Benchmarking Methodology Working Group V. Manral
Internet-Draft P. Sharma
Intended status: Informational S. Banerjee
Expires: September 13, 2013 HP
Y. Ping
H3C
March 12, 2013
Benchmarking Power usage of networking devices
draft-manral-bmwg-power-usage-04
Abstract
With the rapid growth of networks around the globe there is an ever
increasing need to improve the energy efficiency of network devices.
Operators are begining to seek more information of power consumption
in the network, have no standard mechanism to measure, report and
compare power usage of different networking equipment under different
network configuration and conditions.
This document provides suggestions for measuring power usage of live
networks under different traffic loads and various switch router
configuration settings. It provides a benchmarking suite which can
be employed for any networking device .
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 http://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 September 13, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Manral, et al. Expires September 13, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Power Benchmarking for Networking March 2013
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Challenges in defining benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Factors impacting power consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Network Factors affecting power consumption . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Device Factors affecting power consumption . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Traffic Factors affecting power consumption . . . . . . . 7
4. Network Energy Consumption Rate (NECR) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Network Energy Proportionality Index (NEPI) . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Benchmark Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Benchmark Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Manral, et al. Expires September 13, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Power Benchmarking for Networking March 2013
1. Introduction
Energy Efficiency is becoming increasingly important in the operation
of network infrastructure. Data traffic is exploding at an
accelerated rate. Networks provide communication channels that
facilitate components of the infrastructue to exchange critical
information and are always on. On the other hand, a lot of devices
run at very low average utlization rates. Various strategies are
being defined to improve network utilization of these devices and
thus improve power consumption.
The first step to obtain a network wide view of energy consumption is
to start with an individual device view and address different devices
in the network on a per device basis. The easiest way to measure the
power consumption of a device is to use a power meter. This can be
used to measure power under a variety of configurations and
conditions affecting power usage on a networking device.
Various techniques have been defined for energy management of
networking devices. However, there is no common mechanism to
actually benchmark power utilization of networking devices like
routers or switches. This document defines the mechanism to
correctly characterize and benchmark the power consumption of various
networking devices so as to be able to correctly estimate and compare
the power usage of various devices. This will enable intelligent
decisions to optimize the power consumption for individual devices
and the network as a whole. Benchmarks are also required to compare
effectiveness of various energy optimization techniques.
The Network Energy Consumption Rate (NECR) as well as Network Energy
Proportionality Index (NEPI) of network devices are also defined
here.
The procedures/ metrics defined in this document have been used to
perform live measurement with a variety of networking equipment from
three large well known vendors.
Manral, et al. Expires September 13, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Power Benchmarking for Networking March 2013
2. Challenges in defining benchmarks
Using the "Maximum Rated Power" and spec sheets of devices and adding
the values for all devices are of little use because this value
provides the maximum power that can consumed by the device, however
that does not accurately reflect the actual power consumed by the
device under a normal work load. Typical energy requirements of a
networking device are dependent on device configuration and traffic.
The ratio of the actual power consumed by the device on an average,
to its maximum rated power varies widely across different device
families, configurations and traffic conditions. Thus, relying
merely on the maximum rated power can grossly overestimate the total
energy consumed by networking equipment.
There are a wide variety of networking equipment and finding a
general benchmark to work across a variety of devices, requires a lot
of flexibility in benchmarking methodology. The benchmarking
workload and test conditions will also depend on the kind of device.
However, it is important to formualte a consistent framework to
enable benchmarking across devices for comparison.
A network device consists of a lot of individual component, each of
which consume power. For example, only considering the power
consumption of the CPU/ data forwarding ASIC we may ignore the power
consumption of the other components like external memory, fan etc..
Power instrumentation of a device in a live network involves
unplugging the device and plugging it into a power meter. This can
inturn lead to traffic loss. Unfortunately, most current equipment
is not equipped with internal instrumentation to report power usage
of the device or its components. It is for this reason the power
measurement is done on an individual device under varied network
conditions using a traffic generator.
The network devices can also dissipate significant heat. Past
studies have shown dissipation ratios of 2.5. Which means if the
power in is 2.5 Watt, only 1 Watt is used for actual work, the rest
is disspated as heat. This heating can lead to more power consumed
by fan/ compressor for cooling the devices. Though this methodology
does not measure the power consumed by external cooling
infrastructure, it measures the power consumed internally. The
internal power consumption is the power drawn by the device as
measured by the power-meter. It also (optionally) measures the
temperature change of the device which can be correlated to the
amount of external power consumed to cool the device.
The amount of power used at startup can be more than the average
Manral, et al. Expires September 13, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Power Benchmarking for Networking March 2013
power usage of the device. This is also measured as part of the test
methodology.
Manral, et al. Expires September 13, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Power Benchmarking for Networking March 2013
3. Factors impacting power consumption
The metrics defined here will help operators get a more accurate idea
of power consumed by network equipment and hence forecast their power
budget. These will also help device vendors test and compare the new
power efficiency enhancements on various devices.
3.1. Network Factors affecting power consumption
The first and the most important factor from the network perspective
which can impact the power consumption is the offered traffic load.
Power measurements must be performed with different offered traffic
loads to the network device.
There are now various kinds of transcivers/ connectors on a network
device. For the same bandwidth the power usage of a device depends
on the kind of connector used. The connector/ interface type used
needs to be specified in the benchmark.
The length of the cable used also defines the amount of power
consumed by the system. Benchmarks should specify the cable length
used. For example, a 5 meter cable can be used wherever possible.
3.2. Device Factors affecting power consumption
Base Chassis Power - typically, higher end network devices come with
a chassis and linecard slots. Each slot may have a number of ports.
For the lower end devices there are no removable card slots. In both
these cases the base chassis power consists of processors, fans,
memory, etc.
Number and type of line cards - In switches that support inserting
linecards, there is a limit on the number of ports per linecard as
well as the aggregate bandwidth that each linecard can accommodate.
This mechanism allows network operators the flexibility to only plug
in as many linecards as they need. For each benchmark the total
number of line cards and their types plugged into the system needs to
be varied and specified.
Number of enabled ports - This term refers to the total number of
ports on the switch (across all the linecards) that are
administratively enabled. When a port is enabled, the network device
turns on the SerDes and additional electronic circuits required to
activate the port. The remaining ports on the switch are explicitly
disabled using the switch's command line interface. For each
benchmark the number of enabled and disabled ports must be specified.
Number of active ports - This term refers to the total number of
Manral, et al. Expires September 13, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Power Benchmarking for Networking March 2013
ports on the switch (across all the linecards) that are active (with
cables plugged in). The remaining ports on the switch are explicitly
disabled using the switchs command line interface. For each
benchmark the number of active and inactive ports must be specified.
Port settings - Setting this parameter limits the line rate
forwarding capacity of individual ports. For instance same port
maybe configured to 1Gbps, 100Mbps or 10Mbps capacity. For each
benchmark the port configuration and settings need to be specified.
Port Utilization - This term describes the actual traffic flowing
through a port relative to its specified capacity. For each
benchmark the port utilization of each port must be specified. The
actual traffic can use the information defined in RFC 2544 [RFC2544].
TCAM - Network vendors typically implement packet classification in
hardware. TCAMs are supported by most vendors as they have very fast
look-up times. However, they are are notoriously power-hungry. The
size of the TCAM in a switch is widely variable. The size of the
TCAM needs to be reported in the benchmark document. The number of
used TCAM entries might not significantly affect power consumption.
Firmware - Vendors periodically release upgraded versions of their
switch/router firmware. Different versions of firmware may also
impact the device power consumption. The firmware version needs to
be reported in the benchmark document. Different firmware versions
have resulted in different power usage.
3.3. Traffic Factors affecting power consumption
Packet Size - Different packet sizes typically do not effect power
consumption.
Inter-Packet Delay - time between successive packets may affect power
usage but we do not measure the effects in detail.
CPU traffic - Percentage of CPU traffic. For our benchmarks we can
assume different values of CPU bound traffic. The different
percentage of CPU bound traffic must be specified in the benchmark.
Manral, et al. Expires September 13, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Power Benchmarking for Networking March 2013
4. Network Energy Consumption Rate (NECR)
To optimize the run time energy usage for different devices, the
additional energy consumption that will result as a factor of
additional traffic needs to be known. The NECR defines the power
usage increase in MilliWatts per Mbps of data at the physical layer.
The NECR will depend on the line card, the port and the other factors
defined earlier.
For the effective use of the NECR the base power of the chassis, a
line card and a port needs to be specified when there is no load.
The measurements must take into consideration power optimization
techniques when there is no traffic on any port of a line card.
Manral, et al. Expires September 13, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Power Benchmarking for Networking March 2013
5. Network Energy Proportionality Index (NEPI)
In the ideal case the power consumed by a device is proportional to
its offered network load. The average difference between the
ideal(I) and the measured (M) power consumption defines the EPI.
The ideal power is measured by assuming the power consumed by a
device at 100% traffic load and using that to derive the ideal power
usage for different traffic loads.
EPIx = (Mx - Ix)/ Mx * 100
EPI = EPI1 + EPI2 + ....... EPIn / n
The EPI is independent of the actualy traffic load. It can thus be
used to define the energy efficiency of a networking device. A value
of 0 means the power usage is agnostic to traffic and a value of 100
means that the device has perfect energy proportionality.
Similarly NEPI can be computed for other configurations and varying
conditions. For instance, variating in network power consumption as
increasing number of ports on the network switch are acitivated.
Manral, et al. Expires September 13, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Power Benchmarking for Networking March 2013
6. Benchmark Details
All power measurements are done in MilliWatts, except NECR which is
done in MilliWatts/ Mbps.
Manral, et al. Expires September 13, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Power Benchmarking for Networking March 2013
7. Benchmark Extensions
The benchmark framework must to extensible to incorporate future
changes in network device architectures. For instances there is a
new push towards adaptive management of device components such as
fanspeed management etc. Similarly, the benchmark should be
extensible to include environmental factors such as operational
temperature etc.
Manral, et al. Expires September 13, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Power Benchmarking for Networking March 2013
8. Security Considerations
This document raises no new security issues.
Manral, et al. Expires September 13, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Power Benchmarking for Networking March 2013
9. IANA Considerations
No actions are required from IANA for this informational document.
Manral, et al. Expires September 13, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Power Benchmarking for Networking March 2013
10. Acknowledgements
This document derives a lot of its text and content from "A Power
Benchmarking Framework for Network Devices" paper and the authors of
that are duly acknowledged.
The authors would like to thank Srini Seetharaman -
srini.seetharaman@telekom.com and Priya Mahadevan
priya.mahadevan@hp.com for their support with the draft. The authors
would like to thank Al Morton - ATT and Robert Peglar- XioTech for
his careful reading and suggestions on the draft.
Manral, et al. Expires September 13, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Power Benchmarking for Networking March 2013
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC2554] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Methodology for Network
Interconnect Devices", March 1999.
Manral, et al. Expires September 13, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Power Benchmarking for Networking March 2013
Authors' Addresses
Vishwas Manral
Hewlett-Packard Co.
3000 Hanover St.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
USA
Email: vishwas.manral@hp.com
Puneet Sharma
Hewlett-Packard Co.
3000 Hanover St.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
USA
Email: puneet.sharma@hp.com
Sujata Banerjee
Hewlett-Packard Co.
3000 Hanover St.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
USA
Email: sujata.banerjee@hp.com
Yang Ping
H3C.
TBD.
Bejing, CO 12345
China
Email: yangpin@h3c.com
Manral, et al. Expires September 13, 2013 [Page 16]