Experimental evaluation of two OpenFlow controllers

Darianian, Mohamad; Williamson, Carey; Haque, Israat

doi:10.1109/icnp.2017.8117602

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Na mesma linha de [Zhu et al 2019], uma avaliação experimental dos controladoresé realizada em [Darianian et al 2017], mas somente considerando o ONOS e ODL. Os autores construíram uma plataforma de testes e usaram a ferramenta Cbench para avaliar seu desempenho dos controladores de acordo com as seguintes métricas: taxa de transferência (throughput), latência e escalabilidade tanto em ambientes físicos quanto virtualizados.…”

Section: Trabalhos Relacionadosunclassified

“…Em sua arquitetura, além da NorthBound API e a South-Bound modular, o ONOS oferece dois principais mecanismos de sincronização de estados que utilizam troca de mensagens, permitindo que alcance a flexibilidade necessária para aplicações que necessitam alta disponibilidade e desempenho [Muqaddas et al 2016]. A Tabela 1 apresenta, de forma resumida, as características do ONOS e ODL em relação a diversos aspectos, conforme apresentadas em [Darianian et al 2017, Zhu et al 2019 A sincronização de estados dos componentes da rede, no ONOS, facilita o gerenciamento e a coordenação de clusters, provendo mecanismos para lidar com diferentes tipos de estados no plano de controle. Conforme a Tabela 1, o ONOS oferece duas primitivas para a sincronização e controle de estados, incluindo ConsistentMap para estados que precisam consistência forte e a primitiva EventuallyConsistentMap para aplicações que necessitam desempenho e toleram a utilização de consistência fraca [Darianian et al 2017].…”

Section: Onos E Opendaylight: Características E Propriedadesunclassified

“…Já o trabalho de Vilchez et al [J. M. S. Vilchez 2018] avalia, de forma prática, a tolerância a falhas no plano de dados considerando o comportamento dos controladores OpenDayLight (ODL) e ONOS. ODL e ONOS são dois dos principais controladores SDN utilizados pela indústria, possuem características distribuídas e são projetos open-source [Darianian et al 2017]. Apesar de um importante trabalho prático, os autores avaliam exclusivamente a interrupção e reestabelecimento de links.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

See 2 more Smart Citations

Uma Avaliação sobre a Tolerância a Falhas no Plano de Dados em Controladores SDN

Ruchel¹,

Turchetti²,

Camargo³

2020

Anais Do XXV Workshop De Gerência E Operação De Redes E Serviços (WGRS 2020)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Redes Definidas por Software fazem do controlador o seu elemento central. Portanto, é fundamental que o controlador apresente funcionalidades que, além de melhorar o desempenho global da rede, assegurem a continuidade dos serviços perante falhas. OpenDayLight (ODL) e o Open Network Operating System (ONOS) são dois importantes controladores de código aberto e com plano de controle distribuído. Este trabalho avalia a tolerância a falhas no plano de dados dos controladores ODL e ONOS considerando diversos cenários de falhas. Os experimentos consideram falhas e recuperações de links e switches, com diferentes fluxos tanto no modo reativo quanto proativo. Os resultados experimentais exibem o tempo que os controladores levam para detectar as falhas, direcionar o tráfego para caminhos redundantes e identificar o retorno dos links e switches.

show abstract

Section: Trabalhos Relacionadosunclassified

Section: Onos E Opendaylight: Características E Propriedadesunclassified

Section: Introductionunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Uma Avaliação sobre a Tolerância a Falhas no Plano de Dados em Controladores SDN

Ruchel¹,

Turchetti²,

Camargo³

2020

Anais Do XXV Workshop De Gerência E Operação De Redes E Serviços (WGRS 2020)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As we know, the processing power of a single controller is limited. OpenDaylight throughput with 16 threads is 215K, while ONOS average throughput with Goldeneye is 190K [22]. NOX [3] is capable of processing 30K requests (the request here is packet-in) per second, while Floodlight can handle about 250,000 requests a second.…”

Section: Motivation Of Active Controller Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Active Controller Selection Scheme for Minimizing Packet-In Processing Latency in SDN

2019

Security and Communication Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In software-defined network, the use of distributed controllers to control forwarding devices has been proposed to solve the issues of scalability and load balance. However, the forwarding devices are statically assigned to the controllers in these distributed systems, which can overload some controllers while others are underutilized. In this paper, we propose an architecture named ASLB (active controller selection load balance), which proactively selects appropriate controllers for load balancing and minimize packet processing delays. We also present a novel active controller selection algorithm (ACS) for ASLB that efficiently schedules traffic from the switch to the controller and designs an intermediate coordinator for actively selecting a controller to serve a request. We built a system and evaluated it on a physical platform. The results show that ASLB is much better than the static allocation scheme in terms of minimizing latency, bandwidth utilization, and throughput.

show abstract

“…In their work, Darianian, Williamson, and Haque [9] conducted an experimental evaluation of two open-source distributed OpenFlow controllers (ONOS and OpenDaylight), using Cbench. They reported throughput, latency, and thread scalability of these two controllers in both physical and virtualized (OpenStack) environments.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design and Implementation of a Benchmarking Tool for OpenFlow Controllers

Gamess¹,

Tovar²,

Cavadia³

2018

IJITCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growth of data traffic on the web, the virtualization of services, and the changes in the pattern of traffic between users and data centers have led to a reassessment of the current methods of doing network administration. Software Defined Networks (SDNs) propose a paradigm that delegate the control of packets and flows to applications, developed according to specific requirements, where the OpenFlow protocol can be used for communications. The development of this type of applications, as in any other development area, requires tests and measurement tools to facilitate a performance evaluation. However, the current open-source performance measurement applications for SDN networks cover only very basic characteristics, while there is a wide range of SDN controllers with support to many versions of OpenFlow, making the selection of the controller a difficult point to address. In this paper, we propose a distributed performance evaluation tool for SDN controllers, that can assess the throughput, latency, percentage of memory consumption, percentage of CPU utilization, and consumption in kB for input/output interfaces, using OpenFlow version 1.3. Our tool is based on Cbench, and adds new functionalities such as the graphical representation of results to analyze the outcomes. To validate our tool, we make a performance evaluation of well-known SDN controllers such as Ryu, OpenDaylight, OpenMUL, and Floodlight, in environments under great stress of requests.

show abstract

Experimental evaluation of two OpenFlow controllers

Cited by 16 publications

References 23 publications

Uma Avaliação sobre a Tolerância a Falhas no Plano de Dados em Controladores SDN

Uma Avaliação sobre a Tolerância a Falhas no Plano de Dados em Controladores SDN

An Active Controller Selection Scheme for Minimizing Packet-In Processing Latency in SDN

Design and Implementation of a Benchmarking Tool for OpenFlow Controllers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About