1 / 24

Measuring Service in Multi-Class Networks

Measuring Service in Multi-Class Networks. Aleksandar Kuzmanovic and Edward W. Knightly Rice Networks Group. http://www.ece.rice.edu/networks. QoS services SLA guaranteed rate Ex. Class X serviced at minimum rate R Relative performance Ex. Class X has strict priority over class Y

jaden
Download Presentation

Measuring Service in Multi-Class Networks

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. Measuring Service in Multi-Class Networks Aleksandar Kuzmanovic and Edward W. Knightly Rice Networks Group http://www.ece.rice.edu/networks

  2. QoS services SLA guaranteed rate Ex. Class X serviced at minimum rate R Relative performance Ex. Class X has strict priority over class Y Statistical service Ex. P(class X pkt. Delay>100ms)<.001 QoS mechanisms Priority queues Rate-based, delay-based... Policing Rate limiting... Over-engineering Just add more bandwidth... Background Need:Tools for network clients to assess the networks QoS capabilities

  3. Inverse QoS Problem • Is a class rate limited? • What is the inter-class relationship? • Fair/weighted fair/strict priority • Is resource borrowing fully allowed or not? • Is the service’s upper bound identical to its lower bound? • What are the service’s parameters?

  4. Applications - Network Example Providers reluctant to divulge precise QoS policy (if any...) • SLA validation for VPNs • Is the SLA fulfilled? • Capacity planning • What is the relationship among classes? • Edge-based admission control [CK00] and implementation [SSYK01]

  5. Performance Monitoring and Resource Management • Single WEB server • CPU resource sharing • Listen queue differentiation • Admission control • Distributed WEB server • Load balancing • Internet Data Center • Machine migration Goal:Estimate a class’ net “guaranteed rate”

  6. “Off-Line” Solution is Simple • Consider a router with unknown QoS mechanisms

  7. “On-Line” Case: Operational Network • Undesirable to disrupt on-going services • High rate probes to detect inter-class relationships would degrade performance • Impossible to force other classes to be idle • … to detect policers

  8. System Model and Problem Formulation • Two stage server • Non-work conserving elements • Multi-class scheduler • Observations • Arrival and departure times • Class ID • Packet size

  9. Determine... • Infer the service discipline • Most likely hypothesis among WFQ, EDF and SP • Detect the existence of non-work conserving elements • Rate limiters (ex. leaky bucket policers) • Estimate the system parameters • WFQ guaranteed rates, EDF deadlines, rate limiter values

  10. Remaining Outline • Inter-class Resource Sharing Theory • Empirical Arrival and Service Models • MLE of Parameters • EDF/WFQ/SP Hypothesis Testing • Simulation Results and Conclusions

  11. Theoretical Tool: Statistical Service Envelopes [QK99] • General statistical char. for a (virtual) minimally backlogged flow • Flows receive additional service beyond min rate • Function of other flow demand • Function of scheduler • General characterization of inter-class resource sharing • Framework for admission control for EDF/WFQ/SP

  12. Strategy • Inter-class theory • Key technique: • Passively monitor arrivals and services at edges • Devise hypothesis tests to jointly: • Detect most likely hypothesis • Estimate unknown parameters

  13. E*( I ) = 3 time t t + I Empirical Arrival Model • Envelopes characterize arrivals as a function of interval length • Statistical traffic envelope [QK99] • Empirical envelope - measure first two moments of arrivals over multiple time scales Goal: assuming Gaussian distribution for B

  14. Empirical Service Model • A real-world paradigm for statistical service envelope • Observe: Service can be measured only when packets are backlogged

  15. Empirical Service Distributions • For each class and time scale • Expected service distributions • Service measures (data) • Empirical service distributions WFQ (400 ms) SP (400 ms)

  16. Parameter Estimation andScheduler Inference • GLRT for each time scale • Under MLE parameters for each scheduler • Choose most likely scheduler • Apply majority rule over all time scales

  17. EDF/WFQ Testing • Correctness ratio True WFQ  94% True EDF  100% Importance of time scales • Short time scales • Fluid vs. packet model • Long time scales • Ratio of delay shift and time scale decreases as time scale increases (d1=25ms)

  18. Measurable Regions • What if there is no traffic in particular class? • What traffic load “allows” inferences? • Region where we are able to estimate true value within 5% • Typical utilization should be > 62% for 1.5 Mbps link • Otherwise, active probing required

  19. Conclusions • Framework for clients of multi-class services to assess a system’s core QoS mechanisms • Scheduler type • Estimate parameters (both w-c and n-w-c) • General multiple time-scale traffic and service model to characterize a broad set of behaviors within a unified framework

  20. Measuring Service in Multi-Class Networks Aleksandar Kuzmanovic and Edward W. Knightly Rice Networks Group http://www.ece.rice.edu/networks

  21. Ongoing Work • Unknown cross-traffic • Cannot monitor all systems inputs/outputs • Treat cross-traffic statistics as another unknown • Web servers • Evaluation of the framework in a single web server through trace driven simulations • Capacity is statistically characterized

  22. WFQ Parameter Estimation • Class 1: 65-68 flows • Class 2: 25-28 flows • Large windows improve confidence level • T=2sec: 95% in 11% of true value • T=10sec: 95% in 1.4% of true value  Flow level dynamics & non- stationarities must be considered

  23. Rate Limited Class State Detection • Can include parameter r in service envelope equations for each class Importance of time scales • Example • Class based fair queuing • C=1.5Mbps, r=1Mbps • Probability decreases with time scale  higher errors when measuring multi-level leaky-buckets

  24. Generalized Likelihood Ratio Test • Detection with unknowns • Note: we do not find a single value of that maximizes likelihood ratio • Under mild conditions (as ), GLRT is Uniformly Most Powerful (maximizes the probability of detection)

More Related