1 / 37

Buffer Sizing for Congested Internet Links Amogh Dhamdhere, Hao Jiang and Constantinos Dovrolis

Buffer Sizing for Congested Internet Links Amogh Dhamdhere, Hao Jiang and Constantinos Dovrolis (amogh,hjiang,dovrolis)@cc.gatech.edu Networking and Telecommunications Group, College of Computing, Georgia Tech. Outline. Motivation and related work Objectives and traffic model

fiona-rios
Download Presentation

Buffer Sizing for Congested Internet Links Amogh Dhamdhere, Hao Jiang and Constantinos Dovrolis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Buffer Sizing for Congested Internet Links Amogh Dhamdhere, Hao Jiang and Constantinos Dovrolis (amogh,hjiang,dovrolis)@cc.gatech.edu Networking and Telecommunications Group, College of Computing, Georgia Tech.

  2. Outline • Motivation and related work • Objectives and traffic model • The utilization constraint alone • Utilization and loss rate constraints • Parameter estimation and simulation results Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  3. Motivation • Router buffers are important in packet networks • Absorb rate variations of incoming traffic • Prevent packet losses during traffic bursts • Increasing buffer space increases the utilization of the link and decreases the loss rate • Increasing buffer also increases queuing delays ! • So smaller buffers are desirable • Fundamental Question: What is the minimum buffer requirement to satisfy constraints on the utilization, loss rate and queuing delay ? Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  4. Rules of Thumb • Some router vendors suggest 500ms of buffering. • Why 500ms ? • Bandwidth Delay Product rule: Capacity of link times the “typical” RTT (B = CT) • Which RTT should we use ? • Many TCP flows with different RTTs ? • How do different types of flows (large vs small) affect the buffer requirement ? • Several variants of this rule • e.g. Capacity times link delay Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  5. Related Work • Approaches based on queuing models e.g. M/M/1/k • TCP is not open-loop. TCP flows are reactive • Modeling Internet traffic is difficult • “Stanford” model (Appenzeller et al. Sigcomm 2004) • Buffer requirement for full utilization decreases with square root of N • Did not consider the loss rate at the link • Assumed that flows are completely desynchronized • Applicable when the number of flows is large • Morris (1997 and 2000) • Buffer proportional to the number of flows (B = 6*N) • Considered all flows active at the link Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  6. Outline • Motivation and related work • Objectives and traffic model • The utilization constraint alone • Utilization and loss rate constraints • Parameter estimation and simulation results Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  7. Our Objectives • Full utilization: • The average utilization of the link should be at least % when the offered load is sufficiently high • Maximum loss rate: • The loss rate p should not exceed , typically 1-2% for a saturated link • Minimum queuing delays: • High queuing delay causes higher transfer latencies and jitter • Also increases cost and power consumption • Should satisfy utilization and loss rate constraints with minimumamount of buffering possible • All of these objectives may not be feasible ! Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  8. Traffic Classes • Locally Bottlenecked Persistent (LBP) TCP flows • Large TCP flows limited by losses at the target link • Loss rate p is equal to the loss rate at the target link • Remotely Bottlenecked Persistent (RBP) TCP flows • Large TCP flows limited by losses at target link and other links • Loss rate is greater than loss rate at target link • Window Limited Persistent TCP flows • Large TCP flows, throughput limited by the advertised window • Short TCP flows and non-TCP traffic Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  9. Assumption • Key Assumption: LBP flows account for most of the traffic at the target link (80-90 %) • In this case, we can ignore the buffering requirement of non-LBP flows • non-LBP flows also contribute to the utilization and loss rate at the target link • Contribution is small if fraction of non-LBP traffic is small • Our model is applicable in links where this assumption holds • Edge links and links in access networks are candidates Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  10. Outline • Motivation and related work • Objectives and traffic model • The utilization constraint alone • Utilization and loss rate constraints • Parameter estimation and simulation results Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  11. TCP Window Dynamics • Saw-tooth behavior of TCP • Padhye (1998) • TCP throughput can be approximated by • Average window size is independent of RTT • Valid when loss rate is small Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  12. Util. Constraint - Multiple TCP Flows • heterogeneous LBP flows with RTTs • Consider initially the worst-case scenario: Global Loss Synchronization. • All flows decrease windows simultaneously in response to losses. • We derive that • As a bandwidth-delay product • Where is the harmonic mean of the RTTs Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  13. Util. Constraint - Multiple TCP Flows • is called the effective RTT of the flows • Influenced more by smaller values • Intuition: • Flows with smaller RTTs have larger portion of their window in the bottleneck buffer • Hence have larger influence on the required buffer • Flows with large RTTs have larger portion of their window “on the wire” • Practical Implication: • A few connections with very large RTTs cannot significantly influence the buffer requirement, as long as most flows have small RTTs Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  14. Partial Synchronization Model • In practice, flows are not completely synchronized • Loss Burst Length: Number of packets lost by flows during a congestion event • Empirical observation: Loss burst length increases almost linearlywith i.e. • A simple probabilistic argument gives us, • Partial loss synchronization reduces the buffer requirement. Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  15. Validation • ns2 simulations. • Heterogeneous flows, % • Partial synchronization model accurately predicts the buffer requirement. • Deterministic model overestimates the buffer requirement ! Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  16. Outline • Motivation and related work • Objectives and traffic model • The utilization constraint alone • Utilization and loss rate constraint • Parameter estimation and simulation results Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  17. Utilization and Loss Rate • End-user perceived service is poor when the loss rate is more than 5-10% • Particularly for short and interactive flows • Results by Morris (1997) • High variability in the completion times of short transfers • Some “unlucky” flows suffer repeated losses and timeouts • The buffer size controls the loss rate • Upper bound the loss rate to . Assume is 1% Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  18. Relation between loss rate and N • homogeneous LBP flows at the target link. Link capacity C, flow RTTs T • Assume that the flows saturate the link and their throughput is given by • p is proportional to the square of • Hence to maintain loss rate at less than • But this requires admission control • Such schemes not deployed yet Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  19. Flow Proportional Queueing • First proposed by Morris (2000) • Don’t limit • Increase RTTs to decrease loss rate • Increase RTT by increasing buffer, which increases queuing delay • Solving for B gives • Where • Practically, packets for , and packets for Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  20. Flow Proportional Queueing (contd.) • Intuition: • packets per flow, either in buffer (B term) or “on the wire” ( term) • Differences with Morris’ FPQ scheme • Morris did not take into account the term • Set arbitrarily to 6 packets • Applied the rule for allflows active at the link • Increasing RTTs may violate delay constraint • In that case, choose the minimum buffer that can satisfy utilization and loss constraints Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  21. Integrated Model • Separate results for utilization and loss rate constraints • Satisfy the most stringent of the two requirements • B for utilization decreases with , while B for loss rate increases with • : Crossover point • Called the BSCL formula Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  22. Integrated Model - Validation • Simulations using ns2. • Heterogeneous flows, varied from 1 to 200. • Utilization % and loss constraint % Utilization constraint Loss rate constraint Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  23. Outline • Motivation and related work • Objectives and traffic model • The utilization constraint alone • Utilization and loss rate constraints • Parameter estimation and simulation results Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  24. Parameter Estimation • Flow Classification: • Zhang et al. (2002): Classify TCP flows based on rate limiting factors • Number of LBP flows: • LBP flows: all rate reductions due to packet losses at target link • RBP flows: Some rate reductions due to losses elsewhere • Effective RTT: • Jiang et al. (2002): Passive algorithm to measure TCP Round Trip Times from packet traces • Loss Synchronization: • Measure loss burst length from trace or use approximation Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  25. Evaluation - Setup • ns2 simulations. • Multi-level tree topology with wide range of RTTs (20ms to 550ms). • Target link capacity 50Mbps. • varied from 1 to 400. • 20 RBP flows, 10 window limited flows. • Mice flows with average size 14 packets, exponential inter-arrivals. • Non-LBP traffic (R) is varied between 5% and 20% of C. Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  26. Results – Loss Rate Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  27. Results – Loss Rate Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  28. Results – Loss Rate Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  29. Results – Loss Rate • BSCL can bound loss rate close to the target, if R is less than 10%. • Accuracy decreases as fraction of non-LBP traffic increases. • Stanford model and the rule of thumb cannot bound loss rate. Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  30. Results - Utilization • For a large number of flows, all three schemes achieve full utilization. • For smaller number of flows, BSCL sometimes leads to underutilization. • Due to the probabilistic nature of loss synchronization. Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  31. Summary • Derived a buffer sizing formula (BSCL) for congested links, taking into account both utilization and loss rate of the target link. • Applicable for links in which 80-90% of the traffic comes from large locally bottlenecked TCP flows. • Account for the effects of heterogeneous RTTs and partial loss synchronization. • Validated the results through simulations. Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  32. Thank You ! Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  33. Parameter estimation - • Distinguishing between LBP and RBP flows: • Intuition: For a LBP flow, rate reduction should be preceded by a loss at the target link. • For RBP flows, rate reduction will not always be accompanied by a loss at the target link (due to losses in other links). Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  34. Why is Buffer Size Important ? • Router buffer size affects: • Utilization of the link. • Loss rate of the link. • Fairness among TCP connections. • Results by Morris (1997): • A very small buffer can lead to underutilization. • Loss rate increases as the square of N. Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  35. Partial Synchronization Model (contd.) • Consider a congestion event with the average loss-burst length . • A simple probabilistic argument gives us, • Remarks: • For global loss synchronization, and the buffer requirement becomes B = CT. • Partial loss synchronization reduces the buffer requirement. • For heterogeneous connections, replace T with the effective RTT. Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  36. Outline • Motivation and related work • Objectives and traffic model • The utilization constraint alone • Utilization and loss rate constraints • Parameter estimation and simulation results Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

  37. Results - Loss Rate • BSCL can bound loss rate close to the target, if R is less than 10%. • Accuracy decreases as fraction of non-LBP traffic increases. • Stanford model and the rule of thumb cannot bound loss rate. Amogh Dhamdhere IEEE Infocom 2005

More Related