Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Follow principles/patterns of RESTCONF RFC-8040 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8040
Follow principles/patterns of yang-patch RFC-8072 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8040
Follow principles/patterns of RESTCONF NMDA RFC-8527 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8527

Requirements

Note

Please note this section was added long after the implementation and focuses on characteristic only.

Issues & Decisions


IssuesNotesDecisions
1KPI for De-registration of 100 CM-handlesThis was mentioned. Was this ever agreed, is this a valid use case that needs to be covered together with the Registration ?

Not priority for now, but acceptable if we match the registration req.
#2 for de-reg  
kieran mccarthy Kolawole Adebisi-Adeolokun 

2DMI delayCould we get some feedback on DMI-delays for other use cases as not mentioned in FS document

Awaiting for ETH feedback AP On Kolawole Adebisi-Adeolokun and Csaba Kocsis

3New BATCH KPITBD

...


Provided

3

Number of instances


In some cases, ETH have used 2 instances, can we verify the number of instances for each use case.

Some of the req were defined per instance and resources used : Identify which of these ? 

Agreed to;

CPS use 1 instance currently, but should focus on aligning performance with 2 instances for all use case 

4Input Load Distribution the CM-handle search and ID search

Currently has 5 parallel request between them distributed at 2.5 each. This fractional distribution isn't feasible for parallel processing; the load should be allocated as whole numbers. Load needs to be distributed at. Would it be acceptable to adjust this distribution to either 2 or 3 parallel requests each (and vice versa ) without any negative repercussions?


Agreed to do 6 parallel request combined total and divide the load to 3 parallel request each

5Regarding CM-handle search and ID search

FS only identified Module performance, are there any testing done towards a combined search of properties and modules in a single query


Confirmed no other testing was previously done on this.....  

CPS have the capabilities to do mixed testing. ETH tbc on if they want to consider this ( Csaba Kocsis )


Requirements

Note

Please note this section was added long after the implementation and focuses on characteristic and enhancements after this study only.

Excerpt Include
DW:CPS-2249: NCMP To support Conflict Handling (Policy Execution) using External Service
DW:CPS-2249: NCMP To support Conflict Handling (Policy Execution) using External Service

Characteristics

It is proposed that reported characteristics will be used as a baseline for NCMP when agreed and sign-off.


Operation
Total CM-handles registeredConcurrent requests/parallelDMI DelayRest response sizePerformanceObserved Rate
(rate not measured)

Expected duration

Sign-Off1Registration of 100 CM-handles20k Nodes1 (requests are sequential)

100 ms to get module references
1000 ms to get module resources

N/A

1.6 ops/secondTBD
Concurrent requests/parallelDMI DelayResponse sizePerformance Requirement
(Blue Stone tablet KPI)
NotesSign-Off
1Registration of 20,000 CM-handles
(in batches of 100)
1 (requests are sequential)

100 ms to get module references
1,000 ms to get module resources

N/A

  • 11 CM-Handles/second as per Stone Tablet E2E Wich include module conversion warm-up
  • NCMP Budget: 22 Cm Handles/second 
  1. Batch Size: 100 (per request)
    Not using Module Set Tags
  2. Time measured start of first rest-call until all cm handle states READY
  3. 1,000 unique module references.
  4. Five different types of Nodes. So 5 requests for Module Resources. Avg 200 modules each.
TDB

2De-registration of 100 CM-handles
20k Nodes
1 (requests are sequential)

No Module delays

N

/A

/A

  • 11 NEs/second
  • NCMP should target 22 NEs/Second 

De-registration is currently not mentioned in Stone Tablet KPI or FS, however we have agreed to match the performance of registration for now as de-reg is also not a priority at this point in time




N/A

3CM-handle ID search
without 5
with Module filter
20k Nodes

3
Run in parallel with #4

N/A
TBD
20,000 CM Handles i.e.
g. 1MBWithin 2 sec7.1 ops/minute42 seconds / operationTDB

100*20.000 = 2MB

As provided byCsaba Kocsis 0.625 seconds/Operation

FS stated 5 parallel request for both ID search and search.  CPS to run with 3 parallel each for both ID search and Search meaning a combine total of 6 parallel request 
4CM-handle search
without 10
with Module filter
20k Nodes5N/ATBD e.g. 10MBWithin 15 sec5 ops/minute1 minute / operationTDB5Synchronous single CM-handle pass-through read20k Nodes
3
Run in parallel with #3
N/A
TDB
20,000 CM Handles i.e.
g. 5 KB

25 op/sec

50 ops/secondTBDTDB6

500*20.000 = 10MB

As provided by Csaba Kocsis 13 seconds/Operation

FS stated 5 parallel request for both ID search and search.  CPS to test with 3 parallel each for both ID search and Search meaning a combine total of 6 parallel request 
5
Synchronous single CM-handle
response time read20k Nodes
pass-through read

10

N/A

within 1 sec

7Synchronous single CM-handle pass-through write (CUD)20k Nodes

10

N/A

N/A

13 ops/sec 

13 ops/secondTBDTDB8

Run in parallel with #6

5 KB

25 (parallel) request/sec

Read are done in parallel with Write

6Synchronous single CM-handle
response time
pass-through write (CUD)

10
Run in parallel with #5

670 msCsaba Kocsis 

5 KB

13 (parallel)

20k Nodes

10

N/A

request/sec

No response is expected
7Batch/Bulk Read

1 read request with  200 cmHandle per second



150 cmhandles/

Within 2

sec



Notes

  1. This is for mixed TCs
  2. Single KPIs will be monitored in NCMP owned pipeline with our performance every day(2 hrs interval) - Performance

...