Subject: [bmwg] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-16: (with COMMENT)

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:13:29 -0700

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure if the WG discussed this, but it would have been interesting to have
some energy efficiency related metrics as the draft is datacenter focused and
energy efficiency is an important consideration in datacenters.

---

From: Lucien <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:41:44 -0700

Thanks Suresh,

We actually have talked about this in the beginning, and this is not in the
scope of the networking metrics we are after for performance. The amount of
power a data center switch uses at no use or at 100% load is marginal.

Cheers,
Lucien

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]
> wrote:

---

From: Lucien <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:42:25 -0700

I meant to say the delta of power when the data center switch is iddle and
at 100% of capacity is marginal.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Lucien <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thanks Suresh,
>
> We actually have talked about this in the beginning, and this is not in
> the scope of the networking metrics we are after for performance. The
> amount of power a data center switch uses at no use or at 100% load is
> marginal.
>
> Cheers,
> Lucien
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Suresh Krishnan <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:42:25 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 2:13 PM
...
> draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-16: No Objection
...
[ACM] 
Hi Suresh,

We had a draft/proposed WI on this topic, but we couldn't find sufficient
support and expertise to review and complete a high quality
document, so the proponents moved-on.

I agree, it's an important area to consider if the expertise
can be gathered in BMWG.

regards,
Al

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:43:44 +0530

Hi Lucien,

> at 100% of capacity is marginal.

Right, but that was not exactly what I was looking for. I was looking
for performance benchmarking of the switches in based on throughput
per unit of energy (e.g. Gbps/W). Some switches might be more
efficient in this metric than others. e.g. an Ethernet switch ASIC
will most likely be more efficient in this metric than an x86 based
softswitch (at the cost of flexibility).

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:45:27 +0530

Hi Al,

> document, so the proponents moved-on.

Thanks. It is unfortunate, but it certainly clarifies things for me.

> I agree, it's an important area to consider if the expertise

Great.

Regards
Suresh