Internet DRAFT - draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra
draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group N. Tran
Internet-Draft Soongsil University
Intended status: Informational S. Rao
Expires: 13 September 2023 The Linux Foundation
J. Lee
Y. Kim
Soongsil University
12 March 2023
Considerations for Benchmarking Network Performance in Containerized
Infrastructures
draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-10
Abstract
Recently, the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group has extended the
laboratory characterization from physical network functions (PNFs) to
virtual network functions (VNFs). Considering the network function
implementation trend moving from virtual machine-based to container-
based, system configurations and deployment scenarios for
benchmarking will be partially changed by how the resource allocation
and network technologies are specified for containerized VNFs. This
draft describes additional considerations for benchmarking network
performance when network functions are containerized and performed in
general-purpose hardware.
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 https://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 13 September 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Containerized Infrastructure Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Benchmarking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Networking Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.1. Kernel-space non-Acceleration Model . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.2. User-space Acceleration Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.3. eBPF Acceleration Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.4. Smart-NIC Acceleration Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.5. Model Combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. Resources Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.1. CPU Isolation / NUMA Affinity . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.2. Hugepages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.3. CPU Cores and Memory Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.4. Service Function Chaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.5. Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix A. Benchmarking Experience(Contiv-VPP) . . . . . . . . 20
A.1. Benchmarking Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.2. Trouble shooting and Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix B. Benchmarking Experience(SR-IOV with DPDK) . . . . . 25
B.1. Benchmarking Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
B.2. Trouble shooting and Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix C. Benchmarking Experience(Multi-pod Test) . . . . . . 29
C.1. Benchmarking Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
C.2. Hardware Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
C.3. NUMA Allocation Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
C.4. Traffic Generator Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
C.5. Benchmark Results and Trouble-shootings . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
D.1. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-09 . . . . . . . 33
D.2. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-08 . . . . . . . 33
D.3. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-07 . . . . . . . 34
D.4. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-06 . . . . . . . 34
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
D.5. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-05 . . . . . . . 34
D.6. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-04 . . . . . . . 35
D.7. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-03 . . . . . . . 35
D.8. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-02 . . . . . . . 35
D.9. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-01 . . . . . . . 35
D.10. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-00 . . . . . . . 35
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1. Introduction
The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group(BMWG) has recently
expanded its benchmarking scope from Physical Network Function(PNF)
running on a dedicated hardware system to Network Function
Virtualization(NFV) infrastructure and Virtualized Network
Function(VNF). [RFC8172] described considerations for configuring
NFV infrastructure and benchmarking metrics, and [RFC8204] gives
guidelines for benchmarking virtual switch which connects VNFs in
Open Platform for NFV(OPNFV).
Recently NFV infrastructure has evolved to include a lightweight
virtualized platform called the containerized infrastructure, where
network functions are virtualized by using the host operating system
(OS) virtualization instead of hardware virtualization in virtual
machine (VM)-based infrastructure based on the hypervisor. In
comparison to VMs, containers do not have a separate hardware and
kernel. Containerized virtual network functions (C-VNF) share the
same kernel space on the same host, while their resources are
logically isolated in different namespaces. Considering this
architecture difference between container-based and virtual-machine
based NFV systems, containerized NFV network performance benchmarking
might have different System Under Test(SUT) and Device Under
Test(DUT) configurations compared with both black-box benchmarking
and VM-based NFV infrastructure as described in [RFC8172].
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
In terms of networking, to route traffic between containers which are
isolated in different network namespaces, virtual ethernet (vETH)
interface pairs are used to create a tunnel to Linux bridge or
virtual switch (vSwitch) instead of TAP virtual networking device in
VM case. Besides, containerized network performance is also affected
by multiple different packet acceleration techniques which have been
applied recently in containerized infrastructure to achieve high
throughput and line-rate transmission speed. Each kind of
acceleration technique has different deployment location and usage of
vSwitch, which is an important aspect of the NFV infrastructure as
stated in [RFC8204]. Therefore, different networking models
considerations based on the usage characteristic of vSwitch in
containerized infrastructure should be noticed while benchmarking
containerized network performance.
This draft aims to provide additional considerations as
specifications to guide containerized infrastructure benchmarking
compared with the previous benchmarking methodology of common NFV
infrastructure. These considerations include investigation of
multiple networking models based on the usage of vSwitch in different
packet acceleration techniques, and investigation of several
resources configurations that might impact on containerized network
performance such as CPU isolation, hugepages, CPU cores and memory
allocation, service function chaining. The benchmark experiences of
these mentioned considerations are also presented in this draft as
references. Note that, although the detailed configurations of both
infrastructures differ, the new benchmarks and metrics defined in
[RFC8172] and [RFC8204] can be equally applied in containerized
infrastructure from a generic-NFV point of view, and therefore
defining additional evaluation metrics or methodologies are out of
scope.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document is to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. This
document uses the terminology described in [RFC8172], [RFC8204],
[ETSI-TST-009].
3. Containerized Infrastructure Overview
With the proliferation of Kubernetes, in a common containerized
infrastructure, pod is defined as a basic unit for orchestration and
management that can host multiple containers, with shared storage and
network resources. Kubernetes supports several run-time options for
containers such as Docker, CRI-O and containerd. In this document,
the terms container and pod are used interchangeably.
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
For benchmarking of the containerized infrastructure, as mentioned in
[RFC8172], the basic approach is to reuse existing benchmarking
methods developed within the BMWG. Various network function
specifications defined in BMWG should still be applied to
containerized VNF(C-VNF)s for the performance comparison with
physical network functions and VM-based VNFs. A major distinction of
the containerized infrastructure from the VM-based infrastructure is
the absence of a hypervisor. Without hypervisor, all C- VNFs share
the same host and kernel space. Storage, computing, and networking
resources are logically isolated between containers via different
namespaces.
Container networking is provided by Container Network Plugins (CNI).
CNI creates the network link between containers and host’s external
(real) interfaces. Different kinds of CNI leverage different
networking technologies and solutions to create this link. These
include bringing host network device into container namespace, or
creating vETH pairs with one side attached to container network
namespace and the other attached to the host network namespace,
either direct point-to-point, or via a bridge/switching function
(Linux bridge, MACVLAN/IPVLAN sub-interfaces, kernel-space or user-
space switch). SRIOV and eBPF are other available options. The
architectural differences of these CNIs bring additional
considerations when benchmarking network performance in containerized
infrastructure.
4. Benchmarking Considerations
4.1. Networking Models
Container networking services in Kubernetes are provided by CNI
plugins which describe network configuration in JSON format.
Initially, when a pod or container is first instantiated, it has no
network. CNI plugins insert a network interface into the isolated
container network namespace, and performs other necessary tasks to
connect the host and container network namespaces. It then allocates
IP address to the interface, configures routing consistent with the
IP address management plugin. Different CNIs use different
networking technologies to implement this connection. Based on the
chosen networking technologies, and how the packet is processed/
accelerated via the kernel-space and/or the user-space of the host,
these CNIs can be categorized into different container networking
models. The usage of each networking model and its corresponding
CNIs can affect the container networking performance.
4.1.1. Kernel-space non-Acceleration Model
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| User Space |
| +-----------+ +-----------+ |
| | C-VNF | | C-VNF | |
| | +-------+ | | +-------+ | |
| +-| eth |-+ +-| eth |-+ |
| +---^---+ +---^---+ |
| | | |
| | +----------------------------------+ | |
| | | | | |
| | | Networking Controller / Agent | | |
| | | | | |
| | +-----------------^^---------------+ | |
----------|-----------------------||---------------------|----------
| +---v---+ || +---v---+ |
| +--| veth |-------------------vv-----------------| veth |--+ |
| | +-------+ Switching/Routing Component +-------+ | |
| | (Kernel Routing Table, OVS Kernel Datapath, | |
| | Linux Bridge, MACVLAN/IPVLAN sub-interfaces) | |
| | | |
| +-------------------------------^----------------------------+ |
| | |
| Kernel Space +-----------v----------+ |
+----------------------| NIC |--------------------+
+----------------------+
Figure 1: Example architecture of the Kernel-Space non-
Acceleration Model
Figure 1 shows kernel-space non-Acceleration model. In this model,
the vETH interface on the host side can be attached to different
switching/routing components based on the chosen CNI. In the case of
Calico, it is the direct point-to-point attachment to the host
namespace then using Kernel routing table for routing between
containers. For Flannel, it is the Linux Bridge. In the case of
MACVLAN/IPVLAN, it is the corresponding virtual sub-interfaces. For
dynamic networking configuration, the Forwarding policy can be pushed
by the controller/agent located in the user-space. In the case of
Open vSwitch (OVS) [OVS], configured with Kernel Datapath, the first
packet of the 'non-matching' flow can be sent to the user space
networking controller/agent (ovs-switchd) for dynamic forwarding
decision.
In general, the switching/routing component is running on kernel
space, data packets should be processed in-network stack of host
kernel before transferring packets to the C-VNF running in user-
space. Not only pod-to-External but also pod-to-pod traffic should
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
be processed in the kernel space. This design makes networking
performance worse than other networking models which utilize packet
acceleration techniques described in below sections. Kernel-space
vSwitch models are listed below:
o Docker Network[Docker-network], Flannel Network[Flannel], Calico
[Calico], OVS(OpenvSwitch)[OVS], OVN(Open Virtual Network)[OVN],
MACVLAN, IPVLAN
4.1.2. User-space Acceleration Model
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| User Space |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ |
| | C-VNF | | C-VNF | |
| | +-----------+ | +-----------------+ | +-----------+ | |
| | |virtio-user| | | Networking | | |virtio-user|-| |
| +-| / eth |-+ | Controller/Agent| +-| / eth |-+ |
| +-----^-----+ +-------^^--------+ +-----^-----+ |
| | || | |
| | || | |
| +-----v-----+ || +-----v-----+ |
| | vhost-user| || | vhost-user| |
| +--| / memif |--------------vv--------------| / memif |--+ |
| | +-----------+ +-----------+ | |
| | vSwitch | |
| | +--------------+ | |
| +----------------------| PMD |----------------------+ |
| | | |
| +-------^------+ |
----------------------------------|---------------------------------
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Kernel Space +----------V-----------+ |
+----------------------| NIC |--------------------+
+----------------------+
Figure 2: Example architecture of the User-Space Acceleration Model
Figure 2 shows user-space vSwitch model, in which data packets from
physical network port are bypassed kernel processing and delivered
directly to the vSwitch running on user-space. This model is
commonly considered as Data Plane Acceleration (DPA) technology since
it can achieve high-rate packet processing than a kernel-space
network with limited packet throughput. For bypassing kernel and
directly transferring the packet to vSwitch, Data Plane Development
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
Kit (DPDK) is essentially required. With DPDK, an additional driver
called Pull-Mode Driver (PMD) is created on vSwtich. PMD driver must
be created for each NIC separately. Userspace CNI [userspace-cni] is
required to create user-space acceleration container networking.
User-space vSwitch models are listed below;
o ovs-dpdk[ovs-dpdk], vpp[vpp]
4.1.3. eBPF Acceleration Model
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| User Space |
| +----------------+ +----------------+ |
| | C-VNF | | C-VNF | |
| | +------------+ | | +------------+ | |
| +-| veth |-+ +-| veth |-+ |
| +-----^------+ +------^-----+ |
| | | |
-------------|---------------------------------------|--------------
| +-----v-------+ +-----v-------+ |
| | +------+ | | +------+ | |
| | | eBPF | | | | eBPF | | |
| | +------+ | | +------+ | |
| | veth tc hook| | veth tc hook| |
| +-----^-------+ +------^------+ |
| | | |
| | +-------------------------------+ | |
| | | | | |
| | | Networking Stack | | |
| | | | | |
| | +-------------------------------+ | |
| +-----v-------+ +-----v-------+ |
| | +------+ | | +------+ | |
| | | eBPF | | | | eBPF | | |
| | +------+ | | +------+ | |
| | veth tc hook| | veth tc hook| |
| +-------------+ +-------------+ |
| | OR | | OR | |
| +-|-------------|------------------------|-------------|--+ |
| | +-------------+ +-------------+ | |
| | | +------+ | | +------+ | | |
| | | | eBPF | | NIC Driver | | eBPF | | | |
| | | +------+ | | +------+ | | |
| | | XDP hook | | XDP hook | | |
| | +-------------+ +------------ + | |
| +---------------------------^-----------------------------+ |
| | |
| Kernel Space +--------v--------+ |
+-----------------------| NIC |------------------------+
+-----------------+
Figure 3: Example architecture of the eBPF Acceleration Model -
non-AFXDP
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| User Space |
| +-----------------+ +-----------------+ |
| | C-VNF | | C-VNF | |
| | +-------------+ | +--------------+ | +-------------+ | |
| +-| veth |-+ | CNDP APIs | +-| veth |-+ |
| +-----^-------+ +--------------+ +------^------+ |
| | | |
| +-----v-------+ +------v------+ |
-------| AFXDP |------------------------| AFXDP |------|
| | socket | | socket | |
| +-----^-------+ +-----^-------+ |
| | | |
| | +-------------------------------+ | |
| | | | | |
| | | Networking Stack | | |
| | | | | |
| | +-------------------------------+ | |
| | | |
| +-------|---------------------------------------|--------+ |
| | +-----|------+ +----|-------+| |
| | | +--v---+ | | +-v----+ || |
| | | | eBPF | | NIC Driver | | eBPF | || |
| | | +------+ | | +------+ || |
| | | XDP hook | | XDP hook || |
| | +-----^------+ +----^-------+| |
| +-------|-------------------^-------------------|--------+ |
| | | |
-------------|---------------------------------------|--------------
| +---------+ +---------+ |
| +------|-------------------|----------+ |
| | +----v-------+ +----v-------+ | |
| | | netdev | | netdev | | |
| | | OR | | OR | | |
| | | sub/virtual| | sub/virtual| | |
| | | function | | function | | |
| Kernel Space | +------------+ NIC +------------+ | |
+---------------| |------------+
+-------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Example architecture of the eBPF Acceleration Model -
using AFXDP supported CNI
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| User Space |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ |
| | C-VNF | | C-VNF | |
| | +-----------+ | +-----------------+ | +-----------+ | |
| | |virtio-user| | | Networking | | |virtio-user|-| |
| +-| / eth |-+ | Controller/Agent| +-| / eth |-+ |
| +-----^-----+ +-------^^--------+ +-----^-----+ |
| | || | |
| | || | |
| +-----v-----+ || +-----v-----+ |
| | vhost-user| || | vhost-user| |
| +--| / memif |--------------vv--------------| / memif |--+ |
| | +-----^-----+ +-----^-----+ | |
| | | vSwitch | | |
| | +-----v-----+ +-----v-----+ | |
| +--| AFXDP PMD |------------------------------| AFXDP PMD |--+ |
| +-----^-----+ +-----^-----+ |
| | | |
| +-----v-----+ +-----v-----+ |
------| AFXDP |------------------------------| AFXDP |-----|
| | socket | | socket | |
| +-----^----+ +-----^-----+ |
| | | |
| | +-------------------------------+ | |
| | | | | |
| | | Networking Stack | | |
| | | | | |
| | +-------------------------------+ | |
| | | |
| +------|------------------------------------------|--------+ |
| | +----|-------+ +------|-----+ | |
| | | +-v----+ | | +---v--+ | | |
| | | | eBPF | | NIC Driver | | eBPF | | | |
| | | +------+ | | +------+ | | |
| | | XDP hook | | XDP hook | | |
| | +------------+ +------------+ | |
| +----------------------------^-----------------------------+ |
| | |
----------------------------------|---------------------------------
| | |
| Kernel Space +----------v-----------+ |
+----------------------| NIC |--------------------+
+----------------------+
Figure 5: Example architecture of the eBPF Acceleration Model -
using user- space vSwitch which support AFXDP PMD
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
The eBPF Acceleration model leverages the extended Berkeley Packet
Filter (eBPF) technology [eBPF] to achieve high-performance packet
processing. It enables execution of sandboxed programs inside
abstract virtual machines within the Linux kernel without changing
the kernel source code or loading the kernel module. To accelerate
data plane performance, eBPF programs are attached to different BPF
hooks inside the linux kernel stack.
One type of BPF hook is the eXpress Data Path (XDP) at the networking
driver. It is the first hook that triggers eBPF program upon packet
reception from external network. The other type of BPF hook is
Traffic Control Ingress/Egress eBPF hook (tc eBPF). The eBPF program
running at the tc hook enforce policy on all traffic exit the pod,
while the eBPF program running at the XDP hook enforce policy on all
traffic coming from NIC.
On the egress datapath side, whenever a packet exits the pod, it
first goes through the pod’s vETH interface. Then, the destination
that received the packet depends on the chosen CNI plugin that is
used to create container networking. If the chosen CNI plugin is a
non-AFXDP-based CNI, the packet is received by the eBPF program
running at vETH interface tc hook. If the chosen CNI plugin is an
AFXDP-supported CNI, the packet is received by the AFXDP socket
[AFXDP]. AFXDP socket is a new Linux socket type which allows a fast
packet delivery tunnel between itself and the XDP hook at the
networking driver. This tunnel bypasses the network stack in kernel
space to provide high-performance raw packet networking. Packets are
transmitted between user space and AFXDP socket via a shared memory
buffer. Once the egress packet arrived at the AFXDP socket or tc
hook, it is directly forwarded to the NIC.
On the ingress datapath side, eBPF programs at the XDP hook/tc hook
pick up packets from the NIC network devices (NIC ports). In case of
using AFXDP CNI plugin [afxdp-cni], there are two operation modes:
“primary” and “cdq”. In “primary” mode, NIC network devices can be
directly allocated to pods. Meanwhile, in “cdq” mode, NIC network
devices can be efficiently partioned to subfunctions or SR-IOV
virtual functions, which enables multiple pods to share a primary
network device. Then, from network devices, packets are directly
delivered to the vETH interface pair or AFXDP socket (via or not via
AFXDP socket depends on the chosen CNI), bypass all of the kernel
network layer processing such as iptables. In case of Cilium CNI
[Cilium], context-switching process to the pod network namespace can
also be bypassed.
Notable eBPF Acceleration models can be classified into 3 categories
below. Their corresponding model architecture are shown in Figure 3,
Figure 4, Figure 5.
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
o non-AFXDP: eBPF supported CNI such as Calico [Calico], Cilium
[Cilium]
o using AFXDP supported CNI: AFXDP K8s plugin [afxdp-cni] used by
Cloud Native Data Plane project [CNDP]
o using user-space vSwitch which support AFXDP PMD: OVS-DPDK
[ovs-dpdk] and VPP [vpp] are the vSwitches that have AFXDP device
driver support. Userspace CNI [userspace-cni] is used to enable
container networking via these vSwitches.
Container network performance of Cilium project is reported by the
project itself in [cilium-benchmark]. Meanwhile, AFXDP performance
and comparison against DPDK are reported in [intel-AFXDP] and
[LPC18-DPDK-AFXDP], respectively.
4.1.4. Smart-NIC Acceleration Model
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| User Space |
| +-----------------+ +-----------------+ |
| | C-VNF | | C-VNF | |
| | +-------------+ | | +-------------+ | |
| +-| vf driver |-+ +-| vf driver |-+ |
| +-----^-------+ +------^------+ |
| | | |
-------------|---------------------------------------|--------------
| +---------+ +---------+ |
| +------|-------------------|------+ |
| | +----v-----+ +-----v----+ | |
| | | virtual | | virtual | | |
| | | function | | function | | |
| Kernel Space | +----^-----+ NIC +-----^----+ | |
+---------------| | | |----------------+
| +----v-------------------v----+ |
| | Classify and Queue | |
| +-----------------------------+ |
+---------------------------------+
Figure 6: Examples of Smart-NIC Acceleration Model
Figure 6 shows Smart-NIC acceleration model, which does not use
vSwitch component. This model can be separated into two
technologies.
One is Single-Root I/O Virtualization (SR-IOV), which is an extension
of PCIe specifications to enable multiple partitions running
simultaneously within a system to share PCIe devices. In the NIC,
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
there are virtual replicas of PCI functions known as virtual
functions (VF), and each of them is directly connected to each
container's network interfaces. Using SR-IOV, data packets from
external bypass both kernel and user space and are directly forwarded
to container’s virtual network interface. SRIOV network device
plugin for Kubernetes[SR-IOV] is recommended to create an SRIOV-based
container networking.
The other technology is eBPF/XDP programs offloading to Smart-NIC
card as mentioned in the previous section. It enables general
acceleration of eBPF. eBPF programs are attached to XDP and run at
the Smart-NIC card, which allows server CPUs to perform more
application-level work. However, not all Smart-NIC cards provide
eBPF/XDP offloading support.
4.1.5. Model Combination
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| User Space |
| +--------------------+ +--------------------+ |
| | C-VNF | | C-VNF | |
| | +------+ +------+ | | +------+ +------+ | |
| +-| veth |--| veth |-+ +-| veth |--| veth |-+ |
| +---^--+ +---^--+ +--^---+ +---^--+ |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | +---v--------+ +-------v----+ | |
| | | vhost-user | | vhost-user | | |
| | +--| / memif |--| / memif |--+ | |
| | | +------------+ +------------+ | | |
| | | vSwitch | | |
| | +----------------------------------+ | |
| | | |
--------|----------------------------------------|-------
| +-----------+ +-------------+ |
| +----|--------------|---+ |
| |+---v--+ +---v--+| |
| || vf | | vf || |
| |+------+ +------+| |
| Kernel Space | | |
+--------------| NIC |----------------+
+-----------------------+
Figure 7: Examples of Model Combination deployment
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
Figure 7 shows the networking model when combining user-space vSwitch
model and Smart-NIC acceleration model. This model is frequently
considered in service function chain scenarios when two different
types of traffic flows are present. These two types are North/South
traffic and East/West traffic.
North/South traffic is the type that packets are received from other
servers and routed through VNF. For this traffic type, Smart-NIC
model such as SR-IOV is preferred because packets always have to pass
the NIC. User-space vSwitch involvement in north-south traffic will
create more bottlenecks. On the other hand, East/West traffic is a
form of sending and receiving data between containers deployed in the
same server and can pass through multiple containers. For this type,
user-space vSwitch models such as OVS-DPDK and VPP are preferred
because packets are routed within the user space only and not through
the NIC.
The throughput advantages of these different networking models with
different traffic direction cases are reported in [Intel-SRIOV-NFV].
4.2. Resources Configuration
4.2.1. CPU Isolation / NUMA Affinity
CPU pinning enables benefits such as maximizing cache utilization,
eliminating operating system thread scheduling overhead as well as
coordinating network I/O by guaranteeing resources. This technology
is very effective in avoiding the "noisy neighbor" problem, and it is
already proved in existing experience [Intel-EPA].
Using NUMA, performance will be increasing not CPU and memory but
also network since that network interface connected PCIe slot of
specific NUMA node have locality. Using NUMA requires a strong
understanding of VNF's memory requirements. If VNF uses more memory
than a single NUMA node contains, the overhead will occurr due to
being spilled to another NUMA node. Network performance can be
changed depending on the location of the NUMA node whether it is the
same NUMA node where the physical network interface and CNF are
attached to. There is benchmarking experience for cross-NUMA
performance impacts [cross-NUMA-vineperf]. In that tests, they
consist of cross-NUMA performance with 3 scenarios depending on the
location of the traffic generator and traffic endpoint. As the
results, it was verified as below:
o A single NUMA Node serving multiple interfaces is worse than Cross-
NUMA Node performance degradation
o Worse performance with VNF sharing CPUs across NUMA
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
4.2.2. Hugepages
Hugepage configures a large page size of memory to reduce Translation
Lookaside Buffer(TLB) miss rate and increase the application
performance. This increases the performance of logical/virtual to
physical address lookups performed by a CPU's memory management unit,
and overall system performance. In the containerized infrastructure,
the container is isolated at the application level, and
administrators can set huge pages more granular level (e.g.,
Kubernetes allows to use of 512M bytes huge pages for the container
as default values). Moreover, this page is dedicated to the
application but another process, so the application uses the page
more efficiently way. From a network benchmark point of view,
however, the impact on general packet processing can be relatively
negligible, and it may be necessary to consider the application level
to measure the impact together. In the case of using the DPDK
application, as reported in [Intel-EPA], it was verified to improve
network performance because packet handling processes are running in
the application together.
4.2.3. CPU Cores and Memory Allocation
Different resources allocation choices may impact the container
network performance. These include different CPU cores and RAM
allocation to Pods, and different CPU cores allocation to the Poll
Mode Driver and the vSwitch. Benchmarking experience from [ViNePERF]
which was published in [GLOBECOM-21-benchmarking-kubernetes] verified
that:
o 2 CPUs per Pod is insufficient for all packet frame sizes. With
large packet frame sizes (over 1024), increasing CPU per pods
significantly increases the throughput. Different RAM allocation to
Pods also causes different throughput results
o Not assigning dedicated CPU cores to DPDK PMD causes significant
performance dropss
o Increasing CPU core allocation to OVS-DPDK vSwitch does not affect
its performance. However, increasing CPU core allocation to VPP
vSwitch results in better latency.
Besides, regarding user-space acceleration model which uses PMD to
poll packets to the user-space vSwitch, dedicated CPU cores
assignment to PMD’s Rx Queues might improve the network performance.
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
4.2.4. Service Function Chaining
When we consider benchmarking for containerized and VM-based
infrastructure and network functions, benchmarking scenarios may
contain various operational use cases. Traditional black-box
benchmarking focuses on measuring the in-out performance of packets
from physical network ports since the hardware is tightly coupled
with its function and only a single function is running on its
dedicated hardware. However, in the NFV environment, the physical
network port commonly will be connected to multiple VNFs(i.e.,
Multiple PVP test setup architectures were described in
[ETSI-TST-009]) rather than dedicated to a single VNF. This scenario
is called Service Function Chaining. Therefore, benchmarking
scenarios should reflect operational considerations such as the
number of VNFs or network services defined by a set of VNFs in a
single host. [service-density] proposed a way for measuring the
performance of multiple NFV service instances at a varied service
density on a single host, which is one example of these operational
benchmarking aspects. Another aspect in benchmarking service
function chaining scenario should be considered is different network
acceleration technologies. Network performance differences may occur
because of different traffic patterns based on the provided
acceleration method.
4.2.5. Additional Considerations
Apart from the single-host test scenario, the multi-hosts scenario
should also be considered in container network benchmarking, where
container services are deployed across different servers. To provide
network connectivity for container-based VNFs between different
server nodes, inter-node networking is required. According to
[ETSI-NFV-IFA-038], there are several technologies to enable inter-
node network: overlay technologies using a tunnel endpoint (e.g.
VXLAN, IP in IP), routing using Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), layer
2 underlay, direct network using dedicated NIC for each pod, or load
balancer using LoadBalancer service type in Kubernetes. Different
protocols from these technologies may cause performance differences
in container networking.
5. Security Considerations
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
technology characterization of a Device Under Test/System Under Test
(DUT/SUT) using controlled stimuli in a laboratory environment with
dedicated address space and the constraints specified in the sections
above.
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
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 and relies
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.
6. References
6.1. Informative References
[AFXDP] "AF_XDP", September 2022,
<https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.19/networking/
af_xdp.html>.
[afxdp-cni]
"AF_XDP Plugins for Kubernetes",
<https://github.com/intel/afxdp-plugins-for-kubernetes>.
[Calico] "Project Calico", July 2019,
<https://docs.projectcalico.org/>.
[Cilium] "Cilium Documentation", March 2022,
<https://docs.cilium.io/en/stable//>.
[cilium-benchmark]
Cilium, "CNI Benchmark: Understanding Cilium Network
Performance", May 2021,
<https://cilium.io/blog/2021/05/11/cni-benchmark>.
[CNDP] "CNDP - Cloud Native Data Plane", September 2022,
<https://cndp.io/>.
[cross-NUMA-vineperf]
Anuket Project, "Cross-NUMA performance measurements with
VSPERF", March 2019, <https://wiki.anuket.io/display/HOME/
Cross-NUMA+performance+measurements+with+VSPERF>.
[Docker-network]
"Docker, Libnetwork design", July 2019,
<https://github.com/docker/libnetwork/>.
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
[eBPF] "eBPF, extended Berkeley Packet Filter", July 2019,
<https://www.iovisor.org/technology/ebpf>.
[ETSI-NFV-IFA-038]
"Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV) Release 4;
Architectural Framework; Report on network connectivity
for container-based VNF", November 2021.
[ETSI-TST-009]
"Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV) Release 3;
Testing; Specification of Networking Benchmarks and
Measurement Methods for NFVI", October 2018.
[Flannel] "flannel 0.10.0 Documentation", July 2019,
<https://coreos.com/flannel/>.
[GLOBECOM-21-benchmarking-kubernetes]
Sridhar, R., Paganelli, F., and A. Morton, "Benchmarking
Kubernetes Container-Networking for Telco Usecases",
December 2021.
[intel-AFXDP]
Karlsson, M., "AF_XDP Sockets: High Performance Networking
for Cloud-Native Networking Technology Guide", January
2021.
[Intel-EPA]
Intel, "Enhanced Platform Awareness in Kubernetes", 2018,
<https://builders.intel.com/docs/networkbuilders/enhanced-
platform-awareness-feature-brief.pdf>.
[Intel-SRIOV-NFV]
Patrick, K. and J. Brian, "SR-IOV for NFV Solutions
Practical Considerations and Thoughts", February 2017.
[LPC18-DPDK-AFXDP]
Karlsson, M. and B. Topel, "The Path to DPDK Speeds for
AF_XDP", November 2018.
[OVN] "How to use Open Virtual Networking with Kubernetes", July
2019, <https://github.com/ovn-org/ovn-kubernetes>.
[OVS] "Open Virtual Switch", July 2019,
<https://www.openvswitch.org/>.
[ovs-dpdk] "Open vSwitch with DPDK", July 2019,
<http://docs.openvswitch.org/en/latest/intro/install/
dpdk/>.
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8172] Morton, A., "Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual
Network Functions and Their Infrastructure", RFC 8172,
July 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8172>.
[RFC8204] Tahhan, M., O'Mahony, B., and A. Morton, "Benchmarking
Virtual Switches in the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV)",
RFC 8204, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8204>.
[service-density]
Konstantynowicz, M. and P. Mikus, "NFV Service Density
Benchmarking", March 2019, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-mkonstan-nf-service-density-00>.
[SR-IOV] "SRIOV for Container-networking", July 2019,
<https://github.com/intel/sriov-cni>.
[userspace-cni]
"Userspace CNI Plugin", August 2021,
<https://github.com/intel/userspace-cni-network-plugin>.
[ViNePERF] "Project: Virtual Network Performance for Telco NFV",
<https://wiki.anuket.io/display/HOME/ViNePERF>.
[vpp] "VPP with Containers", July 2019, <https://fdio-
vpp.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usecases/containers.html>.
Appendix A. Benchmarking Experience(Contiv-VPP)
A.1. Benchmarking Environment
In this test, our purpose is to test the performance of user-space
based model for container infrastructure and figure out the
relationship between resource allocation and network performance.
With respect to this, we set up Contiv-VPP, one of the user-space
based network solutions in container infrastructure and tested like
below.
o Three physical server for benchmarking
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
+-------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| Node Name | Specification | Description |
+-------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| Conatiner Control |- Intel(R) Xeon(R) | Container Deployment |
| for Master | CPU E5-2690 | and Network Allocation |
| | (2Socket X 12Core) |- ubuntu 18.04 |
| |- MEM 128G |- Kubernetes Master |
| |- DISK 2T |- CNI Conterller |
| |- Control plane : 1G |.. Contive VPP Controller |
| | |.. Contive VPP Agent |
+-------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| Conatiner Service |- Intel(R) Xeon(R) | Container Service |
| for Worker | Gold 6148 |- ubuntu 18.04 |
| | (2socket X 20Core) |- Kubernetes Worker |
| |- MEM 128G |- CNI Agent |
| |- DISK 2T |.. Contive VPP Agent |
| |- Control plane : 1G | |
| |- Data plane : MLX 10G| |
| | (1NIC 2PORT) | |
+-------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| Packet Generator |- Intel(R) Xeon(R) | Packet Generator |
| | CPU E5-2690 |- CentOS 7 |
| | (2Socket X 12Core) |- installed Trex 2.4 |
| |- MEM 128G | |
| |- DISK 2T | |
| |- Control plane : 1G | |
| |- Data plane : MLX 10G| |
| | (1NIC 2PORT) | |
+-------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
Figure 8: Test Environment-Server Specification
o The architecture of benchmarking
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
+----+ +--------------------------------------------------------+
| | | Containerized Infrastructure Master Node |
| | | +-----------+ |
| <-------> 1G PORT 0 | |
| | | +-----------+ |
| | +--------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| | +--------------------------------------------------------+
| | | Containerized Infrastructure Worker Node |
| | | +---------------------------------+ |
| s | | +-----------+ | +------------+ +------------+ | |
| w <-------> 1G PORT 0 | | | 10G PORT 0 | | 10G PORT 1 | | |
| i | | +-----------+ | +------^-----+ +------^-----+ | |
| t | | +--------|----------------|-------+ |
| c | +-----------------------------|----------------|---------+
| h | | |
| | +-----------------------------|----------------|---------+
| | | Packet Generator Node | | |
| | | +--------|----------------|-------+ |
| | | +-----------+ | +------v-----+ +------v-----+ | |
| <-------> 1G PORT 0 | | | 10G PORT 0 | | 10G PORT 1 | | |
| | | +-----------+ | +------------+ +------------+ | |
| | | +---------------------------------+ |
| | | |
+----+ +--------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 9: Test Environment-Architecture
o Network model of Containerized Infrastructure(User space Model)
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
+---------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| NUMA 0 | NUMA 0 |
+---------------------------------------------|---------------------+
| Containerized Infrastructure Worker Node | |
| +---------------------------+ | +----------------+ |
| | POD1 | | | POD2 | |
| | +-------------+ | | | +-------+ | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | +--v---+ +---v--+ | | | +-v--+ +-v--+ | |
| | | eth1 | | eth2 | | | | |eth1| |eth2| | |
| | +--^---+ +---^--+ | | | +-^--+ +-^--+ | |
| +------|-------------|------+ | +---|-------|----+ |
| +--- | | | | |
| | +-------|---------------|------+ | |
| | | | +------|--------------+ |
| +----------|--------|-------|--------|----+ | |
| | v v v v | | |
| | +-tap10--tap11-+ +-tap20--tap21-+ | | |
| | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | | |
| | | | VRF1 | | | | VRF2 | | | | |
| | +--|--------|--+ +--|--------|--+ | | |
| | | +-----+ | +---+ | | |
| | +-tap01--|--|-------------|----|---+ | | |
| | | +------v--v-+ VRF0 +----v----v-+ | | | |
| | +-| 10G ETH0/0|------| 10G ETH0/1|-+ | | |
| | +---^-------+ +-------^---+ | | |
| | +---v-------+ +-------v---+ | | |
| +---| DPDK PMD0 |------| DPDK PMD1 |------+ | |
| +---^-------+ +-------^---+ | User Space |
+---------|----------------------|------------|---------------------+
| +-----|----------------------|-----+ | Kernal Space |
+---| +---V----+ +----v---+ |------|---------------------+
| | PORT 0 | 10G NIC | PORT 1 | | |
| +---^----+ +----^---+ |
+-----|----------------------|-----+
+-----|----------------------|-----+
+---| +---V----+ +----v---+ |----------------------------+
| | | PORT 0 | 10G NIC | PORT 1 | | Packet Generator (Trex) |
| | +--------+ +--------+ | |
| +----------------------------------+ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 10: Test Environment-Network Architecture
We set up a Contive-VPP network to benchmark the user space container
network model in the containerized infrastructure worker node. We
set up network interface at NUMA0, and we created different network
subnets VRF1, VRF2 to classify input and output data traffic,
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
respectively. And then, we assigned two interfaces which connected
to VRF1, VRF2 and, we setup routing table to route Trex packet from
eth1 interface to eth2 interface in POD.
A.2. Trouble shooting and Result
In this environment, we confirmed that the routing table doesn't work
when we send packets using Trex packet generator. The reason is that
when kernel space based network configured, ip forwarding rule is
processed to kernel stack level while 'ip packet forwarding rule' is
processed only in vrf0, which is the default virtual routing and
forwarding (VRF0) in VPP. The above testing architecture makes
problem since vrf1 and vrf2 interface couldn't route packet.
According to above result, we assigned vrf0 and vrf1 to POD and, data
flow is like below.
+---------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| NUMA 0 | NUMA 0 |
+---------------------------------------------|---------------------+
| Containerized Infrastructure Worker Node | |
| +---------------------------+ | +----------------+ |
| | POD1 | | | POD2 | |
| | +-------------+ | | | +-------+ | |
| | +--v----+ +---v--+ | | | +-v--+ +-v--+ | |
| | | eth1 | | eth2 | | | | |eth1| |eth2| | |
| | +--^---+ +---^--+ | | | +-^--+ +-^--+ | |
| +------|-------------|------+ | +---|-------|----+ |
| +-------+ | | | | |
| | +-------------|---------------|------+ | |
| | | | +------|--------------+ |
| +-----|-------|-------------|--------|----+ | |
| | | | v v | | |
| | | | +-tap10--tap11-+ | | |
| | | | | ^ ^ | | | |
| | | | | | VRF1 | | | | |
| | | | +--|--------|--+ | | |
| | | | | +---+ | | |
| | +-*tap00--*tap01----------|----|---+ | | |
| | | +-V-------v-+ VRF0 +----v----v-+ | | | |
| | +-| 10G ETH0/0|------| 10G ETH0/1|-+ | | |
| | +-----^-----+ +------^----+ | | |
| | +-----v-----+ +------v----+ | | |
| +---|*DPDK PMD0 |------|*DPDK PMD1 |------+ | |
| +-----^-----+ +------^----+ | User Space |
+-----------|-------------------|-------------|---------------------+
v v
*- CPU pinning interface
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
Figure 11: Test Environment-Network Architecture(CPU Pinning)
We conducted benchmarking with three conditions. The test
environments are as follows. - Basic VPP switch - General kubernetes
(No CPU Pining) - Shared Mode / Exclusive mode. In the basic
Kubernetes environment, all PODs share a host's CPU. Shared mode is
that some POD share a pool of CPU assigned to specific PODs.
Exclusive mode is that a specific POD dedicates a specific CPU to
use. In shared mode, we assigned two CPUs for several PODs, in
exclusive mode, we dedicated one CPU for one POD, independently. The
result is like Figure 12. First, the test was conducted to figure
out the line rate of the VPP switch, and the basic Kubernetes
performance. After that, we applied NUMA to the network interface
using Shared Mode and Exclusive Mode in the same node and different
node. In Exclusive and Shared mode tests, we confirmed that
Exclusive mode showed better performance than Shared mode when same
NUMA CPU was assigned, respectively. However, we confirmed that
performance is reduced at the section between the vpp switch and the
POD, affecting the total result.
+--------------------+---------------------+-------------+
| Model | NUMA Mode (pinning)| Result(Gbps)|
+--------------------+---------------------+-------------+
| | N/A | 3.1 |
| Maximum Line Rate |---------------------+-------------+
| | same NUMA | 9.8 |
+--------------------+---------------------+-------------+
| Without CMK | N/A | 1.5 |
+--------------------+---------------------+-------------+
| | same NUMA | 4.7 |
| CMK-Exclusive Mode +---------------------+-------------+
| | Different NUMA | 3.1 |
+--------------------+---------------------+-------------+
| | same NUMA | 3.5 |
| CMK-shared Mode +---------------------+-------------+
| | Different NUMA | 2.3 |
+--------------------+---------------------+-------------+
Figure 12: Test Results
Appendix B. Benchmarking Experience(SR-IOV with DPDK)
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
B.1. Benchmarking Environment
In this test, our purpose is to test the performance of Smart-NIC
acceleration model for container infrastructure and figure out
relationship between resource allocation and network performance.
With respect to this, we setup SRIOV combining with DPDK to bypass
the Kernel space in container infrastructure and tested based on
that.
o Three physical server for benchmarking
+-------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+
| Node Name | Specification | Description |
+-------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+
| Conatiner Control |- Intel(R) Core(TM) | Container Deployment |
| for Master | i5-6200U CPU | and Network Allocation |
| | (1socket x 4Core) |- ubuntu 18.04 |
| |- MEM 8G |- Kubernetes Master |
| |- DISK 500GB |- CNI Conterller |
| |- Control plane : 1G | MULTUS CNI |
| | | SRIOV plugin with DPDK|
+-------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+
| Conatiner Service |- Intel(R) Xeon(R) | Container Service |
| for Worker | E5-2620 v3 @ 2.4Ghz |- Centos 7.7 |
| | (1socket X 6Core) |- Kubernetes Worker |
| |- MEM 128G |- CNI Agent |
| |- DISK 2T | MULTUS CNI |
| |- Control plane : 1G | SRIOV plugin with DPDK|
| |- Data plane : XL710-qda2| |
| | (1NIC 2PORT- 40Gb) | |
+-------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+
| Packet Generator |- Intel(R) Xeon(R) | Packet Generator |
| | Gold 6148 @ 2.4Ghz |- CentOS 7.7 |
| | (2Socket X 20Core) |- installed Trex 2.4 |
| |- MEM 128G | |
| |- DISK 2T | |
| |- Control plane : 1G | |
| |- Data plane : XL710-qda2| |
| | (1NIC 2PORT- 40Gb) | |
+-------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+
Figure 13: Test Environment-Server Specification
o The architecture of benchmarking
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
+----+ +--------------------------------------------------------+
| | | Containerized Infrastructure Master Node |
| | | +-----------+ |
| <-------> 1G PORT 0 | |
| | | +-----------+ |
| | +--------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| | +--------------------------------------------------------+
| | | Containerized Infrastructure Worker Node |
| | | +---------------------------------+ |
| s | | +-----------+ | +------------+ +------------+ | |
| w <-------> 1G PORT 0 | | | 40G PORT 0 | | 40G PORT 1 | | |
| i | | +-----------+ | +------^-----+ +------^-----+ | |
| t | | +--------|----------------|-------+ |
| c | +-----------------------------|----------------|---------+
| h | | |
| | +-----------------------------|----------------|---------+
| | | Packet Generator Node | | |
| | | +--------|----------------|-------+ |
| | | +-----------+ | +------v-----+ +------v-----+ | |
| <-------> 1G PORT 0 | | | 40G PORT 0 | | 40G PORT 1 | | |
| | | +-----------+ | +------------+ +------------+ | |
| | | +---------------------------------+ |
| | | |
+----+ +--------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 14: Test Environment-Architecture
o Network model of Containerized Infrastructure(User space Model)
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
+---------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| CMK shared core | CMK exclusive core |
+---------------------------------------------|---------------------+
| Containerized Infrastructure Worker Node | |
| +---------------------------+ | +----------------+ |
| | POD1 | | | POD2 | |
| | (testpmd) | | | (testpmd) | |
| | +-------------+ | | | +-------+ | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | +--v---+ +---v--+ | | | +-v--+ +-v--+ | |
| | | eth1 | | eth2 | | | | |eth1| |eth2| | |
| | +--^---+ +---^--+ | | | +-^--+ +-^--+ | |
| +------|-------------|------+ | +---|-------|----+ |
| | | | | | |
| +------ +-+ | | | |
| | +----|-----------------|------+ | |
| | | | +--------|--------------+ |
| | | | | | User Space|
+---------|------------|----|--------|--------|---------------------+
| | | | | | |
| +--+ +------| | | | |
| | | | | | Kernal Space|
+------|--------|-----------|--------|--------+---------------------+
| +----|--------|-----------|--------|-----+ | |
| | +--v--+ +--v--+ +--v--+ +--v--+ | | NIC|
| | | VF0 | | VF1 | | VF2 | | VF3 | | | |
| | +--|---+ +|----+ +----|+ +-|---+ | | |
| +----|------|---------------|-----|------+ | |
+---| +v------v+ +-v-----v+ |------|---------------------+
| | PORT 0 | 40G NIC | PORT 1 | |
| +---^----+ +----^---+ |
+-----|----------------------|-----+
+-----|----------------------|-----+
+---| +---V----+ +----v---+ |----------------------------+
| | | PORT 0 | 40G NIC | PORT 1 | | Packet Generator (Trex) |
| | +--------+ +--------+ | |
| +----------------------------------+ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 15: Test Environment-Network Architecture
We set up a Multus CNI, SRIOV CNI with DPDK to benchmark the user-
space container network model in the containerized infrastructure
worker node. The Multus CNI support creates multiple interfaces for
a container. The traffic is bypassed the Kernel space by SRIOV with
DPDK. We established two modes of CMK: shared core and exclusive
core. We created VFs for each network interface of a container.
Then, we set up TREX to route packet from eth1 to eth2 in a POD.
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
B.2. Trouble shooting and Results
Figure 16 shows the test results when using 1518 bytes packet traffic
from the T-Rex traffic generator. First, we get the maximum line
rate of the system using SR-IOV as the packet acceleration technique.
Then we measured throughput when applying the CMK feature. We
observed similar results as VPP CPU Pinning test. The default
Kubernetes system without CMK feature enabled had the worst
performance as the CPU resources are shared without any isolation.
When the CMK feature is enabled, Exclusive Mode performed better than
Shared Mode because each pod had its own dedicated CPU.
+--------------------+-------------+
| Model | Result(Gbps)|
+--------------------+-------------+
| Maximum Line Rate | 39.3 |
+--------------------+-------------+
| Without CMK | 11.5 |
+--------------------+-------------+
| CMK-Exclusive Mode | 39.2 |
+--------------------+-------------+
| CMK-shared Mode | 29.6 |
+--------------------+-------------+
Figure 16: SR-IOV CPU Pinning Test Results
Appendix C. Benchmarking Experience(Multi-pod Test)
C.1. Benchmarking Overview
The main goal of this experience was to benchmark the multi-pod
scenario, in which packets are traversed through two pods. To create
additional interfaces for forwarding packets between two pods, Multus
CNI was used. We compared two userspace-vSwitch model network
technologies: OVS/DPDK and VPP-memif. Since that vpp-memif has a
different packet forwarding mechanism by using shared memory
interface, it is expected that vpp-memif may provide higher
performance that OVS-DPDK. Also, we consider NUMA impact for both
cases, and made 6 scenarios depending on CPU location of vSwitch and
two pods. Figure 17 is packet forwarding scenario in this test,
where two pods run on the same host and vSwitch delivers packets
between two pods.
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|Worker Node |
| +--------------------------------------------------------+ |
| |Kubernetes | |
| | +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
| | | pod1 | | pod2 | | |
| | | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | |
| | | | L2FWD | | | | L2FWD | | | |
| | | +---^--v-+ | | +--^--v--+ | | |
| | | | DPDK | | | | DPDK | | | |
| | | +---^--v-+ | | +--^--v--+ | | |
| | +------^--v----+ +-----^--v-----+ | |
| | ^ v ^ v | |
| | +------^--v>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>^--v-----+ | |
| | | ^ OVS-DPDK / VPP-memif vSwitch v | | |
| | +------^---------------------------------v-----+ | |
| | | ^ PMD Driver v | | |
| | +------^---------------------------------v-----+ | |
| | ^ v | |
| +----------^---------------------------------v-----------+ |
| ^ v |
| +----------^---------------------------------v---------+ |
| | ^ 40G NIC v | |
| | +------^-------+ +--------v-----+ | |
+---|---| Port 0 |----------------| Port 1 |---|-----+
| +------^-------+ +--------v-----+ |
+----------^---------------------------------v---------+
+------^-------+ +--------v-----+
+-------| Port 0 |----------------| Port 1 |---------+
| +------^-------+ +--------v-----+ |
| Traffic Generator (TRex) |
| |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 17: Multi-pod Benchmarking Scenario
C.2. Hardware Configurations
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
+-------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+
| Node Name | Specification | Description |
+-------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+
| Conatiner Control |- Intel(R) Core(TM) | Container Deployment |
| for Master | E5-2620v3 @ 2.40GHz | and Network Allocation |
| | (1socket x 12Cores) |- ubuntu 18.04 |
| |- MEM 32GB |- Kubernetes Master |
| |- DISK 1TB |- CNI Controller |
| |- NIC: Control plane: 1G | - MULTUS CNI |
| |- OS: CentOS Linux7.9 | - DPDK-OVS/VPP-memif |
+-------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+
| Conatiner Service |- Intel(R) Xeon(R) |- Container dpdk-L2fwd |
| for Worker | Gold 6148 @ 2.40GHz |- Kubernetes Worker |
| | (2socket X 40Cores) |- CNI Agent |
| |- MEM 256GB | - Multus CNI |
| |- DISK 2TB | - DPDK-OVS/VPP-memif |
| |- NIC | |
| | - Control plane: 1G | |
| | - Data plane: XL710-qda2| |
| | (1NIC 2PORT- 40Gb) | |
| |- OS: CentOS Linux 7.9 | |
+-------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+
| Packet Generator |- Intel(R) Xeon(R) | Packet Generator |
| | Gold 6148 @ 2.4Ghz |- Installed Trex v2.92 |
| | (2Socket X 40Core) | |
| |- MEM 256GB | |
| |- DISK 2TB | |
| |- NIC | |
| | - Data plane: XL710-qda2| |
| | (1NIC 2PORT - 40Gb) | |
| |- OS: CentOS Lunix 7.9 | |
+-------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+
Figure 18: Hardware Configurations for Multi-pod Benchmarking
For installations and configurations of CNIs, we used userspace-cni
network plugin. Among this CNI, multus provides to create multiple
interfaces for each pod. Both OVS-DPDK and VPP-memif bypass kernel
with DPDK PMD driver. For CPU isolation and NUMA allocation, we used
Intel CMK with exclusive mode. Since Trex generator is upgraded to
the new version, we used the latest version of Trex.
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
C.3. NUMA Allocation Scenario
To analyze benchmarking impacts of different NUMA allocation, we set
6 scenarios depending on CPU location allocating to two pods and
vSwich. For this scenario, we did not consider cross-NUMA case,
which allocates CPUs to pod or switch in a manner that two cores are
located in different NUMA nodes. 6 scenarios we considered are listed
in Table 1. Note that, NIC is attached to the NUMA1.
+============+=========+=======+=======+
| Scenario # | vSwtich | pod1 | pod2 |
+============+=========+=======+=======+
| S1 | NUMA1 | NUMA0 | NUMA0 |
+------------+---------+-------+-------+
| S2 | NUMA1 | NUMA1 | NUMA1 |
+------------+---------+-------+-------+
| S3 | NUMA0 | NUMA0 | NUMA0 |
+------------+---------+-------+-------+
| S4 | NUMA0 | NUMA1 | NUMA1 |
+------------+---------+-------+-------+
| S5 | NUMA1 | NUMA1 | NUMA0 |
+------------+---------+-------+-------+
| S6 | NUMA0 | NUMA0 | NUMA1 |
+------------+---------+-------+-------+
Table 1: NUMA Allocation Scenarios
C.4. Traffic Generator Configurations
For multi-pod benchmarking, we discovered Non Drop Rate (NDR) with
binary search algorithm. In Trex, it supports command to discover
NDR for each testing. Also, we test for different ethernet frame
sizes from 64bytes to 1518bytes. For running Trex, we used command
as follows;
./ndr --stl --port 0 1 -v --profile stl/bench.py --prof-tun size=x --
opt-bin-search
C.5. Benchmark Results and Trouble-shootings
As the benchmarking results, Table 2 shows packet loss ratio using
1518 bytes packet in OVS-DPDK/vpp-memif. From that result, we can
say that the vpp-memif has better performance that OVS-DPDK, which is
came from the difference in the way to forward packets between
vswitch and pod. Also, the impact of NUMA is bigger when vswitch and
both pods are located in the same node than when allocating CPU to
the node where NIC is attached.
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
+==================+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+
| Networking Model | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 |
+==================+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+
| OVS-DPDK | 21.29 | 13.17 | 6.32 | 19.76 | 12.43 | 6.38 |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| vpp-memif | 59.96 | 34.17 | 45.13 | 57.1 | 33.47 | 44.92 |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Table 2: Multi-pod Benchmarking Results (% of Line Rate)
Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
D.1. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-09
Remove Additional Deployment Scenarios (section 4.1 of version 09).
We agreed with reviews from VinePerf that performance difference
between with-VM and without-VM scenarios are negligible
Remove Additional Configuration Parameters (section 4.2 of version
09). We agreed with reviews from VinePerf that these parameters are
explained in Performance Impacts/Resources Configuration section
As VinePerf suggestion to categorize the networking models based on
how they can accelerate the network performances, rename titles of
section 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 of version 09: Kernel-space vSwitch model and
User-space vSwitch model to Kernel-space non-Acceleration model and
User-space Acceleration model. Update corresponding explanation of
kernel-space non-Acceleration model
VinePerf suggested to replace the general architecture of eBPF
Acceleration model with 3 seperate architecture for 3 different eBPF
Acceleration model: non-AFXDP, using AFXDP supported CNI, and using
user-space vSwitch which support AFXDP PMD. Update corresponding
explanation of eBPF Acceleration model
Rename Performance Impacts section (section 4.4 of version 09) to
Resources Configuration.
We agreed with VinePerf reviews to add "CPU Cores and Memory
Allocation" consideration into Resources Configuration section
D.2. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-08
Added new Section 4. Benchmarking Considerations. Previous
Section 4. Networking Models in Containerized Infrastructure was
moved into this new Section 4 as a subsection
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
Re-organized Additional Deployment Scenarios for containerized
network benchmarking contents from Section 3. Containerized
Infrastructure Overview to new Section 4. Benchmarking
Considerations as the Addtional Deployment Scenarios subsection
Added new Addtional Configuration Parameters subsection to new
Section 4. Benchmarking Considerations
Moved previous Section 5. Performance Impacts into new Section 4.
Benchmarking Considerations as the Deployment settings impact on
network performance section
Updated eBPF Acceleration Model with AFXDP deployment option
Enhanced Abstract and Introduction's description about the draft's
motivation and contribution.
D.3. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-07
Added eBPF Acceleration Model in Section 4. Networking Models in
Containerized Infrastructure
Added Model Combination in Section 4. Networking Models in
Containerized Infrastructure
Added Service Function Chaining in Section 5. Performance Impacts
Added Troubleshooting and Results for SRIOV-DPDK Benchmarking
Experience
D.4. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-06
Added Benchmarking Experience of Multi-pod Test
D.5. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-05
Removed Section 3. Benchmarking Considerations, Removed Section 4.
Benchmarking Scenarios for the Containerized Infrastructure
Added new Section 3. Containerized Infrastructure Overview, Added
new Section 4. Networking Models in Containerized Infrastructure.
Added new Section 5. Performance Impacts
Re-organized Subsection Comparison with the VM-based Infrastructure
of previous Section 3. Benchmarking Considerations and previous
Section 4.Benchmarking Scenarios for the Containerized Infrastructure
to new Section 3. Containerized Infrastructure Overview
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
Re-organized Subsection Container Networking Classification of
previous Section 3. Benchmarking Considerations to new Section 4.
Networking Models in Containerized Infrastructure. Kernel-space
vSwitch models and User-space vSwitch models were presented as
seperate subsections in this new Section 4.
Re-organized Subsection Resource Considerations of previous
Section 3. Benchmarking Considerations to new Section 5.
Performance Impacts as 2 seperate subsections CPU Isolation / NUMA
Affinity and Hugepages. Previous Section 5. Additional
Considerations was moved into this new Section 5 as the Additional
Considerations subsection.
Moved Benchmarking Experience contents to Appendix
D.6. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-04
Added Benchmarking Experience of SRIOV-DPDK.
D.7. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-03
Added Benchmarking Experience of Contiv-VPP.
D.8. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-02
Editorial changes only.
D.9. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-01
Editorial changes only.
D.10. Since draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-00
Added Container Networking Classification in Section 3.Benchmarking
Considerations (Kernel Space network model and User Space network
model).
Added Resource Considerations in Section 3.Benchmarking
Considerations(Hugepage, NUMA, RX/TX Multiple-Queue).
Renamed Section 4.Test Scenarios to Benchmarking Scenarios for the
Containerized Infrastructure, added 2 additional scenarios BMP2VMP
and VMP2VMP.
Added Additional Consideration as new Section 5.
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
Contributors
Kyoungjae Sun - ETRI - Republic of Korea
Email: kjsun@etri.re.kr
Hyunsik Yang - KT - Republic of Korea
Email: yangun@dcn.ssu.ac.kr
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Al Morton for their valuable ideas
and comments for this work.
Authors' Addresses
Tran Minh Ngoc
Soongsil University
369, Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu
Seoul
06978
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 28200841
Email: mipearlska1307@dcn.ssu.ac.kr
Sridhar Rao
The Linux Foundation
B801, Renaissance Temple Bells, Yeshwantpur
Bangalore 560022
India
Phone: +91 9900088064
Email: srao@linuxfoundation.org
Jangwon Lee
Soongsil University
369, Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu
Seoul
06978
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 1074484664
Email: jangwon.lee@dcn.ssu.ac.kr
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Containerized Infra March 2023
Younghan Kim
Soongsil University
369, Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu
Seoul
06978
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 1026910904
Email: younghak@ssu.ac.kr
Tran, et al. Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 37]
