+Irene Liew from Intel
On 11/15/2016 02:06 PM, Maciek Konstantynowicz (mkonstan) wrote:
On 11 Nov 2016, at 13:58, Thomas F Herbert <therb...@redhat.com
<mailto:therb...@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 11/09/2016 07:39 AM, Maciek Konstantynowicz (mkonstan) wrote:
Some inputs from my side with MK.
On 8 Nov 2016, at 21:25, Thomas F Herbert <therb...@redhat.com> wrote:
All:
Soliciting opinions from people as to vhost-user testing scenarios
and guest modes in fd.io <http://fd.io/> CSIT testing of VPP -
vhost-user.
I will forward to this mailing list as well as summarize any
additional feedback.
I asked some people that happen to be here at OVSCON as well as
some Red Hat and Intel people. I am also including some people that
are involved in upstream vhost-user work in DPDK.
So far, I have the following feedback with an attempt to condense
feedback and to keep the list small. If I left out anything, let me
know.
In addition to the PVP tests done now with small packets.
Testpmd in guest is OK for now.
MK: vhost should be tested also with IRQ drivers, not only PMD, e.g.
Linux guest with kernel IP routing. It’s done today in CSIT
functional tests in VIRL (no testpmd there).
Yes, as long as testPMD in guest is in the suite to maximize perf test.
Agree. testpmd is already used in csit perf tests with vhost.
1 Add multiple VMs (How many?)
MK: For performance test, we should aim for a box-full, so for 1vCPU
VMs fill up all cores :)
2 Both multi-queue and single-queue
MK: vhost single-queue for sure. vhost multi-queue seems to matter
only to huge VMs that generate lots of traffic and coming close to
overloading worker thread dealing with it.
3 Tests that cause the equivalent of multiple flows in OVS. Varying
variety of traffic including layer 2 and layer 3 traffic.
MK: Yes. Many flows is must.
4 Multiple IF's (Guest or Host or Both?)
MK: What do you mean by multiple IF’s (interfaces)? With multiple
VMs we surely have multiple vhost interfaces, minimum 2 vhost
interfaces per VM. What matters IMV is the ratio and speed between:
i) physical interfaces 10GE, 40GE; and ii) vhost interfaces with
slow or fast VMs. I suggest we work few scenarios covering both i)
and ii), and number of VMs, based on use cases folks have.
I am copying this to Franck. I am not sure whether he was asking for
multiple PHY PMDs or more then 2 IFs per guest. I think that multiple
guests with 2 IFs each should be a pretty good test to start with.
OK. Any more feedback here from anybody?
The following might not be doable by 17.01 and if not consider the
following as a wish list for future:
1 vxLan tunneled traffic
MK: Do you mean VXLAN on the wire, VPP (running in host) does VXLAN
tunnel termination (VTEP) into L2BD, and then L2 switching into VMs
via vhost? If so, that’s the most common requirement I hear from
folks e.g. OPNFV/FDS.
I am not sure whether Franck was suggesting VTEP or whether he wanted
encap and decap of L3 vxlan or whether he was asking for forwarding
rules in guest and not just layer 2 MAC forwarding.
OK. Any more feedback here from anybody?
2 VPP in guest with layer 2 and layer 3 vRouted traffic.
MK: What do you mean here? VPP in guest with dpdk-virtio (instead of
testpmd), and VPP in host with vhost ?
Yes, VPP in host. I think some folks are looking for a test that
approximates a routing VNF but I am forwarding this for Franck's comment.
OK. Any more feedback here from anybody?
3 Additional Overlay/Underlay: MPLS
MK: MPLSoEthernet?, MPLSoGRE? VPNv4, VPNv6? Else?
MK: L2oLISP, IPv4oLISP, IPv6oLISP.
MPLSoEthernet
But what VPP configuration - just MPLS label switching (LSR), or VPN
edge (LER aka PE) ?
I don't have the answer. Maybe Franck or Anita may want to comment.
In general, the context for my comment is wrt to perf testing of VPP vs
DPDK/OVS and other vSwitches/data planes. Current testing is optimized
for multiple layer 2 flows. If we are passing and forwarding tunneled or
encapped traffic in the VM, even if we don't terminate a VTEP, we are
closer to real world VNF use cases, and may provide a better basis perf
comparisons for Telcos and similar users.
This comment is not specific to immediate goal of testing vhost-user
but some people are encouraging the use of VSPERF.
Not sure I follow this comment - what’s the context of VSPERF
reference here?
Not relevant in the short run. It is just that some people would like
the VSPERF tests from OPNFV to run under CSIT.
-Maciek
-Maciek
--TFH
--
*Thomas F Herbert*
SDN Group
Office of Technology
*Red Hat*
_______________________________________________
csit-dev mailing list
csit-...@lists.fd.io <mailto:csit-...@lists.fd.io>
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/csit-dev
--
*Thomas F Herbert*
SDN Group
Office of Technology
*Red Hat*
--
*Thomas F Herbert*
SDN Group
Office of Technology
*Red Hat*
_______________________________________________
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
