+---
+title: Multiple Loss Ratio Search for Packet Throughput (MLRsearch)
+# abbrev: MLRsearch
+docname: draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-01
+date: 2021-07-12
+
+ipr: trust200902
+area: ops
+wg: Benchmarking Working Group
+kw: Internet-Draft
+cat: info
+
+coding: us-ascii
+pi: # can use array (if all yes) or hash here
+# - toc
+# - sortrefs
+# - symrefs
+ toc: yes
+ sortrefs: # defaults to yes
+ symrefs: yes
+
+author:
+ -
+ ins: M. Konstantynowicz
+ name: Maciek Konstantynowicz
+ org: Cisco Systems
+ role: editor
+ email: mkonstan@cisco.com
+ -
+ ins: V. Polak
+ name: Vratko Polak
+ org: Cisco Systems
+ role: editor
+ email: vrpolak@cisco.com
+
+normative:
+ RFC2544:
+
+informative:
+ FDio-CSIT-MLRsearch:
+ target: https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2101/report/introduction/methodology_data_plane_throughput/methodology_mlrsearch_tests.html
+ title: "FD.io CSIT Test Methodology - MLRsearch"
+ date: 2021-02
+ PyPI-MLRsearch:
+ target: https://pypi.org/project/MLRsearch/0.4.0/
+ title: "MLRsearch 0.4.0, Python Package Index"
+ date: 2021-04
+
+--- abstract
+
+This document proposes changes to [RFC2544], specifically to packet
+throughput search methodology, by defining a new search algorithm
+referred to as Multiple Loss Ratio search (MLRsearch for short). Instead
+of relying on binary search with pre-set starting offered load, it
+proposes a novel approach discovering the starting point in the initial
+phase, and then searching for packet throughput based on defined packet
+loss ratio (PLR) input criteria and defined final trial duration time.
+One of the key design principles behind MLRsearch is minimizing the
+total test duration and searching for multiple packet throughput rates
+(each with a corresponding PLR) concurrently, instead of doing it
+sequentially.
+
+The main motivation behind MLRsearch is the new set of challenges and
+requirements posed by NFV (Network Function Virtualization),
+specifically software based implementations of NFV data planes. Using
+[RFC2544] in the experience of the authors yields often not repetitive
+and not replicable end results due to a large number of factors that are
+out of scope for this draft. MLRsearch aims to address this challenge
+in a simple way of getting the same result sooner, so more repetitions
+can be done to describe the replicability.
+
+--- middle
+
+# Terminology
+
+* Frame size: size of an Ethernet Layer-2 frame on the wire, including
+ any VLAN tags (dot1q, dot1ad) and Ethernet FCS, but excluding Ethernet
+ preamble and inter-frame gap. Measured in bytes (octets).
+* Packet size: same as frame size, both terms used interchangeably.
+* Device Under Test (DUT): In software networking, "device" denotes a
+ specific piece of software tasked with packet processing. Such device
+ is surrounded with other software components (such as operating system
+ kernel). It is not possible to run devices without also running the
+ other components, and hardware resources are shared between both. For
+ purposes of testing, the whole set of hardware and software components
+ is called "system under test" (SUT). As SUT is the part of the whole
+ test setup performance of which can be measured by [RFC2544] methods,
+ this document uses SUT instead of [RFC2544] DUT. Device under test
+ (DUT) can be re-introduced when analysing test results using whitebox
+ techniques, but this document sticks to blackbox testing.
+* System Under Test (SUT): System under test (SUT) is a part of the
+ whole test setup whose performance is to be benchmarked. The complete
+ test setup contains other parts, whose performance is either already
+ established, or not affecting the benchmarking result.
+* Bi-directional throughput tests: involve packets/frames flowing in
+ both transmit and receive directions over every tested interface of
+ SUT/DUT. Packet flow metrics are measured per direction, and can be
+ reported as aggregate for both directions and/or separately
+ for each measured direction. In most cases bi-directional tests
+ use the same (symmetric) load in both directions.
+* Uni-directional throughput tests: involve packets/frames flowing in
+ only one direction, i.e. either transmit or receive direction, over
+ every tested interface of SUT/DUT. Packet flow metrics are measured
+ and are reported for measured direction.
+* Packet Loss Ratio (PLR): ratio of packets received relative to packets
+ transmitted over the test trial duration, calculated using formula:
+ PLR = ( pkts_transmitted - pkts_received ) / pkts_transmitted.
+ For bi-directional throughput tests aggregate PLR is calculated based
+ on the aggregate number of packets transmitted and received.
+* Effective loss ratio: A corrected value of measured packet loss ratio
+ chosen to avoid difficulties if SUT exhibits decreasing loss
+ with increasing load. Maximum of packet loss ratios measured at the same
+ duration on all loads smaller than (and including) the current one.
+* Target loss ratio: A packet loss ratio value acting as an imput for search.
+ The search is finding tight enough lower and upper bound in intended load,
+ so that the lower bound has smaller or equal loss ratio, and upper bound
+ has strictly larger loss ratio. For the tighterst upper bound,
+ the effective loss ratio is the same as packet loss ratio.
+ For the tightest lower bound, the effective loss ratio can be higher
+ than the packet loss ratio, but still not larger than the target loss ratio.
+* Packet Throughput Rate: maximum packet offered load DUT/SUT forwards
+ within the specified Packet Loss Ratio (PLR). In many cases the rate
+ depends on the frame size processed by DUT/SUT. Hence packet
+ throughput rate MUST be quoted with specific frame size as received by
+ DUT/SUT during the measurement. For bi-directional tests, packet
+ throughput rate should be reported as aggregate for both directions.
+ Measured in packets-per-second (pps) or frames-per-second (fps),
+ equivalent metrics.
+* Bandwidth Throughput Rate: a secondary metric calculated from packet
+ throughput rate using formula: bw_rate = pkt_rate * (frame_size +
+ L1_overhead) * 8, where L1_overhead for Ethernet includes preamble (8
+ octets) and inter-frame gap (12 octets). For bi-directional tests,
+ bandwidth throughput rate should be reported as aggregate for both
+ directions. Expressed in bits-per-second (bps).
+* Non Drop Rate (NDR): maximum packet/bandwith throughput rate sustained
+ by DUT/SUT at PLR equal zero (zero packet loss) specific to tested
+ frame size(s). MUST be quoted with specific packet size as received by
+ DUT/SUT during the measurement. Packet NDR measured in
+ packets-per-second (or fps), bandwidth NDR expressed in
+ bits-per-second (bps).
+* Partial Drop Rate (PDR): maximum packet/bandwith throughput rate
+ sustained by DUT/SUT at PLR greater than zero (non-zero packet loss)
+ specific to tested frame size(s). MUST be quoted with specific packet
+ size as received by DUT/SUT during the measurement. Packet PDR
+ measured in packets-per-second (or fps), bandwidth PDR expressed in
+ bits-per-second (bps).
+* Maximum Receive Rate (MRR): packet/bandwidth rate regardless of PLR
+ sustained by DUT/SUT under specified Maximum Transmit Rate (MTR)
+ packet load offered by traffic generator. MUST be quoted with both
+ specific packet size and MTR as received by DUT/SUT during the
+ measurement. Packet MRR measured in packets-per-second (or fps),
+ bandwidth MRR expressed in bits-per-second (bps).
+* Trial: a single measurement step. See [RFC2544] section 23.
+* Trial duration: amount of time over which packets are transmitted
+ in a single measurement step.
+
+# MLRsearch Background
+
+Multiple Loss Ratio search (MLRsearch) is a packet throughput search
+algorithm suitable for deterministic systems (as opposed to
+probabilistic systems). MLRsearch discovers multiple packet throughput
+rates in a single search, each rate is associated with a distinct
+Packet Loss Ratio (PLR) criterion.
+
+For cases when multiple rates need to be found, this property makes
+MLRsearch more efficient in terms of time execution, compared to
+traditional throughput search algorithms that discover a single packet
+rate per defined search criteria (e.g. a binary search specified by
+[RFC2544]). MLRsearch reduces execution time even further by relying on
+shorter trial durations of intermediate steps, with only the final
+measurements conducted at the specified final trial duration. This
+results in the shorter overall search execution time when compared to a
+traditional binary search, while guaranteeing the same results for
+deterministic systems.
+
+In practice two rates with distinct PLRs are commonly used for packet
+throughput measurements of NFV systems: Non Drop Rate (NDR) with PLR=0
+and Partial Drop Rate (PDR) with PLR>0. The rest of this document
+describes MLRsearch with NDR and PDR pair as an example.
+
+Similarly to other throughput search approaches like binary search,
+MLRsearch is effective for SUTs/DUTs with PLR curve that is
+non-decreasing with growing offered load. It may not be as
+effective for SUTs/DUTs with abnormal PLR curves, although
+it will always converge to some value.
+
+MLRsearch relies on traffic generator to qualify the received packet
+stream as error-free, and invalidate the results if any disqualifying
+errors are present e.g. out-of-sequence frames.
+
+MLRsearch can be applied to both uni-directional and bi-directional
+throughput tests.
+
+For bi-directional tests, MLRsearch rates and ratios are aggregates of
+both directions, based on the following assumptions:
+
+* Traffic transmitted by traffic generator and received by SUT/DUT
+ has the same packet rate in each direction,
+ in other words the offered load is symmetric.
+* SUT/DUT packet processing capacity is the same in both directions,
+ resulting in the same packet loss under load.
+
+MLRsearch can be applied even without those assumptions,
+but in that case the aggregate loss ratio is less useful as a metric.
+
+MLRsearch can be used for network transactions consisting of more than
+just one packet, or anything else that has intended load as input
+and loss ratio as output (duration as input is optional).
+This text uses mostly packet-centric language.
+
+# MLRsearch Overview
+
+The main properties of MLRsearch:
+
+* MLRsearch is a duration aware multi-phase multi-rate search algorithm:
+ * Initial Phase determines promising starting interval for the search.
+ * Intermediate Phases progress towards defined final search criteria.
+ * Final Phase executes measurements according to the final search
+ criteria.
+ * Final search criteria are defined by following inputs:
+ * Target PLRs (e.g. 0.0 and 0.005 when searching for NDR and PDR).
+ * Final trial duration.
+ * Measurement resolution.
+* Initial Phase:
+ * Measure MRR over initial trial duration.
+ * Measured MRR is used as an input to the first intermediate phase.
+* Multiple Intermediate Phases:
+ * Trial duration:
+ * Start with initial trial duration in the first intermediate phase.
+ * Converge geometrically towards the final trial duration.
+ * Track all previous trial measurement results:
+ * Duration, offered load and loss ratio are tracked.
+ * Effective loss ratios are tracked.
+ * While in practice, real loss ratios can decrease with increasing load,
+ effective loss ratios never decrease. This is achieved by sorting
+ results by load, and using the effective loss ratio of the previous load
+ if the current loss ratio is smaller than that.
+ * The algorithm queries the results to find best lower and upper bounds.
+ * Effective loss ratios are always used.
+ * The phase ends if all target loss ratios have tight enough bounds.
+ * Search:
+ * Iterate over target loss ratios in increasing order.
+ * If both upper and lower bound are in measurement results for this duration,
+ apply bisect until the bounds are tight enough,
+ and continue with next loss ratio.
+ * If a bound is missing for this duration, but there exists a bound
+ from the previous duration (compatible with the other bound
+ at this duration), re-measure at the current duration.
+ * If a bound in one direction (upper or lower) is missing for this duration,
+ and the previous duration does not have a compatible bound,
+ compute the current "interval size" from the second tightest bound
+ in the other direction (lower or upper respectively)
+ for the current duration, and choose next offered load for external search.
+ * The logic guarantees that a measurement is never repeated with both
+ duration and offered load being the same.
+ * The logic guarantees that measurements for higher target loss ratio
+ iterations (still within the same phase duration) do not affect validity
+ and tightness of bounds for previous target loss ratio iterations
+ (at the same duration).
+ * Use of internal and external searches:
+ * External search:
+ * It is a variant of "exponential search".
+ * The "interval size" is multiplied by a configurable constant
+ (powers of two work well with the subsequent internal search).
+ * Internal search:
+ * A variant of binary search that measures at offered load between
+ the previously found bounds.
+ * The interval does not need to be split into exact halves,
+ if other split can get to the target width goal faster.
+ * The idea is to avoid returning interval narrower than the current
+ width goal. See sample implementation details, below.
+* Final Phase:
+ * Executed with the final test trial duration, and the final width
+ goal that determines resolution of the overall search.
+* Intermediate Phases together with the Final Phase are called
+ Non-Initial Phases.
+* The returned bounds stay within prescribed min_rate and max_rate.
+ * When returning min_rate or max_rate, the returned bounds may be invalid.
+ * E.g. upper bound at max_rate may come from a measurement
+ with loss ratio still not higher than the target loss ratio.
+
+The main benefits of MLRsearch vs. binary search include:
+
+* In general MLRsearch is likely to execute more trials overall, but
+ likely less trials at a set final trial duration.
+* In well behaving cases, e.g. when results do not depend on trial
+ duration, it greatly reduces (>50%) the overall duration compared to a
+ single PDR (or NDR) binary search over duration, while finding
+ multiple drop rates.
+* In all cases MLRsearch yields the same or similar results to binary
+ search.
+* Note: both binary search and MLRsearch are susceptible to reporting
+ non-repeatable results across multiple runs for very bad behaving
+ cases.
+
+Caveats:
+
+* Worst case MLRsearch can take longer than a binary search, e.g. in case of
+ drastic changes in behaviour for trials at varying durations.
+ * Re-measurement at higher duration can trigger a long external search.
+ That never happens in binary search, which uses the final duration
+ from the start.
+
+# Sample Implementation
+
+Following is a brief description of a sample MLRsearch implementation,
+which is a simplified version of the existing implementation.
+
+## Input Parameters
+
+1. **max_rate** - Maximum Transmit Rate (MTR) of packets to
+ be used by external traffic generator implementing MLRsearch,
+ limited by the actual Ethernet link(s) rate, NIC model or traffic
+ generator capabilities.
+2. **min_rate** - minimum packet transmit rate to be used for
+ measurements. MLRsearch fails if lower transmit rate needs to be
+ used to meet search criteria.
+3. **final_trial_duration** - required trial duration for final rate
+ measurements.
+4. **initial_trial_duration** - trial duration for initial MLRsearch phase.
+5. **final_relative_width** - required measurement resolution expressed as
+ (lower_bound, upper_bound) interval width relative to upper_bound.
+6. **packet_loss_ratios** - list of maximum acceptable PLR search criteria.
+7. **number_of_intermediate_phases** - number of phases between the initial
+ phase and the final phase. Impacts the overall MLRsearch duration.
+ Less phases are required for well behaving cases, more phases
+ may be needed to reduce the overall search duration for worse behaving cases.
+
+## Initial Phase
+
+1. First trial measures at configured maximum transmit rate (MTR) and
+ discovers maximum receive rate (MRR).
+ * IN: trial_duration = initial_trial_duration.
+ * IN: offered_transmit_rate = maximum_transmit_rate.
+ * DO: single trial.
+ * OUT: measured loss ratio.
+ * OUT: MRR = measured receive rate.
+ Received rate is computed as intended load multiplied by pass ratio
+ (which is one minus loss ratio). This is useful when loss ratio is computed
+ from a different metric than intended load. For example, intended load
+ can be in transactions (multiple packets each), but loss ratio is computed
+ on level of packets, not transactions.
+
+ * Example: If MTR is 10 transactions per second, and each transaction has
+ 10 packets, and receive rate is 90 packets per second, then loss rate
+ is 10%, and MRR is computed to be 9 transactions per second.
+
+ If MRR is too close to MTR, MRR is set below MTR so that interval width
+ is equal to the width goal of the first intermediate phase.
+ If MRR is less than min_rate, min_rate is used.
+2. Second trial measures at MRR and discovers MRR2.
+ * IN: trial_duration = initial_trial_duration.
+ * IN: offered_transmit_rate = MRR.
+ * DO: single trial.
+ * OUT: measured loss ratio.
+ * OUT: MRR2 = measured receive rate.
+ If MRR2 is less than min_rate, min_rate is used.
+ If loss ratio is less or equal to the smallest target loss ratio,
+ MRR2 is set to a value above MRR, so that interval width is equal
+ to the width goal of the first intermediate phase.
+ MRR2 could end up being equal to MTR (for example if both measurements so far
+ had zero loss), which was already measured, step 3 is skipped in that case.
+3. Third trial measures at MRR2.
+ * IN: trial_duration = initial_trial_duration.
+ * IN: offered_transmit_rate = MRR2.
+ * DO: single trial.
+ * OUT: measured loss ratio.
+ * OUT: MRR3 = measured receive rate.
+ If MRR3 is less than min_rate, min_rate is used.
+ If step 3 is not skipped, the first trial measurement is forgotten.
+ This is done because in practice (if MRR2 is above MRR), external search
+ from MRR and MRR2 is likely to lead to a faster intermediate phase
+ than a bisect between MRR2 and MTR.
+
+## Non-Initial Phases
+
+1. Main phase loop:
+ 1. IN: trial_duration for the current phase. Set to
+ initial_trial_duration for the first intermediate phase; to
+ final_trial_duration for the final phase; or to the element of
+ interpolating geometric sequence for other intermediate phases.
+ For example with two intermediate phases, trial_duration of the
+ second intermediate phase is the geometric average of
+ initial_trial_duration and final_trial_duration.
+ 2. IN: relative_width_goal for the current phase. Set to
+ final_relative_width for the final phase; doubled for each
+ preceding phase. For example with two intermediate phases, the
+ first intermediate phase uses quadruple of final_relative_width
+ and the second intermediate phase uses double of
+ final_relative_width.
+ 3. IN: Measurement results from the previous phase (previous duration).
+ 4. Internal target ratio loop:
+ 1. IN: Target loss ratio for this iteration of ratio loop.
+ 2. IN: Measurement results from all previous ratio loop iterations
+ of current phase (current duration).
+ 3. DO: According to the procedure described in point 2:
+ 1. either exit the phase (by jumping to 1.5),
+ 2. or exit loop iteration (by continuing with next target loss ratio,
+ jumping to 1.4.1),
+ 3. or calculate new transmit rate to measure with.
+ 4. DO: Perform the trial measurement at the new transmit rate and
+ current trial duration, compute its loss ratio.
+ 5. DO: Add the result and go to next iteration (1.4.1),
+ including the added trial result in 1.4.2.
+ 5. OUT: Measurement results from this phase.
+ 6. OUT: In the final phase, bounds for each target loss ratio
+ are extracted and returned.
+ 1. If a valid bound does not exist, use min_rate or max_rate.
+2. New transmit rate (or exit) calculation (for point 1.4.3):
+ 1. If the previous duration has the best upper and lower bound,
+ select the middle point as the new transmit rate.
+ 1. See 2.5.3. below for the exact splitting logic.
+ 2. This can be a no-op if interval is narrow enough already,
+ in that case continue with 2.2.
+ 3. Discussion, assuming the middle point is selected and measured:
+ 1. Regardless of loss rate measured, the result becomes
+ either best upper or best lower bound at current duration.
+ 2. So this condition is satisfied at most once per iteration.
+ 3. This also explains why previous phase has double width goal:
+ 1. We avoid one more bisection at previous phase.
+ 2. At most one bound (per iteration) is re-measured
+ with current duration.
+ 3. Each re-measurement can trigger an external search.
+ 4. Such surprising external searches are the main hurdle
+ in achieving low overal search durations.
+ 5. Even without 1.1, there is at most one external search
+ per phase and target loss ratio.
+ 6. But without 1.1 there can be two re-measurements,
+ each coming with a risk of triggering external search.
+ 2. If the previous duration has one bound best, select its transmit rate.
+ In deterministic case this is the last measurement needed this iteration.
+ 3. If only upper bound exists in current duration results:
+ 1. This can only happen for the smallest target loss ratio.
+ 2. If the upper bound was measured at min_rate,
+ exit the whole phase early (not investigating other target loss ratios).
+ 3. Select new transmit rate using external search:
+ 1. For computing previous interval size, use:
+ 1. second tightest bound at current duration,
+ 2. or tightest bound of previous duration,
+ if compatible and giving a more narrow interval,
+ 3. or target interval width if none of the above is available.
+ 4. In any case increase to target interval width if smaller.
+ 2. Quadruple the interval width.
+ 3. Use min_rate if the new transmit rate is lower.
+ 4. If only lower bound exists in current duration results:
+ 1. If the lower bound was measured at max_rate,
+ exit this iteration (continue with next lowest target loss ratio).
+ 2. Select new transmit rate using external search:
+ 1. For computing previous interval size, use:
+ 1. second tightest bound at current duration,
+ 2. or tightest bound of previous duration,
+ if compatible and giving a more narrow interval,
+ 3. or target interval width if none of the above is available.
+ 4. In any case increase to target interval width if smaller.
+ 2. Quadruple the interval width.
+ 3. Use max_rate if the new transmit rate is higher.
+ 5. The only remaining option is both bounds in current duration results.
+ 1. This can happen in two ways, depending on how the lower bound
+ was chosen.
+ 1. It could have been selected for the current loss ratio,
+ e.g. in re-measurement (2.2) or in initial bisect (2.1).
+ 2. It could have been found as an upper bound for the previous smaller
+ target loss ratio, in which case it might be too low.
+ 3. The algorithm does not track which one is the case,
+ as the decision logic works well regardless.
+ 2. Compute "extending down" candidate transmit rate exactly as in 2.3.
+ 3. Compute "bisecting" candidate transmit rate:
+ 1. Compute the current interval width from the two bounds.
+ 2. Express the width as a (float) multiple of the target width goal
+ for this phase.
+ 3. If the multiple is not higher than one, it means the width goal
+ is met. Exit this iteration and continue with next higher
+ target loss ratio.
+ 4. If the multiple is two or less, use half of that
+ for new width if the lower subinterval.
+ 5. Round the multiple up to nearest even integer.
+ 6. Use half of that for new width if the lower subinterval.
+ 7. Example: If lower bound is 2.0 and upper bound is 5.0, and width
+ goal is 1.0, the new candidate transmit rate will be 4.0.
+ This can save a measurement when 4.0 has small loss.
+ Selecting the average (3.5) would never save a measurement,
+ giving more narrow bounds instead.
+ 4. If either candidate computation want to exit the iteration,
+ do as bisecting candidate computation says.
+ 5. The remaining case is both candidates wanting to measure at some rate.
+ Use the higher rate. This prefers external search down narrow enough
+ interval, competing with perfectly sized lower bisect subinterval.
+
+# FD.io CSIT Implementation
+
+The only known working implementation of MLRsearch is in
+the open-source code running in Linux Foundation
+FD.io CSIT project [FDio-CSIT-MLRsearch] as part of
+a Continuous Integration / Continuous Development (CI/CD) framework.
+
+MLRsearch is also available as a Python package in [PyPI-MLRsearch].
+
+## Additional details
+
+This document so far has been describing a simplified version of
+MLRsearch algorithm. The full algorithm as implemented in CSIT contains
+additional logic, which makes some of the details (but not general
+ideas) above incorrect. Here is a short description of the additional
+logic as a list of principles, explaining their main differences from
+(or additions to) the simplified description, but without detailing
+their mutual interaction.
+
+1. Logarithmic transmit rate.
+ * In order to better fit the relative width goal, the interval
+ doubling and halving is done differently.
+ * For example, the middle of 2 and 8 is 4, not 5.
+2. Timeout for bad cases.
+ * The worst case for MLRsearch is when each phase converges to
+ intervals way different than the results of the previous phase.
+ * Rather than suffer total search time several times larger than pure
+ binary search, the implemented tests fail themselves when the
+ search takes too long (given by argument *timeout*).
+3. Intended count.
+ * The number of packets to send during the trial should be equal to
+ the intended load multiplied by the duration.
+ * Also multiplied by a coefficient, if loss ratio is calculated
+ from a different metric.
+ * Example: If a successful transaction uses 10 packets,
+ load is given in transactions per second, byt loss ratio is calculated
+ from packets, the coefficient to get intended count of packets is 10.
+ * But in practice that does not work.
+ * It could result in a fractional number of packets,
+ * so it has to be rounded in a way traffic generator chooses,
+ * which may depend on the number of traffic flows
+ and traffic generator worker threads.
+4. Attempted count. As the real number of intended packets is not known exactly,
+ the computation uses the number of packets traffic generator reports as sent.
+ Unless overriden by the next point.
+5. Duration stretching.
+ * In some cases, traffic generator may get overloaded,
+ causing it to take significantly longer (than duration) to send all packets.
+ * The implementation uses an explicit stop,
+ * causing lower attempted count in those cases.
+ * The implementation tolerates some small difference between
+ attempted count and intended count.
+ * 10 microseconds worth of traffic is sufficient for our tests.
+ * If the difference is higher, the unsent packets are counted as lost.
+ * This forces the search to avoid the regions of high duration stretching.
+ * The final bounds describe the performance of not just SUT,
+ but of the whole system, including the traffic generator.
+6. Excess packets.
+ * In some test (e.g. using TCP flows) Traffic generator reacts to packet loss
+ by retransmission. Usually, such packet loss is already affecting loss ratio.
+ If a test also wants to treat retransmissions due to heavily delayed packets
+ also as a failure, this is once again visible as a mismatch between
+ the intended count and the attempted count.
+ * The CSIT implementation simply looks at absolute value of the difference,
+ so it offes the same small tolerance before it start marking a "loss".
+7. For result processing, we use lower bounds and ignore upper bounds.
+
+### FD.io CSIT Input Parameters
+
+1. **max_rate** - Typical values: 2 * 14.88 Mpps for 64B
+ 10GE link rate, 2 * 18.75 Mpps for 64B 40GE NIC (specific model).
+2. **min_rate** - Value: 2 * 9001 pps (we reserve 9000 pps
+ for latency measurements).
+3. **final_trial_duration** - Value: 30.0 seconds.
+4. **initial_trial_duration** - Value: 1.0 second.
+5. **final_relative_width** - Value: 0.005 (0.5%).
+6. **packet_loss_ratios** - Value: 0.0, 0.005 (0.0% for NDR, 0.5% for PDR).
+7. **number_of_intermediate_phases** - Value: 2.
+ The value has been chosen based on limited experimentation to date.
+ More experimentation needed to arrive to clearer guidelines.
+8. **timeout** - Limit for the overall search duration (for one search).
+ If MLRsearch oversteps this limit, it immediatelly declares the test failed,
+ to avoid wasting even more time on a misbehaving SUT.
+ Value: 600.0 (seconds).
+9. **expansion_coefficient** - Width multiplier for external search.
+ Value: 4.0 (interval width is quadroupled).
+ Value of 2.0 is best for well-behaved SUTs, but value of 4.0 has been found
+ to decrease overall search time for worse-behaved SUT configurations,
+ contributing more to the overall set of different SUT configurations tested.
+
+
+## Example MLRsearch Run
+
+
+The following list describes a search from a real test run in CSIT
+(using the default input values as above).
+
+* Initial phase, trial duration 1.0 second.
+
+Measurement 1, intended load 18750000.0 pps (MTR),
+measured loss ratio 0.7089514628479618 (valid upper bound for both NDR and PDR).
+
+Measurement 2, intended load 5457160.071600716 pps (MRR),
+measured loss ratio 0.018650817320118702 (new tightest upper bounds).
+
+Measurement 3, intended load 5348832.933500009 pps (slightly less than MRR2
+in preparation for first intermediate phase target interval width),
+measured loss ratio 0.00964383362905351 (new tightest upper bounds).
+
+* First intermediate phase starts, trial duration still 1.0 seconds.
+
+Measurement 4, intended load 4936605.579021453 pps (no lower bound,
+performing external search downwards, for NDR),
+measured loss ratio 0.0 (valid lower bound for both NDR and PDR).
+
+Measurement 5, intended load 5138587.208637197 pps (bisecting for NDR),
+measured loss ratio 0.0 (new tightest lower bounds).
+
+Measurement 6, intended load 5242656.244044665 pps (bisecting),
+measured loss ratio 0.013523745379347257 (new tightest upper bounds).
+
+* Both intervals are narrow enough.
+* Second intermediate phase starts, trial duration 5.477225575051661 seconds.
+
+Measurement 7, intended load 5190360.904111567 pps (initial bisect for NDR),
+measured loss ratio 0.0023533920869969953 (NDR upper bound, PDR lower bound).
+
+Measurement 8, intended load 5138587.208637197 pps (re-measuring NDR lower bound),
+measured loss ratio 1.2080222912800403e-06 (new tightest NDR upper bound).
+
+* The two intervals have separate bounds from now on.
+
+Measurement 9, intended load 4936605.381062318 pps (external NDR search down),
+measured loss ratio 0.0 (new valid NDR lower bound).
+
+Measurement 10, intended load 5036583.888432355 pps (NDR bisect),
+measured loss ratio 0.0 (new tightest NDR lower bound).
+
+Measurement 11, intended load 5087329.903232804 pps (NDR bisect),
+measured loss ratio 0.0 (new tightest NDR lower bound).
+
+* NDR interval is narrow enough, PDR interval not ready yet.
+
+Measurement 12, intended load 5242656.244044665 pps (re-measuring PDR upper bound),
+measured loss ratio 0.0101174866190136 (still valid PDR upper bound).
+
+* Also PDR interval is narrow enough, with valid bounds for this duration.
+* Final phase starts, trial duration 30.0 seconds.
+
+Measurement 13, intended load 5112894.3238511775 pps (initial bisect for NDR),
+measured loss ratio 0.0 (new tightest NDR lower bound).
+
+Measurement 14, intended load 5138587.208637197 (re-measuring NDR upper bound),
+measured loss ratio 2.030389804256833e-06 (still valid PDR upper bound).
+
+* NDR interval is narrow enough, PDR interval not yet.
+
+Measurement 15, intended load 5216443.04126728 pps (initial bisect for PDR),
+measured loss ratio 0.005620871287975237 (new tightest PDR upper bound).
+
+Measurement 16, intended load 5190360.904111567 (re-measuring PDR lower bound),
+measured loss ratio 0.0027629971184465604 (still valid PDR lower bound).
+
+* PDR interval is also narrow enough.
+* Returning bounds:
+* NDR_LOWER = 5112894.3238511775 pps; NDR_UPPER = 5138587.208637197 pps;
+* PDR_LOWER = 5190360.904111567 pps; PDR_UPPER = 5216443.04126728 pps.
+
+# IANA Considerations
+
+No requests of IANA.
+
+# Security Considerations
+
+Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
+technology characterization of a DUT/SUT using controlled stimuli in a
+laboratory environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints
+specified in the sections above.
+
+The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup and
+MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test traffic into
+a production network or misroute traffic to the test management network.
+
+Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
+solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.
+
+Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
+benchmarking purposes.Any implications for network security arising
+from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
+networks.
+
+# Acknowledgements
+
+Many thanks to Alec Hothan of OPNFV NFVbench project for thorough
+review and numerous useful comments and suggestions.
+
+--- back
Code Review / csit.git / commitdiff