FCoE versus FC Farce (I’m Tellin’ All Y’All It’s Sabotage!)
February 5, 2014 11 Comments
- @JohnKohler noticed that the UCS Manager screenshot used (see below) is from a UCS Emulator, not any system they used for testing.
- Evaluator Group promises answers to questions that both I and Dave Alexander (@ucs_dave) have brought up.
- Check out Dave Alexander’s take as well on the flawed Brocade study.
On my way back from South America/Antarctica, I was pointed to a bake-off/performance test commissioned by Brocade and performed by a company called Evaluator Group. It compared the performance of edge FCoE (non-multi-hop FCoE) to native 16 Gbit FC. The FCoE test was done on a Cisco UCS blade system connecting to a Brocade switch, and the FC was done on an HP C7000 chassis system connecting to the same switch. At first glance, it would seem to show that FC is superior to FCoE for a number of reasons.
I’m not a Cisco fanboy, but I am a Cisco UCS fanboy, so I took great interest in the report. (I also work for a Cisco Learning Partner as an instructor and courseware developer.) But I also like Brocade, and have a huge amount of respect for many of Brocade employees that I have met over the years. These are great and smart people, and they serve their customers well.
First, a little bit about these types of reports. They’re pretty standard in the industry, and they’re commissioned by one company to showcase superiority of a product or solution against one or more of their competitors. They can produce some interesting information, but most of the time it’s a case of: “Here’s our product in a best-case scenario versus other products in a mediocre-to-worst case scenario.” No company would release a test showing other products superior to theirs of course, so they’re only released when a particular company comes out on top, or (most likely) the parameters are changed until they do. As such, they’re typically taken with a grain of salt. In certain markets, such as the load balancer market, vendors will make it rain with these reports on a regular basis.
But for this particular report, I found several substantial issues with it which I’d like to share. It’s kind of a trainwreck. Let’s start with the biggest issue, one that is rather embarrassing.
What The Frak?
On page 17 check out the Evaluator Group comments:
“…This indicates the primary factor for higher CPU utilization within the FCoE test was due to using a software initiator, rather than a dedicated HBA. In general, software initiators require more server CPU cycles than do hardware initiators, often negating any cost advantages.”
For one, no shit. Hardware initiators will perform better than software initiators. However, the Cisco VIC 1240 card (which according to page 21 was included in the UCS blades) is a hardware initiator card. Being a CNA (converged network adaptor) the OS would see a native FC interface. With ESXi you don’t even need to install extra drivers, the FC interfaces just show up. Setting up a software FCoE initiator would actually be quite a bit more difficult to get going, which might account for why it took so long to configure UCS. Configuring a hardware vHBA in UCS is quite easy (it can be done in literally less than a minute).
Using software initiators against hardware FC interfaces is beyond a nit-pick in a performance test. It would be downright sabotage.
I asked the @Evalutor_Group account if they really did software initiators:
And they responded in the affirmative.
Wow. First of all, software FCoE initiators is absolutely not standard configuration for UCS. In the three years I’ve been configuring and teaching UCS, I’ve never seen or even heard of FCoE software initiators being used, either in production or in a testing environment. The only reason you *might* want to do FCoE software initiators is when you’ve got the Intel mezzanine card (which is not a CNA, just an Ethernet card), and want to test FCoE. However, on page 21 it shows the UCS blades has having the VIC 1240 cards, not the Intel card.
So where were they getting that it was standard configuration?
They countered with a reference to a UCS document regarding the VIC:
and then here:
Which is this document here.
The part they referenced is as follows:
The adapter offerings are:
■ Cisco Virtual Interface Cards (VICs)
Cisco developed Virtual Interface Cards (VICs) to provide flexibility to create multiple NIC and HBA devices. The VICs also support adapter Fabric Extender and Virtual Machine Fabric Extender technologies.
■ Converged Network Adapters (CNAs)
Emulex and QLogic Converged Network Adapters (CNAs) consolidate Ethernet and Storage (FC) traffic on the Unified Fabric by supporting FCoE.
■ Cisco UCS Storage Accelerator Adapters
Cisco UCS Storage Accelerator adapters are designed specifically for the Cisco UCS B-series M3 blade servers and integrate seamlessly to allow improvement in performance and relief of I/O bottlenecks.
Wait… I think they think that the VIC card is a software-only FCoE card. It appears they came to that conclusion because the VIC doesn’t specifically mention it’s a CNA in this particular document (other UCS documents clearly and correctly indicate that the VIC card is a CNA). Because it mentions the VICs separately from the traditional CNAs from Emulex and Qlogic, it seems they believe it not to be a CNA, and thus a software card.
So it may be they did use hardware initiators, and mistakenly called them software initiators. Or they actually did configure software initiators, and did a very unfair test.
No matter how you slice it, it’s troubling. On one hand, if they did configure software initiators, they either ignorantly or willfully sabotaged the FCoE results. If they just didn’t understand the basic VIC concept, it means they setup a test without understand the most basic aspects of the Cisco UCS system. We’re talking 101 level stuff, too. I suspect it’s the later, but since the only configuration of any of the devices they shared was a worthless screenshot of UCS manager, I can’t be sure.
This lack of understanding could have a significant impact on the results. For instance, on page 14 the response time starts to get worse for FCoE at about the 1200 MB/s mark. That’s roughly the max for a single 10 Gbit Ethernet FCoE link (1250 MB/s). While not definitive, it could mean that the traffic was going over only one of the links from the chassis to the Fabric Interconnect, or the traffic distribution was way off. My guess is they didn’t check the link utilization, or even know how, or how to fix it if it were off.
One of the more odd aspects of this report are where you found some of the conclusions, such as this one:
“Evaluator Group believes that Fibre Channel connectivity is required in order to achieve the full benefits that solid-state storage is able to provide.”
That was page 1. The first page of the report is a little weird to make a conclusion like that. Makes you sound a little… biased. These reports usually try to be impartial (despite being commissioned by a particular vendor). This one starts right out with an opinion.
Lack of Configuration
The amount of configuration they provide for the setup very sparse. For the UCS side, all they provide is one pretty worthless screenshot. Same for the HP system. For the UCS part, it would be important to know how they configured the vHBAs, and how they configured the two 10 Gbit links from the IOM to the chassis. Where they configured for the preferred Fabric Port Channel, or static pinning? So there’s no way to duplicate this test. That’s not very transparent.
Speaking of configuration, one of the issues they had with the FCoE side was how long it took them to stand up a UCS system. On page 11, second paragraph, they mention they need the help of a VAR to get everything configured. They even made a comment on page 10:
“…this approach was less intuitive during installation than other enterprise systems Evalutor Group has tested.”
So wow, you’ve got an environment that you’re unfamiliar with (we’ll see just how unfamiliar in a minute), and it took you *gasp* longer to configure? I’m a bit of an expert on Cisco UCS. I’m kind of a big deal. I have many paper-bound UCS books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany. I teach it regularly. And I’m not nearly as familiar with the C7000 system from HP, so I’d be willing to bet that it would take me longer to stand up an HP system than it would a Cisco UCS system. Anyone want in on that action?
Older Version? Update 2-6-2014: Screenshot Is A Fake
@JohnKohler noticed that on the screenshot on page 23 that the serial number in the screenshot is “1″, which means the screenshot is not from any physical instance of a UCS Manager, but the UCS Emulator. The date (if accurate on the host machine) shows June of 2010, so it’s a very, very old screenshot (probably of 1.3 or 1.4). So we have no idea what version of UCS they used for these tests (and more importantly, how they were configured).
Based on the screenshot on page 23, the UCS version is 2.0. How can you tell? Take a look where it says “Unconfigured Ports”. As of 2.1, Cisco changed the way ports are shown in the GUI. 2.1 and later do not have a sub-menu for unconfigured ports. Only 2.0 and prior.
In version 2.1, there’s no “Unconfigured Ports” sub-menu. From Page 21, you can see “Unconfigured Ports”, indicating it’s UCS 2.0 or earlier. If the test was done in November 2013, that would put it one major revision behind, as 2.1 was released in November of 2012 (2.2 was released in Dec 2013). We don’t know where they got the equipment, but if it acquired anytime in the past year, it likely came with 2.1 already installed (but not definite). To get to 2.0, they’d have to downgrade. I’m not sure why they would have done that, and if they brought in a VAR with certified UCS people they would have likely recommended 2.1. With 2.1, they could have directly connected the storage array to the UCS fabric interconnects. UCS 2.1 can do Fibre Channel zoning, and can function as a standard Fibre Channel switch. The Brocade switch wouldn’t have been needed, and the links to the storage array would be 8 Gbit instead of 16 Gbit.
They also don’t mention the solid state array vendor, so we don’t know if there was capability to do FCoE directly to the storage array. Though not terribly common yet, FCoE connection to a storage array is done in production environments and would have benefited the UCS configuration if it were possible (and would be the preferred way if competing with 16 Gbit FC). There would have been the ability to do an LACP port channel between the Fabric Interconnects, providing better load distribution and redundancy.
The claim that the UCS system uses more power is laughable, especially since they specifically mentioned this setup is not how it would be deployed in production. Nothing about this setup was production worthy, and it wasn’t supposed to be. It’s fine for this type of test, but not for production. It’s non-HA, and using only 2 blades would be a waste of a blade system (and power, for either HP or Cisco). If you were only using a handful of servers, buying pizza boxes would be far more economical. Blades from either HP or Cisco only make sense past a certain number to justify the enclosures, networking, etc. If you want a good comparison, do 16 blades, or 40 blades, or 80 blades. Also include the Ethernet network connectivity. The UCS configuration has full Ethernet connectivity, the HP configuration as shown has squat.
Even by competitive report standards, this one is utter bunk. If I was Brocade, I would pull the report. With all the technology mistakes and ill-found conclusions, it’s embarrassing for them. It’s quite easy for Cisco to rip it to shreds.
(Just so there’s no confusion, no one paid me or asked me to write this. In fact, I’m still on PTO. I wrote this because someone is wrong on the Internet…)