Add support for uperf driver #118

venkataanil · 2023-11-17T08:50:30Z

Similar to iperf, user can run uperf along with netperf using "--uperf" option

benchmark-wrapper is used a reference for parsing

user options and creating uperf config file
(input to uperf client command)
uperf output

uperf driver supports only TCP_STREAM, UPD_STREAM, TCP_RR, and UDP_RR tests.
For each test in full-run.yaml, Uperf driver will create a uperf profile file inside the client pod and uses it to run the test. Parallelism is implemented using uperf's nproc option

uperf server can't be run using "&&" option in the same container inside server pod i.e
"netserver && iperf3 -s -p 22865 && uperf -s -v -P 30000 && sleep 10000000" So we are creating a separate container in server pod for uperf server.

Type of change

Description

Related Tickets & Documents

Related Issue #
Closes #

Checklist before requesting a review

I have performed a self-review of my code.
If it is a core feature, I have added thorough tests.

Testing

Please describe the System Under Test.
Please provide detailed steps to perform tests related to this code change.
How were the fix/results from this change verified? Please provide relevant screenshots or results.

jtaleric

Great work Anil! I will plan to test this -- just ran out of time this Friday! Great stuff!!

pkg/k8s/kubernetes.go

pkg/uperf/uperf.go

venkataanil

Thanks Joe for reviw. Kindly see my reply comments

pkg/uperf/uperf.go

mukrishn

Good addition! lgtm except the service port range.

pkg/k8s/kubernetes.go

SachinNinganure · 2023-11-23T06:25:17Z

Hello @venkataanil
Can we also have the driver details on RR output

venkataanil · 2023-11-24T06:16:51Z

Hello @venkataanil Can we also have the driver details on RR output

done, thanks

pkg/uperf/uperf.go

rsevilla87 · 2023-11-29T21:58:51Z

"netserver && iperf3 -s -p 22865 && uperf -s -v -P 30000 && sleep 10000000" So we are creating a separate container in server pod for uperf server.

Why?, because iperf and uperf server mode run in foreground?

You can always use & to run them in background with something like:

$ (netserver & iperf3 -s -p 22865 & uperf -s -v -P 30000) && sleep inf

$ ps -ef | egrep "uperf|netserver|iperf"
egrep: warning: egrep is obsolescent; using grep -E
rsevilla  839931  839929  0 22:57 pts/3    00:00:00 iperf3 -s -p 22865
rsevilla  839932  839929  0 22:57 pts/3    00:00:00 uperf -s -v -P 30000
rsevilla  839933    3241  0 22:57 ?        00:00:00 netserver

pkg/uperf/uperf.go

venkataanil · 2023-12-01T08:07:49Z

Thanks, I tried only in foreground . Moving them to containers is a good option. Lets continue it.

Similar to iperf, user can run uperf along with netperf using "--uperf" option benchmark-wrapper is used a reference for parsing 1) user options and creating uperf config file (input to uperf client command) 2) uperf output uperf driver supports only TCP_STREAM, UPD_STREAM, TCP_RR, and UDP_RR tests. For each test in full-run.yaml, Uperf driver will create a uperf profile file inside the client pod and uses it to run the test. Parallelism is implemented using uperf's nproc option uperf server can't be run using "&&" option in the same container inside server pod i.e "netserver && iperf3 -s -p 22865 && uperf -s -v -P 30000 && sleep 10000000" So we are creating a separate containers for netperf, iperf and uperf inside server pod. Add driver details in RR P99 Latency results

rsevilla87 · 2023-12-01T15:26:54Z

Thanks, I tried only in foreground . Moving them to containers is a good option. Lets continue it.

I'm not sure what changes you've added in the last commit but I still see multiple containers for the servers

jtaleric

Tested locally. Nice work!

jtaleric · 2023-12-04T17:43:39Z

Thanks, I tried only in foreground . Moving them to containers is a good option. Lets continue it.

I'm not sure what changes you've added in the last commit but I still see multiple containers for the servers

@rsevilla87 I would like to get 1 more +1 -- let me know if you feel there is anything else for @venkataanil to address.

jtaleric · 2023-12-04T17:54:34Z

Does uperf not provide re-transmission info?

+---------------------+---------+------------+-------------+--------------+---------+--------------+-----------+----------+---------+------------+
|        TYPE         | DRIVER  |  SCENARIO  | PARALLELISM | HOST NETWORK | SERVICE | MESSAGE SIZE | SAME NODE | DURATION | SAMPLES | AVG VALUE  |
+---------------------+---------+------------+-------------+--------------+---------+--------------+-----------+----------+---------+------------+
| TCP Retransmissions | netperf | TCP_STREAM | 1           | false        | false   | 1024         | false     | 30       | 3       | 38.333333  |
| TCP Retransmissions | uperf   | TCP_STREAM | 1           | false        | false   | 1024         | false     | 30       | 3       | 0.000000   |
| TCP Retransmissions | netperf | TCP_STREAM | 2           | false        | false   | 1024         | false     | 30       | 3       | 47.000000  |
| TCP Retransmissions | uperf   | TCP_STREAM | 2           | false        | false   | 1024         | false     | 30       | 3       | 0.000000   |
| TCP Retransmissions | netperf | TCP_STREAM | 1           | false        | false   | 8192         | false     | 30       | 3       | 40.333333  |
| TCP Retransmissions | uperf   | TCP_STREAM | 1           | false        | false   | 8192         | false     | 30       | 3       | 0.000000   |
| TCP Retransmissions | netperf | TCP_STREAM | 2           | false        | false   | 8192         | false     | 30       | 3       | 170.000000 |
| TCP Retransmissions | uperf   | TCP_STREAM | 2           | false        | false   | 8192         | false     | 30       | 3       | 0.000000   |
| UDP Loss Percent    | netperf | UDP_STREAM | 1           | false        | false   | 1024         | false     | 30       | 3       | 2.435977   |
| UDP Loss Percent    | uperf   | UDP_STREAM | 1           | false        | false   | 1024         | false     | 30       | 3       | 0.000000   |
+---------------------+---------+------------+-------------+--------------+---------+--------------+-----------+----------+---------+------------+

venkataanil · 2023-12-05T05:53:37Z

Thanks, I tried only in foreground . Moving them to containers is a good option. Lets continue it.

I'm not sure what changes you've added in the last commit but I still see multiple containers for the servers

Lets go with multiple containers approach only. So I retained multiple containers code in this patch.

venkataanil · 2023-12-05T05:56:15Z

Does uperf not provide re-transmission info?

+---------------------+---------+------------+-------------+--------------+---------+--------------+-----------+----------+---------+------------+
|        TYPE         | DRIVER  |  SCENARIO  | PARALLELISM | HOST NETWORK | SERVICE | MESSAGE SIZE | SAME NODE | DURATION | SAMPLES | AVG VALUE  |
+---------------------+---------+------------+-------------+--------------+---------+--------------+-----------+----------+---------+------------+
| TCP Retransmissions | netperf | TCP_STREAM | 1           | false        | false   | 1024         | false     | 30       | 3       | 38.333333  |
| TCP Retransmissions | uperf   | TCP_STREAM | 1           | false        | false   | 1024         | false     | 30       | 3       | 0.000000   |
| TCP Retransmissions | netperf | TCP_STREAM | 2           | false        | false   | 1024         | false     | 30       | 3       | 47.000000  |
| TCP Retransmissions | uperf   | TCP_STREAM | 2           | false        | false   | 1024         | false     | 30       | 3       | 0.000000   |
| TCP Retransmissions | netperf | TCP_STREAM | 1           | false        | false   | 8192         | false     | 30       | 3       | 40.333333  |
| TCP Retransmissions | uperf   | TCP_STREAM | 1           | false        | false   | 8192         | false     | 30       | 3       | 0.000000   |
| TCP Retransmissions | netperf | TCP_STREAM | 2           | false        | false   | 8192         | false     | 30       | 3       | 170.000000 |
| TCP Retransmissions | uperf   | TCP_STREAM | 2           | false        | false   | 8192         | false     | 30       | 3       | 0.000000   |
| UDP Loss Percent    | netperf | UDP_STREAM | 1           | false        | false   | 1024         | false     | 30       | 3       | 2.435977   |
| UDP Loss Percent    | uperf   | UDP_STREAM | 1           | false        | false   | 1024         | false     | 30       | 3       | 0.000000   |
+---------------------+---------+------------+-------------+--------------+---------+--------------+-----------+----------+---------+------------+

I used benchmark-wrapper and benchmark-operator as base for running uperf and parsing results. uperf wrapper https://github.com/cloud-bulldozer/benchmark-wrapper/blob/master/snafu/benchmarks/uperf/uperf.py was not having info related to re-transimmion, so I couldn't add it.
I will push another PR for re-transmition and additional changes.

rsevilla87

lgtm

venkataanil force-pushed the uperf-driver branch 2 times, most recently from d7fa2f7 to 9f779b2 Compare November 17, 2023 10:59

jtaleric reviewed Nov 17, 2023

View reviewed changes

pkg/k8s/kubernetes.go Show resolved Hide resolved

pkg/uperf/uperf.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pkg/uperf/uperf.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

venkataanil commented Nov 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

pkg/uperf/uperf.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pkg/uperf/uperf.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

mukrishn reviewed Nov 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

pkg/k8s/kubernetes.go Show resolved Hide resolved

venkataanil force-pushed the uperf-driver branch 2 times, most recently from 6a75d27 to 0f274b0 Compare November 23, 2023 04:20

venkataanil force-pushed the uperf-driver branch 2 times, most recently from da37b95 to 72f6a25 Compare November 23, 2023 07:29

jtaleric requested review from jtaleric and mukrishn November 28, 2023 19:16

venkataanil force-pushed the uperf-driver branch from 72f6a25 to ee93b88 Compare November 29, 2023 10:45

rsevilla87 reviewed Nov 29, 2023

View reviewed changes

pkg/uperf/uperf.go Show resolved Hide resolved

rsevilla87 reviewed Nov 29, 2023

View reviewed changes

pkg/uperf/uperf.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

venkataanil force-pushed the uperf-driver branch from ee93b88 to 07c2f07 Compare December 1, 2023 08:14

jtaleric approved these changes Dec 4, 2023

View reviewed changes

rsevilla87 self-requested a review December 5, 2023 10:34

rsevilla87 approved these changes Dec 5, 2023

View reviewed changes

jtaleric merged commit 2d00766 into cloud-bulldozer:main Dec 5, 2023
5 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add support for uperf driver #118

Add support for uperf driver #118

venkataanil commented Nov 17, 2023 •

edited by rsevilla87

Loading

jtaleric left a comment

venkataanil left a comment

mukrishn left a comment

SachinNinganure commented Nov 23, 2023

venkataanil commented Nov 24, 2023

rsevilla87 commented Nov 29, 2023 •

edited

Loading

venkataanil commented Dec 1, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rsevilla87 commented Dec 1, 2023 •

edited

Loading

jtaleric left a comment

jtaleric commented Dec 4, 2023

jtaleric commented Dec 4, 2023

venkataanil commented Dec 5, 2023

venkataanil commented Dec 5, 2023

rsevilla87 left a comment

Add support for uperf driver #118

Add support for uperf driver #118

Conversation

venkataanil commented Nov 17, 2023 • edited by rsevilla87 Loading

Type of change

Description

Related Tickets & Documents

Checklist before requesting a review

Testing

jtaleric left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

venkataanil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mukrishn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

SachinNinganure commented Nov 23, 2023

venkataanil commented Nov 24, 2023

rsevilla87 commented Nov 29, 2023 • edited Loading

venkataanil commented Dec 1, 2023 • edited Loading

rsevilla87 commented Dec 1, 2023 • edited Loading

jtaleric left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jtaleric commented Dec 4, 2023

jtaleric commented Dec 4, 2023

venkataanil commented Dec 5, 2023

venkataanil commented Dec 5, 2023

rsevilla87 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

venkataanil commented Nov 17, 2023 •

edited by rsevilla87

Loading

rsevilla87 commented Nov 29, 2023 •

edited

Loading

venkataanil commented Dec 1, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rsevilla87 commented Dec 1, 2023 •

edited

Loading