Tag Archives: VPI

Performance Testing 29West LBM

As promised in my last blog post (over two weeks ago), this post will focus on results from a more financial market-related application. The results below come from testing performed with 29West LBM 3.3.9.

29West LBM offers topic-based Publish/Subscribe semantics without a central server. Its primary design goal is to minimize latency. Many end-users and middleware providers incorporate LBM into their own software via the LBM API. The paradigm being used is a Publisher/subscriber which is an asynchronous messaging paradigm where senders (publishers) of messages are not programmed to send their messages to specific receivers (subscribers). Rather, published messages are characterized into classes, without knowledge of what (if any) subscribers there may be. Subscribers express interest in one or more classes, and only receive messages that are of interest, without knowledge of what (if any) publishers there are.

We’ve conducted the testing with 2 servers – full set-up details on the hardware side was, as always, the default, out-of-the-box EDC testing cluster that we’ve all experienced and learned from during the first set of blog posts. Using 29West LBM we’ve used 2 separate test runs: Lbmpong – for latency and Lbmsrc/lbmrcv – for msg rate. For the 2 tests, we’re using the following interconnects: GigE, Mellanox VPI 10GigE, and Mellanox VPI 40Gb/s InfiniBand.

When using InfiniBand we’ve used 3 different Upper-Layers-Protocols (ULPs), which didn’t require any code intervention; IPoIB connect-mode (CM), IPoIB datagram mode (UD) and Socket-Direct-Protocol (SDP).

Unlike the hardware, which would not change, it is important to note the software versions used may change due to regular official software release updates, and since we’re using only off-the-shelf releases, this may change. The Mellanox ConnectX VPI Firmware version is 2.6.0 and OFED (Driver) Version is 1.4, all running on RHEL 5up2 as the OS.

We theoretically knew the results of the 40Gb/s InfiniBand would be better, but didn’t estimate the difference correctly. 10GigE and InfiniBand are better then GigE in the following order (from high to low): SDP, IPoIB Connected, IPoIB Datagram (up to 8KB) and 10GigE In latency from 30-80% in msg rate, in msg size bigger then 1kb, from 200-450%.

 

you can download the full results here.

In the next couple of weeks I will be traveling to Singapore to speak at the IDC FinTech conference. Look me up if you plan to attend. If I a not able to post anther blog before that, I will make sure to eat the famous Singapore chili-crab for my readers and I will make sure to tell you how it was… I meant the conference as well, not only the crab

Nimrod Gindi

nimrodg@mellanox.com

QuickTransit Performance Results

As previously suggested, I will review in this post a different application that is focused on converting protocols. QuickTransit, developed by a company called Transitive (recently acquired by IBM), is a cross-platform virtualization technology which allows applications that have been compiled for one operating system and processor to run on servers that use a different processors and operating systems, without requiring any source code or binary changes.

We are using: QuickTransit for Solaris/SPARC-to-Linux/x86-64 which we used to test for Latency by a basic test which was related to the financial-industry operating method and involves interconnect between servers performance.

The Topology we’ve used was 2 servers (the 1st acting as server and the 2nd as a client). We’ve measured Latency with different object sizes and rates when running using the following interconnects GigE, Mellanox ConnectX VPI 10GigE, and Mellanox ConnectX VPI 40Gb/s InfiniBand. I would like to re-iterate, to any of you who have not read the first posts, that we’re committed to our guideline of “out-of-the-box”, meaning that neither the application nor any of the drivers are to be changed after downloading it off of the web.

With InfiniBand we’ve used 3 different Upper-Layers-Protocols (ULPs) – none requiring code intervention; IPoIB connect-mode (CM), IPoIB datagram mode (UD), and Socket-Direct-Protocol (SDP). The results were stunning mainly because our assumption was that with all the layers of software, in addition to the software which converts Sparc Solaris code to x86 Linux code, the interconnect will have small impact, if at all.

We’ve learned that 40Gb/s InfiniBand performance is significantly better then GigE for a wide range of packets size and transmission rates. We could see superiority in latency of over 2x faster when using InfiniBand and 30% faster execution when using 10GigE. Go and beat that…


Let’s look at the results in a couple of different ways. In particular, let’s look at the size of the messages being sent – the above advantage is related to the small message sizes (see graph #2) while when moving to larger message sizes the advantage (which, as it is, is strikingly better) becoming humongous.
 

In my next blog I plan to show more results that are closely related to the financial markets. If anyone out there identifies an application they would like our dedicated team to benchmark, please step forward and send me an e-mail.

Nimrod Gindi
nimrodg@mellanox.com

Look at this beautiful rack!

This week’s blog is short, but it’s about the candy: the Rack — the Data Center’s building block.
The pictures below visually describe what each one of us would like to have in their Data Center.

Density – over 150 cores within less then 10U. Three different interconnects, 1GigE, 10GigE and 40Gb/s InfiniBand, using two adapters and no thick jungle of cables. –> 25% Savings in rack space.

Power – less servers, w/o giving up any compute power; less adapters, without giving up any capabilities; less switches, without giving up any reliability or bandwidth –> 35% Savings in power.

Cost – with a smaller amount of switches and smaller servers’ size, the saved space enables better cooling. Cost is (inevitably) lower by 25%.

Just imagine this Rack with only a single interconnect of choice, and you’ll experience what I and many people have seen: a simple tidy solution leads to better functioning of teams and faster responses to problems (if they ever occur).

Bringing the rack into a functional condition hasn’t been the easiest thing, I agree. When last time I said that some “labor pain” was involved, I mainly meant pain in finding a place in the data center… I never knew how hard it could be to allocate floor space before going through this experience. But once we got the rack built in place (standing there in the corner can be a bit claustrophobic  ), sliding in the servers and switches took almost zero time. And thanks to a pre-prepared image of the OS, the entire rack was up-and-running within less than 24 hours.

I’ll leave you at this point to see the rack for yourself. I’ll be back in my next post with the first market application that we’ve used with that “Data Center in a Rack” – GigaSpaces.

Nimrod Gindi
nimrodg@mellanox.com

 alt=

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

System Picking: Ready, Set, Go!

To recap my previous post, we’ve been setting the stage upon which vendors were to be evaluated and we’re ready for the “big race” (which we’ll do without “naming names”):

System: I’ve considered 2 different dense systems which both followed the CPU and memory requirements: dual-socket quad core, 16GB memory (2GB per core), and support for PCI-Express Gen2. One was a blade server system from a Tier-1 vendor and the other was a 1U server which provided more-for-less (2 servers in 1U). We reviewed power requirements from each (blades were better in this category), cost (differences were >10%) and space (1U servers saved some space). Also, if we didn’t need an external switch the blades would then require less (which impacts the big 3: Power, Cost, and Space).

I/O: We wanted to have all 3 dominant interconnects and reviewed switches and NICs separately.

Switches: 1GigE (many options in 1U and we just had to compare power and cost); 10GigE (there weren’t many options and we considered 3 options which varied in the performance they provided and the price), and 40Gb/s InfiniBand (from us/Mellanox).

NICs: 1GigE (we’ve decided to use the on-board); for 10GigE and 40Gb/s InfiniBand we picked our/Mellanox ConnectX adapters which provides the Virtual Protocol Interconnect (VPI) option (best-in-class performance with both 10GigE and 40Gb/s InfiniBand on the same NIC).

Storage: As mentioned in my previous posts I wanted to use a Tier-1 vendor which would provide us the access to all I/O options, and if necessary, add a gateway to enable all of the options. (I’m planning phase 2 which would include Tier-2 vendors as well, but it is yet to be executed). The choice was fairly easy due to the limited number of players in the storage arena.

Needless to say, we negotiated prices (hopefully effectively) and shared our concerns and performance targets with all vendors involved to help them come forward with the best system which met these requirements. As a result, we’ve been exposed to many future systems which promise to meet our requirements BUT keeping-ourselves-honest to the “off-the-shelf” criteria we initially set and promised to follow, we narrowed the “sea of promises” to what we can see, touch, and use today.

Picking the system proved to be a hard and a long process but nothing prepared me for the bureaucracy of the PO process  (which I won’t go into…). At the end of the day we chose 1U servers ands storage with block-storage with file-system overriding it.

I’ll finish-up with the saving numbers (if you would like additional details on this, you can send me an email) and in my next post I’ll shortly describe the labor pains of the hardware bring-up. Last, but not least, the HUGE differences: POWER saving at ~35%, CAP-EX saving over 25%, and SPACE saving cost at the 25% mark.

Nimrod Gindi
nimrodg@mellanox.com

Enterprise Data Center: Picking Hardware Can Be Hard Work

Re-capping last week’s post…I knew we wanted to have a system which would contain all the building blocks of the data center in a single (easily expendable) rack. Internally for Mellanox, I felt we should review the full procurement process to understand and provide data-center managers with better understanding/knowledge of the hard, and proven to be sometimes painful, process.

Now with that high level of understanding in place, we were required to start taking ideology to reality and decide on components to be purchased. I wish it was as simple as it sounded…let’s buy it (Storage, CPU, and I/O), receive it, use it   — ya, right. When a data center manager attempts to buy hardware for specific or a set-of applications, there are many parameters to take into consideration (I bet each of us unconsciously does this when buying something for home use).

CPU – “can you feel the need? The need for speed.” Tom Cruise’s words from Top Gun applies here better then ever – and yes, we felt it too . We wanted to consider a system which would have 8 cores (we do want it to be valid next Monday, and I guess 8 cores can carry us at least that far). Since time was essential, we couldn’t wait for next generation CPUs which were promised to be just around the corner.

Storage – when considering this component we had to ensure a stable platform with all features (DeDup, high availability, hot-spares etc.), we wanted to have a variety of speeds (from SAS/FC 15k RPM to SATA). We narrowed down things to having a block-storage with a file-system overriding it externally (which would enable us to use both when required).

I/O – we wanted to pick a variety of interconnects: 1GigE, 10GigE and 40Gb/s (QDR) InfiniBand. Having a Virtual Protocol Interconnect (VPI) available made our decision easier, as it covered 2 out of 3 in single low-power adapter.

Bearing in mind all the above, we needed to pass our options via several filters to help us zero-down on the right selection.

We started with the big 3: Business Alignment, Cost and Time.

Cost – this is a tricky one… you have CAP-EX and OP-EX, which means we were required to consider each component for being low on power consumption and still be priced at a low, reasonable price.

Time – we were eager to start, so delivery time was a factor…Waiting 4 months for something was out of the question.

Business Alignment – I guess this is the most important but hardest to capture. For us, it needed to meet the following: have all I/O options, be off-the-shelf products, and we needed them to be able to be used with any application “you’ll throw at them”.

If anyone ever thought the above took us all the way home…well, I guess he is in for some surprises…In my next blog post I’ll list what differences we’ve found between 2 set-ups, both of which could address our business needs but were very much different in other major parameters.