Light Reading
Tests by analyst Nick Lippis show that 10GE switching is truly entering a new phase of development

10G Ethernet Switches Pass the Test

Craig Matsumoto
News Analysis
Craig Matsumoto
1/31/2011
50%
50%

Some recent tests show that 10Gbit/s switch chips can handle high-end data center requirements. So, how long might it be before systems vendors stop doing their own ASICs?

Nick Lippis, principal analyst for Lippis Enterprises , thinks that's a valid question. His company is releasing data from a test of seven vendors' 10Gbit/s switches, and the results seem to confirm that merchant semiconductors do just fine in terms of throughput, latency, power consumption and action under duress (that is, working at 150 percent of capacity).

Lippis will be presenting his findings via WebEx on Tuesday, Feb. 1 at noon EDT; here's the link for the event.

Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO) is the vendor that's most famously stuck with its own ASICs, but Alcatel-Lucent (NYSE: ALU) and Juniper Networks Inc. (NYSE: JNPR) tend to use their own chips as well. "When those who spin their own ASICs start to see what's being done with merchant chips, we'll have to see whether they'll start to go with the Broadcom Corp. (Nasdaq: BRCM), Marvell Technology Group Ltd. (Nasdaq: MRVL) or Fulcrum Microsystems Inc. kinds of fabrics," he tells Light Reading.

Lippis had invited Light Reading for a peek at the tests, which were conducted in December at an Ixia (Nasdaq: XXIA) facility called iSimCity. Lippis had limited resources available, so some big names such as Brocade Communications Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: BRCD) and Cisco got left out, but the tests still gave an indication of how well this new generation of switches performs. (See Friday Show & Tell: Testing the New Ethernet.)

One unexpected twist in the results is that the U.S.-based companies' switches performed better than the others. For instance, the highest latency, in most test cases, went to the Voltaire Inc. (Nasdaq: VOLT) Vantage 6048.

And while every switch scored 100 percent on Layer 3 throughput tests, the Hitachi Cable Ltd. Apresia 15000-64XL-PSR was the only one to score less than 100 on Layer 2 throughput. It dipped as low as 97.3 percent throughput when dealing with 128-byte frames. Apresia was also the only box to show performance degradation during congestion tests.

Overall, though, Lippis says he was impressed by the switches' performance, especially when it came to power consumption.

Lippis's tests included switches from AlcaLu, Arista Networks Inc. , and Juniper, and top-of-rack switches from Force10 Networks Inc. , Hitachi, IBM Corp. (NYSE: IBM) (with switches from Blade Network Technologies) and Voltaire.

Lippis has a second round of testing planned for the week of April 4. Brocade, which Lippis says was interested in the December test but didn't respond in time, is a likely candidate -- and Lippis isn't shy about saying who else he'd like to include. "I'd love to get Cisco top-of-rack switches in there," he says.

— Craig Matsumoto, West Coast Editor, Light Reading

(9)  | 
Comment  | 
Print  | 
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
BigBro
50%
50%
BigBro,
User Rank: Moderator
12/5/2012 | 5:14:10 PM
re: 10G Ethernet Switches Pass the Test


Sure, the shape tells you a lot about the underlying switch ASIC.


One would expect the latency of a store-and-forward switch to increase with packet size, because the ASIC has to receive the entire packet before it makes its forwarding decision.


On a cut-through switch, you'd expect the latency to be basically flat across packet size, because as soon as the ASIC has received enough of the header, it can make its forwarding decision, and start forwarding the packet (as long as the output port is not busy).


I'm not sure I understand why larger packets would have *less* latency than smaller ones. That's got to be an artifact of the ASIC, or perhaps even the test equipment: once you start getting down into the sub-microsecond range, the test equipment itself becomes a variable in your test that you shouldn't ignore. What MAC and PHY-layer hardware is at that end, for example?

spc_vancem
50%
50%
spc_vancem,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 5:14:10 PM
re: 10G Ethernet Switches Pass the Test


In the article 97.3 % throughput is said to be low. However, in practical use, is this really a low number? Almost any other traffic types than constant bitrate traffic will result in long queues and full buffers when loads are rising this high. My question is: When is such a high performance actually needed? Any comments anyone?  

Pete Baldwin
50%
50%
Pete Baldwin,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 5:14:10 PM
re: 10G Ethernet Switches Pass the Test


One thing that surprised me -- and I'd commented to Nick Lippis about this -- was the variety of profiles in the latency testing.  I'm not talking about the actual latency figures, but about the *shapes* of the graphs.


Lippis tested each switch on a variety of packet sizes -- 128-byte packets, 256-byte packets, etc. Some switches had good, low latency for small packet sizes and bad latency for bigger packets. Others were the other way around. Some, IIRC, were consistently flat.


It was interesting to me. It seems to imply that latency effects are rather unpredictable from switch to switch.


As for what causes these different profiles, Lippis was saying a lot of it might be the fingerprint of the chipset being used. Each vendor's different software plays a role, too.

Pete Baldwin
50%
50%
Pete Baldwin,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 5:14:09 PM
re: 10G Ethernet Switches Pass the Test


> I'm not sure I understand why larger packets would have *less* latency than smaller ones.


Same here. I guess latency is just a tricky beast to wrestle.


I should specify:  Most of the switches either show a mostly flat profile (very good latency for small packets, flatly "less good" for all other sizes) or a sharp, sharp spike for ridiculously large packets (9,216 bytes).  So, some of the visual differences in the graphs come from corner cases. 


But it's true that a couple of boxes showed worse latency with small packets. I found that interesting.

Pete Baldwin
50%
50%
Pete Baldwin,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 5:14:09 PM
re: 10G Ethernet Switches Pass the Test


You know, that question did occur to me.  But when everybody else is scoring perfect 100s... 97.3 is certainly low by comparison!


You've got a valid question, though, considering not all these datacenter operators will be looking for five 9s kind of performance. Anybody have any real-world experience to apply here?

cross
50%
50%
cross,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 5:14:07 PM
re: 10G Ethernet Switches Pass the Test


Hi Steinarb,


The average packet size in the Internet is not that small indeed, and keeps growing due to increased video traffic and other bulk applications (see http://www.caida.org/research/.... It is certainly larger than 128 bytes in all cases - the averages measured are somewhere between 150-300 bytes.


"The" worldwide average packet size does not exist, though - it all depends where one measures and which applications dominate in each part of the world - and the situation in data centers is certainly even less uniform. That said, data centers often see an increased fraction of video and storage applications so the average packet size is going up as well according to our findings (but we have no representative proof). Some remote desktop applications (Citrix, for example) and Voice over IP generate small packet sizes around 128 bytes or even less; however, I am not aware of networks where remote desktop or VoIP traffic would drive 10GE ports to full utilization. If a remote desktop application sends bulk screen updates, it uses larger packet sizes as well.


We typically measure the 128-byte single packet size line rate throughput only if a customer explicitly requests it - since the old RFC2544 mentions this measurement as a reference.  The result is of limited value.  Sometimes service providers say they would like to check the chipset's design limitations. In fact, however, today's chipset challenges are more related to bursty traffic of variable packet sizes simultaneously sent, mixed with multicast traffic, coming from many sources and going to many destinations in an imbalanced, meshed traffic pattern.


My alarm bell rather goes off if I see a system reaching 100 % line rate at even the smallest single packet size (64 bytes for IPv4) since it is likely the chipset has been optimized for RFC2544, which does not guarantee its perfection otherwise. We have seen and published such test results in the past.  A good and competitively priced chipset needs to balance throughput requirements of artificial RFC2544 tests with those seen in real-life, complex networks. The art of lab testing is to replicate such real-life scenarios.


Best regards, Carsten (EANTC)


 

tmmarvel
50%
50%
tmmarvel,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 5:13:57 PM
re: 10G Ethernet Switches Pass the Test


The major throughput and latency problems arise at multi-node network scale, rather than at individual switch scale.

An individual packet switch can be engineered to perform fine on most conditions, but is there a good way for network scale QoS control and throughput optimization in cases of meshed packet streams across multiple packet switches? The operators tend to have to resort to low average network utilization to be able to provide QoS guarantees for services over packet layer shared network 'clouds' serving multiple application/customer contracts.

The major latency, jitter and packet loss problems arise when the volumes of multiple uncoordinated packet streams exceed the capacity of shared physical links, and individual packet switch performance cannot solve these network scale QoS problems inherent to services over multi-client packet layer shared networks.

Which brings up the point of why use packet switched networks as the infra across different service contracts where QoS guarantees are a requirement? WDM/TDM as a mechanism to divide the physical infrastructure between different packet switched contracts certainly eliminates the major network scale congestion control issues. WDM/TDM also supports any packet length mixes up to continued 100% throughput transparently. Within such isolated L1/0 clouds, which can internally provide packet-switched connectivity, the packet layer QoS control will be much more manageable as it can be handled purely from each individual client's edge devices.
 
It would appear that such customer/application level isolation will deal with the bulk of the QoS and throughput problems with packet switched network services. The remaining economic issue is network scale throughput optimization for meshed packet streams, but again, 'better' packet switches do not appear to be the solution there either, as the matter to be focused on is the network scale performance.



stochasticprocess
50%
50%
stochasticprocess,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 5:13:55 PM
re: 10G Ethernet Switches Pass the Test


In the report, they mention that "For store and forward DUT switches latency is defined in RFC 1242 as the time interval starting when the last bit of the input frame reaches the input port and ending when the first bit of the output frame is seen on the output port."  The latency is not increasing with frame size on store and forward switches because of how the latency is measured (essentially subtracting out the length).  Lippis couldn't have used this measurement method with the cut through switches because this would give you negative latency for jumbo frames (the first bit of output frame would be received before the last bit on the input frame).  Instead you need to do first bit in- first bit out.  Was it the case that Lippis and IXIA measured latency differently for cut through and store and forward switches?

BigBro
50%
50%
BigBro,
User Rank: Moderator
12/5/2012 | 5:11:57 PM
re: 10G Ethernet Switches Pass the Test


This post explains why latency goes down for larger packets:


http://www.fulcrummicro.com/bl...


"Frame processing time is masked for larger packets. As can be seen in some of the results, the latency gets lower as the size of the packet gets larger. Since the latency clock starts after the last bit arrives, large packets have plenty of time to process the frame header before the first bit is seen on the output port.  With small packets, even after the last bit arrives, the output must wait until frame header processing is complete before the first bit is seen on the output port."

Flash Poll
LRTV Custom TV
A New Security Paradigm in SDN/NFV

7|28|14   |   02:54   |   (0) comments


Paul Shaneck, Global Director Network Solutions for Symantec, discusses the evolving virtualized network, explaining how Symantec is leading the security discussion as it relates to SDN and NFV, and helping to ensure the network is protected and compliant.
LRTV Documentaries
Sprint's Network Evolution

7|24|14   |   14:59   |   (0) comments


Sprint's Jay Bluhm gives a keynote speech at the Big Telecom Event (BTE) about Sprint's network and services evolution strategy, including Spark.
LRTV Documentaries
BTE Keynote: The Software-Defined Operator

7|24|14   |   18:43   |   (1) comment


Deutsche Telekom's Axel Clauberg explains the concept of the software-defined operator to the Big Telecom Event (BTE) crowd.
Light Reedy
Numbers Are In: LR's 2014 Salary Survey

7|24|14   |   1:25   |   (7) comments


Our fourth annual Salary Survey paints a picture of who's hiring, firing, earning, and yearning for a change in the telecom industry.
LRTV Custom TV
Driving the Network Transformation

7|23|14   |   4:29   |   (0) comments


Intel's Sandra Rivera discusses network transformation and how Intel technologies, programs, and standards body efforts have helped the industry migration to SDN and NFV.
LRTV Custom TV
Distributed NFV-Based Business Services by RAD

7|18|14   |   5:38   |   (0) comments


With the ETSI-approved Distributed NFV PoC running in the background, RAD's CEO, Dror Bin, talks about why D-NFV makes compelling sense for service providers, and about the dollars and cents RAD is putting behind D-NFV.
LRTV Custom TV
MRV Accelerating Packet Optical Convergence

7|15|14   |   6:06   |   (0) comments


Giving you network insight to make your network smarter.
LRTV Custom TV
NFV-Enabled Ethernet for Generating New Revenues

7|15|14   |   5:49   |   (0) comments


Cyan's Planet Orchestrate allows service providers and their end-customers to activate software-based capabilities such as firewalls and encryption on top of existing Ethernet services in just minutes.
LRTV Custom TV
Symkloud NVF-Ready Video Transcoding, Big Data

7|9|14   |   3:41   |   (0) comments


Kontron and ISV partner Vantrix demonstrate high-performance video transcoding and data analytic solutions on same 2U standard platform that is ready for SDN and NFV deployments made by mobile, cable and cloud operators.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
The Evolving Role of Hybrid Video for Competitive Success

7|4|14   |   4:09   |   (0) comments


At Huawei's Global Analysts Summit in Shenzhen, China, Steven C. Hawley from TV Strategies speaks to us about the evolving role of hybrid video for competitive success.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
How CSPs Leverage Big Data in the Digital Economy

7|4|14   |   4:48   |   (2) comments


Justin van der Lande from Analysys Mason shares with us his views on how telecom operators can leverage customer asset monetization with big data. His discusses the current status of big data applications and the challenges and opportunities for telecom operators in the digital economy era.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Accelerator for Digital Business Future Oriented BSS

7|4|14   |   3:08   |   (0) comments


Mobile and internet are becoming intertwined; IT and CT are integrating; and leading CSPs have begun to transform to information service and entertainment providers. How should the BSS system evolve to enable this transformation? Karl Whitelock, an analyst at Frost & Sullivan, shares his views.
Upcoming Live Events!!
September 16, 2014, Santa Clara, CA
September 16, 2014, Santa Clara, CA
October 29, 2014, New York City
November 6, 2014, Santa Clara
November 11, 2014, Atlanta, GA
December 9-10, 2014, Reykjavik, Iceland
June 9-10, 2015, Chicago, IL
Infographics
Packet Design asks network professionals how they handle the cloud, SDN, and network management.
Today's Cartoon
Vacation Special Caption Competition Click Here
Latest Comment
Hot Topics
The Municipal Menace?
Jason Meyers, Senior Editor, Utility Communications/IoT, 7/22/2014
Cisco Puts a Fog Over IoT
Sarah Reedy, Senior Editor, 7/23/2014
Apple Earnings: Strong iPhone Sales, iPad Sales Slump, $7.8B Profit
Mitch Wagner, West Coast Bureau Chief, Light Reading, 7/22/2014
Salary Survey Report 2014
Sarah Reedy, Senior Editor, 7/23/2014
Like Us on Facebook
Twitter Feed