[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00                                                            
Network Working Group                                         Vic Liu
Internet Draft                                              Dapeng Liu
Intended status: Informational                            China Mobile
                                                        Bob Mandeville
                                                              Iometrix
                                                        Brooks Hickman
                                                Spirent Communications
                                                          Guang Zhang
                                                                 IXIA
Expires: January 2015                                    July 4, 2014

      Benchmarking Methodology for Virtualization Network Performance
             draft-liu-bmwg-virtual-network-benchmark-00.txt
Status of this Memo
   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
   and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be
   published except as an Internet-Draft.
   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
   and derivative works of it may not be created, except to publish it
   as an RFC and to translate it into languages other than English.
   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.
   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that

<Lastname>              Expires January4,2015                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft  virtual network performance Benchmark        July 2014
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.
   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."
   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed
   at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed
   at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
   This Internet-Draft will expire on January4,2009.
Copyright Notice
   Copyright (c) 2014 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
   (http://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.
   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://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.
Abstract
   As the virtual network have been wide establish in IDC. The
   performance of virtual network has become a consideration to the IDC
   managers. This draft introduce a benchmarking methodology for
   virtualization network performance.
Table of Contents
   1. Introduction ................................................ 3
Vic Liu                 Expires January4,2015                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft  virtual network performance Benchmark        July 2014
   2. Peculiar issues ............................................. 3
   3. Key Performance Index........................................ 6
   4. Test Setup .................................................. 6
   5. Proposed Benchmark Tests..................................... 9
      5.1. Throughput ............................................. 9
      5.2. CPU consumption........................................ 10
      5.3. Memory consumption..................................... 12
      5.4. Latency ............................................... 13
   6. Formal Syntax .............................................. 14
   7. Security Considerations..................................... 15
   8. IANA Considerations ........................................ 15
   9. Conclusions ................................................ 15
   10. References ................................................ 15
      10.1. Normative References.................................. 15
      10.2. Informative References................................ 15
   11. Acknowledgments ........................................... 15
1. Introduction
   As the virtual network have been wide establish in IDC. The
   performance of virtual network has become a consideration to the IDC
   managers. This draft introduce a benchmarking methodology for
   virtualization network performance.
2. Peculiar issues
   In a conventional test setup with real test ports, it is quite
   legitimate to assume test ports provide the golden standard and in
   measuring the performance metrics. If and when test results are sub
   optimal, it is automatically assumed it's the Device-Under-Test
Vic Liu                 Expires January4,2015                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft  virtual network performance Benchmark        July 2014
   (DUT) that is at fault. For example, when testing the max no-drop
   throughput at a given frame size, if the test result shows less than
   100% throughput, we can safely conclude that it's the DUT that can't
   deliver line rate forwarding at that frame size(s). We never doubt
   that tester will be an issue.
   In a virtual test environment where both the DUT as well as the test
   tool itself are VM based, it's quite a different story. Just like
   the DUT, tester in VM shape will have its own performance peak under
   various conditions. Even worse, conditions are multitude and in many
   forms.
   Tester's calibration without DUT is essential in benchmarking
   testing in a virtual environment. Furthermore, to reduce the
   enormous combination of various conditions, tester must be
   calibrated with the exact same combination and parameter set the
   user wants to measure against a real DUT. A slight variation of
   conditions and parameter value will cause inaccurate measurements of
   the DUT.
   While the exact combination and parameter set are hard to list,
   below table attempts to give a most common example how to calibrate
   a tester before testing a real DUT under the same condition.

   Sample calibration permutation
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   | Hypervisor | VM VNIC |   VM Memory   |  Packet  |   No Drop  |
   |    Type    |  Speed  |CPU Allocation |   Size   |  Throughput|
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   |   ESXi       1G/10G  512M/1Core      |  64      |            |
   |                                      |   128    |            |
   |                                      |   256    |            |
   |                                      |   512    |            |
   |                                      |  1024    |            |
Vic Liu                 Expires January4,2015                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft  virtual network performance Benchmark        July 2014
   |                                      |  1518    |            |
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   Key points are as following:
   a)The hypervisor type is of ultimate importance to the test results.
      Tester VM must be installed on the same hypervisor type as the
      real DUT. When feasible, tester VM software should be installed on
      a separate, but identical type of, hypervisor.
   b)The VNIC speed will have impact on test results. Tester must
      calibrate against all VNIC speeds to be tested against a real DUT.
   c)VM allocation of CPU resources and memory will affect test results
   d)Packet sizes will affect test results dramatically due to the
      nature of virtual machine
   e)Other possible extensions of above table: The number of VMs to be
      created, latency and/or jitter readings, one VNIC per VM vs.
      multiple VM sharing one VNIC, and uni-directional traffic vs. bi-
      directional traffic.

   It's important to have a test environment for tester's calibration
   as close as possible to when a real DUT will be involved for the
   benchmark test. Above test setup illustrate below key points:
   1.One or more tester's VM need to be created for both traffic
      generation and analysis
   2.vSwitch is need to accommodate performance penalty due to extra VM
      addition
   3.VNIC and its type is needed in the test setup to once again
      accommodate any performance penalty when real DUT VM is created
   4.ToR switch is needed to accommodate delays introduced by the
      external device
   In summary, calibration should be done in such an environment that
   other than the DUT VM, all possible factors that may negatively
   impact test results should be accommodated.



Vic Liu                 Expires January4,2015                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft  virtual network performance Benchmark        July 2014
3. Key Performance Index
   We listed numbers of key performance index for virtual network as
   follows:
   a) No drop throughput under various frame sizes: Forwarding
      performance under various frame sizes is a key performance index
      of interest. Once this performance number is obtained, vendors can
      always allocate more CPU and memory for mission critical
      applications where line rate performance is expected.
   b) DUT consumption of CPU and memory: when adding one or more VM.
      With addition of each VM, DUT will consume more CPU and memory.
   c) Latency readings: Some applications are highly sensitive on
      latency.It's important to get the latency reading with
      respective to various conditions.
   VxLAN performance can be looked at from two perspectives. First,
   addition of VxLAN on an existing VM will consume extra CPU resources
   and memory. This can be easily included in the benchmark table.
   Tester VM are strictly traffic generator and analyzer. No
   calibration is needed when adding VxLAN to DUT VM.
   Once basic performance metric is obtained with respective to single
   VxLAN, we need to look at performance metrics with many VM and
   VxLAN. The idea is verify how many VM/VxLAN can be created and what
   their forwarding performance (no drop throughput), latency, and
   CPU/memory consumptions are.

4. Test Setup
   The test bed is constituted by two physical server with 10GE NIC, a
   test center, a 10GE TOR switch for test traffic and a 1GE TOR switch
   for management.


Vic Liu                 Expires January4,2015                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft  virtual network performance Benchmark        July 2014

                      ----------------------
                     |Test Center PHY 10GE*2|
                      ----------------------
                               ||
                               ||
                           ----------
                    =====| 10GE TOR |=======
                   ||     ----------       ||
                   ||                      ||
                   ||                      ||
          -------------------      -------------------
         |   --------------  |    |   --------------  |
         |  |V-switch(VTEP)| |    |  |V-switch(VTEP)| |
         |   --------------  |    |   --------------  |
         |      |       |    |    |      |       |    |
         |   -----     ----- |    |   -----     ----- |
         |  |TCVM1|   |TCVM2||    |  |TCVM1|   |TCVM2||
         |   -----     ----- |    |   -----     ----- |
          -------------------      -------------------
              Server1                   Server2








Vic Liu                 Expires January4,2015                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft  virtual network performance Benchmark        July 2014
   Two Dell server are R710XD (CPU: E5-2460) and R710 (CPU: E5-2430)
   with a pair of 10GE NIC. And in the server we allocate 2 vCPU and 8G
   memory to each Test Center Virtual Machine (TCVM).
   In traffic model A: We use a physical test center connect to each
   server to verify the benchmark of each server.
                         ----------------------
                        |Test Center PHY 10GE*2|
                         ----------------------
                                   ||
                                   ||
                           -------------------
                          |   --------------  |
                          |  |V-switch(VTEP)| |
                          |   --------------  |
                          |      |       |    |
                          |   -----     ----- |
                          |  |TCVM1|   |TCVM2||
                          |   -----     ----- |
                           -------------------
                               Server1
   In traffic model B: We use the benchmark to test the performance of
   VxLAN.
                        ----------
                    =====| 10GE TOR |=======
                   ||     ----------       ||
                   ||                      ||
                   ||                      ||
          -------------------      -------------------
         |   --------------  |    |   --------------  |
         |  |V-switch(VTEP)| |    |  |V-switch(VTEP)| |
         |   --------------  |    |   --------------  |
         |      |       |    |    |      |       |    |
         |   -----     ----- |    |   -----     ----- |
         |  |TCVM1|   |TCVM2||    |  |TCVM1|   |TCVM2||
         |   -----     ----- |    |   -----     ----- |
          -------------------      -------------------
              Server1                   Server2


Vic Liu                 Expires January4,2015                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft  virtual network performance Benchmark        July 2014


5. Proposed Benchmark Tests
    5.1. Throughput
   Unlike the traditional test cases which the DUT and the tester are
   separated, it has brought unparalleled challenges to virtual network
   test. In that case, the tester and the DUT (visual switches) are in
   one server (physically converged), so the CPU and MEM share the same
   resources. Theoretically, the tester's operation may has some
   influences on the DUT's performances. However, for the specialty of
   virtualization, this method is the only way to assess the truth of
   assessment method.
   Under the background of existing technology, when we mean to test
   the virtual switch's throughput, the concept of traditional physical
   switch will not be applicable. The traditional throughput indicates
   the switches' largest transmit capability, for certain selected
   bytes and selected cycle under zero-packet-lose conditions. But in
   virtual environment, the fluctuant of performance on virtual network
   will be much greater than dedicated physical devices. In the same
   time, because the DUT and the tester cannot be separated, which only
   proved the DUT realize same network performances under certain
   circumstances, it also means the DUT may achieve higher capability.
   Therefore, we change the throughout in virtual environment to actual
   throughput, hoping in future, as the improvement of technique, the
   actual throughput will approach the theoretical throughput
   gradually.
   Of course, under actual condition, this throughout have certain
   referential meanings. In most cases, common throughput application
   cannot compare with professional tester, so for virtual application
   and data center's deployment, the actual throughout already have
   great refinance value.
5.1.1. Objectives
   Under the condition of certain hardware configuration, test the
   DUT(virtual switch) can support maximum throughput.
5.1.2. Configuration parameters
   Network parameters should be define as follows:
Vic Liu                 Expires January4,2015                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft  virtual network performance Benchmark        July 2014
   a) the number of virtual tester (VMs)
   b) the number of vNIC of virtual tester
   c) the CPU type of the server
   d) vCPU allocated for virtual tester (VMs)
   e) memory allocated for virtual tester (VMs)
   f) the number and rate of server NIC
5.1.3. The test parameters
   a) test repeated times
   b) test packet length
5.1.4. Testing process
   1. Configure the virtual tester to output traffic through V-Switch.
   2. Increase the number of vCPU in the tester until the traffic has no
      packet loss.
   3. Record the max throughput on VSwitch
   4. Change the packet length and repeat step1 and record test results.
5.1.5. Test results formats
                         ----------------------
                         | Byte| Throughput (GE)|
                         ----------------------
                         |  0  |       0       |
                         ----------------------
                         | 128 |     0.46      |
                         ----------------------
                         | 256 |     0.84      |
                         ----------------------
                         | 512 |     1.56      |
                         ----------------------
                         | 1024|     2.88      |
                         ----------------------
                         | 1518|     4.00      |
                         ----------------------

    5.2. CPU consumption
   The operation of DUT (VSwitch) can increase the CPU load of host
   server. Different V-Switches have different CPU occupation. This can

Vic Liu                 Expires January4,2015                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft  virtual network performance Benchmark        July 2014
   be an important indicator in benchmark the Virtual network
   performance.
5.2.1. Objectives
   The objectives of this test is verified the CPU consumption caused
   by the DUT (VSwitch).
5.2.2. Configuration parameters
   Network parameters should be define as follows:
   a)The number of virtual tester (VMs)
   b)The number of vNIC of virtual tester
   c)The CPU type of the server
   d)vCPU allocated for virtual tester (VMs)
   e)Memory allocated for virtual tester (VMs)
   f)The number and rate of server NIC
5.2.3. The test parameters:
   a)test repeated times
   b)test packet length
5.2.4. Testing process
   1.Record CPU load value of server according to the steps of 5.1.3.
   2.Under the same throughput, Shut down or bypass the DUT (VSwitch)
      record the CPU load value of server.
   3.Calculate the increase of the CPU load value due to establish the
      DUT (VSwitch).

5.2.5. Test results formats
          ---------------------------------------------------
          | Byte| Throughput(GE)| Server CPU MHZ | VM CPU  |
          ---------------------------------------------------
          |  0  |       0       |       515       |   3042   |
          ---------------------------------------------------
          | 128 |     0.46      |      6395       |   3040   |
          ---------------------------------------------------
          | 256 |     0.84      |      6517       |   3042   |
          ---------------------------------------------------
Vic Liu                 Expires January4,2015                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft  virtual network performance Benchmark        July 2014
          | 512 |     1.56      |      6668       |   3041   |
          ---------------------------------------------------
          | 1024|     2.88      |      6280       |   3043   |
          ---------------------------------------------------
          | 1450|     4.00      |      6233       |   3045   |
          ---------------------------------------------------

    5.3. Memory consumption
   The operation of DUT (VSwitch) can increase the CPU load of host
   server. Different V-Switches have different memory occupation. This
   can be an important indicator in benchmark the Virtual network
   performance.
5.3.1. Objectives
The objective of this test is to verify the memory consumption by the
  DUT (VSwitch) on the Host server.
5.3.2. Configuration parameters
   Network parameters should be define as follows:
   a) The number of virtual tester (VMs)
   b) The number of vNIC of virtual tester
   c) The CPU type of the server
   d) vCPU allocated for virtual tester (VMs)
   e) Memory allocated for virtual tester (VMs)
   f) The number and rate of server NIC

5.3.3. The test parameters:
   a) test repeated times
   b) test packet length
5.3.4. Testing process
   1. Record memory consumption value of server according to the steps
      of 5.1.3.
   2. Under the same throughput, Shut down or bypass the DUT (VSwitch)
      record the memory consumption value of server.

Vic Liu                 Expires January4,2015                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft  virtual network performance Benchmark        July 2014
   3. Calculate the increase of the memory consumption value due to
      establish the DUT (VSwitch).
5.3.5. Test results formats
          -------------------------------------------------
          | Byte| Throughput(GE)|  Host Memory | VM Memory | |
          -------------------------------------------------
          |  0  |       0       |      3042    |    696    |
          -------------------------------------------------
          | 128 |     0.46      |      3040    |    696    |
          -------------------------------------------------
          | 256 |     0.84      |      3042    |    696    |
          -------------------------------------------------
          | 512 |     1.56      |      3041    |    696    |
          -------------------------------------------------
          | 1024|     2.88      |      3043    |    696    |
          -------------------------------------------------
          | 1450|     4.00      |      3045    |    696    |
          -------------------------------------------------

    5.4. Latency
   Physical tester's time reference from its own clock or other time
   source, such as GPS, which can achieve the accuracy of 10ns. In
   virtual network circumstances, the virtual tester gets its reference
   time from Linux systems. But the clock on Linux of different server
   or VM can't synchronized accuracy due to current method. Although VM
   of some higher versions of CentOS or Fedora can achieve the accuracy
   of 1ms, if the network can provide better NTP connections, the
   result will be better.
   In the future, we may consider some other ways to have a better
   synchronization of the time to improve the accuracy of the test.
     5.4.1. Objectives
  The objective of this test is to verify the DUT (VSwitch) for latency
  of the flow. This can be an important indicator in benchmark the
  Virtual network performance.
    5.4.2. Configuration parameters
   Network parameters should be define as follows:
Vic Liu                 Expires January4,2015                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft  virtual network performance Benchmark        July 2014
   a) The number of virtual tester (VMs)
   b) The number of vNIC of virtual tester
   c) The CPU type of the server
   d) vCPU allocated for virtual tester (VMs)
   e) Memory allocated for virtual tester (VMs)
   f) The number and rate of server NIC

5.4.3. The test parameters:
   a) test repeated times
   b) test packet length
5.4.4. Testing process
   1. Record latency value of server according to the steps of 5.1.3.
   2. Under the same throughput, Shut down or bypass the DUT (VSwitch)
      record the latency value of server.
   3. Calculate the increase of the latency value due to establish the
      DUT (VSwitch).
5.4.5. Test results formats
   TBD.


6. Formal Syntax

   The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur
   Form (BNF) as described in RFC-2234[RFC2234].



Vic Liu                 Expires January4,2015                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft  virtual network performance Benchmark        July 2014
7. Security Considerations
8. IANA Considerations
9. Conclusions
10. References

    10.1. Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
         Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
   [2]  Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for
         Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail
         Consortium and Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997.
   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
   [RFC2234] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for
             Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail
             Consortium and Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997.
    10.2. Informative References

   [3]  Faber, T., Touch, J. and W. Yue, "The TIME-WAIT state in TCP
         and Its Effect on Busy Servers", Proc. Infocom 1999 pp. 1573-
         1583.
   [Fab1999] Faber, T., Touch, J. and W. Yue, "The TIME-WAIT state in
             TCP and Its Effect on Busy Servers", Proc. Infocom 1999
             pp. 1573-1583.
11. Acknowledgments
   Thanks for Paul To, alick luo of sprient communication and
   Jianjun Lu of VMware Beijing Office supporting this draft.
   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.

Vic Liu                 Expires January4,2015                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft  virtual network performance Benchmark        July 2014
Authors' Addresses
   Vic Liu
   China Mobile
   32 Xuanwumen West Ave, Beijing, China
   Email: liuzhiheng@chinamobile.com
   Dapeng Liu
   China Mobile
   32 Xuanwumen West Ave, Beijing, China
   Email: liudapeng@chinamobile.com
   Bob Mandeville
   Iometrix
   3600 Fillmore Street
   Suite 409
   San Francisco, CA 94123
   USA
   bob@iometrix.com
   Brooks Hickman
   Spirent Communications
   1325 Borregas Ave
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089
   USA
   Brooks.Hickman@spirent.com
   Guang Zhang
   IXIA
   Email: GZhang@ixiacom.com





Vic Liu                 Expires January4,2015                [Page 16]