<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear folks</div><div><br></div><div>I have some recent numbers for ndncatchunks from April 2019. These were using NFD 0.6.5 and ndn-tools 0.6.3 on Ubuntu 16.04. Hardware is 2x Xeon E5-2640 and 32GB memory.</div><div>The experiment procedure is:</div><div><ol><li>Start NFD.</li><li>Start six producers simultaneously, wait for initialization.</li><li>Start six consumers simultaneously, wait for download completion; Data come from producers.</li><li>Start six consumers simultaneously, wait for download completion; Data may come from CS.</li><li>Three trials for each setup. Restart all programs between trials.</li></ol><div>Compared setups:<br><ul><li>NFD with small CS: 65536 entries, insufficient to store all chunks</li><li>NFD with large CS: 262144 entries, more than enough to store all chunks</li></ul></div></div><div>Raw numbers are read from ndncatchunks directly. Reported numbers are average and stdev over 18 flows (3 flows per trial).</div><div><br></div><b>Goodput (Mbps)</b><div><font face="courier new, monospace">SETUP | PROD avg | PROD stdev | CS avg | CS stdev<br>----------|----------|------------|--------|-----------<br>NFD-small | 63.88 | 0.27 | 61.27 | 2.52<br>NFD-large | 65.68 | 1.55 | 85.17 | 1.91<br><br></font><b>Total number of lost/retransmitted segments</b><font face="courier new, monospace"><br>SETUP | PROD avg | PROD stdev | CS avg | CS stdev<br>----------|----------|------------|--------|-----------<br>NFD-small | 361.61 | 75.00 | 164.00 | 114.51<br>NFD-large | 226.28 | 164.70 | 0.00 | 0.00<br><br></font><b>Window decreases</b><font face="courier new, monospace"><br>SETUP | PROD avg | PROD stdev | CS avg | CS stdev<br>----------|----------|------------|--------|-----------<br>NFD-small | 1.94 | 0.24 | 1.56 | 0.51<br>NFD-large | 1.61 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 0.00<br><br></font><b>RTT avg (ms)</b></div><div><font face="courier new, monospace">SETUP | PROD avg | PROD stdev | CS avg | CS stdev<br>----------|----------|------------|--------|-----------<br>NFD-small | 164.87 | 22.42 | 153.04 | 23.14<br>NFD-large | 174.48 | 18.36 | 8.19 | 0.11<br></font></div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>Yours, Junxiao</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 1:35 PM Chengyu Fan <<a href="mailto:chengy.fan@gmail.com" target="_blank">chengy.fan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div> <br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>ndncatchunks file transfer tools <a href="https://imsure.github.io/ndn-vegas-report.pdf" target="_blank">achieved</a> a 15~25Mbps goodput with ndncatchunks file transfer tool, using his TCP Vegas congestion control scheme.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><a class="gmail_plusreply" href="mailto:shijunxiao@email.arizona.edu" target="_blank">@Junxiao Shi</a> , could you tell us more about the test, such as the topology, the machine specification, nfd version, and CS is used or not?</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is a report I found online. I do not know details. The related GitHub repositories were last updated in Dec 2017.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>My recent test uses ndncatchunks running on nfd 0.6.4 (CS size was set to 0) on my local laptop is around 400Mbps.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Zero CS capacity doesn't make sense to me. With CS enabled, I got comparable numbers: 383~394Mbps total for six simultaneous flows. If Data come from CS instead of producers, it's even faster.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>NFD's forwarding performance was <a href="https://redmine.named-data.net/issues/3564#note-24" target="_blank">benchmarked</a> in 2016 to be 6.8K Interest-Data exchanges (tested with 10-byte segments, but if it were 1300-byte segments, the goodput is 70Mbps); no newer benchmark reports are available.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The NFD benchmark was done for version 0.4.2.</div><div>I remember there were some improvements after the benchmark, and the results should be better than 6.8K Interest-Data exchanges.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Maybe, but there's no published benchmark results. I would say, the ndn-traffic-generator benchmarks are less relevant than ndncatchunks benchmarks, so there's no need to redo those.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote></div></div>
</div>