& cplSiteName &

Are You Really Getting 400 Gbit/s Performance?

Sterling Perrin
9/11/2013
0%
100%

Driven by continuing IP traffic growth, a new generation of 400 Gbit/s network processors is beginning to emerge. Such processors have been announced by a handful of vendors, with more to come.

However, scaling from 100 Gbit/s to 400 Gbit/s processors is not an easy feat. Recently, we witnessed some 400 Gbit/s network processor performance testing in a lab and were surprised by some of the results. Based on this data, we believe that there may be some wide variations between what is claimed on spec sheets and the real world performance that is achievable.

We believe that service providers evaluating new higher capacity systems must perform extensive testing on their own in order to ensure that the high-end systems perform as advertised under a variety of conditions that mirror real-world traffic mixes and traffic growth. Otherwise, service providers may be stuck with true performance that is far below the advertised 400G sticker. In fact, under certain conditions, true performance may not even be better than the legacy routers that are being replaced.

One important test is the packet sweep test. The packet sweep tests router performance over a spectrum of different packet sizes, from small (64 bytes) to large (1,500 bytes or greater), in order to ensure consistent performance across the full range of incoming packet variants. It is somewhat counterintuitive, but the greatest demands on the processor occur at the smallest packet sizes. The reason is that small packet sizes force greater amounts of table look-ups per second, and this burdens the processor.

The test we reviewed showed a 400 Gbit/s processor consistently dropping packets at all sizes, both small and large. As the packet size increased, the performance did not improve. On a few occasions, packets dropped by as much as 50 percent, and we never saw more than 80 percent throughput at any point in the test.

A second test, known as the Internet mix (or IMIX) test, was reviewed. Just as there is no typical packet size, there is no typical service provider IP traffic mix. It varies greatly from provider to provider. The test we reviewed used a couple of different real-world IMIX samples provided by service providers, based on their network scenarios. The results showed poor performance across a range of IMIX profiles. The processor appeared to suffer from problems related to storing packets for lookup, which resulted in severe performance impact on all traffic types tested. Significantly, when comparing two generations of processor performance, the new 400 Gbit/s processor demonstrated anywhere from 20 percent to 50 percent less performance based on serviceable bandwidth.

A third test measured the performance of a processor while enabling service level agreements (SLAs). Here, the results showed that enabling SLAs on connections reduced the actual throughput of the processor from 400 Gbit/s to 100 Gbit/s, meaning that only 50 percent of the advertised 100 GigE ports would be available with SLAs turned on.

The tests above are tied closely to the conventional views of scale, meaning the ability to handle more and more bits through the processor and on the network. As the Internet evolves from person-to-person communications to the machine-to-machine dominated Internet of things, another component of scale is becoming increasingly important: the ability to handle more and more flows through the network.

For next-generation routers, this means they must not only process massive amounts of bits, but they must also be able to process massive numbers of flows. Routers equipped with 400 Gbit/s processors must be tested in their abilities to handle tens of thousands of flows. As a rule of thumb, a 10 GigE port will typically serve 500 customers. If we assume just four classes of service per customer (a low assumption), this creates 2,000 different flows per 10 GigE port. With 20 x 10 GigE ports per line card (the state-of-the-art in existing designs), this creates 40,000 different flows per card. As we move to an Internet of things, it is very possible that these next-gen routers could hit performance limits on supported flows long before they hit their maximum capacities in bit/s. It is another dimension of scale that must be accounted for and tested in evaluating core routers.

The final point we will touch upon is efficiency in power consumption and footprint. It is well understood that these opex factors are of critical importance to service providers. In some regions, where power costs are well above global averages or where equipment is deployed in dense urban areas where space is severely limited, power and space requirements may make or break a buying decision. Even in the US, however, we have had discussions with large service providers who place power and space at the top of their lists.

Here again, service providers need to dig deeper than the power and space requirements that are advertised. To get a true understanding of space and power, these advertised specs must be placed in the context of the overall performance of the system -- as determined by packet sweep tests, IMIX tests, flow limitations, and any other tests that are performed on the system.

For example, if performance testing and evaluations show that a system will perform at 80 percent of its capacity limits under real-world network conditions, then this needs to be taken into account for space and power consumption. In this case, 20 percent more space and 20 percent greater power consumption would be needed to achieve 400 Gbit/s of capacity. Failing to account for any performance limitations sets service providers up for unwelcome opex surprises when these new systems start to fill up in the network.

In summary, vendors rolling out new 400 Gbit/s silicon promise routers that are smarter, faster, and greener than previous generations, but some in-depth test results we've seen indicate that this may not be the case. Service providers cannot afford to rely on vendor claims in this area. Rather, extensive testing -- of the kind we’ve described in this article -- is a must. The added time and costs of upfront testing will pay dividends for years to come.

This blog was commissioned by Cisco Systems. The blog was created independently of Cisco, and Heavy Reading is wholly responsible for its contents.

— Sterling Perrin, Senior Analyst, Heavy Reading


Interested in learning more on this topic? Then come to Ethernet & SDN Expo, a Light Reading Live event that takes place on October 2-3, 2013 at the Javits Center in New York City. Co-located with Interop, Light Reading's Ethernet & SDN Expo will focus on how the convergence of Carrier Ethernet 2.0 with emerging carrier software-defined networking (SDN) and network functions virtualization (NFV) technologies could change the whole telecom landscape for service providers. For more information, or to register,
click here
.


(15)  | 
Comment  | 
Print  | 
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
mfaisalk
50%
50%
mfaisalk,
User Rank: Lightning
9/14/2013 | 11:05:32 PM
400G performance
We need to be careful with our judgements here. It is one vendor testing another vendor. What good you can expect here ?

 

Faisal
David Burns
50%
50%
David Burns,
User Rank: Light Beer
9/13/2013 | 2:05:16 PM
Check the math
Quote (snipped for conciseness):
if performance testing and evaluations show that a system will perform at 80 percent of its capacity limits under real-world network conditions ... 20 percent more space and 20 percent greater power consumption would be needed to achieve 400 Gbit/s of capacity.

Wrong. If actual performance is 20% lower, you need to provision 25% more equipment to achieve the targeted performance. Simple example: 8 x 400 Gbit/s should give you 3200 Gbit/s. If processors perform at 80%, actual performance of one processor is 320 GBit/s, so you need 10 to reach your target - 25% more than 8.
desiEngineer
50%
50%
desiEngineer,
User Rank: Light Beer
9/13/2013 | 1:17:08 PM
Re: Which network processor tests?
Sterling,

If you can guarantee that the tests were fair and impartial, then yes, enquiring minds want to know.

If not, don't attach your name (and LightReading's), and then hide behind some "this is newsworthy" BS.  And I don't care how sophisticated and expensive the lab is, I am not ingenuous enough to believe that the lab was created for the purpose of the general public.  Clue#1: I haven't seen one report come out of that lab that showed a single Cisco product in a negative light.

No vendor has a vested interest in impartiality.  Knowing how much marketing is attached to all claims, it behooves the operators to do their due diligence, but to pretend that Cisco can do that due diligence for all of us is naive at best.

-desi
Surfer Blue
50%
50%
Surfer Blue,
User Rank: Light Beer
9/13/2013 | 12:54:07 PM
Re: Which network processor tests?
Service providers do extensive testing before deploying any new hardware in their networks.  FP3 cards have been available for a couple of years and are widely deployed – clearly they have been thouroughly vetted in the field.  Personally I'd take real world testing and deployment experience over contrived competitor lab testing any day.  

 
sterlingperrin
50%
50%
sterlingperrin,
User Rank: Lightning
9/13/2013 | 9:36:34 AM
Re: Which network processor tests?
Yarn,

You are correct - I have no interest in standing in the middle. Here's the thing. Cisco has a test lab that would be the envy of all but the very largest tier 1 operators. They conduct very thorough and very expensive testing of their competitors' products, which they've been doing for 13 years (probably not something they want publicized). In this case, they came to us - and some other media as well - with information from their labs that was compelling and newsworthy.

Are we saying that Cisco's results are conclusive about ALU, or any particular competitor? Absolutely not!! But we do believe there was enough in there to raise broad questions and write this piece.

I have received calls from people at ALU who are understandably upset. They are getting calls from customers who are asking questions. It's not an easy thing to go through, I'm sure, but as media, it is our job to bring the right topics of debate to the forefront and spark the dialogue. We made a judgment that 400G performance testing is a legitimate topic and that questions should be asked of all 400G NP players - ALU, Cisco, Huawei, Juniper, and any other market entrants that emerge.

Sterling

 
mendyk
50%
50%
mendyk,
User Rank: Light Sabre
9/12/2013 | 7:28:34 PM
Re: Which network processor tests?
We note the sponsorship of the blog for full-disclosure purposes. We also note that Heavy Reading is wholly responsible for the content. The post by Sterling calls attention to the fact that performance claims often do not pass scrutiny, which means operators should do their own evaluations before making purchase decisions.
tb100
50%
50%
tb100,
User Rank: Moderator
9/12/2013 | 6:01:11 PM
Re: Which network processor tests?
Wait a minute. Did you just say, and I quote: "It is Cisco's testing of Alcatel-Lucent's 400G processor"? (and 'blog was commissioned by Cisco Systems')?

So Cisco paid you to write an article that shows the 'results' of their testing of a competitor's product? Aren't the results pretty much predetermined, no matter what the capabilities of the product?

 

I am at a loss for words....
yarn
100%
0%
yarn,
User Rank: Light Sabre
9/12/2013 | 2:06:22 PM
Re: Which network processor tests?
Sterling,

Why lend your name to help Cisco get credibility for this type of quasi-technical FUD bs articles they're so well known for? Now you're caught in the middle and have to stand up for their crap, and tarnish your own credibility in the process.  
mendyk
50%
50%
mendyk,
User Rank: Light Sabre
9/12/2013 | 11:53:53 AM
Re: Which network processor tests?
All product testing -- including tests from independent labs -- should come with a big "grain of salt" warning. And in the case of vendor-run tests, results are clearly subject to question, especially from competing suppliers who had no influence on how the testing was done. From the point of view of prospective customers, though, it's important to understand when performance claims come with an asterisk or two.
sterlingperrin
50%
50%
sterlingperrin,
User Rank: Lightning
9/12/2013 | 11:11:34 AM
Re: Which network processor tests?
Manish,

Correct, we thought there was value in the piece as a call for due diligence.

If service providers are testing these systems at their limits across scenarios applicable to their network (including growth and possible changes to traffic patterns, etc.) then they are covered.

400 Gbit/s is very new. I don't how much testing has been done by anyone yet.

Sterling

 
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
More Blogs from Heavy Lifting Analyst Notes
In many cases, advocates say, wireless broadband service may make more sense and be more cost-effective than stringing fiber or cable all the way to the customer.
LTE-A Pro as not only valuable on its own terms, but also as part of a network strategy that will accelerate the commercial success of 5G.
Those operators that master NFV service assurance early will be able to reap NFV benefits faster and de-risk VNF-based service launches.
It's time for reluctant telecom carriers to treat video as a core service offering so that it can generate plenty of fresh revenue and growth opportunities for them.
With C-RAN, operators have more tools for shoehorning more customers into spectrum they already own.
From The Founder
Following a recent board meeting, the New IP Agency (NIA) has a new strategy to help accelerate the adoption of NFV capabilities, explains the Agency's Founder and Secretary, Steve Saunders.
Flash Poll
Live Streaming Video
Charting the CSP's Future
Six different communications service providers join to debate their visions of the future CSP, following a landmark presentation from AT&T on its massive virtualization efforts and a look back on where the telecom industry has been and where it's going from two industry veterans.
LRTV Interviews
CenturyLink: Are We All Security Service Providers Now?

5|29|17   |   3:40   |   (2) comments


As the security environment gets more threatening, in the wake of WannaCry and other attacks, service providers need to shoulder more responsibility for securing networks, says Tim Kelleher, vice president for IT security services at CenturyLink, in an interview at the Light Reading Big Communications ...
LRTV Documentaries
Verizon's Ed Chan on the New World for Networks

5|29|17   |   19:08   |   (0) comments


In this 2017 Big Communications Event keynote, Ed Chan Senior Vice President, Technology, Strategy and Planning, Corporate Networking and Technology, Verizon, discusses the coming world of sensors and the smart edge, powered by new spectrum and faster fiber uploads. For more BCE coverage and videos,
LRTV Interviews
Zayo's CTO: Respect the Infrastructure!

5|29|17   |   3:04   |   (0) comments


At Light Reading's Big Communications Event in Austin, Texas, Zayo's CTO Jack Waters talked about infrastructure and the changing customer landscape for network providers. While everyone else is chatting up applications and services, Waters urges the industry not to downplay the role that ...
LRTV Interviews
AT&T: Creating Dynamic Networks to Meet Business Needs

5|26|17   |   4:24   |   (0) comments


As enterprises need more dynamic networks, service providers need to deliver on-demand, virtual services to meet those needs. AT&T is creating a networking fabric to mix-and-match SDN technologies for enterprise customers, says Roman Pacewicz, AT&T senior vice president for offer management and service integration, in an interview at Light Reading's
LRTV Interviews
EdgeConneX on Industry Headwinds & Tailwinds

5|26|17   |   2:41   |   (0) comments


At Light Reading's Big Communications Event 2017, EdgeConneX CTO Don MacNeil discussed the value of partnerships in the digital world.
LRTV Documentaries
4 Steps Toward a Higher Network IQ

5|26|17   |     |   (0) comments


At the Big Communications Event in Austin, Texas, EXFO CEO Philippe Morin explains how sensors and analytics can boost a network's intelligence and enable on-demand customer experiences. Find more BCE 2017 coverage here.
LRTV Interviews
BT's McRae Sheds Light on 4K Strategy

5|25|17   |   4:45   |   (0) comments


At Light Reading's Big Communications Event 2017 in Austin, Texas, BT Group's Chief Network Architect Neil McRae talks about what it took for BT to broadcast live sports in 4K. Catch up with all our BCE coverage at http://www.lightreading.com/bce.asp.
From the Founder
How the NIA Aims to Advance NFV

5|25|17   |   08:07   |   (1) comment


Following a recent board meeting, the New IP Agency (NIA) has a new strategy to help accelerate the adoption of NFV capabilities, explains the Agency's Founder and Secretary, Steve Saunders.
LRTV Custom TV
Better Solutions That Address Growing Scale

5|25|17   |     |   (0) comments


For Comcast, the X1 rollout and 17-fold increases in broadband speeds in the past 16 years are among factors driving the need for Energy 2020 solutions that reduce cost and consumption, says Mark Hess.
LRTV Custom TV
Ethernity Network Delivers Instant Offloading of Network Functions With All-Programmable Intelligent NIC

5|25|17   |     |   (0) comments


David Levi, CEO of Ethernity Networks, explains that programmability of the hardware makes the company's All-Programmable Intelligent NIC uniquely beneficial for communications service providers that need advanced data appliances with agile support of virtualization. Utilizing the company's patented network processing technology, Ethernity offers data path ...
LRTV Documentaries
BCE 2017: Vodafone Gets Obsessed With Cloud-Native

5|25|17   |     |   (0) comments


Vodafone's Matt Beal updates us on Project Ocean and explains why simple virtualization isn't enough of a goal for network transformation. Catch up with other BCE 2017 keynotes and news at http://www.lightreading.com/bce.asp.
LRTV Documentaries
BCE 2017: Intel's Take on Network Transformation

5|24|17   |     |   (0) comments


In this BCE 2017 keynote, Lynn Comp discusses Intel's vision for areas such as analytics, automation and service assurance. For more videos and BCE coverage, see http://www.lightreading.com/bce.asp.
Infographics
With the mobile ecosystem becoming increasingly vulnerable to security threats, AdaptiveMobile has laid out some of the key considerations for the wireless community.
Hot Topics
Cities Clamor for More Clout at FCC
Mari Silbey, Senior Editor, Cable/Video, 5/23/2017
Sonus & Genband Finally Combine to Form $745M Company
Dan Jones, Mobile Editor, 5/23/2017
NB-IoT? Not at Those Prices, Say DT Customers
Iain Morris, News Editor, 5/26/2017
Like Us on Facebook
Twitter Feed
BETWEEN THE CEOs - Executive Interviews
One of the nice bits of my job (other than the teeny tiny salary, obviously) is that I get to pick and choose who I interview for this slot on the Light Reading home ...
TEOCO Founder and CEO Atul Jain talks to Light Reading Founder and CEO Steve Saunders about the challenges around cost control and service monetization in the mobile and IoT sectors.
Animals with Phones
What Brogrammers Look Like to the Rest of Us Click Here
Live Digital Audio

Playing it safe can only get you so far. Sometimes the biggest bets have the biggest payouts, and that is true in your career as well. For this radio show, Caroline Chan, general manager of the 5G Infrastructure Division of the Network Platform Group at Intel, will share her own personal story of how she successfully took big bets to build a successful career, as well as offer advice on how you can do the same. We’ll cover everything from how to overcome fear and manage risk, how to be prepared for where technology is going in the future and how to structure your career in a way to ensure you keep progressing. Chan, a seasoned telecom veteran and effective risk taker herself, will also leave plenty of time to answer all your questions live on the air.