# Integrated SDN-NFV 5G Network Performance and Management-Complexity Evaluation
## 4 Evaluation and Result
### Performance Evaluation
The throughput increases values shown in the graphs in Figures 12 and 13 were 160 Mbps to 220 Mbps for the input rate and 170-230 Mbps for the output rate. The increase was due to a modification of the network computing system, namely the DPDK and SR-IOV on servers  
Figure 11: Test topology schematic using Cacti. filled with network function virtualization; thus, it is evident that the traffic cycle process between hosts on one server, as well as between hosts between servers (east-west traffic) becomes simpler and optimal according to the direction of data traffic communication. This leaf switch server also serves to communicate data traffic to the outside (north-south traffic) to be forwarded to the border leaf switch, but with an amount that is not more than the data traffic between servers. The data from the graphs in Figures 14 and 15 show the trend of increasing throughput values that occurred after the implementation of the proposed solution. The impact of the modification of the network computing system is not only visible at the server leaf switch level, but also at the border leaf switch. The throughput increase value shown in the graphs in Figures 14 and 15 is 1.22 Gbps to 1.8 Gbps for the input rate, and 670 Mbps to 1.1 Gbps for the output rate. Traffic data on the border leaf switch is an aggregation of all server leaf switches in the fabric, which can also be called the estuary of the server leaf switch. This border leaf switch is connected directly to the external network through an external router that has a direct connection with it. Therefore, data traffic on the border leaf switch is traffic to the outside network, both inbound and outbound. When viewed from the data displayed on the graphs in Figures 13 and 15, inbound traffic is more dominant in the border leaf switch data traffic because of the large number of subscribers (users) who make requests to servers in the fabric rather than requests from servers to the outside network or the Internet. Based on Table 5, there is an increase in throughput on both the server leaf switch and border leaf switch, after the application of the new SDN-NFV architecture and modification of the network computing system on the server containing network function virtualization. In this SDN and NFV network architecture, we can see that the incoming and outgoing throughput began to creep up from 18.00 h and then ramped up again at 21.00 h at the site used for testing. If we compare the SDN-NFV network and SDN only, on average, we can clearly see that the SDN network has the ability to issue a smaller throughput compared to the SDN-NFV combination. Figure 12: Server leaf switch throughput—All week comparison (input rate). Figure 13: Server leaf switch throughput—All week comparison (output rate). This means that the SDN-NFV combination can serve more data requests from subscribers than the SDN alone. The greater the throughput value, the better because it can be faster and fulfills more subscriber traffic. In the research conducted by [PERSON] et al. [35], the researcher performed a simulation using an independent SDN, namely the Ryu controller and the OpenFlow switch. From this research, the peak throughput is not too large, which is around 25 Mbps. This is because the test uses a simulator with a workload that is not too heavy, and the endpoint is not a computing system with a certain load so that we cannot know the actual results. In our research, we conducted tests using real world SDN and NFV environments where the two technologies are integrated with each other down to the computing level. In addition, the load given to the endpoint system is also very large, so that we can see the actual peak performance of the combination of SDN and NFV. As an endpoint, we also use a real computing system so that it truly describes the actual conditions in the field. Figure 14: Border leaf switch throughput—All week comparison (input rate). Figure 15: Border leaf switch throughput—All week comparison (output rate).