[Devel] L2 network namespace benchmarking (resend with Service Demand)
Daniel Lezcano
dlezcano at fr.ibm.com
Fri Mar 30 07:16:28 PDT 2007
Hi,
as suggested Rick, I added the Service Demand results to the matrix.
Cheers.
----------------
Hi,
I did some benchmarking on the existing L2 network namespaces.
These patches are included in the lxc patchset at:
http://lxc.sourceforge.net/patches/2.6.20
The lxc7 patchset series contains Dmitry's patchset
The lxc8 patchset series contains Eric's patchset
Here are the following scenarii I made in order to do some simple
benchmarking on the network namespace. I tested three kernels:
* Vanilla kernel 2.6.20
* lxc7 with Dmitry's patchset based on 2.6.20
* L3 network namespace has been removed to do testing
* lxc8 with Eric's patchset based on 2.6.20
I didn't do any tests on Linux-Vserver because it is L3 namespace and
it is not comparable with the L2 namespace implementation. If anyone
is interessted by Linux-Vserver performances, that can be found at
http://lxc.sf.net. Roughly, we know there is no performance
degradation.
For each kernel, several configurations were tested:
* vanilla, obviously, only one configuration was tested for reference
values.
* lxc7, network namespace
- compiled out
- compiled in
- without container
- inside a container with ip_forward, route and veth
- inside a container with a bridge and veth
* lxc8, network namespace
- compiled out
- compiled in
- without container
- inside a container with a real network device (eth1 was moved
in the container instead of using an etun device)
- inside a container with ip_forward, route and etun
- inside a container with a bridge and etun
Each benchmarking has been done with 2 machines running netperf and
tbench. A dedicated machine with a RH4 kernel run the bench servers.
For each bench, netperf and tbench, the tests are ran on:
* Intel Xeon EM64T, Bi-processor 2,8GHz with hyperthreading
activated, 4GB of RAM and Gigabyte NIC (tg3)
* AMD Athlon MP 1800+, Bi-processor 1,5GHz, 1GB of RAM and Gigabyte
NIC (dl2000)
Each tests are run on these machines in order to have a CPU relative
overhead.
# bench on vanilla
===================
----------- ----------------------------------------------------
| Netperf | CPU usage (%) | Throughput (Mbits/s) | SD (us/KB) |
----------- ----------------------------------------------------
| on xeon | 5.99 | 941.38 | 2.084 |
----------------------------------------------------------------
| on athlon | 28.17 | 844.82 | 5.462 |
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------- -----------------------
| Tbench | Throughput (MBytes/s) |
----------- -----------------------
| on xeon | 66.35 |
-----------------------------------
| on athlon | 65.31 |
-----------------------------------
# bench from Dmitry's patchset
==============================
1 - with net_ns compiled out
----------------------------
-----------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Netperf | CPU usage (%) / overhead | Throughput (Mbits/s) / changed
| SD (us/KB) |
----------- -----------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on xeon | 5.93 / -1 % | 941.32 / 0 %
| 2.066 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on athlon | 28.89 / +2.5 % | 842.78 / -0.2 %
| 5.615 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------- ---------------------------------
| Tbench | Throughput (MBytes/s) / changed |
----------- ---------------------------------
| on xeon | 67.00 / +0.9 % |
---------------------------------------------
| on athlon | 65.45 / 0 % |
---------------------------------------------
Observation : no noticeable overhead
2 - with net_ns compiled in
---------------------------
2.1 - without container
-----------------------
-----------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Netperf | CPU usage (%) / overhead | Throughput (Mbits/s) / changed
| SD (us/KB) |
----------- -----------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on xeon | 6.23 / +4 % | 941.35 / 0 %
| 2.168 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on athlon | 28.83 / +2.3 % | 850.76 / +0.7 %
| 5.552 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------- ---------------------------------
| Tbench | Throughput (MBytes/s) / changed |
----------- ---------------------------------
| on xeon | 67.00 / 0 % |
---------------------------------------------
| on athlon | 65.45 / 0 % |
---------------------------------------------
Observation : no noticeable overhead
2.2 - inside the container with veth and routes
-----------------------------------------------
-----------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Netperf | CPU usage (%) / overhead | Throughput (Mbits/s) / changed
| SD (us/KB) |
----------- -----------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on xeon | 17.14 / +186.1 % | 941.34 / 0 %
| 5.966 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on athlon | 49.99 / +77.45 % | 838.85 / +0.7 %
| 9.763 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------- ---------------------------------
| Tbench | Throughput (MBytes/s) / changed |
----------- ---------------------------------
| on xeon | 66.00 / -0.5 % |
---------------------------------------------
| on athlon | 61.00 / -6.65 % |
---------------------------------------------
Observation : CPU overhead is very big, throughput is impacted on
the less powerful machine
2.3 - inside the container with veth and bridge
-----------------------------------------------
-----------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Netperf | CPU usage (%) / overhead | Throughput (Mbits/s) / changed
| SD (us/KB) |
----------- -----------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on xeon | 19.14 / +299 % | 941.18 / 0 %
| 6.863 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on athlon | 49.98 / +77.42 % | 831.65 / -1.5 %
| 9.846 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------- ---------------------------------
| Tbench | Throughput (MBytes/s) / changed |
----------- ---------------------------------
| on xeon | 64.00 / -3.5 % |
---------------------------------------------
| on athlon | 60.07 / -8.3 % |
---------------------------------------------
Observation : CPU overhead is very big, throughput is impacted on
the less powerful machine
# bench from Eric's patchset
============================
1 - with net_ns compiled out
----------------------------
-----------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Netperf | CPU usage (%) / overhead | Throughput (Mbits/s) / changed
| SD (us/KB) |
----------- -----------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on xeon | 6.04 / +0.8 % | 941.33 / 0 %
| 2.104 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on athlon | 28.45 / +1 % | 840.76 / -0.5 %
| 5.545 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------- ---------------------------------
| Tbench | Throughput (MBytes/s) / changed |
----------- ---------------------------------
| on xeon | 65.69 / -1 % |
---------------------------------------------
| on athlon | 65.35 / -0.2 % |
---------------------------------------------
Observation : no noticeable overhead
2 - with net_ns compiled in
---------------------------
2.1 - without container
-----------------------
-----------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Netperf | CPU usage (%) / overhead | Throughput (Mbits/s) / changed
| SD (us/KB) |
----------- -----------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on xeon | 6.02 / +0.5 % | 941.34 / 0 %
| 2.097 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on athlon | 27.93 / -0.8 % | 833.53 / -1.3 %
| 5.490 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------- ---------------------------------
| Tbench | Throughput (MBytes/s) / changed |
----------- ---------------------------------
| on xeon | 66.00 / -0.5 % |
---------------------------------------------
| on athlon | 64.94 / -0.9 % |
---------------------------------------------
Observation : no noticeable overhead
2.2 - inside the container with real device
-------------------------------------------
-----------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Netperf | CPU usage (%) / overhead | Throughput (Mbits/s) / changed
| SD (us/KB) |
----------- -----------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on xeon | 5.60 / -6.5 % | 941.42 / 0 %
| 1.949 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on athlon | 27.73 / -1.5 % | 835.11 / +1.5 %
| 5.440 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------- ---------------------------------
| Tbench | Throughput (MBytes/s) / changed |
----------- ---------------------------------
| on xeon | 74.36 / +12 % |
---------------------------------------------
| on athlon | 70.87 / +8.2 % |
---------------------------------------------
Observation : no noticeable overhead. The network interface is only
used by the container, so I guess it does not interact with another
network traffic and that explains the performances are better.
2.3 - inside the container with etun and routes
-----------------------------------------------
-----------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Netperf | CPU usage (%) / overhead | Throughput (Mbits/s) / changed
| SD (us/KB) |
----------- -----------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on xeon | 16.25 / +171 % | 941.31 / 0 %
| 5.657 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on athlon | 49.99 / +77 % | 828.94 / -1.9 %
| 9.880 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------- ---------------------------------
| Tbench | Throughput (MBytes/s) / changed |
----------- ---------------------------------
| on xeon | 65.61 / -1.1 % |
---------------------------------------------
| on athlon | 62.58 / -4.5 % |
---------------------------------------------
Observation : The CPU overhead is very big. Throughput is a little
impacted on the less powerful machine.
2.4 - inside the container with etun and bridge
-----------------------------------------------
-----------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Netperf | CPU usage (%) / overhead | Throughput (Mbits/s) / changed
| SD (us/KB) |
----------- -----------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on xeon | 18.39 / +207 % | 941.30 / 0 %
| 6.400 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
| on athlon | 49.94 / +77 % | 823.75 / -2.5 %
| 9.933 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------- ---------------------------------
| Tbench | Throughput (MBytes/s) / changed |
----------- ---------------------------------
| on xeon | 66.52 / +0.2 % |
---------------------------------------------
| on athlon | 61.07 / -6.8 % |
---------------------------------------------
Observation : The CPU overhead is very big. Throughput is a little
impacted on the less powerful machine.
3. General observations
-----------------------
The objective to have no performances degrations, when the network
namespace is off in the kernel, is reached in both solutions.
When the network is used outside the container and the network
namespace are compiled in, there is no performance degradations.
Eric's patchset allows to move network devices between namespaces and
this is clearly a good feature, missing in the Dmitry's patchset. This
feature helps us to see that the network namespace code does not add
overhead when using directly the physical network device into the
container.
The loss of performances is very noticeable inside the container and
seems to be directly related to the usage of the pair device and the
specific network configuration needed for the container. When the
packets are sent by the container, the mac address is for the pair
device but the IP address is not owned by the host. That directly
implies to have the host to act as a router and the packets to be
forwarded. That adds a lot of overhead.
A hack has been made in the ip_forward function to avoid useless
skb_cow when using the pair device/tunnel device and the overhead
is reduced by the half.
Regards.
-- Daniel
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
More information about the Devel
mailing list