...
Theme: What is expected, What is unexpected,
V2V:
- Performance differences upto 1024 bytes packets sizes can be seen.
- Single vCPU serving more interfaces is worse than CPU on the other numa serving the interfaces - This pattern is also seen in other (P2P, and PVP) scenarios.
- RFC2544 with Loss-Verification is more consistent across runs, compared with RFC2544 without loss verification.
P2P:
- Only the smaller (64 and 128) packet sizes matter. For packets sizes above 128 the throughput performance remains similar.
- Scenarios 2 and 7 can be seen as the worst case scenarios with both the PMD-cores running on different NUMA than the NIC. As expected, the performance is consistently low for both scenarios-2 and 7.
- Interesting cases are Scenario-3 and Scenario-9. Here a single pmd-core ends up serving both the NICs. This results in poorer performance than Scenario-2 and 7.
- Scenario 1, 6, and 8 can be seen as good cases where each of the NICs are served by single, separate PMD-cores.
- When one NIC is served by pmd-core on the same NUMA, whereas the other NIC is served by pmd-core on a different NUMA - Scenarios 4 and 5 - can be seen as average cases with lower performance than 1, 6 and 8 - but not as low as 3, 9, 2, and 7.
- There is no difference in performance between continuous and RFC2544-throughput traffic tests.
...