CSIT rls1704 report - update to handcraftec sections:

[csit.git] / docs / report / vpp_performance_tests / overview.rst

diff --git a/docs/report/vpp_performance_tests/overview.rst b/docs/report/vpp_performance_tests/overview.rst
index d0ce5e7..0a5525a 100644 (file)
--- a/docs/report/vpp_performance_tests/overview.rst
+++ b/docs/report/vpp_performance_tests/overview.rst
@@ -52,53 +52,56 @@ Going forward CSIT project will be looking to add more hardware into FD.io
 performance labs to address larger scale multi-interface and multi-NIC\r
 performance testing scenarios.\r
 \r
 performance labs to address larger scale multi-interface and multi-NIC\r
 performance testing scenarios.\r
 \r

-For test cases that require DUT (VPP) to communicate with VM over vhost-user\r
-interfaces, a VM is created on SUT1 and SUT2. DUT (VPP) test topology with VM\r
-is shown in the figure below including applicable packet flow thru the VM\r
+For test cases that require DUT (VPP) to communicate with VM(s) over vhost-user\r
+interfaces, N of VM instances are created on SUT1 and SUT2. For N=1 DUT (VPP) forwards packets between vhostuser and physical interfaces. For N>1 DUT (VPP) a logical service chain forwarding topology is created on DUT (VPP) by applying L2 or IPv4/IPv6 configuration depending on the test suite.\r
+DUT (VPP) test topology with N VM instances\r
+is shown in the figure below including applicable packet flow thru the DUTs and VMs\r

 (marked in the figure with ``***``).\r
 \r
 ::\r
 \r
 (marked in the figure with ``***``).\r
 \r
 ::\r
 \r

-    +------------------------+           +------------------------+\r
-    |      +----------+      |           |      +----------+      |\r
-    |      |    VM    |      |           |      |    VM    |      |\r
-    |      |  ******  |      |           |      |  ******  |      |\r
-    |      +--^----^--+      |           |      +--^----^--+      |\r
-    |        *|    |*        |           |        *|    |*        |\r
-    |  +------v----v------+  |           |  +------v----v------+  |\r
-    |  |      *    *      |**|***********|**|      *    *      |  |\r
-    |  |  *****    *******<----------------->*******    *****  |  |\r
-    |  |  *    DUT1       |  |           |  |       DUT2    *  |  |\r
-    |  +--^---------------+  |           |  +---------------^--+  |\r
-    |    *|                  |           |                  |*    |\r
-    |    *|            SUT1  |           |  SUT2            |*    |\r
-    +------------------------+           +------------------^-----+\r
-         *|                                                 |*\r
-         *|                                                 |*\r
-         *|                  +-----------+                  |*\r
-         *|                  |           |                  |*\r
-         *+------------------>    TG     <------------------+*\r
-         ******************* |           |********************\r
-                             +-----------+\r
-\r
-For VM tests, packets are switched by DUT (VPP) twice, hence the\r
-throughput rates measured by TG (and listed in this report) must be multiplied\r
-by two to represent the actual DUT aggregate packet forwarding rate.\r
-\r
-Note that reported VPP performance results are specific to the SUT tested.\r
+    +-------------------------+           +-------------------------+\r
+    | +---------+ +---------+ |           | +---------+ +---------+ |\r
+    | |  VM[1]  | |  VM[N]  | |           | |  VM[1]  | |  VM[N]  | |\r
+    | |  *****  | |  *****  | |           | |  *****  | |  *****  | |\r
+    | +--^---^--+ +--^---^--+ |           | +--^---^--+ +--^---^--+ |\r
+    |   *|   |*     *|   |*   |           |   *|   |*     *|   |*   |\r
+    | +--v---v-------v---v--+ |           | +--v---v-------v---v--+ |\r
+    | |  *   *       *   *  |*|***********|*|  *   *       *   *  | |\r
+    | |  *   *********   ***<-|-----------|->***   *********   *  | |\r
+    | |  *    DUT1          | |           | |       DUT2       *  | |\r
+    | +--^------------------+ |           | +------------------^--+ |\r
+    |   *|                    |           |                    |*   |\r
+    |   *|            SUT1    |           |  SUT2              |*   |\r
+    +-------------------------+           +-------------------------+\r
+        *|                                                     |*\r
+        *|                                                     |*\r
+        *|                    +-----------+                    |*\r
+        *|                    |           |                    |*\r
+        *+-------------------->    TG     <--------------------+*\r
+        **********************|           |**********************\r
+                              +-----------+\r
+\r
+For VM tests, packets are switched by DUT (VPP) multiple times: twice for a single VM, three times for two VMs, N+1 times for N VMs.\r
+Hence the external\r
+throughput rates measured by TG and listed in this report must be multiplied\r
+by (N+1) to represent the actual DUT aggregate packet forwarding rate.\r
+\r
+CSIT |release|\r
+\r
+Note that reported VPP performance results are specific to the SUTs tested.\r

 Current LF FD.io SUTs are based on Intel XEON E5-2699v3 2.3GHz CPUs. SUTs with\r
 other CPUs are likely to yield different results. A good rule of thumb, that\r
 can be applied to estimate VPP packet thoughput for Phy-to-Phy (NIC-to-NIC,\r
 PCI-to-PCI) topology, is to expect the forwarding performance to be\r
 proportional to CPU core frequency, assuming CPU is the only limiting factor\r
 Current LF FD.io SUTs are based on Intel XEON E5-2699v3 2.3GHz CPUs. SUTs with\r
 other CPUs are likely to yield different results. A good rule of thumb, that\r
 can be applied to estimate VPP packet thoughput for Phy-to-Phy (NIC-to-NIC,\r
 PCI-to-PCI) topology, is to expect the forwarding performance to be\r
 proportional to CPU core frequency, assuming CPU is the only limiting factor\r

-and all other SUT aspects equal to FD.io CSIT environment. The same rule of\r
+and all other SUT parameters equivalent to FD.io CSIT environment. The same rule of\r

 thumb can be also applied for Phy-to-VM-to-Phy (NIC-to-VM-to-NIC) topology,\r
 thumb can be also applied for Phy-to-VM-to-Phy (NIC-to-VM-to-NIC) topology,\r

-but due to much higher dependency on very high frequency memory operations and\r
+but due to much higher dependency on intensive memory operations and\r

 sensitivity to Linux kernel scheduler settings and behaviour, this estimation\r
 may not always yield good enough accuracy.\r
 \r
 sensitivity to Linux kernel scheduler settings and behaviour, this estimation\r
 may not always yield good enough accuracy.\r
 \r

-Detailed LF FD.io test bed specification and physical topology are described\r
-in `wiki CSIT LF FDio testbed <https://wiki.fd.io/view/CSIT/CSIT_LF_testbed>`_.\r
+For detailed LF FD.io test bed specification and physical topology please refer to `LF FDio CSIT testbed wiki page <https://wiki.fd.io/view/CSIT/CSIT_LF_testbed>`_.\r

 \r
 Performance Tests Coverage\r
 --------------------------\r
 \r
 Performance Tests Coverage\r
 --------------------------\r


@@ -109,10 +112,10 @@ Performance tests are split into the two main categories:
   in accordance to RFC2544.\r
 \r
   - NDR - discovery of Non Drop Rate packet throughput, at zero packet loss;\r
   in accordance to RFC2544.\r
 \r
   - NDR - discovery of Non Drop Rate packet throughput, at zero packet loss;\r

-    followed by packet one-way latency measurements at 10%, 50% and 100% of\r
+    followed by one-way packet latency measurements at 10%, 50% and 100% of\r

     discovered NDR throughput.\r
   - PDR - discovery of Partial Drop Rate, with specified non-zero packet loss\r
     discovered NDR throughput.\r
   - PDR - discovery of Partial Drop Rate, with specified non-zero packet loss\r

-    currently set to 0.5%; followed by packet one-way latency measurements at\r
+    currently set to 0.5%; followed by one-way packet latency measurements at\r

     100% of discovered PDR throughput.\r
 \r
 - Throughput verification - verification of packet forwarding rate against\r
     100% of discovered PDR throughput.\r
 \r
 - Throughput verification - verification of packet forwarding rate against\r


@@ -180,17 +183,10 @@ continuously.
 Performance Tests Naming\r
 ------------------------\r
 \r
 Performance Tests Naming\r
 ------------------------\r
 \r

-CSIT |release| introduced a common structured naming convention for all\r
-performance and functional tests. This change was driven by substantially\r
-growing number and type of CSIT test cases. Firstly, the original practice did\r
-not always follow any strict naming convention. Secondly test names did not\r
-always clearly capture tested packet encapsulations, and the actual type or\r
-content of the tests. Thirdly HW configurations in terms of NICs, ports and\r
-their locality were not captured either. These were but few reasons that drove\r
-the decision to change and define a new more complete and stricter test naming\r
-convention, and to apply this to all existing and new test cases.\r
-\r
-The new naming should be intuitive for majority of the tests. The complete\r
+CSIT |release| follows a common structured naming convention for all\r
+performance and system functional tests, introduced in CSIT rls1701.\r
+\r
+The naming should be intuitive for majority of the tests. Complete\r

 description of CSIT test naming convention is provided on `CSIT test naming wiki\r
 <https://wiki.fd.io/view/CSIT/csit-test-naming>`_.\r
 \r
 description of CSIT test naming convention is provided on `CSIT test naming wiki\r
 <https://wiki.fd.io/view/CSIT/csit-test-naming>`_.\r
 \r


@@ -247,9 +243,8 @@ following VPP thread and core configurations:
 \r
 #. 1t1c - 1 VPP worker thread on 1 CPU physical core.\r
 #. 2t2c - 2 VPP worker threads on 2 CPU physical cores.\r
 \r
 #. 1t1c - 1 VPP worker thread on 1 CPU physical core.\r
 #. 2t2c - 2 VPP worker threads on 2 CPU physical cores.\r

-#. 4t4c - 4 VPP threads on 4 CPU physical cores.\r

 \r
 \r

-Note that in quite a few test cases running VPP on 2 or 4 physical cores hits\r
+Note that in quite a few test cases running VPP on 2 physical cores hits\r

 the tested NIC I/O bandwidth or packets-per-second limit.\r
 \r
 Methodology: Packet Throughput\r
 the tested NIC I/O bandwidth or packets-per-second limit.\r
 \r
 Methodology: Packet Throughput\r