diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/ietf/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-08.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/ietf/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-08.md | 3123 |
1 files changed, 3123 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/ietf/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-08.md b/docs/ietf/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-08.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..387ff4dba8 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/ietf/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-08.md @@ -0,0 +1,3123 @@ +--- + +title: Multiple Loss Ratio Search +abbrev: MLRsearch +docname: draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-08 +date: 2024-08-28 + +ipr: trust200902 +area: ops +wg: Benchmarking Working Group +kw: Internet-Draft +cat: info + +coding: us-ascii +pi: # can use array (if all yes) or hash here + toc: yes + sortrefs: # defaults to yes + symrefs: yes + +author: + - + ins: M. Konstantynowicz + name: Maciek Konstantynowicz + org: Cisco Systems + email: mkonstan@cisco.com + - + ins: V. Polak + name: Vratko Polak + org: Cisco Systems + email: vrpolak@cisco.com + +normative: + RFC1242: + RFC2285: + RFC2544: + RFC8219: + RFC9004: + +informative: + TST009: + target: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-TST/001_099/009/03.04.01_60/gs_NFV-TST009v030401p.pdf + title: "TST 009" + FDio-CSIT-MLRsearch: + target: https://csit.fd.io/cdocs/methodology/measurements/data_plane_throughput/mlr_search/ + title: "FD.io CSIT Test Methodology - MLRsearch" + date: 2023-10 + PyPI-MLRsearch: + target: https://pypi.org/project/MLRsearch/1.2.1/ + title: "MLRsearch 1.2.1, Python Package Index" + date: 2023-10 + +--- abstract + +This document proposes extensions to [RFC2544] throughput search by +defining a new methodology called Multiple Loss Ratio search +(MLRsearch). MLRsearch aims to minimize search duration, +support multiple loss ratio searches, +and enhance result repeatability and comparability. + +The primary reason for extending [RFC2544] is to address the challenges +and requirements presented by the evaluation and testing +of software-based networking systems' data planes. + +To give users more freedom, MLRsearch provides additional configuration options +such as allowing multiple short trials per load instead of one large trial, +tolerating a certain percentage of trial results with higher loss, +and supporting the search for multiple goals with varying loss ratios. + +--- middle + +{::comment} + + As we use Kramdown to convert from Markdown, + we use this way of marking comments not to be visible in the rendered draft. + https://stackoverflow.com/a/42323390 + If another engine is used, convert to this way: + https://stackoverflow.com/a/20885980 + + [toc] + +{:/comment} + + +# Purpose and Scope + +The purpose of this document is to describe Multiple Loss Ratio search +(MLRsearch), a data plane throughput search methodology optimized for software +networking DUTs. + +Applying vanilla [RFC2544] throughput bisection to software DUTs +results in several problems: + +- Binary search takes too long as most trials are done far from the + eventually found throughput. +- The required final trial duration and pauses between trials + prolong the overall search duration. +- Software DUTs show noisy trial results, + leading to a big spread of possible discovered throughput values. +- Throughput requires a loss of exactly zero frames, but the industry + frequently allows for small but non-zero losses. +- The definition of throughput is not clear when trial results are inconsistent. + +To address the problems mentioned above, +the MLRsearch test methodology specification employs the following enhancements: + +- Allow multiple short trials instead of one big trial per load. + - Optionally, tolerate a percentage of trial results with higher loss. +- Allow searching for multiple Search Goals, with differing loss ratios. + - Any trial result can affect each Search Goal in principle. +- Insert multiple coarse targets for each Search Goal, earlier ones need + to spend less time on trials. + - Earlier targets also aim for lesser precision. + - Use Forwarding Rate (FR) at maximum offered load + [RFC2285] (section 3.6.2) to initialize the initial targets. +- Take care when dealing with inconsistent trial results. + - Reported throughput is smaller than the smallest load with high loss. + - Smaller load candidates are measured first. +- Apply several load selection heuristics to save even more time + by trying hard to avoid unnecessarily narrow bounds. + +Some of these enhancements are formalized as MLRsearch specification, +the remaining enhancements are treated as implementation details, +thus achieving high comparability without limiting future improvements. + +MLRsearch configuration options are flexible enough to +support both conservative settings and aggressive settings. +The conservative settings lead to results +unconditionally compliant with [RFC2544], +but longer search duration and worse repeatability. +Conversely, aggressive settings lead to shorter search duration +and better repeatability, but the results are not compliant with [RFC2544]. + +No part of [RFC2544] is intended to be obsoleted by this document. + +# Identified Problems + +This chapter describes the problems affecting usability +of various performance testing methodologies, +mainly a binary search for [RFC2544] unconditionally compliant throughput. + +## Long Search Duration + +{::comment} + [Low priority] + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Look for mentions of search duration in existing RFCs.</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: If not found, define right after defining "the search".</mark> + +{:/comment} + +The emergence of software DUTs, with frequent software updates and a +number of different frame processing modes and configurations, +has increased both the number of performance tests +required to verify the DUT update and the frequency of running those tests. +This makes the overall test execution time even more important than before. + +The current [RFC2544] throughput definition restricts the potential +for time-efficiency improvements. +A more generalized throughput concept could enable further enhancements +while maintaining the precision of simpler methods. + +The bisection method, when unconditionally compliant with [RFC2544], +is excessively slow. +This is because a significant amount of time is spent on trials +with loads that, in retrospect, are far from the final determined throughput. + +[RFC2544] does not specify any stopping condition for throughput search, +so users already have an access to a limited trade-off +between search duration and achieved precision. +However, each full 60-second trials doubles the precision, +so not many trials can be removed without a substantial loss of precision. + +## DUT in SUT + +[RFC2285] defines: +- DUT as + - The network forwarding device to which stimulus is offered and + response measured [RFC2285] (section 3.1.1). +- SUT as + - The collective set of network devices to which stimulus is offered + as a single entity and response measured [RFC2285] (section 3.1.2). + +[RFC2544] specifies a test setup with an external tester stimulating the +networking system, treating it either as a single DUT, or as a system +of devices, an SUT. + +In the case of software networking, the SUT consists of not only the DUT +as a software program processing frames, but also of +server hardware and operating system functions, +with that server hardware resources shared across all programs including +the operating system. + +Given that the SUT is a shared multi-tenant environment +encompassing the DUT and other components, the DUT might inadvertently +experience interference from the operating system +or other software operating on the same server. + +Some of this interference can be mitigated. +For instance, +pinning DUT program threads to specific CPU cores +and isolating those cores can prevent context switching. + +Despite taking all feasible precautions, some adverse effects may still impact +the DUT's network performance. +In this document, these effects are collectively +referred to as SUT noise, even if the effects are not as unpredictable +as what other engineering disciplines call noise. + +DUT can also exhibit fluctuating performance itself, for reasons +not related to the rest of SUT. For example due to pauses in execution +as needed for internal stateful processing. +In many cases this +may be an expected per-design behavior, as it would be observable even +in a hypothetical scenario where all sources of SUT noise are eliminated. +Such behavior affects trial results in a way similar to SUT noise. +As the two phenomenons are hard to distinguish, +in this document the term 'noise' is used to encompass +both the internal performance fluctuations of the DUT +and the genuine noise of the SUT. + +A simple model of SUT performance consists of an idealized noiseless performance, +and additional noise effects. +For a specific SUT, the noiseless performance is assumed to be constant, +with all observed performance variations being attributed to noise. +The impact of the noise can vary in time, sometimes wildly, +even within a single trial. +The noise can sometimes be negligible, but frequently +it lowers the observed SUT performance as observed in trial results. + +In this model, SUT does not have a single performance value, it has a spectrum. +One end of the spectrum is the idealized noiseless performance value, +the other end can be called a noiseful performance. +In practice, trial result +close to the noiseful end of the spectrum happens only rarely. +The worse the performance value is, the more rarely it is seen in a trial. +Therefore, the extreme noiseful end of the SUT spectrum is not observable +among trial results. +Also, the extreme noiseless end of the SUT spectrum +is unlikely to be observable, this time because some small noise effects +are likely to occur multiple times during a trial. + +Unless specified otherwise, this document's focus is +on the potentially observable ends of the SUT performance spectrum, +as opposed to the extreme ones. + +When focusing on the DUT, the benchmarking effort should ideally aim +to eliminate only the SUT noise from SUT measurements. +However, +this is currently not feasible in practice, as there are no realistic enough +models available to distinguish SUT noise from DUT fluctuations, +based on authors' experience and available literature. + +Assuming a well-constructed SUT, the DUT is likely its +primary performance bottleneck. +In this case, we can define the DUT's +ideal noiseless performance as the noiseless end of the SUT performance spectrum, +especially for throughput. +However, other performance metrics, such as latency, +may require additional considerations. + +Note that by this definition, DUT noiseless performance +also minimizes the impact of DUT fluctuations, as much as realistically possible +for a given trial duration. + +MLRsearch methodology aims to solve the DUT in SUT problem +by estimating the noiseless end of the SUT performance spectrum +using a limited number of trial results. + +Any improvements to the throughput search algorithm, aimed at better +dealing with software networking SUT and DUT setup, should employ +strategies recognizing the presence of SUT noise, allowing the discovery of +(proxies for) DUT noiseless performance +at different levels of sensitivity to SUT noise. + +## Repeatability and Comparability + +[RFC2544] does not suggest to repeat throughput search. +And from just one +discovered throughput value, it cannot be determined how repeatable that value is. +Poor repeatability then leads to poor comparability, +as different benchmarking teams may obtain varying throughput values +for the same SUT, exceeding the expected differences from search precision. + +[RFC2544] throughput requirements (60 seconds trial and +no tolerance of a single frame loss) affect the throughput results +in the following way. +The SUT behavior close to the noiseful end of its performance spectrum +consists of rare occasions of significantly low performance, +but the long trial duration makes those occasions not so rare on the trial level. +Therefore, the binary search results tend to wander away from the noiseless end +of SUT performance spectrum, more frequently and more widely than short +trials would, thus causing poor throughput repeatability. + +The repeatability problem can be addressed by defining a search procedure +that identifies a consistent level of performance, +even if it does not meet the strict definition of throughput in [RFC2544]. + +According to the SUT performance spectrum model, better repeatability +will be at the noiseless end of the spectrum. +Therefore, solutions to the DUT in SUT problem +will help also with the repeatability problem. + +Conversely, any alteration to [RFC2544] throughput search +that improves repeatability should be considered +as less dependent on the SUT noise. + +An alternative option is to simply run a search multiple times, and report some +statistics (e.g. average and standard deviation). +This can be used +for a subset of tests deemed more important, +but it makes the search duration problem even more pronounced. + +## Throughput with Non-Zero Loss + +[RFC1242] (section 3.17 Throughput) defines throughput as: + The maximum rate at which none of the offered frames + are dropped by the device. + +Then, it says: + Since even the loss of one frame in a + data stream can cause significant delays while + waiting for the higher level protocols to time out, + it is useful to know the actual maximum data + rate that the device can support. + +However, many benchmarking teams accept a small, +non-zero loss ratio as the goal for their load search. + +Motivations are many: + +- Modern protocols tolerate frame loss better, + compared to the time when [RFC1242] and [RFC2544] were specified. + +- Trials nowadays send way more frames within the same duration, + increasing the chance of a small SUT performance fluctuation + being enough to cause frame loss. + +- Small bursts of frame loss caused by noise have otherwise smaller impact + on the average frame loss ratio observed in the trial, + as during other parts of the same trial the SUT may work more closely + to its noiseless performance, thus perhaps lowering the Trial Loss Ratio + below the Goal Loss Ratio value. + +- If an approximation of the SUT noise impact on the Trial Loss Ratio is known, + it can be set as the Goal Loss Ratio. + +Regardless of the validity of all similar motivations, +support for non-zero loss goals makes any search algorithm more user-friendly. +[RFC2544] throughput is not user-friendly in this regard. + +Furthermore, allowing users to specify multiple loss ratio values, +and enabling a single search to find all relevant bounds, +significantly enhances the usefulness of the search algorithm. + +Searching for multiple Search Goals also helps to describe the SUT performance +spectrum better than the result of a single Search Goal. +For example, the repeated wide gap between zero and non-zero loss loads +indicates the noise has a large impact on the observed performance, +which is not evident from a single goal load search procedure result. + +It is easy to modify the vanilla bisection to find a lower bound +for the intended load that satisfies a non-zero Goal Loss Ratio. +But it is not that obvious how to search for multiple goals at once, +hence the support for multiple Search Goals remains a problem. + +## Inconsistent Trial Results + +While performing throughput search by executing a sequence of +measurement trials, there is a risk of encountering inconsistencies +between trial results. + +The plain bisection never encounters inconsistent trials. +But [RFC2544] hints about the possibility of inconsistent trial results, +in two places in its text. +The first place is section 24, where full trial durations are required, +presumably because they can be inconsistent with the results +from short trial durations. +The second place is section 26.3, where two successive zero-loss trials +are recommended, presumably because after one zero-loss trial +there can be a subsequent inconsistent non-zero-loss trial. + +Examples include: + +- A trial at the same load (same or different trial duration) results + in a different Trial Loss Ratio. +- A trial at a higher load (same or different trial duration) results + in a smaller Trial Loss Ratio. + +Any robust throughput search algorithm needs to decide how to continue +the search in the presence of such inconsistencies. +Definitions of throughput in [RFC1242] and [RFC2544] are not specific enough +to imply a unique way of handling such inconsistencies. + +Ideally, there will be a definition of a new quantity which both generalizes +throughput for non-zero-loss (and other possible repeatability enhancements), +while being precise enough to force a specific way to resolve trial result +inconsistencies. +But until such a definition is agreed upon, the correct way to handle +inconsistent trial results remains an open problem. + +# MLRsearch Specification + +This section describes MLRsearch specification including all technical +definitions needed for evaluating whether a particular test procedure +complies with MLRsearch specification. + +{::comment} + [Good idea for 08, maybe ask BMWG first?] + + <mark>TODO VP: Separate Requirements and Recommendations/Suggestions + paragraphs? (currently requirements are in discussion subsections - + discussion should only clarify things without adding new + requirements)</mark> + +{:/comment} + +## Overview + +MLRsearch specification describes a set of abstract system components, +acting as functions with specified inputs and outputs. + +A test procedure is said to comply with MLRsearch specification +if it can be conceptually divided into analogous components, +each satisfying requirements for the corresponding MLRsearch component. + +The Measurer component is tasked to perform trials, +the Controller component is tasked to select trial loads and durations, +the Manager component is tasked to pre-configure everything +and to produce the test report. +The test report explicitly states Search Goals (as the Controller Inputs) +and corresponding Goal Results (Controller Outputs). + +{::comment} + [Low priority] + + <mark>MKP2 TODO: Find a good reference for the test report, seems only implicit in RFC2544.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +The Manager calls the Controller once, +the Controller keeps calling the Measurer +until all stopping conditions are met. + +The part where Controller calls the Measurer is called the search. +Any activity done by the Manager before it calls the Controller +(or after Controller returns) is not considered to be part of the search. + +MLRsearch specification prescribes regular search results and recommends +their stopping conditions. Irregular search results are also allowed, +they may have different requirements and stopping conditions. + +Search results are based on load classification. +When measured enough, any chosen load either achieves of fails each search goal, +thus becoming a lower or an upper bound for that goal. +When the relevant bounds are at loads that are close enough +(according to goal precision), the regular result is found. +Search stops when all regular results are found +(or if some goals are proven to have only irregular results). + +## Measurement Quantities + +MLRsearch specification uses a number of measurement quantities. + +In general, MLRsearch specification does not require particular units to be used, +but it is REQUIRED for the test report to state all the units. +For example, ratio quantities can be dimensionless numbers between zero and one, +but may be expressed as percentages instead. + +For convenience, a group of quantities can be treated as a composite quantity, +One constituent of a composite quantity is called an attribute, +and a group of attribute values is called an instance of that composite quantity. + +Some attributes are not independent from others, +and they can be calculated from other attributes. +Such quantites are called derived quantities. + +## Existing Terms + +RFC 1242 "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnect Devices" +contains basic definitions, and +RFC 2544 "Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices" +contains discussions of a number of terms and additional methodology requirements. +RFC 2285 adds more terms and discussions, describing some known situations +in more precise way. + +All three documents should be consulted +before attempting to make use of this document. + +Definitions of some central terms are copied and discussed in subsections. + +{::comment} + [Good idea for 08, but needs more work. Ask BMWG?] + + Alternatively, quick list of all (existing and new here) terms, + with links (external or internal respectively) to definitions. + + <mark>MKP3 [VP] TODO: Even if the following list will not be in final draft, + it is useful to keep it around (maybe commented-out) while editing.</mark> + + <mark>MKP3 VP note: rough list of all RFC references: + - [RFC1242] (section 3.17 Throughput) ... definition + - [RFC2544] (section 26.1 Throughput) ... methodology + - [RFC2544] (section 24. Trial duration): + - full trial durations (implies short trials) + - Also 60s for unconditional compliance is here. + - Also "the search" (without quotes) appears there. + - Also "binary search" (with quotes) appears there. + - [RFC2544] (section 26.3 Frame loss rate): + - two successive zero-loss trials are recommended (hints about loss inversion) + - un/conditionally compliant with [RFC2544] + - [RFC2544] (section 26. Benchmarking tests:) + - all its "dot sections" have "Reporting format:" paragraphs + - (implies test report) + - [RFC2544] (section 26.1 Throughput) wants graph, frame size on X axis. + - [RFC2544] (section 23. Trial description) trial + - general description of trial + - wait times specifically, maybe also learning frames? + - Constant Load of [RFC1242] (section 3.4 Constant Load) + - Data Rate of [RFC2544] (section 14. Bidirectional traffic) + - seems equal to input frame rate [RFC2544] (23. Trial description). + - [RFC2544] (section 21. Bursty traffic) suggests non-constant loads? + - Intended Load of [RFC2285] (section 3.5.1 Intended load (Iload)) + - [RFC2285] (Section 3.5.2 Offered load (Oload)) + - Frame Loss Rate of [RFC1242] (section 3.6 Frame Loss Rate) + - Forwarding Rate as defined in [RFC2285] (section 3.6.1 Forwarding rate (FR)) + - [RFC2544] (section 20. Maximum frame rate) + - [RFC2285] (3.5.3 Maximum offered load (MOL)) + - reordered frames [RFC2544] (section 10. Verifying received frames) + - For example, [RFC2544] (Appendix C) lists frame formats and protocol addresses, + as recommended from [RFC2544] (section 8. Frame formats) + and [RFC2544] (section 12. Protocol addresses). + - [RFC8219] (section 5.3. Traffic Setup) introduces traffic setups consisting of a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 traffic + - [RFC2544] (section 9. Frame sizes) + - [RFC1242] (section 3.5 Data link frame size) + - [RFC2285] (section 3.6.2) FRMOL + - [RFC2285] (section 3.1.1) DUT + - [RFC2285] (section 3.1.2) SUT + - [RFC2544] (section 6. Test set up) test setup with (an external) tester + - [RFC9004] B2B + - [RFC8219] (section 5.3. Traffic Setup) for an example of ip4+ip6 mixed traffic + </mark> + + <mark>MKP3 [VP] TODO: Do not mention those that do not need discussion here.</mark> + +{:/comment} + + +{::comment} + [Low priority] + + <mark>MKP3 [VP] TODO: Do we even need RFC9004?</mark> + +{:/comment} + +{::comment} + [I do not understand what I meant. Typos? Probably not important overall.] + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Even terms that are discussed in this memo, + they perhaps do not need a separate list (just free paragraphs), + in a chapter after MLRsearch specification.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +{::comment} + [Important, just not enough time in 07.] + + <mark>MKP3 [VP] TODO: Verify that MLRsearch specification does not discuss + meaning of existing terms without quoting their original definition.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +### SUT + +Defined in [RFC2285] (section 3.1.2 System Under Test (SUT)) as follows. + +Definition: + +The collective set of network devices to which stimulus is offered +as a single entity and response measured. + +Discussion: + +An SUT consisting of a single network device is also allowed. + +### DUT + +Defined in [RFC2285] (section 3.1.1 Device Under Test (DUT)) as follows. + +Definition: + +The network forwarding device to which stimulus is offered and +response measured. + +Discussion: + +DUT, as a sub-component of SUT, is only indirectly mentioned +in MLRsearch specification, but is of key relevance for its motivation. + +{::comment} + [Could be useful, but not high priority.] + + ### Tester + + <mark>MKP3 TODO: Add Definition and Discusion paragraphs</mark> + + <mark>MKP3 MK note: Bizarre ... i can't find tester definition in + rfc1242, rfc2288 or rfc2544, but will keep looking. If there isn't one, + we need to define one :).</mark> + + <mark>[VP] TODO: There were some documents distinguishing TG and TA.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +### Trial + +A trial is the part of the test described in [RFC2544] (section 23. Trial description). + +Definition: + + A particular test consists of multiple trials. Each trial returns + one piece of information, for example the loss rate at a particular + input frame rate. Each trial consists of a number of phases: + + a) If the DUT is a router, send the routing update to the "input" + port and pause two seconds to be sure that the routing has settled. + + b) Send the "learning frames" to the "output" port and wait 2 + seconds to be sure that the learning has settled. Bridge learning + frames are frames with source addresses that are the same as the + destination addresses used by the test frames. Learning frames for + other protocols are used to prime the address resolution tables in + the DUT. The formats of the learning frame that should be used are + shown in the Test Frame Formats document. + + c) Run the test trial. + + d) Wait for two seconds for any residual frames to be received. + + e) Wait for at least five seconds for the DUT to restabilize. + +Discussion: + +The definition describes some traits, it is not clear whether all of them +are REQUIRED, or some of them are only RECOMMENDED. + +{::comment} + [Useful if possible.] + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Search RFCs for better description of "Run the test trial".</mark> + +{:/comment} + +For the purposes of the MLRsearch specification, +it is ALLOWED for the test procedure to deviate from the [RFC2544] description, +but any such deviation MUST be made explicit in the test report. + +Trials are the only stimuli the SUT is expected to experience +during the search. + +In some discussion paragraphs, it is useful to consider the traffic +as sent and received by a tester, as implicitly defined +in [RFC2544] (section 6. Test set up). + +An example of deviation from [RFC2544] is using shorter wait times. + +## Trial Terms + +This section defines new and redefine existing terms for quantities +relevant as inputs or outputs of trial, as used by the Measurer component. + +### Trial Duration + +Definition: + +Trial duration is the intended duration of the traffic for a trial. + +Discussion: + +In general, this quantity does not include any preparation nor waiting +described in section 23 of [RFC2544] (section 23. Trial description). + +While any positive real value may be provided, some Measurer implementations +MAY limit possible values, e.g. by rounding down to neared integer in seconds. +In that case, it is RECOMMENDED to give such inputs to the Controller +so the Controller only proposes the accepted values. +Alternatively, the test report MUST present the rounded values +as Search Goal attributes. + +### Trial Load + +Definition: + +The trial load is the intended load for a trial + +Discussion: + +For test report purposes, it is assumed that this is a constant load by default. +This MAY be only an average load, e.g. when the traffic is intended to be busty, +e.g. as suggested in [RFC2544] (section 21. Bursty traffic), +but the test report MUST explicitly mention how non-constant the traffic is. + +Trial load is the quantity defined as Constant Load of [RFC1242] +(section 3.4 Constant Load), Data Rate of [RFC2544] +(section 14. Bidirectional traffic) +and Intended Load of [RFC2285] (section 3.5.1 Intended load (Iload)). +All three definitions specify +that this value applies to one (input or output) interface. + +{::comment} + [Not important.] + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Also mention input frame rate [RFC2544] (23. Trial description).</mark> + +{:/comment} + +For test report purposes, multi-interface aggregate load MAY be reported, +this is understood as the same quantity expressed using different units. +From the report it MUST be clear whether a particular trial load value +is per one interface, or an aggregate over all interfaces. + +Similarly to trial duration, some Measurers may limit the possible values +of trial load. Contrary to trial duration, the test report is NOT REQUIRED +to document such behavior. + +{::comment} + [Can of worms. Be aware, but probably do not let spill into draft.] + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Why? In practice the difference is small, but what if it is big? + Do we need Trial Effective Load for bounds an conditional throughput purposes? + Should the Controller be recommended to chose load values that are exactly accepted? + </mark> + +{:/comment} + +It is ALLOWED to combine trial load and trial duration in a way +that would not be possible to achieve using any integer number of data frames. + +{::comment} + [I feel this is important, to be discussed separately (not in-scope).] + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Explain why are we not using Oload. + 1. MLRsearch implementations cannot react correctly to big differences + between Iload and Oload. + 2. The media between the tested and the DUT are thus considered to be part of SUT. + If DUT causes congestion control, it is not expected to handle Iload. + </mark> + + See further discussion in [Trial Forwarding Ratio] (#Trial-Forwarding-Ratio) + and in [Measurer] (#Measurer) sections for other related issues. + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Create a separate subsection for Oload discussion, + or clearly separate which aspects are discussed under which term.</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: New idea. Compare the tester to an ordinary router + in some datacenter. The Intended Load is not jst some abstract input. + It is the real traffic coming from routers next hop farther. + It does not matter that DUT has forwarded each frame it received, + if the tester was unable to sent all the traffic in time. + Endpoint see packet loss, they do not care about [RFC2285] + half-duplex, spanning trees, nor congestion control mechanisms. + Formally speaking, I consider even the sending interface of the sender + to be the part of SUT. + Reading [RFC2285] (section 3.5.3 Maximum offered load (MOL)) + "This will be the case when an external source lacks the resources + to transmit frames at the minimum legal inter-frame gap" + that means TRex workers are also part of SUT. If they do not have + enough CPU power to generate frames are required, those frames are lost. + </mark> + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: That new idea warants some discussion in "DUT within SUT", + as it is just another case of ther rest of SUT ruining + otherwise good DUT performance.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +### Trial Input + +Definition: + +Trial Input is a composite quantity, consisting of two attributes: +trial duration and trial load. + +Discussion: + +When talking about multiple trials, it is common to say "Trial Inputs" +to denote all corresponding Trial Input instances. + +A Trial Input instance acts as the input for one call of the Measurer component. + +Contrary to other composite quantities, MLRsearch implementations +are NOT ALLOWED to add optional attributes here. +This improves interoperability between various implementations of +the Controller and the Measurer. + +### Traffic Profile + +Definition: + +Traffic profile is a composite quantity +containing attributes other than trial load and trial duration, +needed for unique determination of the trial to be performed. + +Discussion: + +All its attributes are assumed to be constant during the search, +and the composite is configured on the Measurer by the Manager +before the search starts. +This is why the traffic profile is not part of the Trial Input. + +As a consequence, implementations of the Manager and the Measurer +must be aware of their common set of capabilities, so that the traffic profile +uniquely defines the traffic during the search. +The important fact is that none of those capabilities +have to be known by the Controller implementations. + +The traffic profile SHOULD contain some specific quantities, +for example [RFC2544] (section 9. Frame sizes) governs +data link frame size as defined in [RFC1242] (section 3.5 Data link frame size). + +Several more specific quantities may be RECOMMENDED, depending on media type. +For example, [RFC2544] (Appendix C) lists frame formats and protocol addresses, +as recommended from [RFC2544] (section 8. Frame formats) +and [RFC2544] (section 12. Protocol addresses). + +Depending on SUT configuration, e.g. when testing specific protocols, +additional attributes MUST be included in the traffic profile +and in the test report. + +Example: [RFC8219] (section 5.3. Traffic Setup) introduces traffic setups +consisting of a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 traffic - the implied traffic profile +therefore must include an attribute for their percentage. + +Other traffic properties that need to be somehow specified +in Traffic Profile include: +[RFC2544] (section 14. Bidirectional traffic), +[RFC2285] (section 3.3.3 Fully meshed traffic), +and [RFC2544] (section 11. Modifiers). + +### Trial Forwarding Ratio + +Definition: + +The trial forwarding ratio is a dimensionless floating point value. +It MUST range between 0.0 and 1.0, both inclusive. +It is calculated by dividing the number of frames +successfully forwarded by the SUT +by the total number of frames expected to be forwarded during the trial + +Discussion: + +For most traffic profiles, "expected to be forwarded" means +"intended to get transmitted from Tester towards SUT". + +Trial forwarding ratio MAY be expressed in other units +(e.g. as a percentage) in the test report. + +Note that, contrary to loads, frame counts used to compute +trial forwarding ratio are aggregates over all SUT output interfaces. + +Questions around what is the correct number of frames +that should have been forwarded +is generally outside of the scope of this document. + +{::comment} + [Part two of iload/oload discussion.] + + See discussion in [Measurer] (#Measurer) section + for more details about calibrating test equipment. + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Define unsent frames?</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: If Oload is fairly below Iload, the unsent frames + should be counted as lost, otherwise search outputs are misleading. + But what is "fairly"? CSIT tolerates 10 microseconds worth of unsent frames.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +{::comment} + [Low priority, but maybe useful for somebody?] + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Mention traffic profiles with uneven frame counts? + E.g. when SUT is expected to perform IP packet fragmentation or reassembly. + </mark> + +{:/comment} + +### Trial Loss Ratio + +Definition: + +The Trial Loss Ratio is equal to one minus the trial forwarding ratio. + +Discussion: + +100% minus the trial forwarding ratio, when expressed as a percentage. + +This is almost identical to Frame Loss Rate of [RFC1242] +(section 3.6 Frame Loss Rate), +the only minor difference is that Trial Loss Ratio +does not need to be expressed as a percentage. + +### Trial Forwarding Rate + +Definition: + +The trial forwarding rate is a derived quantity, calculated by +multiplying the trial load by the trial forwarding ratio. + +Discussion: + +It is important to note that while similar, this quantity is not identical +to the Forwarding Rate as defined in [RFC2285] +(section 3.6.1 Forwarding rate (FR)). +The latter is specific to one output interface only, +whereas the trial forwarding ratio is based +on frame counts aggregated over all SUT output interfaces. + +{::comment} + [Part 3 of iload/oload discussion.] + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: If some unsent frames were tolerated (not counted as lost), + this value is actually higher than the real fps output of the SUT. + Should we use the real FR as the basis for Conditional Throughput + (instead of this TFR)? That would require additional Trial Output attribute. + </mark> + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: What about duration stretching? + This also causes difference between Iload and Oload, + but in an invisible way.</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Recommend start+sleep+stop? + How long wait for late frames? RFC2544 2s is too much even at 30s trial.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +### Trial Effective Duration + +Definition: + +Trial effective duration is a time quantity related to the trial, +by default equal to the trial duration. + +Discussion: + +This is an optional feature. +If the Measurer does not return any trial effective duration value, +the Controller MUST use the trial duration value instead. + +Trial effective duration may be any time quantity chosen by the Measurer +to be used for time-based decisions in the Controller. + +The test report MUST explain how the Measurer computes the returned +trial effective duration values, if they are not always +equal to the trial duration. + +This feature can be beneficial for users +who wish to manage the overall search duration, +rather than solely the traffic portion of it. +Simply measure the duration of the whole trial (waits including) +and use that as the trial effective duration. + +Also, this is a way for the Measurer to inform the Controller about +its surprising behavior, for example when rounding the trial duration value. + +{::comment} + [Not very important, but easy and nice recommendation.] + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Recommend for Measurer to return all trials at relevant bounds, + as that may better inform users when surprisingly small amount of trials + was performed, just because the the trial effective duration values were big.</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Repeat that this is not here to deal with duration stretching.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +### Trial Output + +Definition: + +Trial Output is a composite quantity. The REQUIRED attributes are +Trial Loss Ratio, trial effective duration and trial forwarding rate. + +Discussion: + +When talking about multiple trials, it is common to say "Trial Outputs" +to denote all corresponding Trial Output instances. + +Implementations may provide additional (optional) attributes. +The Controller implementations MUST ignore values of any optional attribute +they are not familiar with, +except when passing Trial Output instance to the Manager. + +Example of an optional attribute: +The aggregate number of frames expected to be forwarded during the trial, +especially if it is not just (a rounded-up value) +implied by trial load and trial duration. + +While [RFC2285] (Section 3.5.2 Offered load (Oload)) +requires the offered load value to be reported for forwarding rate measurements, +it is NOT REQUIRED in MLRsearch specification. + +{::comment} + [Side tangent from iload/oload discussion. Stilll recommendation is not obvious.] + + <mark>MKP2 TODO: Why? Just because bound trial results are optional in Controller Output?</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 mk edit note: we need to more explicitly address + the relevance or irrelevance of [RFC2285] (Section 3.5.2 Offered load (Oload)). + Current text in [Trial Load] (#Trial-Load) is ambiguous - quoted below.</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 "Questions around what is the correct number of frames that should + have been forwarded is generally outside of the scope of this document. + See discussion in [Measurer] (#Measurer) section for more details about + calibrating test equipment."</mark> + +{:/comment} + +### Trial Result + +Definition: + +Trial result is a composite quantity, +consisting of the Trial Input and the Trial Output. + +Discussion: + +When talking about multiple trials, it is common to say "trial results" +to denote all corresponding trial result instances. + +While implementations SHOULD NOT include additional attributes +with independent values, they MAY include derived quantities. + +## Goal Terms + +This section defines new and redefine existing terms for quantities +indirectly relevant for inputs or outputs of the Controller component. + +Several goal attributes are defined before introducing +the main component quantity: the Search Goal. + +### Goal Final Trial Duration + +Definition: + +A threshold value for trial durations. + +Discussion: + +This attribute value MUST be positive. + +A trial with Trial Duration at least as long as the Goal Final Trial Duration +is called a full-length trial (with respect to the given Search Goal). + +A trial that is not full-length is called a short trial. + +Informally, while MLRsearch is allowed to perform short trials, +the results from such short trials have only limited impact on search results. + +One trial may be full-length for some Search Goals, but not for others. + +The full relation of this goal to Controller Output is defined later in +this document in subsections of [Goal Result] (#Goal-Result). +For example, the Conditional Throughput for this goal is computed only from +full-length trial results. + +### Goal Duration Sum + +Definition: + +A threshold value for a particular sum of trial effective durations. + +Discussion: + +This attribute value MUST be positive. + +Informally, even when looking only at full-length trials, +MLRsearch may spend up to this time measuring the same load value. + +If the Goal Duration Sum is larger than the Goal Final Trial Duration, +multiple full-length trials may need to be performed at the same load. + +See [TST009 Example] (#TST009-Example) for an example where possibility +of multiple full-length trials at the same load is intended. + +A Goal Duration Sum value lower than the Goal Final Trial Duration +(of the same goal) could save some search time, but is NOT RECOMMENDED. +See [Relevant Upper Bound] (#Relevant-Upper-Bound) for partial explanation. + +### Goal Loss Ratio + +Definition: + +A threshold value for Trial Loss Ratios. + +Discussion: + +Attribute value MUST be non-negative and smaller than one. + +A trial with Trial Loss Ratio larger than a Goal Loss Ratio value +is called a lossy trial, with respect to given Search Goal. + +Informally, if a load causes too many lossy trials, +the Relevant Lower Bound for this goal will be smaller than that load. + +If a trial is not lossy, it is called a low-loss trial, +or (specifically for zero Goal Loss Ratio value) zero-loss trial. + +### Goal Exceed Ratio + +Definition: + +A threshold value for a particular ratio of sums of Trial Effective Durations. + +Discussion: + +Attribute value MUST be non-negative and smaller than one. + +See later sections for details on which sums. +Specifically, the direct usage is only in +[Appendix A: Load Classification] (#Appendix-A\:-Load-Classification) +and [Appendix B: Conditional Throughput] (#Appendix-B\:-Conditional-Throughput). +The impact of that usage is discussed in subsections leading to +[Goal Result] (#Goal-Result). + +Informally, the impact of lossy trials is controlled by this value. +Effectively, Goal Exceed Ratio is a percentage of full-length trials +that may be lossy without the load being classified +as the [Relevant Upper Bound] (#Relevant-Upper-Bound). + +### Goal Width + +Definition: + +A value used as a threshold for deciding +whether two trial load values are close enough. + +Discussion: + +If present, the value MUST be positive. + +Informally, this acts as a stopping condition, +controlling the precision of the search. +The search stops if every goal has reached its precision. + +Implementations without this attribute +MUST give the Controller other ways to control the search stopping conditions. + +Absolute load difference and relative load difference are two popular choices, +but implementations may choose a different way to specify width. + +The test report MUST make it clear what specific quantity is used as Goal Width. + +It is RECOMMENDED to set the Goal Width (as relative difference) value +to a value no smaller than the Goal Loss Ratio. +(The reason is not obvious, see [Throughput] (#Throughput) if interested.) + +### Search Goal + +Definition: + +The Search Goal is a composite quantity consisting of several attributes, +some of them are required. + +Required attributes: +- Goal Final Trial Duration +- Goal Duration Sum +- Goal Loss Ratio +- Goal Exceed Ratio + +Optional attribute: +- Goal Width + +Discussion: + +Implementations MAY add their own attributes. +Those additional attributes may be required by the implementation +even if they are not required by MLRsearch specification. +But it is RECOMMENDED for those implementations +to support missing values by computing reasonable defaults. + +The meaning of listed attributes is formally given only by their indirect effect +on the search results. + +Informally, later sections provide additional intuitions and examples +of the Search Goal attribute values. + +An example of additional attributes required by some implementations +is Goal Initial Trial Duration, together with another attribute +that controls possible intermediate Trial Duration values. +The reasonable default in this case is using the Goal Final Trial Duration +and no intermediate values. + +### Controller Input + +Definition: + +Controller Input is a composite quantity +required as an input for the Controller. +The only REQUIRED attribute is a list of Search Goal instances. + +Discussion: + +MLRsearch implementations MAY use additional attributes. +Those additional attributes may be required by the implementation +even if they are not required by MLRsearch specification. + +Formally, the Manager does not apply any Controller configuration +apart from one Controller Input instance. + +For example, Traffic Profile is configured on the Measurer by the Manager +(without explicit assistance of the Controller). + +The order of Search Goal instances in a list SHOULD NOT +have a big impact on Controller Output (see section [Controller Output] (#Controller-Output) , +but MLRsearch implementations MAY base their behavior on the order +of Search Goal instances in a list. + +An example of an optional attribute (outside the list of Search Goals) +required by some implementations is Max Load. +While this is a frequently used configuration parameter, +already governed by [RFC2544] (section 20. Maximum frame rate) +and [RFC2285] (3.5.3 Maximum offered load (MOL)), +some implementations may detect or discover it instead. + +{::comment} + [Not important directly, may matter for iload/oload.] + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: 2544 and 2285 care about half-duplex media. Should we?</mark> + +{:/comment} + +{::comment} + [Maybe obvious but I think useful. RFC2544 talks about header compression in WANs.] + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Mention that Max Load should care about all media within SUT, + including DUT-DUT links. Important when that link carries encapsulated traffic, + as bandwidth limit there implies lower max rate + (than implied by tester-SUT links).</mark> + +{:/comment} + +In MLRsearch specification, the [Relevant Upper Bound] (#Relevant-Upper-Bound) +is added as a required attribute precisely because it makes the search result +independent of Max Load value. + +{::comment} + [User recommendation, we should have separate section summarizing those.] + + <mark>[VP] TODO for MK: The rest of this subsection is new, review?</mark> + + It is RECOMMENDED to use the same Goal Final Trial Duration value across all goals. + Otherwise, some goals may be measured at Trial Durations longer than needed, + with possibly unexpected impacts on repeatability and comparability. + + For example when Goal Loss Ratio is zero, any increase in Trial Duration + also increases the likelihood of the trial to become lossy, + similar to usage of lower Goal Exceed Ratio or larger Goal Duration Sum, + both of which tend to lower the search results, towards noisy end + of performance spectrum. + + Also, it is recommended to avoid "incomparable" goals, e.g. one with + lower loss ratio but higher exceed ratio, and other with higher loss ratio + but lower loss ratio. In worst case, this can make the search to last too long. + Implementations are RECOMMENDED to sort the goals and start with + stricter ones first, as bounds for those will not get invalidated + byt measureing for less trict goal later in the search. + +{:/comment} + +## Search Goal Examples + +### RFC2544 Goal + +The following set of values makes the search result unconditionally compliant +with [RFC2544] (section 24 Trial duration) + +- Goal Final Trial Duration = 60 seconds +- Goal Duration Sum = 60 seconds +- Goal Loss Ratio = 0% +- Goal Exceed Ratio = 0% + +The latter two attributes are enough to make the search goal +conditionally compliant, adding the first attribute +makes it unconditionally compliant. + +The second attribute (Goal Duration Sum) only prevents MLRsearch +from repeating zero-loss full-length trials. + +Non-zero exceed ratio could prolong the search and allow loss inversion +between lower-load lossy short trial and higher-load full-length zero-loss trial. +From [RFC2544] alone, it is not clear whether that higher load +could be considered as compliant throughput. + +### TST009 Goal + +One of the alternatives to RFC2544 is described in +[TST009] (section 12.3.3 Binary search with loss verification). +The idea there is to repeat lossy trials, hoping for zero loss on second try, +so the results are closer to the noiseless end of performance sprectum, +and more repeatable and comparable. + +Only the variant with "z = infinity" is achievable with MLRsearch. + +{::comment} + [Low priority, unless a short sentence is found.] + + <mark>MKP2 MK note: Shouldn't we add a note about how MLRsearch goes about + addressing the TST009 point related to z, that is "z is threshold of + Lord(r) to override Loss Verification when the count of lost frames is + very high and unnecessary verification trials."? i.e. by have Goal Loss + Ratio. Thoughts?</mark> + +{:/comment} + +For example, for "r = 2" variant, the following search goal should be used: + +- Goal Final Trial Duration = 60 seconds +- Goal Duration Sum = 120 seconds +- Goal Loss Ratio = 0% +- Goal Exceed Ratio = 50% + +If the first 60s trial has zero loss, it is enough for MLRsearch to stop +measuring at that load, as even a second lossy trial +would still fit within the exceed ratio. + +But if the first trial is lossy, MLRsearch needs to perform also +the second trial to classify that load. +As Goal Duration Sum is twice as long as Goal Final Trial Duration, +third full-length trial is never needed. + +## Result Terms + +Before defining the output of the Controller, +it is useful to define what the Goal Result is. + +The Goal Result is a composite quantity. + +Following subsections define its attribute first, before describing the Goal Result quantity. + +There is a correspondence between Search Goals and Goal Results. +Most of the following subsections refer to a given Search Goal, +when defining attributes of the Goal Result. +Conversely, at the end of the search, each Search Goal +has its corresponding Goal Result. + +Conceptually, the search can be seen as a process of load classification, +where the Controller attempts to classify some loads as an Upper Bound +or a Lower Bound with respect to some Search Goal. + +Before defining real attributes of the goal result, +it is useful to define bounds in general. + +### Relevant Upper Bound + +Definition: + +The Relevant Upper Bound is the smallest trial load value that is classified +at the end of the search as an upper bound +(see [Appendix A: Load Classification] (#Appendix-A\:-Load-Classification)) +for the given Search Goal. + +Discussion: + +One search goal can have many different load classified as an upper bound. +At the end of the search, one of those loads will be the smallest, +becoming the relevant upper bound for that goal. + +In more detail, the set of all trial outputs (both short and full-length, +enough of them according to Goal Duration Sum) +performed at that smallest load failed to uphold all the requirements +of the given Search Goal, mainly the Goal Loss Ratio +in combination with the Goal Exceed Ratio. + +{::comment} + [Recheck. Move to end?] + + <mark>[VP] TODO: Is the above a good summary of Appendix A inputs?</mark> + +{:/comment} + +If Max Load does not cause enough lossy trials, +the Relevant Upper Bound does not exist. +Conversely, if Relevant Upper Bound exists, +it is not affected by Max Load value. + +{::comment} + [Medium priority, depends on how many user recommendations we have.] + + With non-zero exceed ratio values, a lossy short trial may not be enough + to classify a load as the relevant upper bound. + Users MAY apply Goal Duration Sum value lower than Goal Final Trial Duration + to force such classification in hope to save time, + but it is RECOMMENDED not to do so, as in practice + it hurts comparability and repeatability. + +{:/comment} + +{::comment} + [Probably too technical, unless relation to repeatability is found.] + + In general, a load starts as as undecided, then maybe flips to become + an upper bound. MLRsearch stops measuring at that load for this goal, + but it may be forced to measure more for some other search goals, + in which case the load may flip to a lower bound (and back and forth). + + <mark>[VP] TODO: Confirm the load can never flip back to being undecided.</mark> + + Even though the load classification may change during the search, + the goal results are established at the end of the search. + + If the exceed ratio is zero, an upper bound can never flip; + one lossy trial (even short) is enough to pin the classification. + +{:/comment} + +### Relevant Lower Bound + +Definition: + +The Relevant Lower Bound is the largest trial load value +among those smaller than the Relevant Upper Bound, +that got classified at the end of the search as a lower bound (see +[Appendix A: Load Classification] (#Appendix-A\:-Load-Classification)) +for the given Search Goal. + +Discussion: + +Only among loads smaller that the relevant upper bound, +the largest load becomes the relevant lower bound. +With loss inversion, stricter upper bound matters. + +In more detail, the set of all trial outputs (both short and full-length, +enough of them according to Goal Duration Sum) +performed at that largest load managed to uphold all the requirements +of the given Search Goal, mainly the Goal Loss Ratio +in combination with the Goal Exceed Ratio. + +Is no load had enough low-loss trials, the relevant lower bound +MAY not exist. + +{::comment} + [Min Load us useful for detecting broken SUTs (and latency).] + + <mark>[VP] TODO: Mention min load here?</mark> + + <mark>[VP] TODO: Allow zero as implicit lower bound that needs no trials? + If yes, then probably way earlier than here.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +Strictly speaking, if the Relevant Upper Bound does not exist, +the Relevant Lower Bound also does not exist. +In that case, Max Load is classified as a lower bound, +but it is not clear whether a higher lower bound +would be found if the search used a higher Max Load value. + +For a regular Goal Result, the distance between the Relevant Lower Bound +and the Relevant Upper Bound MUST NOT be larger than the Goal Width, +if the implementation offers width as a goal attribute. + +{::comment} + [True but no time to fix properly.] + + <mark>mk note: Seemingly broken grammar, + "managed to uphold all requirements", should be followed + by stating what it means.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +Searching for anther search goal may cause a loss inversion phenomenon, +where a lower load is classified as an upper bound, +but also a higher load is classified as a lower bound for the same search goal. +The definition of the Relevant Lower Bound ignores such high lower bounds. + +{::comment} + [Compare to similar block in upper bound.] + + In general, a load starts as as undecided, then maybe flips to become + a lower bound. MLRsearch stops measuring at that load for this goal, + but it may be forced to measure more for some other search goals, + in which case the load may flip to an upper bound (and back and forth). + + <mark>[VP] TODO: Confirm the load can never flip back to being undecided.</mark> + + Even though the load classification may change during the search, + the goal results are established at the end of the search. + + No valid exceed ratio value pins the classification as a lower bound. + +{:/comment} + +### Conditional Throughput + +Definition: + +The Conditional Throughput (see section [Appendix B: Conditional Throughput] (#Appendix-B\:-Conditional-Throughput)) +as evaluated at the Relevant Lower Bound of the given Search Goal +at the end of the search. + +Discussion: + +Informally, this is a typical trial forwarding rate, expected to be seen +at the Relevant Lower Bound of the given Search Goal. + +But frequently it is only a conservative estimate thereof, +as MLRsearch implementations tend to stop gathering more data +as soon as they confirm the value cannot get worse than this estimate +within the Goal Duration Sum. + +This value is RECOMMENDED to be used when evaluating repeatability +and comparability if different MLRsearch implementations. + +{::comment} + [Low priority but useful for comparabuility.] + + <mark>[VP] TODO: Add subsection for Trial Results At Relevant Bounds + as an optional attribute of Goal Result.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +### Goal Result + +Definition: + +The Goal Result is a composite quantity consisting of several attributes. +Relevant Upper Bound and Relevant Lower Bound are REQUIRED attributes, +Conditional Throughput is a RECOMMENDED attribute. + +Discussion: + +Depending on SUT behavior, it is possible that one or both relevant bounds +do not exist. The goal result instance where the required attribute values exist +is informally called a Regular Goal Result instance, +so we can say some goals reached Irregular Goal Results. + +{::comment} + [Probably delete after last edits re irregular results.] + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Additional attributes should not be required by the Manager? + Explicitly mention that irregular goal result may support different attributes. + </mark> + + <mark>MKP2 Implementations are free to define their own specific subtypes + of irregular Goal Results, but the test report MUST mark them clearly + as irregular according to this section.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +A typical Irregular Goal Result is when all trials at the Max Load +have zero loss, as the Relevant Upper Bound does not exist in that case. + +It is RECOMMENDED that the test report will display such results appropriately, +although MLRsearch specification does not prescibe how. + +{::comment} + [Useful.] + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Also allways-fail. Link to bounds to avoid duplication.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +Anything else regarging Irregular Goal Results, +including their role in stopping conditions of the search +is outside the scope of this document. + +### Search Result + +Definition: + +The Search Result is a single composite object +that maps each Search Goal instance to a corresponding Goal Result instance. + +Discussion: + +Alternatively, the Search Result can be implemented as an ordered list +of the Goal Result instances, matching the order of Search Goal instances. + +{::comment} + [Low priority, as there is no obvious harm.] + + <mark>MKP1 [VP] TODO: Disallow any additional attributes?</mark> + +{:/comment} + +The Search Result (as a mapping) +MUST map from all the Search Goal instances present in the Controller Input. + +{::comment} + [Not important.] + + <mark>[VP] Postponed: API independence, modularity.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +{::comment} + [Not needed?] + + <mark>MKP1 [VP] TODO: Short sentence on what to do on irregular goal result.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +### Controller Output + +Definition: + +The Controller Output is a composite quantity returned from the Controller +to the Manager at the end of the search. +The Search Result instance is its only REQUIRED attribute. + +Discussion: + +MLRsearch implementation MAY return additional data in the Controller Output. + +{::comment} + [Not needed?] + + <mark>MKP1 [VP] TODO: Short sentence on what to do on irregular goal result.</mark> + + <mark>MKP1 [VP] TODO: Irregular output, e.g. with "max search time exceeded" flag?</mark> + +{:/comment} + +## MLRsearch Architecture + +{::comment} + [Meta and irrelevant. Delete after verifying other text is good.] + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Review the folowing: + This section is about division into components, + so it fits this definition: + "The software architecture of a system represents the design decisions + related to overall system structure and behavior." + Saying "MLRsearch Design" does not make it clear if it is + Vratko designing the MLRsearch specification, + or some other person designing a new MLRsearch implementation using that spec. + </mark> + +{:/comment} + +MLRsearch architecture consists of three main system components: +the Manager, the Controller, and the Measurer. + +The architecture also implies the presence of other components, +such as the SUT and the Tester (as a sub-component of the Measurer). + +Protocols of communication between components are generally left unspecified. +For example, when MLRsearch specification mentions "Controller calls Measurer", +it is possible that the Controller notifies the Manager +to call the Measurer indirectly instead. This way the Measurer implementations +can be fully independent from the Controller implementations, +e.g. programmed in different programming languages. + +### Measurer + +Definition: + +The Measurer is an abstract system component +that when called with a [Trial Input] (#Trial-Input) instance, +performs one [Trial] (#Trial), +and returns a [Trial Output] (#Trial-Output) instance. + +Discussion: + +This definition assumes the Measurer is already initialized. +In practice, there may be additional steps before the search, +e.g. when the Manager configures the traffic profile +(either on the Measurer or on its tester sub-component directly) +and performs a warmup (if the tester requires one). + +It is the responsibility of the Measurer implementation to uphold +any requirements and assumptions present in MLRsearch specification, +e.g. trial forwarding ratio not being larger than one. + +Implementers have some freedom. +For example [RFC2544] (section 10. Verifying received frames) +gives some suggestions (but not requirements) related to +duplicated or reordered frames. +Implementations are RECOMMENDED to document their behavior +related to such freedoms in as detailed a way as possible. + +It is RECOMMENDED to benchmark the test equipment first, +e.g. connect sender and receiver directly (without any SUT in the path), +find a load value that guarantees the offered load is not too far +from the intended load, and use that value as the Max Load value. +When testing the real SUT, it is RECOMMENDED to turn any big difference +between the intended load and the offered load into increased Trial Loss Ratio. + +Neither of the two recommendations are made into requirements, +because it is not easy to tell when the difference is big enough, +in a way thay would be dis-entangled from other Measurer freedoms. + +### Controller + +Definition: + +The Controller is an abstract system component +that when called with a Controller Input instance +repeatedly computes Trial Input instance for the Measurer, +obtains corresponding Trial Output instances, +and eventually returns a Controller Output instance. + +Discussion: + +Informally, the Controller has big freedom in selection of Trial Inputs, +and the implementations want to achieve the Search Goals +in the shortest expected time. + +The Controller's role in optimizing the overall search time +distinguishes MLRsearch algorithms from simpler search procedures. + +Informally, each implementation can have different stopping conditions. +Goal Width is only one example. +In practice, implementation details do not matter, +as long as Goal Results are regular. + +### Manager + +Definition: + +The Manager is an abstract system component that is reponsible for +configuring other components, calling the Controller component once, +and for creating the test report following the reporting format as +defined in [RFC2544] (section 26. Benchmarking tests). + +Discussion: + +The Manager initializes the SUT, the Measurer (and the Tester if independent) +with their intended configurations before calling the Controller. + +The Manager does not need to be able to tweak any Search Goal attributes, +but it MUST report all applied attribute values even if not tweaked. + +{::comment} + [Not very important but also should be easy to add.] + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Is saying "RFC2544" indirectly reporting RFC2544 Goal values?</mark> + +{:/comment} + +In principle, there should be a "user" (human or CI) +that "starts" or "calls" the Manager and receives the report. +The Manager MAY be able to be called more than once whis way. + +{::comment} + [Not important, unless anybody else asks.] + + <mark>MKP2 The Manager may use the Measurer or other system components + to perform other tests, e.g. back-to-back frames, + as the Controller is only replacing the search from + [RFC2544] (section 26.1 Throughput).</mark> + +{:/comment} + +## Implementation Compliance + +Any networking measurement setup where there can be logically delineated system components +and there are components satisfying requirements for the Measurer, +the Controller and the Manager, is considered to be compliant with MLRsearch design. + +These components can be seen as abstractions present in any testing procedure. +For example, there can be a single component acting both +as the Manager and the Controller, but as long as values of required attributes +of Search Goals and Goal Results are visible in the test report, +the Controller Input instance and output instance are implied. + +For example, any setup for conditionally (or unconditionally) +compliant [RFC2544] throughput testing +can be understood as a MLRsearch architecture, +assuming there is enough data to reconstruct the Relevant Upper Bound. + +See [RFC2544 Goal] (#RFC2544-Goal) subsection for equivalent Search Goal. + +Any test procedure that can be understood as (one call to the Manager of) +MLRsearch architecture is said to be compliant with MLRsearch specification. + +# Additional Considerations + +This section focuses on additional considerations, intuitions and motivations +pertaining to MLRsearch methodology. + +{::comment} + [Meta, redundant.] + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Review the following: + If MLRsearch specification is a product design specification + for MLRsearch implementation, then this chapter talks about + my goals and early attempts at designing the MLRsearch specification. + </mark> + +{:/comment} + +## MLRsearch Versions + +The MLRsearch algorithm has been developed in a code-first approach, +a Python library has been created, debugged, used in production +and published in PyPI before the first descriptions +(even informal) were published. + +But the code (and hence the description) was evolving over time. +Multiple versions of the library were used over past several years, +and later code was usually not compatible with earlier descriptions. + +The code in (some version of) MLRsearch library fully determines +the search process (for a given set of configuration parameters), +leaving no space for deviations. + +{::comment} + [Different type of external link, should be in 08.] + + <mark>MKP2 mk3 note: any references to library + should have specific reference link. + We have FDio-CSIT-MLRsearch in informative: at the start. Link it. + </mark> + +{:/comment} + +{::comment} + [Lesson learned is important, but maybe does not need version history?] + + <mark>MKP2 mk edit note: Suggest to remove crossed-out text, as it is + distracting, doesn't bring any value, and recalls multiple versions of + MLRsearch library, without any references. A much more appropriate + approach would be to provide a pointer to MLRsearch code versions in + FD.io that evolved over the years, as an example implementation. But I + would question the value of referring to old previous versions in this + document. It's okay for the blog, but not for IETF specification, + unless there are specific lessons learned that need to be highlighted + to support the specification.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +This historic meaning of MLRsearch, as a family +of search algorithm implementations, +leaves plenty of space for future improvements, at the cost +of poor comparability of results of search algoritm implementations. + +{::comment} + [Reckeck after clarifying library/algorithm/implementation/specification mess.] + + <mark>mk edit note: If the aim of this sentence is to state that there + could be possibly other approaches to address this problem space, then + I think we are already addressing it in the opening sections discussing + problems, and referring to ETSi TST.009 and opnfv work. If the aim is + to define "MLRsearch" as a completely new class of algorithms for + software network benchmarking, of which this spec is just one example, + then i have a problem with it. This specification is very prescriptive + in the main functional areas to address the problem identified, but + still leaving space for further exploration and innovation as noted + elsewhere in this document. It is not a new class of algorithms. It is + a newly defined methodology to amend RFC2544, to specifically address + identified problems.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +There are two competing needs. +There is the need for standardization in areas critical to comparability. +There is also the need to allow flexibility for implementations +to innovate and improve in other areas. +This document defines MLRsearch as a new specification +in a manner that aims to fairly balance both needs. + +## Stopping Conditions + +[RFC2544] prescribes that after performing one trial at a specific offered load, +the next offered load should be larger or smaller, based on frame loss. + +The usual implementation uses binary search. +Here a lossy trial becomes +a new upper bound, a lossless trial becomes a new lower bound. +The span of values between the tightest lower bound +and the tightest upper bound (including both values) forms an interval of possible results, +and after each trial the width of that interval halves. + +Usually the binary search implementation tracks only the two tightest bounds, +simply calling them bounds. +But the old values still remain valid bounds, +just not as tight as the new ones. + +After some number of trials, the tightest lower bound becomes the throughput. +[RFC2544] does not specify when, if ever, should the search stop. + +MLRsearch introduces a concept of [Goal Width] (#Goal-Width). + +The search stops +when the distance between the tightest upper bound and the tightest lower bound +is smaller than a user-configured value, called Goal Width from now on. +In other words, the interval width at the end of the search +has to be no larger than the Goal Width. + +This Goal Width value therefore determines the precision of the result. +Due to the fact that MLRsearch specification requires a particular +structure of the result (see [Trial Result] (#Trial-Result) section), +the result itself does contain enough information to determine its +precision, thus it is not required to report the Goal Width value. + +This allows MLRsearch implementations to use stopping conditions +different from Goal Width. + +## Load Classification + +MLRsearch keeps the basic logic of binary search (tracking tightest bounds, +measuring at the middle), perhaps with minor technical differences. + +MLRsearch algorithm chooses an intended load (as opposed to the offered load), +the interval between bounds does not need to be split +exactly into two equal halves, +and the final reported structure specifies both bounds. + +The biggest difference is that to classify a load +as an upper or lower bound, MLRsearch may need more than one trial +(depending on configuration options) to be performed at the same intended load. + +In consequence, even if a load already does have few trial results, +it still may be classified as undecided, neither a lower bound nor an upper bound. + +An explanation of the classification logic is given in the next section [Logic of Load Classification] (#Logic-of-Load-Classification), +as it heavily relies on other subsections of this section. + +For repeatability and comparability reasons, it is important that +given a set of trial results, all implementations of MLRsearch +classify the load equivalently. + +## Loss Ratios + +Another difference between MLRsearch and [RFC2544] binary search is in the goals of the search. +[RFC2544] has a single goal, +based on classifying full-length trials as either lossless or lossy. + +MLRsearch, as the name suggests, can search for multiple goals, +differing in their loss ratios. +The precise definition of the Goal Loss Ratio will be given later. +The [RFC2544] throughput goal then simply becomes a zero Goal Loss Ratio. +Different goals also may have different Goal Widths. + +A set of trial results for one specific intended load value +can classify the load as an upper bound for some goals, but a lower bound +for some other goals, and undecided for the rest of the goals. + +Therefore, the load classification depends not only on trial results, +but also on the goal. +The overall search procedure becomes more complicated, when +compared to binary search with a single goal, +but most of the complications do not affect the final result, +except for one phenomenon, loss inversion. + +## Loss Inversion + +In [RFC2544] throughput search using bisection, any load with a lossy trial +becomes a hard upper bound, meaning every subsequent trial has a smaller +intended load. + +But in MLRsearch, a load that is classified as an upper bound for one goal +may still be a lower bound for another goal, and due to the other goal +MLRsearch will probably perform trials at even higher loads. +What to do when all such higher load trials happen to have zero loss? +Does it mean the earlier upper bound was not real? +Does it mean the later lossless trials are not considered a lower bound? +Surely we do not want to have an upper bound at a load smaller than a lower bound. + +MLRsearch is conservative in these situations. +The upper bound is considered real, and the lossless trials at higher loads +are considered to be a coincidence, at least when computing the final result. + +This is formalized using new notions, the [Relevant Upper Bound] (#Relevant-Upper-Bound) and +the [Relevant Lower Bound] (#Relevant-Lower-Bound). +Load classification is still based just on the set of trial results +at a given intended load (trials at other loads are ignored), +making it possible to have a lower load classified as an upper bound, +and a higher load classified as a lower bound (for the same goal). +The Relevant Upper Bound (for a goal) is the smallest load classified +as an upper bound. +But the Relevant Lower Bound is not simply +the largest among lower bounds. +It is the largest load among loads +that are lower bounds while also being smaller than the Relevant Upper Bound. + +With these definitions, the Relevant Lower Bound is always smaller +than the Relevant Upper Bound (if both exist), and the two relevant bounds +are used analogously as the two tightest bounds in the binary search. +When they are less than the Goal Width apart, +the relevant bounds are used in the output. + +One consequence is that every trial result can have an impact on the search result. +That means if your SUT (or your traffic generator) needs a warmup, +be sure to warm it up before starting the search. + +## Exceed Ratio + +The idea of performing multiple trials at the same load comes from +a model where some trial results (those with high loss) are affected +by infrequent effects, causing poor repeatability of [RFC2544] throughput results. +See the discussion about noiseful and noiseless ends +of the SUT performance spectrum in section [DUT in SUT] (#DUT-in-SUT). +Stable results are closer to the noiseless end of the SUT performance spectrum, +so MLRsearch may need to allow some frequency of high-loss trials +to ignore the rare but big effects near the noiseful end. + +MLRsearch can do such trial result filtering, but it needs +a configuration option to tell it how frequent can the infrequent big loss be. +This option is called the exceed ratio. +It tells MLRsearch what ratio of trials +(more exactly what ratio of trial seconds) can have a [Trial Loss Ratio] (#Trial-Loss-Ratio) +larger than the Goal Loss Ratio and still be classified as a lower bound. +Zero exceed ratio means all trials have to have a Trial Loss Ratio +equal to or smaller than the Goal Loss Ratio. + +For explainability reasons, the RECOMMENDED value for exceed ratio is 0.5, +as it simplifies some later concepts by relating them to the concept of median. + +## Duration Sum + +When more than one trial is intended to classify a load, +MLRsearch also needs something that controls the number of trials needed. +Therefore, each goal also has an attribute called duration sum. + +The meaning of a [Goal Duration Sum] (#Goal-Duration-Sum) is that +when a load has (full-length) trials +whose trial durations when summed up give a value at least as big +as the Goal Duration Sum value, +the load is guaranteed to be classified either as an upper bound +or a lower bound for that goal. + +Due to the fact that the duration sum has a big impact +on the overall search duration, and [RFC2544] prescribes +wait intervals around trial traffic, +the MLRsearch algorithm is allowed to sum durations that are different +from the actual trial traffic durations. + +In the MLRsearch specification, the different duration values are called +[Trial Effective Duration] (#Trial-Effective-Duration). + +## Short Trials + +MLRsearch requires each goal to specify its final trial duration. +Full-length trial is a shorter name for a trial whose intended trial duration +is equal to (or longer than) the goal final trial duration. + +Section 24 of [RFC2544] already anticipates possible time savings +when short trials (shorter than full-length trials) are used. +Full-length trials are the opposite of short trials, +so they may also be called long trials. + +Any MLRsearch implementation may include its own configuration options +which control when and how MLRsearch chooses to use short trial durations. + +For explainability reasons, when exceed ratio of 0.5 is used, +it is recommended for the Goal Duration Sum to be an odd multiple +of the full trial durations, so Conditional Throughput becomes identical to +a median of a particular set of trial forwarding rates. + +The presence of short trial results complicates the load classification logic. + +Full details are given later in section [Logic of Load Classification] (#Logic-of-Load-Classification). +In a nutshell, results from short trials +may cause a load to be classified as an upper bound. +This may cause loss inversion, and thus lower the Relevant Lower Bound, +below what would classification say when considering full-length trials only. + +{::comment} + [I still think this is important, revisit after explanations re quantiles.] + + <mark>For explainability reasons, it is RECOMMENDED users use such configurations + that guarantee all trials have the same length.</mark> + + <mark>mk edit note: Using RFC2119 keyword here does not seem to be + appropriate. Moreover, I do not get the meaning nor the logic behind + this statement. It seems to say that in order for users to understand + the workings of MLRsearch, they should use simplified configuration, + otherwise they won't get it. Illogical it seems to me. Suggest to + remove it.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +{::comment} + [Important. Keeping compatibility slows search considerably.] + + <mark>Alas, such configurations are usually not compliant with [RFC2544] requirements, + or not time-saving enough.</mark> + + <mark>mk edit note: This statement does not make sense to me. Suggest to remove it.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +## Throughput + +{::comment} + [Important, we need better title.] + + <mark>[VP] TODO: Was named Conditional Troughput, but spec chapter already has one.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +Due to the fact that testing equipment takes the intended load as an input parameter +for a trial measurement, any load search algorithm needs to deal +with intended load values internally. + +But in the presence of goals with a non-zero loss ratio, the intended load +usually does not match the user's intuition of what a throughput is. +The forwarding rate (as defined in [RFC2285] section 3.6.1) is better, +but it is not obvious how to generalize it +for loads with multiple trial results and a non-zero +[Goal Loss Ratio] (#Goal-Loss-Ratio). + +The best example is also the main motivation: hard limit performance. +Even if the medium allows higher performance, +the SUT interfaces may have their additional own limitations, +e.g. a specific fps limit on the NIC (a very common occurance). + +Ideally, those should be known and used when computing Max Load. +But if Max Load is higher that what interface can receive or transmit, +there will be a "hard limit" observed in trial results. +Imagine the hard limit is at 100 Mfps, Max Load is higher, +and the goal loss ratio is 0.5%. If DUT has no additional losses, +0.5% loss ratio will be achieved at 100.5025 Mfps (the relevant lower bound). +But it is not intuitive to report SUT performance as a value that is +larger than known hard limit. +We need a generalization of RFC2544 throughput, +different from just the relevant lower bound. + +MLRsearch defines one such generalization, called the Conditional Throughput. +It is the trial forwarding rate from one of the trials +performed at the load in question. +Determining which trial exactly is defined in +[MLRsearch Specification] (#MLRsearch-Specification), +and in [Appendix B: Conditional Throughput] (#Appendix-B\:-Conditional-Throughput). + +In the hard limit example, 100.5 Mfps load will still have +only 100.0 Mfps forwarding rate, nicely confirming the known limitation. + +Conditional Throughput is partially related to load classification. +If a load is classified as a lower bound for a goal, +the Conditional Throughput can be calculated from trial results, +and guaranteed to show an loss ratio +no larger than the Goal Loss Ratio. + +{::comment} + [Revisit after other edits, may be addressed elsewhere.] + + <mark>While the Conditional Throughput gives more intuitive-looking + values than the Relevant Lower Bound (for non-zero Goal Loss Ratio + values), the actual definition is more complicated than the definition + of the Relevant Lower Bound.</mark> + + <mark>mk edit note: Looking at this again, and per improved text, I + don't think it is that complicated. (BTW saying it is more complicated + and not addressing it, and leaving it open ended is not + good.) "Conditional throughput" intuitively is really throughput under + certain conditions, these being offered load determined by Relevant + Lower Bound and actual loss. For comparability, and taking into account + multiple trial samples, per MLRsearch definition, this is + mathematically expressed as `conditional_throughput = intended_load * + (1.0 - quantile_loss_ratio)`.</mark> + + <mark>DONE VP to MK: Hmm. Frequently, Conditional Throughput comes + from the worst among low-loss full-length trials. + But if two disparate goals are interested at the same load, + things get complicated (does not happen in CSIT production, + but I found few bugs when testing in simulator). + Computation in load classification is also not trivial, + but at least it only needs two "duration sum" values, + no need to sort all trial results.</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Still not sure what to do with this subsection. + Possibly a bigger rewrite once VP and MK agree on what is (or is not) + complicated. :)</mark> + +{:/comment} + +{::comment} + [Important only for "design principles" chapter we may never have.] + + <mark>In the future, other intuitive values may become popular, + but they are unlikely to supersede the definition of the Relevant Lower Bound + as the most fitting value for comparability purposes, + therefore the Relevant Lower Bound remains a required attribute + of the Goal Result structure, while the Conditional Throughput is only optional.</mark> + + <mark>mk edit note: This paragraph adds to the confusion. I would remove + this paragraph, as with the new text above it doesn't seem to add any + value.</mark> + + <mark>[VP] TODO: This is an example of MLRsearch design principles.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +{::comment} + [Useful.] + + <mark>[VP] TODO: Mention somewhere that trending is a specific case + of repeatability/comparability.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +Note that when comparing the best (all zero loss) and worst case (all loss +just below Goal Loss Ratio), the same Relevant Lower Bound value +may result in the Conditional Throughput differing up to the Goal Loss Ratio. + +Therefore it is rarely needed to set the Goal Width (if expressed +as the relative difference of loads) below the Goal Loss Ratio. +In other words, setting the Goal Width below the Goal Loss Ratio +may cause the Conditional Throughput for a larger loss ratio to become smaller +than a Conditional Throughput for a goal with a smaller Goal Loss Ratio, +which is counter-intuitive, considering they come from the same search. +Therefore it is RECOMMENDED to set the Goal Width to a value no smaller +than the Goal Loss Ratio. + +Overall, this Conditional Throughput does behave well for comparability purposes. + +## Search Time + +MLRsearch was primarily developed to reduce the time +required to determine a throughput, either the [RFC2544] compliant one, +or some generalization thereof. +The art of achieving short search times +is mainly in the smart selection of intended loads (and intended durations) +for the next trial to perform. + +While there is an indirect impact of the load selection on the reported values, +in practice such impact tends to be small, +even for SUTs with quite a broad performance spectrum. + +A typical example of two approaches to load selection leading to different +Relevant Lower Bounds is when the interval is split in a very uneven way. +Any implementation choosing loads very close to the current Relevant Lower Bound +is quite likely to eventually stumble upon a trial result +with poor performance (due to SUT noise). +For an implementation choosing loads very close +to the current Relevant Upper Bound, this is unlikely, +as it examines more loads that can see a performance +close to the noiseless end of the SUT performance spectrum. + +However, as even splits optimize search duration at give precision, +MLRsearch implementations that prioritize minimizing search time +are unlikely to suffer from any such bias. + +Therefore, this document remains quite vague on load selection +and other optimization details, and configuration attributes related to them. +Assuming users prefer libraries that achieve short overall search time, +the definition of the Relevant Lower Bound +should be strict enough to ensure result repeatability +and comparability between different implementations, +while not restricting future implementations much. + +{::comment} + [Important for BMWG. Configurability is bad for comparability.] + + <mark>MKP2 Sadly, different implementations may exhibit their sweet spot of</mark> + <mark>the best repeatability for a given search duration</mark> + <mark>at different goals attribute values, especially concerning</mark> + <mark>any optional goal attributes such as the initial trial duration.</mark> + <mark>Thus, this document does not comment much on which configurations</mark> + <mark>are good for comparability between different implementations.</mark> + <mark>For comparability between different SUTs using the same implementation,</mark> + <mark>refer to configurations recommended by that particular implementation.</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 mk edit note: Isn't this going off on a tangent, hypothesising and + second guessing about different possible implementations. What is the + value of this content to this document? Suggest to remove it.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +## [RFC2544] Compliance + +Some Search Goal instances lead to results compliant with RFC2544. +See [RFC2544 Goal] (#RFC2544-Goal) for more details +regarding both conditional and unconditional compliance. + +The presence of other Search Goals does not affect the compliance +of this Goal Result. +The Relevant Lower Bound and the Conditional Throughput are in this case +equal to each other, and the value is the [RFC2544] throughput. + +# Logic of Load Classification + +## Introductory Remarks + +This chapter continues with explanations, +but this time more precise definitions are needed +for readers to follow the explanations. + +Descriptions in this section are wordy and implementers should read +[MLRsearch Specification] (#MLRsearch-Specification) section +and Appendices for more concise definitions. + +The two areas of focus here are load classification +and the Conditional Throughput. + +To start with [Performance Spectrum] (#Performance-Spectrum) +subsection contains definitions needed to gain insight +into what Conditional Throughput means. +Remaining subsections discuss load classification. + +For load classification, it is useful to define **good trials** and **bad trials**: + +- **Bad trial**: Trial is called bad (according to a goal) + if its [Trial Loss Ratio] (#Trial-Loss-Ratio) + is larger than the [Goal Loss Ratio] (#Goal-Loss-Ratio). + +- **Good trial**: Trial that is not bad is called good. + +## Performance Spectrum +### Description + +There are several equivalent ways to explain the Conditional Throughput +computation. One of the ways relies on performance +spectrum. + +Take an intended load value, a trial duration value, and a finite set +of trial results, with all trials measured at that load value and duration value. + +The performance spectrum is the function that maps +any non-negative real number into a sum of trial durations among all trials +in the set, that has that number, as their trial forwarding rate, +e.g. map to zero if no trial has that particular forwarding rate. + +A related function, defined if there is at least one trial in the set, +is the performance spectrum divided by the sum of the durations +of all trials in the set. + +That function is called the performance probability function, as it satisfies +all the requirements for probability mass function +of a discrete probability distribution, +the one-dimensional random variable being the trial forwarding rate. + +These functions are related to the SUT performance spectrum, +as sampled by the trials in the set. + +{::comment} + [Middle of rewrite?] + + <mark>MKP1 The performance spectrum is the function that maps + any non-negative real number into a sum of trial durations among all trials + in the set, that has that number, as their trial forwarding rate, + e.g. map to zero if no trial has that particular forwarding rate.</mark> + + <mark>MKP1 A related function, defined if there is at least one trial in the set, + is the performance spectrum divided by the sum of the durations + of all trials in the set.</mark> + + <mark>MKP1 That function is called the performance probability function, as it satisfies + all the requirements for probability mass function + of a discrete probability distribution, + the one-dimensional random variable being the trial forwarding rate.</mark> + + <mark>MKP1 These functions are related to the SUT performance spectrum, + as sampled by the trials in the set.</mark> + + <mark>MKP1 [VP] TODO: Introduce quantiles properly by incorporating the below.</mark> + + <mark>MKP1 [VP] TODO: "q-quantile" is plainly wrong. I meant the "p" in "p-quantile". + + - wikipedia: The 100-quantiles are called percentiles + - also wiki: If, instead of using integers k and q, the "p-quantile" is based on a real number p with 0 < p < 1 then... + - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantile_function + - exceed ratio is an input to a quantile function: percentage? + </mark> + + <mark>MKP1 mk2 TODO for VP: Above is not making it clearer at all. Can't we really not explain the spectrum and exceed ratio with just percentiles and quantiles?</mark> + + As for any other probability function, we can talk about percentiles + of the performance probability function, including the median. + The Conditional Throughput will be one such quantile value + for a specifically chosen set of trials. + + <mark>MKP2 As for any other probability function, we can talk about percentiles + of the performance probability function, including the median. + The Conditional Throughput will be one such quantile value + for a specifically chosen set of trials.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +Take a set of all full-length trials performed at the Relevant Lower Bound, +sorted by decreasing trial forwarding rate. +The sum of the durations of those trials +may be less than the Goal Duration Sum, or not. +If it is less, add an imaginary trial result with zero trial forwarding rate, +such that the new sum of durations is equal to the Goal Duration Sum. +This is the set of trials to use. + +If the quantile touches two trials, + +{::comment} + [Clarity.] + + <mark>mk edit note: What does it mean "quantile touches two trials"? + Do you mean two trials are within specific quantile or percentile?</mark> + +{:/comment} + +the larger trial forwarding rate (from the trial result sorted earlier) is used. + +{::comment} + [Oh, unspecified exceed ratio?] + + <mark>the larger trial forwarding rate (from the trial result sorted earlier) is used.</mark> + + <mark>mk edit note: Why is that? Is it because you silently assumed that + quantile here is median or 50th percentile?</mark> + +{:/comment} + +The resulting quantity is the Conditional Throughput of the goal in question. + +{::comment} + [Motivation has lead to code. Now code is definition, this should be equivalent.] + + <mark>The resulting quantity is the Conditional Throughput of the goal in question.</mark> + + <mark>mk edit note: Is this is supposed to be another definition of + Conditional Throughput? If so, how does this relate to Performance + Spectrum? I suggest to either remove these unclear paragraphs above and + rely on examples below that are clear, or rework above so it fits the + flow. Cause right now it's confusion. Even more so, that + [Conditional Throughput] (#Conditional-Throughput) has been already + defined elsewhere in the document.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +A set of examples follows. + +### First Example + +- [Goal Exceed Ratio] (#Goal-Exceed-Ratio) = 0 and [Goal Duration Sum] (#Goal-Duration-Sum) has been reached. +- Conditional Throughput is the smallest trial forwarding rate among the trials. + +### Second Example + +- Goal Exceed Ratio = 0 and Goal Duration Sum has not been reached yet. +- Due to the missing duration sum, the worst case may still happen, so the Conditional Throughput is zero. +- This is not reported to the user, as this load cannot become the Relevant Lower Bound yet. + +### Third Example + +- Goal Exceed Ratio = 50% and Goal Duration Sum is two seconds. +- One trial is present with the duration of one second and zero loss. +- The imaginary trial is added with the duration of one second and zero trial forwarding rate. +- The median would touch both trials, so the Conditional Throughput is the trial forwarding rate of the one non-imaginary trial. +- As that had zero loss, the value is equal to the offered load. + +{::comment} + [Middle of rewrite?] + + <mark>MKP2 mk edit note: how is the median "touching" both trials? + Isn't median of even set of data samples + the average of the two middle data points, + in this case the non-imaginary trial and the imaginary one?</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 Note that Appendix B does not take into account short trial results.</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 mk edit note: Whis is this relevant here? Appendix B has not been mentioned in this section.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +### Summary + +While the Conditional Throughput is a generalization of the trial forwarding rate, +its definition is not an obvious one. + +Other than the trial forwarding rate, the other source of intuition +is the quantile in general, and the median the recommended case. + +{::comment} + [Next version of MLRsearch library may invent new quantity that is more stable.] + + <mark>In future, different quantities may prove more useful, + especially when applying to specific problems, + but currently the Conditional Throughput is the recommended compromise, + especially for repeatability and comparability reasons.</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 mk edit note: This is future looking and hand wavy without + specifics. What are the "specific problems" that are referred here? + Networking, else?Some specific behaviours, if so, what sort? If + something is classified as future work, it needs to be better defined. + The same applies to any out of scope statements.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +## Trials with Single Duration + +{::comment} + [Clarity.] + + <mark>MKP2 mk edit note: Need to improve explanations in this subsection.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +When goal attributes are chosen in such a way that every trial has the same +intended duration, the load classification is simpler. + +The following description follows the motivation +of Goal Loss Ratio, Goal Exceed Ratio, and Goal Duration Sum. + +If the sum of the durations of all trials (at the given load) +is less than the Goal Duration Sum, imagine two scenarios: + +- **best case scenario**: all subsequent trials having zero loss, and +- **worst case scenario**: all subsequent trials having 100% loss. + +Here we assume there are as many subsequent trials as needed +to make the sum of all trials equal to the Goal Duration Sum. + +The exceed ratio is defined using sums of durations +(and number of trials does not matter), so it does not matter whether +the "subsequent trials" can consist of an integer number of full-length trials. + +In any of the two scenarios, best case and worst case, we can compute the load exceed ratio, +as the duration sum of good trials divided by the duration sum of all trials, +in both cases including the assumed trials. + +Even if, in the best case scenario, the load exceed ratio is larger +than the Goal Exceed Ratio, the load is an upper bound. + +MKP2 Even if, in the worst case scenario, the load exceed ratio is not larger +than the Goal Exceed Ratio, the load is a lower bound. + +{::comment} + [Middle of rewrite?] + + <mark>Even if</mark>, in the best case scenario, the load exceed ratio is larger + than the Goal Exceed Ratio, the load is an upper bound. + + <mark>MKP2 Even if</mark>, in the worst case scenario, the load exceed ratio is not larger + than the Goal Exceed Ratio, the load is a lower bound. + + <mark>MKP2 mk edit note: I am confused by "Even if" prefixing + each of the above statements. And even more so by your version + with "If even".</mark> + + <mark>mk edit note: I do not get how this statements are true, as they + are counter-intuitive. For the best case scenario, if load exceed ratio + is larger than the goal exceed ratio, I expect the load to be lower + bound. Need more examples.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +More specifically: + +- Take all trials measured at a given load. +- The sum of the durations of all bad full-length trials is called the bad sum. +- The sum of the durations of all good full-length trials is called the good sum. +- The result of adding the bad sum plus the good sum is called the measured sum. +- The larger of the measured sum and the Goal Duration Sum is called the whole sum. +- The whole sum minus the measured sum is called the missing sum. +- The optimistic exceed ratio is the bad sum divided by the whole sum. +- The pessimistic exceed ratio is the bad sum plus the missing sum, that divided by the whole sum. +- If the optimistic exceed ratio is larger than the Goal Exceed Ratio, the load is classified as an upper bound. +- If the pessimistic exceed ratio is not larger than the Goal Exceed Ratio, the load is classified as a lower bound. +- Else, the load is classified as undecided. + +The definition of pessimistic exceed ratio is compatible with the logic in +the Conditional Throughput computation, so in this single trial duration case, +a load is a lower bound if and only if the Conditional Throughput +loss ratio is not larger than the Goal Loss Ratio. + +{::comment} + [Useful (depends on the whole chapter).] + + <mark>MKP2 mk edit note: I do not get the defintion of optimistic and + pessmistic exceed ratios. Please define or describe what they + are.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +If it is larger, the load is either an upper bound or undecided. + +## Trials with Short Duration + +### Scenarios + +Trials with intended duration smaller than the goal final trial duration +are called short trials. +The motivation for load classification logic in the presence of short trials +is based around a counter-factual case: What would the trial result be +if a short trial has been measured as a full-length trial instead? + +There are three main scenarios where human intuition guides +the intended behavior of load classification. + +#### False Good Scenario + +The user had their reason for not configuring a shorter goal +final trial duration. +Perhaps SUT has buffers that may get full at longer +trial durations. +Perhaps SUT shows periodic decreases in performance +the user does not want to be treated as noise. + +In any case, many good short trials may become bad full-length trials +in the counter-factual case. + +In extreme cases, there are plenty of good short trials and no bad short trials. + +In this scenario, we want the load classification NOT to classify the load +as a lower bound, despite the abundance of good short trials. + +{::comment} + [I agree.] + + <mark>MKP2 mk edit note: It may be worth adding why that is. i.e. because + there is a risk that at longer trial this could turn into a bad + trial.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +Effectively, we want the good short trials to be ignored, so they +do not contribute to comparisons with the Goal Duration Sum. + +#### True Bad Scenario + +When there is a frame loss in a short trial, +the counter-factual full-length trial is expected to lose at least as many +frames. + +In practice, bad short trials are rarely turning into +good full-length trials. + +In extreme cases, there are no good short trials. + +In this scenario, we want the load classification +to classify the load as an upper bound just based on the abundance +of short bad trials. + +Effectively, we want the bad short trials +to contribute to comparisons with the Goal Duration Sum, +so the load can be classified sooner. + +#### Balanced Scenario + +Some SUTs are quite indifferent to trial duration. +Performance probability function constructed from short trial results +is likely to be similar to the performance probability function constructed +from full-length trial results (perhaps with larger dispersion, +but without a big impact on the median quantiles overall). + +{::comment} + [Recheck after edits earlier.] + + <mark>MKP1 mk edit note: "Performance probability function" is this function + defined anywhere? Mention in [Performance Spectrum] (#Performance Spectrum) + is not a complete definition.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +For a moderate Goal Exceed Ratio value, this may mean there are both +good short trials and bad short trials. + +This scenario is there just to invalidate a simple heuristic +of always ignoring good short trials and never ignoring bad short trials, +as that simple heuristic would be too biased. + +Yes, the short bad trials +are likely to turn into full-length bad trials in the counter-factual case, +but there is no information on what would the good short trials turn into. + +The only way to decide safely is to do more trials at full length, +the same as in False Good Scenario. + +### Classification Logic + +MLRsearch picks a particular logic for load classification +in the presence of short trials, but it is still RECOMMENDED +to use configurations that imply no short trials, +so the possible inefficiencies in that logic +do not affect the result, and the result has better explainability. + +With that said, the logic differs from the single trial duration case +only in different definition of the bad sum. +The good sum is still the sum across all good full-length trials. + +Few more notions are needed for defining the new bad sum: + +- The sum of durations of all bad full-length trials is called the bad long sum. +- The sum of durations of all bad short trials is called the bad short sum. +- The sum of durations of all good short trials is called the good short sum. +- One minus the Goal Exceed Ratio is called the subceed ratio. +- The Goal Exceed Ratio divided by the subceed ratio is called the exceed coefficient. +- The good short sum multiplied by the exceed coefficient is called the balancing sum. +- The bad short sum minus the balancing sum is called the excess sum. +- If the excess sum is negative, the bad sum is equal to the bad long sum. +- Otherwise, the bad sum is equal to the bad long sum plus the excess sum. + +Here is how the new definition of the bad sum fares in the three scenarios, +where the load is close to what would the relevant bounds be +if only full-length trials were used for the search. + +#### False Good Scenario + +If the duration is too short, we expect to see a higher frequency +of good short trials. +This could lead to a negative excess sum, +which has no impact, hence the load classification is given just by +full-length trials. +Thus, MLRsearch using too short trials has no detrimental effect +on result comparability in this scenario. +But also using short trials does not help with overall search duration, +probably making it worse. + +#### True Bad Scenario + +Settings with a small exceed ratio +have a small exceed coefficient, so the impact of the good short sum is small, +and the bad short sum is almost wholly converted into excess sum, +thus bad short trials have almost as big an impact as full-length bad trials. +The same conclusion applies to moderate exceed ratio values +when the good short sum is small. +Thus, short trials can cause a load to get classified as an upper bound earlier, +bringing time savings (while not affecting comparability). + +#### Balanced Scenario + +Here excess sum is small in absolute value, as the balancing sum +is expected to be similar to the bad short sum. +Once again, full-length trials are needed for final load classification; +but usage of short trials probably means MLRsearch needed +a shorter overall search time before selecting this load for measurement, +thus bringing time savings (while not affecting comparability). + +Note that in presence of short trial results, +the comparibility between the load classification +and the Conditional Throughput is only partial. +The Conditional Throughput still comes from a good long trial, +but a load higher than the Relevant Lower Bound may also compute to a good value. + +## Trials with Longer Duration + +If there are trial results with an intended duration larger +than the goal trial duration, the precise definitions +in Appendix A and Appendix B treat them in exactly the same way +as trials with duration equal to the goal trial duration. + +But in configurations with moderate (including 0.5) or small +Goal Exceed Ratio and small Goal Loss Ratio (especially zero), +bad trials with longer than goal durations may bias the search +towards the lower load values, as the noiseful end of the spectrum +gets a larger probability of causing the loss within the longer trials. + +{::comment} + [Use single goal when testing externaly, deviate freely in internal tests.] + + <mark>For some users, this is an acceptable price</mark> + <mark>for increased configuration flexibility</mark> + <mark>(perhaps saving time for the related goals),</mark> + <mark>so implementations SHOULD allow such configurations.</mark> + <mark>Still, users are encouraged to avoid such configurations</mark> + <mark>by making all goals use the same final trial duration,</mark> + <mark>so their results remain comparable across implementations.</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 mk edit note: This paragraph has no value in my view. + Statements like "For some users, this is an acceptable price + for increased configuration flexibility" do not make sense. + Configuration flexibility for flexibility sake is not a valid argument + in the specification that aims at standardising benchmarking methodologies. + If one wants to test with longer durations, + then one should configure these as Goal Final Trial Duration. + Simple, no? Or am I reading this point wrong?</mark> + +{:/comment} + +{::comment} + [MKP4 Out of scope here, subject for future work] + + # Current practices? + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Even if not mentioned in spec (not even recommended), + some tricks from CSIT code may be worth mentioning? Not sure.</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Tricks with big impact on search time + can be mentioned so that Addressed Problems : Long Test Duration + has something specific to refer to.</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: It is important to mention trick that have impact + on repeatability and comparability.</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: CSIT computes a discrete "grid" of load values to use.</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: + If all Goal Widths are aligned, there is one common coarse grid. + In that case, NDR (and even PDR conditional throughput + for tests with zer-or-big losses) values are identical in trending, + hiding the real performance variance, and causing fake anomaly + when the performance shifts just one gridpoint. + </mark> + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Conversely, when Goal Width do not match well, + CSIT needs to compute a fine-grained grid to match them all. + In this case, similar performances can be "rounded differently", + mostly based on specific loss that happened at Max Load, + where SUT may be less stable than around PDR. + This way trending sees higher variance (still within corresponding Goal Width), + but at least there are no fake anomalies. + </mark> + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: In general, do not trust stdev if not larged than width.</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: De we have a chapter section fosucing on design principles? + - Make Controller API independent from Measurer API. + - The "allowed if makes worse" principle: + - RFC1242 specmanship happens when testing own DUTs. + - Shortening trial wait times only risks making goal results lower. + - So it is fine to save time aggressively when testing own DUTs. + </mark> + +{:/comment} + + +{::comment} + [Will be nice if made substantial.] + + # Addressed Problems + + <mark>MKP1 all of this section requires updating based on the updated content. + And it is for information only anyways. In fact not sure it's needed. + Maybe in appendix for posterity.</mark> + + Now when MLRsearch is clearly specified and explained, + it is possible to summarize how does MLRsearch specification help with problems. + + Here, "multiple trials" is a shorthand for having the goal final trial duration + significantly smaller than the Goal Duration Sum. + This results in MLRsearch performing multiple trials at the same load, + which may not be the case with other configurations. + + ## Long Test Duration + + As shortening the overall search duration is the main motivation + of MLRsearch library development, the library implements + multiple improvements on this front, both big and small. + + Most of implementation details are not constrained by MLRsearch specification, + so that future implementations may keep shortening the search duration even more. + + One exception is the impact of short trial results on the Relevant Lower Bound. + While motivated by human intuition, the logic is not straightforward. + In practice, configurations with only one common trial duration value + are capable of achieving good overal search time and result repeatability + without the need to consider short trials. + + ### Impact of goal attribute values + + From the required goal attributes, the Goal Duration Sum + remains the best way to get even shorter searches. + + Usage of multiple trials can also save time, + depending on wait times around trial traffic. + + The farther the Goal Exceed Ratio is from 0.5 (towards zero or one), + the less predictable the overal search duration becomes in practice. + + Width parameter does not change search duration much in practice + (compared to other, mainly optional goal attributes). + + ## DUT in SUT + + In practice, using multiple trials and moderate exceed ratios + often improves result repeatability without increasing the overall search time, + depending on the specific SUT and DUT characteristics. + Benefits for separating SUT noise are less clear though, + as it is not easy to distinguish SUT noise from DUT instability in general. + + Conditional Throughput has an intuitive meaning when described + using the performance spectrum, so this is an improvement + over existing simple (less configurable) search procedures. + + Multiple trials can save time also when the noisy end of + the preformance spectrum needs to be examined, e.g. for [RFC9004]. + + Under some circumstances, testing the same DUT and SUT setup with different + DUT configurations can give some hints on what part of noise is SUT noise + and what part is DUT performance fluctuations. + In practice, both types of noise tend to be too complicated for that analysis. + + MLRsearch enables users to search for multiple goals, + potentially providing more insight at the cost of a longer overall search time. + However, for a thorough and reliable examination of DUT-SUT interactions, + it is necessary to employ additional methods beyond black-box benchmarking, + such as collecting and analyzing DUT and SUT telemetry. + + ## Repeatability and Comparability + + Multiple trials improve repeatability, depending on exceed ratio. + + In practice, one-second goal final trial duration with exceed ratio 0.5 + is good enough for modern SUTs. + However, unless smaller wait times around the traffic part of the trial + are allowed, too much of overal search time would be wasted on waiting. + + It is not clear whether exceed ratios higher than 0.5 are better + for repeatability. + The 0.5 value is still preferred due to explainability using median. + + It is possible that the Conditional Throughput values (with non-zero goal + loss ratio) are better for repeatability than the Relevant Lower Bound values. + This is especially for implementations + which pick load from a small set of discrete values, + as that hides small variances in Relevant Lower Bound values + other implementations may find. + + Implementations focusing on shortening the overall search time + are automatically forced to avoid comparability issues due to load selection, + as they must prefer even splits wherever possible. + But this conclusion only holds when the same goals are used. + Larger adoption is needed before any further claims on comparability + between MLRsearch implementations can be made. + + ## Throughput with Non-Zero Loss + + Trivially suported by the Goal Loss Ratio attribute. + + In practice, usage of non-zero loss ratio values + improves the result repeatability + (exactly as expected based on results from simpler search methods). + + ## Inconsistent Trial Results + + MLRsearch is conservative wherever possible. + This is built into the definition of Conditional Throughput, + and into the treatment of short trial results for load classification. + + This is consistent with [RFC2544] zero loss tolerance motivation. + + If the noiseless part of the SUT performance spectrum is of interest, + it should be enough to set small value for the goal final trial duration, + and perhaps also a large value for the Goal Exceed Ratio. + + Implementations may offer other (optional) configuration attributes + to become less conservative, but currently it is not clear + what impact would that have on repeatability. + +{:/comment} + +# IANA Considerations + +No requests of IANA. + +# Security Considerations + +Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to +technology characterization of a DUT/SUT using controlled stimuli in a +laboratory environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints +specified in the sections above. + +The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup and +MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test traffic into +a production network or misroute traffic to the test management network. + +Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying +solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. + +Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for +benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising +from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production +networks. + +# Acknowledgements + +Some phrases and statements in this document were created +with help of Mistral AI (mistral.ai). + +Many thanks to Alec Hothan of the OPNFV NFVbench project for thorough +review and numerous useful comments and suggestions in the earlier versions of this document. + +Special wholehearted gratitude and thanks to the late Al Morton for his +thorough reviews filled with very specific feedback and constructive +guidelines. Thank you Al for the close collaboration over the years, +for your continuous unwavering encouragement full of empathy and +positive attitude. Al, you are dearly missed. + +# Appendix A: Load Classification + +This section specifies how to perform the load classification. + +Any intended load value can be classified, according to a given [Search Goal] (#Search-Goal). + +The algorithm uses (some subsets of) the set of all available trial results +from trials measured at a given intended load at the end of the search. +All durations are those returned by the Measurer. + +The block at the end of this appendix holds pseudocode +which computes two values, stored in variables named +`optimistic` and `pessimistic`. + +{::comment} + [We have other section re optimistic. Not going to talk about variable naming here.] + + <mark>MKP2 mk edit note: Need to add the description of what + the `optimistic` and `pessimistic` variables represent. + Or a reference to where this is described + e.g. in [Single Trial Duration] (#Single-Trial-Duration) section.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +The pseudocode happens to be a valid Python code. + +If values of both variables are computed to be true, the load in question +is classified as a lower bound according to the given Search Goal. +If values of both variables are false, the load is classified as an upper bound. +Otherwise, the load is classified as undecided. + +The pseudocode expects the following variables to hold values as follows: + +- `goal_duration_sum`: The duration sum value of the given Search Goal. + +- `goal_exceed_ratio`: The exceed ratio value of the given Search Goal. + +- `good_long_sum`: Sum of durations across trials with trial duration + at least equal to the goal final trial duration and with a Trial Loss Ratio + not higher than the Goal Loss Ratio. + +- `bad_long_sum`: Sum of durations across trials with trial duration + at least equal to the goal final trial duration and with a Trial Loss Ratio + higher than the Goal Loss Ratio. + +- `good_short_sum`: Sum of durations across trials with trial duration + shorter than the goal final trial duration and with a Trial Loss Ratio + not higher than the Goal Loss Ratio. + +- `bad_short_sum`: Sum of durations across trials with trial duration + shorter than the goal final trial duration and with a Trial Loss Ratio + higher than the Goal Loss Ratio. + +The code works correctly also when there are no trial results at a given load. + +~~~ python +balancing_sum = good_short_sum * goal_exceed_ratio / (1.0 - goal_exceed_ratio) +effective_bad_sum = bad_long_sum + max(0.0, bad_short_sum - balancing_sum) +effective_whole_sum = max(good_long_sum + effective_bad_sum, goal_duration_sum) +quantile_duration_sum = effective_whole_sum * goal_exceed_ratio +optimistic = effective_bad_sum <= quantile_duration_sum +pessimistic = (effective_whole_sum - good_long_sum) <= quantile_duration_sum +~~~ + +# Appendix B: Conditional Throughput + +This section specifies how to compute Conditional Throughput, as referred to in section [Conditional Throughput] (#Conditional-Throughput). + +Any intended load value can be used as the basis for the following computation, +but only the Relevant Lower Bound (at the end of the search) +leads to the value called the Conditional Throughput for a given Search Goal. + +The algorithm uses (some subsets of) the set of all available trial results +from trials measured at a given intended load at the end of the search. +All durations are those returned by the Measurer. + +The block at the end of this appendix holds pseudocode +which computes a value stored as variable `conditional_throughput`. + +{::comment} + [CT is CT. But text could make more obvious.] + + <mark>MKP2 mk edit note: Need to add the description of what does + the `conditional_throughput` variable represent. + Or a reference to where this is described + e.g. in [Conditional Throughput] (#Conditional-Throughput) section.</mark> + +{:/comment} + +The pseudocode happens to be a valid Python code. + +The pseudocode expects the following variables to hold values as follows: + +- `goal_duration_sum`: The duration sum value of the given Search Goal. + +- `goal_exceed_ratio`: The exceed ratio value of the given Search Goal. + +- `good_long_sum`: Sum of durations across trials with trial duration + at least equal to the goal final trial duration and with a Trial Loss Ratio + not higher than the Goal Loss Ratio. + +- `bad_long_sum`: Sum of durations across trials with trial duration + at least equal to the goal final trial duration and with a Trial Loss Ratio + higher than the Goal Loss Ratio. + +- `long_trials`: An iterable of all trial results from trials with trial duration + at least equal to the goal final trial duration, + sorted by increasing the Trial Loss Ratio. + A trial result is a composite with the following two attributes available: + + - `trial.loss_ratio`: The Trial Loss Ratio as measured for this trial. + + - `trial.duration`: The trial duration of this trial. + +The code works correctly only when there if there is at least one +trial result measured at a given load. + +~~~ python +all_long_sum = max(goal_duration_sum, good_long_sum + bad_long_sum) +remaining = all_long_sum * (1.0 - goal_exceed_ratio) +quantile_loss_ratio = None +for trial in long_trials: + if quantile_loss_ratio is None or remaining > 0.0: + quantile_loss_ratio = trial.loss_ratio + remaining -= trial.duration + else: + break +else: + if remaining > 0.0: + quantile_loss_ratio = 1.0 +conditional_throughput = intended_load * (1.0 - quantile_loss_ratio) +~~~ + +--- back + +{::comment} + [Final checklist.] + + <mark>[VP] Final Checks. Only mark as done when there are no active todos above.</mark> + + <mark>[VP] Rename chapter/sub-/section to better match their content.</mark> + + <mark>MKP3 [VP] TODO: Recheck the definition dependencies go bottom-up.</mark> + + <mark>[VP] TODO: Unify external reference style (brackets, spaces, section numbers and names).</mark> + + <mark>[VP] TODO: Add internal links wherever Captialized Term is mentioned.</mark> + + <mark>MKP2 [VP] TODO: Capitalization of New Terms: useful when editing and reviewing, + but I still vote to remove capitalization before final submit, + because all other RFCs I see only capitalize due to being section title.</mark> + + <mark>[VP] TODO: If time permits, keep improving formal style (e.g. using AI).</mark> + +{:/comment} |