Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[mininet-discuss] DOT: A Distributed OpenFlow Testbed

Phiho Hoang hohoangphi at gmail.com
Wed May 13 12:34:07 PDT 2015


Hi Philip,

Thank you for the info.

Is MaxiNet still under active development?

What's the road map towards 1.0?

Cheers,

PhiHo


On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Philip Wette <wette at mail.upb.de> wrote:

>  Hi PhiHo,
>
> if you plan to distribute a Mininet emulation across multiple physical
> machines you may take a look at MaxiNet.
>
> MaxiNet lets you control and setup a distributed emulation without having
> to worry about your distributed resources. MaxiNet uses GRE tunnels to
> interconnect switches emulated at different machines. So you do not need
> any routing between the different mininet instances.
>
> http://www.cs.uni-paderborn.de/?id=maxinet
>
> Best,
>
> Philip
>
> Am 13.05.15 um 21:08 schrieb Phiho Hoang:
>
>  Hi Nick,
>
>  Thank you for sharing your experience.
>
>  I am not as much concerned with the through put as with how to handle
> the massive number of hosts, sub-nets and datapaths in the emulation using
> Mininet.
> (I plan to use dozens of cheap CHIP, the Raspberry Pi Killer ;-)
>
>  Did you find any need for DHCP, DNS, routers... when you work with
> Mininet at a massive scale across multiple servers so that all Mininet
> hosts in the emulation can communicate with one another conveniently?
>
>  Some sample codes would be much appreciated.
>
>  Again, thank you for sharing.
>
>
>  Regards,
>
>  PhiHo
>
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Nicholas Bastin <nick.bastin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>  On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Phiho Hoang <hohoangphi at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  Are they described in some research paper?
>>>
>>
>>  No, it's work, not research.. :-)
>>
>>    Would you be able to share the custom topologies used in these
>>> mininet ebvironments?
>>>
>>
>>  Most of the test topologies are proprietary, as they mirror customer
>> environments, but I can elaborate a bit about the structure of the
>> testbed.  We have a small cluster of Dell C6100 servers (4-node 2U chassis
>> - unavailable now but you can get them on the surplus market or a newer
>> variant from supermicro).  They're 12 core each with quad-channel memory
>> (very important) and then we put multiport 10G cards (2-4 ports) in each
>> node for the distributed interconnection.  These function as the leaf of an
>> infrastructure that then has custom-built 1U servers with 12x10G interfaces
>> to serve as the core interconnection fabric between the leaf nodes (you
>> could also of course use hardware OF 10G switches for this purpose, but we
>> provision datapaths and network functions on this hardware, do packet
>> analysis, etc. so it's more than just moving packets around).
>>
>>  This is more of a systems design problem than anything special about
>> mininet - mininet itself is unmodified in this environment (although you
>> must obviously tweak the OS for open file handles, etc.).  The real
>> question is not so much about the number of datapaths, but the amount of
>> traffic.  The amount of traffic the system can handle is fixed by the
>> amount of memory bandwidth available - each leaf node in our system has a
>> little over 40GBytes/sec of memory bandwidth and as such if you're doing
>> packet copies to move your packets around you have to consider your data
>> rate multiplied by the number of copies in a representative average path to
>> estimate rough max throughput per node.  For large scale failover studies
>> and such where you're not really running traffic but want to see controller
>> or switch behaviour ripple throughout your topology, you can safely run
>> high hundreds of datapaths per core (given sufficient memory of course).
>>
>>  I would not necessarily try to bring up 50k datapaths on a single node
>> (you probably really start to run into OS resource issues here, and maybe
>> would have to do it using multiple VMs on the same metal -  checking
>> /proc/sys/fs/file-max on a newer system shows over 2.5 million so maybe
>> it'd be possible, although there are also limits on the number of non-patch
>> interfaces you can have), but I'd wager on big modern hardware you could
>> probably do it with 2 nodes (particularly considering the absolutely absurd
>> number of cores you can get per node these days).
>>
>>  --
>> Nick
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mininet-discuss mailing listmininet-discuss at lists.stanford.eduhttps://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/mininet-discuss
>
>
>
> --
> Philip Wette, M.Sc.             E-Mail: wette at mail.upb.de
> University of Paderborn         Tel.:   05251 / 60-1716
> Department of Computer Science
> Computer Networks Group         http://wwwcs.upb.de/cs/ag-karl
> Warburger Straße 100            Room:   O3.152
> 33098 Paderborn
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mininet-discuss mailing list
> mininet-discuss at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/mininet-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/mininet-discuss/attachments/20150513/ac196665/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the mininet-discuss mailing list