vSwitch), but other options
exist. In the [ETSI-TST-009], they describe differences in
networking structure between the VM-based and the containerized
infrastructure. Occasioned by these differences, deployment
scenarios for testing network performance described in [RFC8204] may
be partially applied to the containerized infrastructure, but other
scenarios may be required.
This draft is aimed to distinguish benchmarking of containerized
infrastructure from the previous benchmarking methodology of common
NFV infrastructure. Similar to [RFC8204], the networking principle
of containerized infrastructure is basically based on virtual switch
(vSwitch), but there are several options and acceleration
technologies. At the same time, it is important to uncover the
impact of resource isolation methods specified in a containerized
infrastructure on the benchmark performance. In addition, this draft
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
contains benchmark experiences with various combinations of resource
isolation methods and networking models that can be a reference to
set up and benchmark containerized infrastructure. Note that,
although the detailed configurations of both infrastructures differ,
the new benchmarks and metrics defined in [RFC8172] can be equally
applied in containerized infrastructure from a generic-NFV point of
view, and therefore defining additional metrics or methodologies is
out of scope.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document is to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. This
document uses the terminology described in [RFC8172], [RFC8204],
[ETSI-TST-009].
3. Containerized Infrastructure Overview
For the benchmarking of the containerized infrastructure, as
mentioned in [RFC8172], the basic approach is to reuse existing
benchmarking methods developed within the BMWG. Various network
function specifications defined in BMWG should still be applied to
containerized VNF(C-VNF)s for the performance comparison with
physical network functions and VM-based VNFs. A major distinction of
the containerized infrastructure from the VM-based infrastructure is
the absence of a hypervisor. Without hypervisor, all C- VNFs share
the same host resources including but not limited to computing,
storage, and networking resources, as well as the host Operating
System(OS), kernel, and libraries. These architectural differences
bring additional considerations of resource management impacts for
benchmarking.
In a common containerized infrastructure, thank the proliferation of
Kubernetes, the pod is defined as a basic unit for orchestration and
management that is able to host multiple containers. Based on that,
[ETSI-TST-009] defined two test scenario for container infrastructure
as follows.
o Container2Container: Communication between containers running in
the same pod. it can be done by shared volumes or Inter-process
communication (IPC).
o Pod2Pod: Communication between containers running in the different
pods.
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
As mentioned in [RFC8204], vSwitch is also an important aspect of the
containerized infrastructure. For Pod2Pod communication, every pod
has basically only one virtual Ethernet (vETH) interface. This
interface is connected to the vSwitch via vETH pair for each
container. Not only Pod2Pod but also Pod2External scenario that
communicates with an external node is also required. In this case,
vSwitch SHOULD support gateway and Network Address Translation (NAT)
functionalities.
Figure 1 shows briefly differences of network architectures based on
deployment models. Basically, on bare metal, C-VNFs can be deployed
as a cluster called POD by Kubernetes. Otherwise, each C-VNF can be
deployed separately using Docker. In the former case, there is only
one external network interface even a POD contains more than one
C-VNF. An additional deployment model considers a scenario in which
C-VNFs or PODs are running on VM. In our draft, we define new
terminologies; BMP which is Pod on bare metal, and VMP which is Pod
on VM.
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Baremetal Node |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ +-------------- + +-------------+ |
| | | | POD | | VM | | VM | |
| | | |+------------+| |+-------------+| | +-------+ | |
| | C-VNF(A) | || C-VNFs(B) || || C-VNFs(C) || | |PODs(D)| | |
| | | |+------------+| |+-----^-------+| | +---^---+ | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | +------+ | | +------+ | | +--v---+ | | +---v--+ | |
| +---| veth |---+ +---| veth |---+ +---|virtio|----+ +--|virtio|---+ |
| +--^---+ +---^--+ +--^---+ +---^--+ |
| | | | | |
| | | +--v---+ +---v--+ |
| +------|-----------------|------------|vhost |---------|vhost |---+ |
| | | | +--^---+ +---^--+ | |
| | | | | | | |
| | +--v---+ +---v--+ +--v---+ +---v--+ | |
| | +-| veth |---------| veth |---------| Tap |---------| Tap |-+ | |
| | | +--^---+ +---^--+ +--^---+ +---^--+ | | |
| | | | | vSwitch | | | | |
| | | +--|-----------------|---------------|-----------------|--+ | | |
| | +-| | | Bridge | | |-+ | |
| | +--|-----------------|---------------|-----------------|--+ | |
| | | +---------+ | +--|-----------------|---+ | |
| | | |Container| | | | Hypervisor | | | |
| | | | Engine | | | | | | | |
| | | +---------+ | +--|-----------------|---+ | |
| | | | Host Kernel | | | |
| +------|-----------------|---------------|-----------------|------+ |
| +--v-----------------v---------------v-----------------v--+ |
+-----| physical network |-----+
+---------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Examples of Networking Architecture based on Deployment
Models - (A)C-VNF on Baremetal (B)Pod on Baremetal(BMP) (C)C-VNF
on VM (D)Pod on VM(VMP)
In [ETSI-TST-009], they described data plane test scenarios in a
single host. In that document, there are two scenarios for
containerized infrastructure; Container2Container which is internal
communication between two containers in the same Pod, and the Pod2Pod
model which is communication between two containers running in
different Pods. According to our new terminologies, we can call the
Pod2Pod model the BMP2BMP scenario. When we consider container
running on VM as an additional deployment option, there can be more
single host test scenarios as follows;
o BMP2VMP scenario
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| HOST +-----------------------------+ |
| |VM +-------------------+ | |
| | | C-VNF | | |
| +--------------------+ | | +--------------+ | | |
| | C-VNF | | | | Logical Port | | | |
| | +--------------+ | | +-+--^-------^---+--+ | |
| | | Logical Port | | | +----|-------|---+ | |
| +-+--^-------^---+---+ | | Logical Port | | |
| | | +---+----^-------^---+--------+ |
| | | | | |
| +----v-------|----------------------------|-------v-------------+ |
| | l----------------------------l | |
| | Data Plane Networking | |
| | (Kernel or User space) | |
| +----^--------------------------------------------^-------------+ |
| | | |
| +----v------+ +----v------+ |
| | Phy Port | | Phy Port | |
| +-----------+ +-----------+
+-------^--------------------------------------------^----------------+
| |
+-------v--------------------------------------------v----------------+
| |
| Traffic Generator |
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Single Host Test Scenario - BMP2VMP
o VMP2VMP scenario
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| HOST |
| +-----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+ |
| |VM +-------------------+ | |VM +-------------------+ | |
| | | C-VNF | | | | C-VNF | | |
| | | +--------------+ | | | | +--------------+ | | |
| | | | Logical Port | | | | | | Logical Port | | | |
| | +-+--^-------^---+--+ | | +-+--^-------^---+--+ | |
| | +----|-------|---+ | | +----|-------|---+ | |
| | | Logical Port | | | | Logical Port | | |
| +---+----^-------^---+--------+ +---+----^-------^---+--------+ |
| | | | | |
| +--------v-------v------------------------|-------v-------------+ |
| | l------------------------l | |
| | Data Plane Networking | |
| | (Kernel or User space) | |
| +----^--------------------------------------------^-------------+ |
| | | |
| +----v------+ +----v------+ |
| | Phy Port | | Phy Port | |
| +-----------+ +-----------+ |
+-------^--------------------------------------------^----------------+
| |
+-------v--------------------------------------------v----------------+
| |
| Traffic Generator |
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Single Host Test Scenario - VMP2VMP
4. Networking Models in Containerized Infrastructure
Container networking services are provided as network plugins.
Basically, using them, network services are deployed by using an
isolation environment from container runtime through the host
namespace, creating a virtual interface, allocating interface and IP
address to C-VNF. Since the containerized infrastructure has
different network architecture depending on its using plugins, it is
necessary to specify the plugin used in the infrastructure.
Especially for Kubernetes infrastructure, several Container
Networking Interface (CNI) plugins are developed, which describes
network configuration files in JSON format, and plugins are
instantiated as new namespaces. When the CNI plugin is initiated, it
pushes forwarding rules and networking policies to the existing
vSwitch (i.e., Linux bridge, Open vSwitch), or creates its own switch
functions to provide networking service.
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
The container network model can be classified according to the
location of the vSwitch component. There are some CNI plugins which
provide networking without the vSwitch components, however, this
draft focuses to plugins using vSwitch components.
4.1. Kernel-space vSwitch Models
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| User Space |
| +-----------+ +-----------+ |
| | C-VNF | | C-VNF | |
| | +-------+ | | +-------+ | |
| +-| eth |-+ +-| eth |-+ |
| +---^---+ +---^---+ |
| | | |
| | +----------------------------------+ | |
| | | | | |
| | | Networking Controller / Agent | | |
| | | | | |
| | +-----------------^^---------------+ | |
----------|-----------------------||---------------------|----------
| +---v---+ || +---v---+ |
| +--| veth |-------------------vv-----------------| veth |--+ |
| | +-------+ vSwitch Component +-------+ | |
| | (OVS Kernel Datapath, Linux Bridge, ..) | |
| | | |
| +-------------------------------^----------------------------+ |
| | |
| Kernel Space +-----------v----------+ |
+----------------------| NIC |--------------------+
+----------------------+
Figure 4: Examples of Kernel-Space vSwitch Model
Figure 4 shows kernel-space vSwitch model. In this model, the
vSwitch component is running on kernel space so data packets should
be processed in-network stack of host kernel before transferring
packets to the C-VNF running in user-space. Not only pod2External
but also pod2pod traffic should be processed in the kernel space.
For dynamic networking configuration, the Forwarding policy can be
pushed by the controller/agent located in the user-space. In the
case of Open vSwitch (OVS) [OVS], the first packet of flow can be
sent to the user space agent (ovs-switchd) for forwarding decision.
Kernel-space vSwitch models are listed below;
o Docker Network[Docker-network], Flannel Network[Flannel],
Calico[Calico], OVS(OpenvSwitch)[OVS], OVN(Open Virtual Network)[OVN]
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
4.2. User-space vSwitch Models
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| User Space |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ |
| | C-VNF | | C-VNF | |
| | +-----------+ | +-----------------+ | +-----------+ | |
| | |virtio-user| | | Networking | | |virtio-user|-| |
| +-| / eth |-+ | Controller/Agent| +-| / eth |-+ |
| +-----^-----+ +-------^^--------+ +-----^-----+ |
| | || | |
| | || | |
| +-----v-----+ || +-----v-----+ |
| | vhost-user| || | vhost-user| |
| +--| / veth |--------------vv--------------| / veth |--+ |
| | +-----------+ +-----------+ | |
| | vSwtich | |
| | +--------------+ | |
| +----------------------| PMD Driver |----------------------+ |
| | | |
| +-------^------+ |
----------------------------------|---------------------------------
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Kernel Space +----------V-----------+ |
+----------------------| NIC |--------------------+
+----------------------+
Figure 5: Examples of User-Space vSwitch Model
Figure 5 shows user-space vSwitch model, in which data packets from
physical network port are bypassed kernel processing and delivered
directly to the vSwitch running on user-space. This model is
commonly considered as Data Plane Acceleration (DPA) technology since
it can be achieved high-rate packet processing than a kernel-space
network that has limited packet throughput. For bypassing kernel and
directly transferring the packet to vSwitch, Data Plane Development
Kit (DPDK) is essentially required. With DPDK, an additional driver
called Pull-Mode Driver (PMD) is created on vSwtich. PMD driver must
be created for each NIC separately. User-space vSwitch models are
listed below;
o ovs-dpdk[ovs-dpdk], vpp[vpp]
4.3. Smart-NIC Acceleration Model
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| User Space |
| +-----------------+ +-----------------+ |
| | C-VNF | | C-VNF | |
| | +-------------+ | | +-------------+ | |
| +-| vf driver |-+ +-| vf driver |-+ |
| +-----^-------+ +------^------+ |
| | | |
-------------|---------------------------------------|--------------
| +---------+ +---------+ |
| +------|-------------------|------+ |
| | +----v-----+ +-----v----+ | |
| | | virtual | | virtual | | |
| | | function | | function | | |
| Kernel Space | +----^-----+ NIC +-----^----+ | |
+---------------| | | |----------------+
| +----v-------------------v----+ |
| | Classify and Queue | |
| +-----------------------------+ |
+---------------------------------+
Figure 6: Examples of Smart-NIC Acceleration Model
Figure 6 shows Smart-NIC acceleration model, which does not use
vSwitch component. This model can be separated into two
technologies. One is Single-Root I/O Virtualization (SR-
IOV)[SR-IOV], which is an extension of PCIe specifications to enable
multiple partitions running simultaneously within a system to share
PCIe devices. In the NIC, there are virtual replicas of PCI
functions known as virtual functions (VF) and each of them is
directly connected to each container's network interfaces. Using SR-
IOV, data packets from external are bypassing both kernel and user
space and are directly forwarded to container's virtual network
interface.
Another smart-NIC acceleration is the extended Berkeley Packet Filter
(eBPF)[eBPF], which enables to run of sandboxed programs in the Linux
kernel without changing kernel source code or loading kernel module.
To accelerate data plane performance, it can attach eXpress Data Path
(XDP) to specific NIC to offload packet processing without host CPU
charge.
The Smart-NIC can use together with vSwitch network model to improve
network performance. In [userspace-cni], several combinations of
user-space vSwitch models with SR-IOV are supported. For eBPF with
DPDK, DPDK libraries to use eBPF can be found at [DPDK_eBPF].
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
5. Performance Impacts
5.1. CPU Isolation / NUMA Affinity
CPU pinning enables benefits such as maximizing cache utilization,
eliminating operating system thread scheduling overhead as well as
coordinating network I/O by guaranteeing resources. This technology
is very effective to avoid the "noisy neighbor" problem and it is
already proved in existing experience [Intel-EPA].
Using NUMA, performance will be increasing not CPU and memory but
also network since that network interface connected PCIe slot of
specific NUMA node have locality. Using NUMA requires a strong
understanding of VNF's memory requirements. If VNF uses more memory
than a single NUMA node contains, the overhead will be occurred due
to being spilled to another NUMA node. Network performance can be
changed depending on the location of the NUMA node whether it is the
same NUMA node where the physical network interface and CNF are
attached to. There is benchmarking experience for cross-NUMA
performance impacts [ViNePERF]. In that tests, they consist of
cross-NUMA performance with 3 scenarios depending on the location of
the traffic generator and traffic endpoint. As the results, it was
verified as below:
o A single NUMA Node serving multiple interfaces is worse than Cross-
NUMA Node performance degradation
o Worse performance with VNF sharing CPUs across NUMA
5.2. Hugepages
The huge page is that configuring a large page size of memory to
reduce Translation Lookaside Buffer(TLB) miss rate and increase the
application performance. This increases the performance of logical/
virtual to physical address lookups performed by a CPU's memory
management unit, and generally overall system performance. In the
containerized infrastructure, the container is isolated at the
application level and administrators can set huge pages more granular
level (e.g. Kubernetes allows to use of 512M bytes huge pages for
the container as default values). Moreover, this page is dedicated
to the application but another process so the application uses the
page more efficiently way. From a network benchmark point of view,
however, the impact on general packet processing can be relatively
negligible, and it may be necessary to consider the application level
to measure the impact together. In the case of using the DPDK
application, as reported in [Intel-EPA], it was verified to improve
network performance because packet handling processes are running in
the application together.
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
5.3. Additional Considerations
When we consider benchmarking for not only containerized but also VM-
based infrastructure and network functions, benchmarking scenarios
may contain various operational use cases. Traditional black-box
benchmarking is focused to measure the in-out performance of packets
from physical network ports since the hardware is tightly coupled
with its function and only a single function is running on its
dedicated hardware. However, in the NFV environment, the physical
network port commonly will be connected to multiple VNFs(i.e.
Multiple PVP test setup architectures were described in
[ETSI-TST-009]) rather than dedicated to a single VNF. Therefore,
benchmarking scenarios should reflect operational considerations such
as the number of VNFs or network services defined by a set of VNFs in
a single host. [service-density], which proposed a way for measuring
the performance of multiple NFV service instances at a varied service
density on a single host, is one example of these operational
benchmarking aspects.
Regarding the above draft, it can be classified into two types of
traffic for benchmark testing. One is North/South traffic and the
other is East/West traffic. North/South has an architecture that
receives data from other servers and routes them through VNF. On the
other hand, East/West traffic is a form of sending and receiving data
between containers deployed in the same server and can pass through
multiple containers. One example is Service Function Chaining.
Since network acceleration technology in a container environment has
different accelerated areas depending on the method provided,
performance differences may occur depending on traffic patterns.
6. Security Considerations
TBD
7. References
7.1. Informative References
[Calico] "Project Calico", July 2019,
<https://docs.projectcalico.org/>.
[Docker-network]
"Docker, Libnetwork design", July 2019,
<https://github.com/docker/libnetwork/>.
[DPDK_eBPF]
"DPDK-Berkeley Packet Filter Library", August 2021,
<https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/bpf_lib.html>.
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
[eBPF] "eBPF, extended Berkeley Packet Filter", July 2019,
<https://www.iovisor.org/technology/ebpf>.
[ETSI-TST-009]
"Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV) Release 3;
Testing; Specification of Networking Benchmarks and
Measurement Methods for NFVI", October 2018.
[Flannel] "flannel 0.10.0 Documentation", July 2019,
<https://coreos.com/flannel/>.
[Intel-EPA]
Intel, "Enhanced Platform Awareness in Kubernetes", 2018,
<https://builders.intel.com/docs/networkbuilders/enhanced-
platform-awareness-feature-brief.pdf>.
[OVN] "How to use Open Virtual Networking with Kubernetes", July
2019, <https://github.com/ovn-org/ovn-kubernetes>.
[OVS] "Open Virtual Switch", July 2019,
<https://www.openvswitch.org/>.
[ovs-dpdk] "Open vSwitch with DPDK", July 2019,
<http://docs.openvswitch.org/en/latest/intro/install/
dpdk/>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8172] Morton, A., "Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual
Network Functions and Their Infrastructure", RFC 8172,
July 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8172>.
[RFC8204] Tahhan, M., O'Mahony, B., and A. Morton, "Benchmarking
Virtual Switches in the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV)",
RFC 8204, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8204>.
[service-density]
Konstantynowicz, M. and P. Mikus, "NFV Service Density
Benchmarking", March 2019, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-mkonstan-nf-service-density-00>.
[SR-IOV] "SRIOV for Container-networking", July 2019,
<https://github.com/intel/sriov-cni>.
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
[userspace-cni]
"Userspace CNI Plugin", August 2021,
<https://github.com/intel/userspace-cni-network-plugin>.
[ViNePERF] Anuket Project, "Cross-NUMA performance measurements with
VSPERF", March 2019, <https://wiki.anuket.io/display/HOME/
Cross-NUMA+performance+measurements+with+VSPERF>.
[vpp] "VPP with Containers", July 2019, <https://fdio-
vpp.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usecases/containers.html>.
Appendix A. Appendix A: Benchmarking Experience(Contiv-VPP)
A.1. Benchmarking Environment
In this test, our purpose is that we test performance of user space
based model for container infrastructure and figure out relationship
between resource allocation and network performance. With respect to
this, we setup Contiv-VPP which is one of the user space based
network solution in container infrastructure and tested like below.
o Three physical server for benchmarking
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
+-------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| Node Name | Specification | Description |
+-------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| Conatiner Control |- Intel(R) Xeon(R) | Container Deployment |
| for Master | CPU E5-2690 | and Network Allocation |
| | (2Socket X 12Core) |- ubuntu 18.04 |
| |- MEM 128G |- Kubernetes Master |
| |- DISK 2T |- CNI Conterller |
| |- Control plane : 1G |.. Contive VPP Controller |
| | |.. Contive VPP Agent |
+-------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| Conatiner Service |- Intel(R) Xeon(R) | Container Service |
| for Worker | Gold 6148 |- ubuntu 18.04 |
| | (2socket X 20Core) |- Kubernetes Worker |
| |- MEM 128G |- CNI Agent |
| |- DISK 2T |.. Contive VPP Agent |
| |- Control plane : 1G | |
| |- Data plane : MLX 10G| |
| | (1NIC 2PORT) | |
+-------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| Packet Generator |- Intel(R) Xeon(R) | Packet Generator |
| | CPU E5-2690 |- CentOS 7 |
| | (2Socket X 12Core) |- installed Trex 2.4 |
| |- MEM 128G | |
| |- DISK 2T | |
| |- Control plane : 1G | |
| |- Data plane : MLX 10G| |
| | (1NIC 2PORT) | |
+-------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
Figure 7: Test Environment-Server Specification
o The architecture of benchmarking
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
+----+ +--------------------------------------------------------+
| | | Containerized Infrastructure Master Node |
| | | +-----------+ |
| <-------> 1G PORT 0 | |
| | | +-----------+ |
| | +--------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| | +--------------------------------------------------------+
| | | Containerized Infrastructure Worker Node |
| | | +---------------------------------+ |
| s | | +-----------+ | +------------+ +------------+ | |
| w <-------> 1G PORT 0 | | | 10G PORT 0 | | 10G PORT 1 | | |
| i | | +-----------+ | +------^-----+ +------^-----+ | |
| t | | +--------|----------------|-------+ |
| c | +-----------------------------|----------------|---------+
| h | | |
| | +-----------------------------|----------------|---------+
| | | Packet Generator Node | | |
| | | +--------|----------------|-------+ |
| | | +-----------+ | +------v-----+ +------v-----+ | |
| <-------> 1G PORT 0 | | | 10G PORT 0 | | 10G PORT 1 | | |
| | | +-----------+ | +------------+ +------------+ | |
| | | +---------------------------------+ |
| | | |
+----+ +--------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 8: Test Environment-Architecture
o Network model of Containerized Infrastructure(User space Model)
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
+---------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| NUMA 0 | NUMA 0 |
+---------------------------------------------|---------------------+
| Containerized Infrastructure Worker Node | |
| +---------------------------+ | +----------------+ |
| | POD1 | | | POD2 | |
| | +-------------+ | | | +-------+ | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | +--v---+ +---v--+ | | | +-v--+ +-v--+ | |
| | | eth1 | | eth2 | | | | |eth1| |eth2| | |
| | +--^---+ +---^--+ | | | +-^--+ +-^--+ | |
| +------|-------------|------+ | +---|-------|----+ |
| +--- | | | | |
| | +-------|---------------|------+ | |
| | | | +------|--------------+ |
| +----------|--------|-------|--------|----+ | |
| | v v v v | | |
| | +-tap10--tap11-+ +-tap20--tap21-+ | | |
| | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | | |
| | | | VRF1 | | | | VRF2 | | | | |
| | +--|--------|--+ +--|--------|--+ | | |
| | | +-----+ | +---+ | | |
| | +-tap01--|--|-------------|----|---+ | | |
| | | +------v--v-+ VRF0 +----v----v-+ | | | |
| | +-| 10G ETH0/0|------| 10G ETH0/1|-+ | | |
| | +---^-------+ +-------^---+ | | |
| | +---v-------+ +-------v---+ | | |
| +---| DPDP PMD0 |------| DPDP PMD1 |------+ | |
| +---^-------+ +-------^---+ | User Space |
+---------|----------------------|------------|---------------------+
| +-----|----------------------|-----+ | Kernal Space |
+---| +---V----+ +----v---+ |------|---------------------+
| | PORT 0 | 10G NIC | PORT 1 | | |
| +---^----+ +----^---+ |
+-----|----------------------|-----+
+-----|----------------------|-----+
+---| +---V----+ +----v---+ |----------------------------+
| | | PORT 0 | 10G NIC | PORT 1 | | Packet Generator (Trex) |
| | +--------+ +--------+ | |
| +----------------------------------+ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 9: Test Environment-Network Architecture
We setup a Contive-VPP network to benchmark the user space container
network model in the containerized infrastructure worker node. We
setup network interface at NUMA0, and we created different network
subnet VRF1, VRF2 to classify input and output data traffic,
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
respectively. And then, we assigned two interface which connected to
VRF1, VRF2 and, we setup routing table to route Trex packet from eth1
interface to eth2 interface in POD.
A.2. Trouble shooting and Result
In this environment, we confirmed that the routing table doesn't work
when we send packet using Trex packet generator. The reason is that
when kernel space based network configured, ip forwarding rule is
processed to kernel stack level while 'ip packet forwarding rule' is
processed only in vrf0, which is the default virtual routing and
forwarding (VRF0) in VPP. That is, above testing architecture makes
problem since vrf1 and vrf2 interface couldn't route packet.
According to above result, we assigned vrf0 and vrf1 to POD and, data
flow is like below.
+---------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| NUMA 0 | NUMA 0 |
+---------------------------------------------|---------------------+
| Containerized Infrastructure Worker Node | |
| +---------------------------+ | +----------------+ |
| | POD1 | | | POD2 | |
| | +-------------+ | | | +-------+ | |
| | +--v----+ +---v--+ | | | +-v--+ +-v--+ | |
| | | eth1 | | eth2 | | | | |eth1| |eth2| | |
| | +--^---+ +---^--+ | | | +-^--+ +-^--+ | |
| +------|-------------|------+ | +---|-------|----+ |
| +-------+ | | | | |
| | +-------------|---------------|------+ | |
| | | | +------|--------------+ |
| +-----|-------|-------------|--------|----+ | |
| | | | v v | | |
| | | | +-tap10--tap11-+ | | |
| | | | | ^ ^ | | | |
| | | | | | VRF1 | | | | |
| | | | +--|--------|--+ | | |
| | | | | +---+ | | |
| | +-*tap00--*tap01----------|----|---+ | | |
| | | +-V-------v-+ VRF0 +----v----v-+ | | | |
| | +-| 10G ETH0/0|------| 10G ETH0/1|-+ | | |
| | +-----^-----+ +------^----+ | | |
| | +-----v-----+ +------v----+ | | |
| +---|*DPDP PMD0 |------|*DPDP PMD1 |------+ | |
| +-----^-----+ +------^----+ | User Space |
+-----------|-------------------|-------------|---------------------+
v v
*- CPU pinning interface
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
Figure 10: Test Environment-Network Architecture(CPU Pinning)
We conducted benchmarking with three conditions. The test
environments are as follows. - Basic VPP switch - General kubernetes
(No CPU Pining) - Shared Mode / Exclusive mode. In the basic
Kubernetes environment, all PODs share a host's CPU. Shared mode is
that some POD share a pool of CPU assigned to a specific PODs.
Exclusive mode is that a specific POD dedicates a specific CPU to
use. In shared mode, we assigned two CPU for several POD, in
exclusive mode, we dedicated one CPU for one POD, independently. The
result is like Figure 11. First, the test was conducted to figure
out the line rate of the VPP switch, and the basic Kubernetes
performance. After that, we applied NUMA to network interface using
Shared Mode and Exclusive Mode in the same node and different node
respectively. In Exclusive and Shared mode tests, we confirmed that
Exclusive mode showed better performance than Shared mode when same
NUMA cpu assigned, respectively. However, we confirmed that
performance is reduced at the section between the vpp switch and the
POD, so that it affect to total result.
+--------------------+---------------------+-------------+
| Model | NUMA Mode (pinning)| Result(Gbps)|
+--------------------+---------------------+-------------+
| | N/A | 3.1 |
| Switch only |---------------------+-------------+
| | same NUMA | 9.8 |
+--------------------+---------------------+-------------+
| K8S Scheduler | N/A | 1.5 |
+--------------------+---------------------+-------------+
| | same NUMA | 4.7 |
| CMK-Exclusive Mode +---------------------+-------------+
| | Different NUMA | 3.1 |
+--------------------+---------------------+-------------+
| | same NUMA | 3.5 |
| CMK-shared Mode +---------------------+-------------+
| | Different NUMA | 2.3 |
+--------------------+---------------------+-------------+
Figure 11: Test Results
Appendix B. Appendix B: Benchmarking Experience(SR-IOV with DPDK)
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
B.1. Benchmarking Environment
In this test, our purpose is that we test performance of user space
based model for container infrastructure and figure out relationship
between resource allocation and network performance. With respect to
this, we setup SRIOV combining with DPDK to bypass the Kernel space
in container infrastructure and tested based on that.
o Three physical server for benchmarking
+-------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+
| Node Name | Specification | Description |
+-------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+
| Conatiner Control |- Intel(R) Core(TM) | Container Deployment |
| for Master | i5-6200U CPU | and Network Allocation |
| | (1socket x 4Core) |- ubuntu 18.04 |
| |- MEM 8G |- Kubernetes Master |
| |- DISK 500GB |- CNI Conterller |
| |- Control plane : 1G | MULTUS CNI |
| | | SRIOV plugin with DPDK|
+-------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+
| Conatiner Service |- Intel(R) Xeon(R) | Container Service |
| for Worker | E5-2620 v3 @ 2.4Ghz |- Centos 7.7 |
| | (1socket X 6Core) |- Kubernetes Worker |
| |- MEM 128G |- CNI Agent |
| |- DISK 2T | MULTUS CNI |
| |- Control plane : 1G | SRIOV plugin with DPDK|
| |- Data plane : XL710-qda2| |
| | (1NIC 2PORT- 40Gb) | |
+-------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+
| Packet Generator |- Intel(R) Xeon(R) | Packet Generator |
| | Gold 6148 @ 2.4Ghz |- CentOS 7.7 |
| | (2Socket X 20Core) |- installed Trex 2.4 |
| |- MEM 128G | |
| |- DISK 2T | |
| |- Control plane : 1G | |
| |- Data plane : XL710-qda2| |
| | (1NIC 2PORT- 40Gb) | |
+-------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+
Figure 12: Test Environment-Server Specification
o The architecture of benchmarking
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
+----+ +--------------------------------------------------------+
| | | Containerized Infrastructure Master Node |
| | | +-----------+ |
| <-------> 1G PORT 0 | |
| | | +-----------+ |
| | +--------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| | +--------------------------------------------------------+
| | | Containerized Infrastructure Worker Node |
| | | +---------------------------------+ |
| s | | +-----------+ | +------------+ +------------+ | |
| w <-------> 1G PORT 0 | | | 40G PORT 0 | | 40G PORT 1 | | |
| i | | +-----------+ | +------^-----+ +------^-----+ | |
| t | | +--------|----------------|-------+ |
| c | +-----------------------------|----------------|---------+
| h | | |
| | +-----------------------------|----------------|---------+
| | | Packet Generator Node | | |
| | | +--------|----------------|-------+ |
| | | +-----------+ | +------v-----+ +------v-----+ | |
| <-------> 1G PORT 0 | | | 40G PORT 0 | | 0G PORT 1 | | |
| | | +-----------+ | +------------+ +------------+ | |
| | | +---------------------------------+ |
| | | |
+----+ +--------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 13: Test Environment-Architecture
o Network model of Containerized Infrastructure(User space Model)
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
+---------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| CMK shared core | CMK exclusive core |
+---------------------------------------------|---------------------+
| Containerized Infrastructure Worker Node | |
| +---------------------------+ | +----------------+ |
| | POD1 | | | POD2 | |
| | (testpmd) | | | (testpmd) | |
| | +-------------+ | | | +-------+ | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | +--v---+ +---v--+ | | | +-v--+ +-v--+ | |
| | | eth1 | | eth2 | | | | |eth1| |eth2| | |
| | +--^---+ +---^--+ | | | +-^--+ +-^--+ | |
| +------|-------------|------+ | +---|-------|----+ |
| | | | | | |
| +------ +-+ | | | |
| | +----|-----------------|------+ | |
| | | | +--------|--------------+ |
| | | | | | User Space|
+---------|------------|----|--------|--------|---------------------+
| | | | | | |
| +--+ +------| | | | |
| | | | | | Kernal Space|
+------|--------|-----------|--------|--------+---------------------+
| +----|--------|-----------|--------|-----+ | |
| | +--v--+ +--v--+ +--v--+ +--v--+ | | NIC|
| | | VF0 | | VF1 | | VF2 | | VF3 | | | |
| | +--|---+ +|----+ +----|+ +-|---+ | | |
| +----|------|---------------|-----|------+ | |
+---| +v------v+ +-v-----v+ |------|---------------------+
| | PORT 0 | 40G NIC | PORT 1 | |
| +---^----+ +----^---+ |
+-----|----------------------|-----+
+-----|----------------------|-----+
+---| +---V----+ +----v---+ |----------------------------+
| | | PORT 0 | 40G NIC | PORT 1 | | Packet Generator (Trex) |
| | +--------+ +--------+ | |
| +----------------------------------+ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 14: Test Environment-Network Architecture
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
We setup a Multus CNI, SRIOV CNI with DPDK to benchmark the user
space container network model in the containerized infrastructure
worker node. The Multus CNI support to create multiple interfaces
for a container. The traffic is bypassed the Kernel space by SRIOV
with DPDK. We established two modes of CMK: shared core and
exclusive core. We created VFs for each network interface of a
container. Then, we setup TREX to route packet from eth1 to eth2 in
a POD.
B.2. Trouble shooting and Result(SR-IoV-DPDK)
TBD
Authors' Addresses
Kyoungjae Sun
Soongsil University
369, Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu
Seoul
06978
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 10 3643 5627
Email: gomjae@dcn.ssu.ac.kr
Hyunsik Yang
KT
KT Research Center 151
Taebong-ro, Seocho-gu
Seoul
06763
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 10 9005 7439
Email: yangun@dcn.ssu.ac.kr
Jangwon Lee
Soongsil University
369, Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu
Seoul
06978
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 10 7448 4664
Email: jangwon.lee@dcn.ssu.ac.kr
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra August 2021
Tran Minh Ngoc
Soongsil University
369, Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu
Seoul
06978
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 2 820 0841
Email: mipearlska1307@dcn.ssu.ac.kr
Younghan Kim
Soongsil University
369, Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu
Seoul
06978
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 10 2691 0904
Email: younghak@ssu.ac.kr
Sun, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 25]