Performance evaluation of openflow controllers for network virtualization

Turull, Daniel; Hidell, Markus; Sjödin, Peter

doi:10.1109/hpsr.2014.6900881

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…D. Turull et al,in [9] introduced a collection of measurements for Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP), Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and User Datagram Protocol (UDP) traffic to make comparison between Trema, Floodlight, and NOX controllers. The RTT, TCP transfer time, and UDP packet losses were measured.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating and Comparing the Performance of Using Multiple Controllers in Software Defined Networks

Abdullah¹,

Alawad²,

Hussein³

2019

IJMECS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Software Defined Networks (SDN) the control plane is removed to a separate device called the controller. The controller is the most important and main part in SDN architecture and large SDN networks may consist of multiple controllers or controller domains that distribute the network management between them. Because of the controller importance, it has been given a proper attention and many studies have been made to compare, test, and evaluate the performance of the controllers. This paper aims to evaluate and compare the performance of different SDN controllers which are Open Network Operating System (ONOS), OpenDaylight, POX and Ryu, using Two performance tests; the first test includes connecting two controllers of each of the four controllers to linear topology with different number of switches; and the other test includes connecting different number of controllers of each of the four controllers to linear topology with fixed number of switches. Then for these tests, the performance in terms of some Quality of Service (QoS) parameters such as average Round-Trip Time (RTT), throughput, and jitter are measured between the two end hosts in each network. After the evaluation of the performance has been completed, it had been seen that the controllers showed different behaviors, and that POX controller showed more stable and good performance results than other controllers.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mininet contains predefined common topologies such as single, linear and tree. Additionally, custom topologies can be created [9,19,21]. Mininet can be connected to a remote controller, and there are also local controllers.…”

Section: E Mininetmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating and Comparing the Performance of Using Multiple Controllers in Software Defined Networks

Abdullah¹,

Alawad²,

Hussein³

2019

IJMECS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unjuk kerja kontroler adalah dalah satu dari sepuluh kreteria pemilihan kontroler [2], kontroler SDN harus dapat membuat flow tabel sebelumnya sampai tingkat yang mungkin dan harus memiliki kemampuan pemprosesan dan I/O yang mampu memastikan bahwa kontroler bukanlah hambatan dalam pembentukan flow. Dengan demikian, dua dari kunci metrik kinerja yang terkait dengan kontoler SDN adalah waktu setup flow dan jumlah flow per detik.…”

Section: Pendahuluanunclassified

Floodlight vs Onos Dalam Unjuk Kerja

Kartadie

Panggayuh

2019

JIPI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kontroler yang secara langsung melakukan kontrol terhadap data path dari perangkat adalahÂ komponen utama dari Software-Defined Network (SDN). Kontroler bertanggung jawab untukÂ menentukan bagaimana menangani paket dan mengelola flow table (tabel flow) denganÂ menambahkan dan menghapus isi flow table melalui secure channel. Kontroler pada dasarnyaÂ memusatkan dan menjadi pusat kecerdasan jaringan, sedangkan jaringan mempertahankan dataÂ plane forwarding yang didistribusikan melalui Switch OpenFlow. Untuk alasan ini kontrolerÂ menyediakan antarmuka untuk mengelola, mengendalikan dan administrasi flow table SwitchÂ ini.Â PengujianÂ dilakukan untuk mengetahui tingkat throughput dan latency dari kontroler dan diujiÂ menggunakan cbance tool yang akan menguji pada protokol TCP dan UDP. PengujianÂ dilaksanakan dengan memaksa kontroler pada titik maksimal kemampuannyaÂ tanpa melakukan setingan tambahan (Setingan standar), sehinggaÂ diperoleh informasi yang tepat kemampuan dari kontroler yang akan digunakan. KarenaÂ kebutuhan ini, perlu di uji unjuk kerja dari kontroler yang digunakan. pada penelitian iniÂ pengujian dilakukan padaÂ kontroler floodlight dan ONOS.Â Dari hasil pengujian dapat dilihat bahwa kontroler floodlight lebih stabil dalam mengatasi beban switch dan host lebih baik dibandingkan dengan kontroler ONOS.

show abstract

“…Others evaluated the RTT with ping and bandwidth of links using Iperf tools [14] [15]. Finally, the ping ICMP packets were used to indicate controller flow setup time, while the TCP, UDP packets were emulated to estimate application latency in the Mininet [16]. All pre-mentioned works missed defining the bandwidth limit of links inside Mininet, which created an unrealistic measurement.…”

Section: B Evaluation Of Virtual Switches and Emulatormentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing an Asynchronous Technique to Evaluate the Performance of SDN HP Aruba Switch and OVS

Al-Sadi

Al-Sherbaz

Xue

et al. 2018

Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developers of Software Defined Network (SDN) faces a lack of or difficulty in getting a physical environment to test their inventions and developments. That drives them to use a virtual environment for their experiments. This work addresses the differences between the SDN virtual environment and physical SDN switches, which leads to equip a more realistic SDN virtual environment. Consequently, this paper presents a precise performance evaluation and comparison of off-the-shelf SDN devices, HP Aruba 3810M, with Open Virtual Switch (OVS) inside Mininet emulator. This work examines the variability of the path delay, throughput, packet losses and jitter of SDN in a different windows size of the packets and network background loads. Our conducted experiments consider a number of protocols such as ICMP, TCP and UDP. In order to evaluate the network latency accurately, a new asynchronous latency measurement technique is proposed. The developed technique shows more precise results in comparison to other techniques. Furthermore, the work focuses on extracting the flow-setup latency, caused by the external SDN controller when setting flow rules into the switch. The comparison of results shows a dissimilarity in the behaviour of SDN hardware and the Mininet emulator. The SDN hardware exposed higher latency and flowsetup time due to extra resources of delay, which the emulator does not possess.

show abstract

Performance evaluation of openflow controllers for network virtualization

Cited by 16 publications

References 13 publications

Evaluating and Comparing the Performance of Using Multiple Controllers in Software Defined Networks

Evaluating and Comparing the Performance of Using Multiple Controllers in Software Defined Networks

Floodlight vs Onos Dalam Unjuk Kerja

Developing an Asynchronous Technique to Evaluate the Performance of SDN HP Aruba Switch and OVS

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About