Hi All,

FD.io CSIT-2005 report has been published on FD.io docs site:

    https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/

Many thanks to All in CSIT, VPP and wider FD.io community who
contributed and worked hard to make CSIT-2005 happen!

See below for pointers to specific sections in the report.

Welcome all comments, best by email to csit-dev@....

Cheers,
-Maciek

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Points of Note in the CSIT-2005 Report
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indexed specific links listed at the bottom.

1. VPP release notes
   a. Changes in CSIT-2005:     [1]
   b. Known issues:             [2]

2. VPP performance - 64B/IMIX throughput graphs (selected NIC models):
   a. Graphs explained:         [3]
   b. L2 Ethernet Switching:    [4]
   c. IPv4 Routing:             [5]
   d. IPv6 Routing:             [6]
   e. SRv6 Routing:             [7]
   f. IPv4 Tunnels:             [8]
   g. KVM VMs vhost-user:       [9]
   h. LXC/DRC Container Memif: [10]
   e. IPsec IPv4 Routing:      [11]
   f. Virtual Topology System: [12]

3. VPP performance - multi-core and latency graphs:
   a. Speedup Multi-Core:      [13]
   b. Latency:                 [14]

4. VPP performance comparisons
   a. VPP-20.05 vs. VPP-20.01:              [15]

5. VPP performance test details - all NICs:
   a. Detailed results 64B IMIX 1518B 9kB:  [16]
   b. Configuration:                        [17]

DPDK Testpmd and L3fwd performance sections follow similar structure.

6. DPDK applications:
  a. Release notes:                               [18]
  b. DPDK performance - 64B throughput graphs:    [19]
  c. DPDK performance - latency graphs:           [20]
  d. DPDK performance - DPDK-20.02 vs. DPDK-19.08: [21]

Functional device tests (VPP_Device) are also included in the report.

Specific links within the report:

 [1] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/vpp_performance_tests/csit_release_notes.html#changes-in-csit-release
 [2] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/vpp_performance_tests/csit_release_notes.html#known-issues
 [3] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/vpp_performance_tests/packet_throughput_graphs/index.html
 [4] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/vpp_performance_tests/packet_throughput_graphs/l2.html
 [5] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/vpp_performance_tests/packet_throughput_graphs/ip4.html
 [6] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/vpp_performance_tests/packet_throughput_graphs/ip6.html
 [7] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/vpp_performance_tests/packet_throughput_graphs/srv6.html
 [8] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/vpp_performance_tests/packet_throughput_graphs/ip4_tunnels.html
 [9] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/vpp_performance_tests/packet_throughput_graphs/vm_vhost.html
[10] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/vpp_performance_tests/packet_throughput_graphs/container_memif.html
[11] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/vpp_performance_tests/packet_throughput_graphs/ipsec.html
[12] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/vpp_performance_tests/packet_throughput_graphs/vts.html
[13] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/vpp_performance_tests/throughput_speedup_multi_core/index.html
[14] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/vpp_performance_tests/packet_latency/index.html
[15] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/vpp_performance_tests/comparisons/current_vs_previous_release.html
[16] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/detailed_test_results/vpp_performance_results/index.html
[17] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/test_configuration/vpp_performance_configuration/index.html
[18] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/dpdk_performance_tests/csit_release_notes.html
[19] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/dpdk_performance_tests/packet_throughput_graphs/index.html
[20] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/dpdk_performance_tests/packet_latency/index.html
[21] https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls2005/report/dpdk_performance_tests/comparisons/current_vs_previous_release.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looping in the technical steering committee...

-----Original Message-----
From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 7:02 PM
To: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
Subject: [vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature

Is the VPP project addressing the use of master/slave nomenclature in the code base, documentation and CLI? We are doing this for DPDK and it would be good if the replacement wording used in DPDK matched the wording used in FD.io projects.

Particularly problematic is the use of master/slave in bonding.
This seems to be a leftover from Linux, since none of the commercial products use that terminology and it is not present in 802.1AX standard.

The IEEE and IETF are doing an across the board look at these terms in standards.

Looping in the technical steering committee...

-----Original Message-----
From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 7:02 PM
To: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
Subject: [vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature

Is the VPP project addressing the use of master/slave nomenclature in the code base, documentation and CLI? We are doing this for DPDK and it would be good if the replacement wording used in DPDK matched the wording used in FD.io projects.

Particularly problematic is the use of master/slave in bonding.
This seems to be a leftover from Linux, since none of the commercial products use that terminology and it is not present in 802.1AX standard.

The IEEE and IETF are doing an across the board look at these terms in standards.

+1 let’s cancel...



Although I can't go anywhere, but mind probably already in vacation mode.)

George

Get Outlook for Android

 

---

From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Ray Kinsella via lists.fd.io <ray.kinsella=intel.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 12:55:00 AM
To: Edward Warnicke <hagbard@...>; tsc@... <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [tsc] Cancelling this weeks TSC?

 

Yes – makes sense.

 

Ray K

 

From: tsc@... <tsc@...> On Behalf Of Edward Warnicke
Sent: Tuesday 30 June 2020 04:32
To: tsc@...
Subject: [tsc] Cancelling this weeks TSC?

 

I believe a great many of the TSC members may be on PTO this week due to holidays, do we want to cancel this week's TSC meeting?

 

Ed

 

On Jun 30, 2020, at 4:21 AM, George Zhao <george.zhao@...> wrote:



Although I can't go anywhere, but mind probably already in vacation mode.)

George

Get Outlook for Android

---

From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Ray Kinsella via lists.fd.io <ray.kinsella=intel.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 12:55:00 AM
To: Edward Warnicke <hagbard@...>; tsc@... <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [tsc] Cancelling this weeks TSC?

 

Yes – makes sense.

 

Ray K

 

From: tsc@... <tsc@...> On Behalf Of Edward Warnicke
Sent: Tuesday 30 June 2020 04:32
To: tsc@...
Subject: [tsc] Cancelling this weeks TSC?

 

I believe a great many of the TSC members may be on PTO this week due to holidays, do we want to cancel this week's TSC meeting?

 

Ed

On Jun 24, 2020, at 10:12 AM, Joel Halpern via lists.fd.io <joel.halpern=ericsson.com@...> wrote:

I have a conflicting call tomorrow that I can not reschedule.  Sorry.

Yours,

Joel