98 0408 overload based explicit rate switch schemes with mcr guarantees
Download
1 / 16

98-0408: Overload Based Explicit Rate Switch Schemes with MCR Guarantees - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 87 Views
  • Uploaded on

98-0408: Overload Based Explicit Rate Switch Schemes with MCR Guarantees. Bobby Vandalore, Sonia Fahmy, Raj Jain, Rohit Goyal, Mukul Goyal The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 [email protected] http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~jain/. Overview. General Fairness Definition

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' 98-0408: Overload Based Explicit Rate Switch Schemes with MCR Guarantees' - holleb


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
98 0408 overload based explicit rate switch schemes with mcr guarantees
98-0408: Overload Based Explicit Rate Switch Schemes with MCR Guarantees

Bobby Vandalore, Sonia Fahmy, Raj Jain, Rohit Goyal, Mukul Goyal The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH [email protected]

http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~jain/


Overview
Overview MCR Guarantees

  • General Fairness Definition

  • Overview of ERICA+

  • Overload Based Algorithms

  • Simulation Configurations

  • Simulation Results

  • Comparisons of Algorithms

  • Conclusions


General fairness
General Fairness MCR Guarantees

  • Define following :

    • Al = Total available bandwidth

    • Ab = Sum of bandwidth of underloaded connections

    • A = Al - Ab, excess bandwidth

    • Na = Number of active connections

    • Nb = Number of active connections bottlenecked elsewhere

    • n = Na - Nb, number of active connections bottlenecked on this link


General fairness cont
General Fairness (Cont) MCR Guarantees

  • M = Sum of MCRs of active connections

  • B(i) = Generalized Fair allocation for connection i

  • MCR(i) = MCR of connection i

  • w(i) = pre-assigned weight associated with VC i

  • FairShare B(i) = MCR(i) + w(i) (B - M)j=1,n w(j)


Erica scheme basic
ERICA Scheme: Basic MCR Guarantees

  • Explicit Rate Indication for Congestion Avoidance

  • Set target rate, say, at 95% of link bandwidthABR Capacity = Target Utilization * Link Bandwidth

  • Monitor input rate and number of active VCs Overload = ABR Input rate/Target ABR Capacity

  • This VC’s Share = VC’s Rate/Overload

  • Fair share = Target rate/ Number of Active VCs

  • ER = Max{Fair share, MaxAllocPrevious, VC’s Rate/Overload}

  • MaxAllocCurrent =Max{MaxAllocCurrent, ER}


Activity level
Activity Level MCR Guarantees

  • AL(i) =Min{1, VC’s Rate/FairShare}

  • Effective # of Active VCs = S AL(i)

  • FairShare = ABR Capacity/Effective # of Active VCs

  • Recursive definition. Converges in just a few iterations.


New algorithms
New Algorithms MCR Guarantees

  • ER = Max{FairShare, MaxAllocPrevious, VC’s Rate/Overload}

  • If FairShare is based on effective number of active VCs, we do not need all three terms Þ Four algorithms

    A: ER = Max{FairShare, VC’s Rate/Overload}

    B: ER = FairShare/overload

    C: ER = MaxAllocPrevious/overload

    D: ER = Max{MaxAllocPrevious, VC’s rate/Overload}

    Detailed pseudo-codes in the contribution.


Configuration 1
Configuration 1 MCR Guarantees

  • 3 Sources. Unidirectional traffic

  • MCRs of (10, 30, 50) Mbps were used.

  • Excess bandwidth (149.76 - 90) = 59.76 was shared equally to achieve an allocation of (29.92, 49.92, 69.92)

Destination 1

Source 1

Bottleneck

Link

Source 2

Destination 2

Sw2

Sw1

Destination 3

Source 3

1000 Km

1000 Km

1000 Km


Configuration 2
Configuration 2 MCR Guarantees

  • 3 sources. Source 2, is transient.

  • MCRs were zero for all sources. Simulation time 1.2 s. Source 2 is active (0.4, 0.8s). Allocation was (74.8, 0, 74.8) during (0, 0.4s) and (0.8, 1.2s) and (49.92, 49.92, 49.92) during (0.4, 0.8s)

Rate

74.8, 0, 74.8

74.8, 0, 74.8

49.92, 49.92, 49.92

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

Time in seconds


Configuration 3

dS MCR Guarantees1

dS2

dS3

S1

S3

S2

Configuration 3

Source Bottleneck configuration

  • Source S1 is bottlenecked at 10 Mbps for first 0.4 s(i.e., it sends data at a rate of min{10 Mbps, ACR})

  • MCRs= {10, 30, 50} Mbps

  • Fair Allocation = {39.86, 59.86, 79.86} during (0, 0.4s) and {29.92, 49.92, 69.92} during (0.4, 0.8s).

LINK2

LINK3

LINK1

Sw1

Sw2

Sw3


Configuration 4

D(1) MCR Guarantees

E(2)

H(2)

A(3)

F(1)

G(7)

C(3)

D

4D

2D

D

D

2D

SW1

SW2

SW3

SW7

A(1)

SW4

SW5

SW6

50

50

150

100

150

50

Mbps

Mbps

Mbps

Mbps

Mbps

Mbps

E(2)

C(3)

A(1)

D(1)

B(1)

B(1)

G(7)

F(1)

B(1)

H(2)

Congested

link for B VCs

A(1)

Congested

link for A VCs

Congested

link for C VCs

Configuration 4

  • Generic Fairness Config GFC-2 with D=1000 km

  • MCRs of zero for all source were used. Simulation time 2.5 seconds.

  • Allocation for each of (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H) type VCs was (10, 5, 35, 35, 35, 10, 5, 52.5), respectively.


Table 1 simulation parameters
Table 1: Simulation Parameters MCR Guarantees

  • Exponential averaging of overload with decay factor of 0.8 was used for algorithms A and D. B and C are more sensitive to variation, so decay factor of 0.4 was used.

Wt

Func

Configuration

Link

Averaging

Target

Name

Distance

Interval

Delay

Three Sources

1000 Km

5 ms

1.5 ms

1

Source Bottleneck

1000 Km

5 ms

1.5 ms

1

GFC-2

1000 Km

15 ms

1.5 ms

1


Simulation results
Simulation Results MCR Guarantees

  • Configuration 1: Three Sources

    • All algorithms achieved the generalized fairness allocation.

  • Configuration 2: 3-Source Transient

    • All algorithms achieved the generalized fairness allocation.

    • Algorithm B has oscillations


Results contd
Results (Contd) MCR Guarantees

  • Configuration 3: Source Bottleneck

    • Algorithm A and B do not converge since they use CCR field for estimating source rate. If measured source rate was used A and B also converge.

  • Configuration 4: GFC2

    • Algorithm B and D have rate oscillations due to queue control.

    • Algorithm C had large switch queue, since it uses maximum always.


Comparison of algorithms
Comparison of Algorithms MCR Guarantees

  • Algorithm D is the best

End of

Interval

Feed

back

PerVC

SrcRate

Sensitive to

Queue control

Max

Queue

Algo-

rithm

A

O(N)

O(1)

Yes

Medium

Yes

B

O(N)

O(1)

Yes

Medium

Yes

O(1)

O(1)

Large

C

No

No

O(1)

No

O(1)

No

D

Medium


Summary
Summary MCR Guarantees

  • Algorithm A and B use activity levels. Need measured source rate in presence of source bottlenecks

  • Algorithm C based only on MaxAlloc can have large switch queues

  • Algorithm D based on VCs rate and MaxAlloc is the best algorithm.


ad