1 / 33

Packet-Mode Emulation of Output-Queued Switches

Packet-Mode Emulation of Output-Queued Switches. David Hay, CS, Technion Joint work with Hagit Attiya (CS, Technion), Isaac Keslassy (EE, Technion). CIOQ Switches. Cell-Mode Scheduling. Cell-Mode Scheduling. Cell-Mode Scheduling. Trend towards Packet-Mode.

mei
Download Presentation

Packet-Mode Emulation of Output-Queued Switches

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. Packet-Mode Emulation of Output-Queued Switches David Hay, CS, Technion Joint work with Hagit Attiya (CS, Technion), Isaac Keslassy (EE, Technion)

  2. CIOQ Switches

  3. Cell-Mode Scheduling

  4. Cell-Mode Scheduling

  5. Cell-Mode Scheduling

  6. Trend towards Packet-Mode • Cell-mode scheduling is getting too hard • Fragmentation and reassembly should work very fast, at the external rate • Extra header for each cell  loss of bandwidth • For optical switches such fragmentation and reassembly are prohibitive • Cell-mode schedulers are packet-oblivious • Degradation of the overall performance

  7. Packet-Mode Scheduling

  8. Packet-Mode Scheduling [Marsan et al., 2002][Ganjali et al., 2003][Turner, 2006] • No need for fragmentation and reassembly • Must ensure contiguous packet delivery over the fabric • While input i delivers a packet to output j, neither input i nor output j can handle other packets. Can packet-mode schedulers provide similar performance guarantees as cell-mode schedulers?

  9. Output Queuing Emulation • OQ switches are considered optimal with respect to queuing delay and throughput • But too hard to implement in practice… • Emulation: Same input traffic  same output traffic • How hard is it for cell-mode / packet-mode CIOQ switch to emulate OQ switch?

  10. Output Queuing Emulation • OQ switches are considered optimal with respect to queuing delay and throughput • But too hard to implement in practice… • Emulation: Same input traffic  same output traffic • How hard is it for cell-mode / packet-mode CIOQ switch to emulate OQ switch?

  11. Cell-Mode Emulation is Possible • Easy with speedup S=N • N scheduling decisions every time-slot: • In the 1st decision forward the cell of input 1 • In the 2nd decision forward the cell of input 2 • In the Nth decision forward the cell of input N • Possible with speedup S2: CCF algorithm • Lower bound: S≥2-1/N is required [Chuang et al.,1999] What is the speedup required for packet-mode emulation?

  12. Packet-Mode Emulation is Impossible • Regardless of speedup • Even with speedup S=N

  13. Packet-Mode Emulation is Impossible

  14. Packet-Mode Emulation is Impossible

  15. Packet-Mode Emulation is Impossible

  16. Packet-Mode Emulation is Impossible

  17. Packet-Mode Emulation is Impossible

  18. Emulation w/ Relative Queuing Delay • The CIOQ switch is allowed a bounded lag behind the shadow OQ switch • Exact same behavior as the optimal OQ switch, but with some extra delay • Called relative queuing delay Can we provide packet-mode OQ emulation with bounded RQD and small speedup?

  19. Our Results:Speedup-RQD tradeoff Speedup 2Lmax First algorithm: S  4 with RQD=O(NLmax) Generalization of cell-mode scheduling with S=2: Taking each packet of size ≤ Lmax as one huge cell Lower bound on RQD (even with infinite speedup) Lmax=maximum packet size 4 2 RQD Lower bound on the speedup (from cell-mode scheduling)

  20. Intuition for Emulation Algorithms Packet Mode CIOQ Cell Mode CIOQ w/ S=2 Packet Mode OQ

  21. Underlying CCF Algorithm • Observation: Packet-Mode OQ switch is a Cell-Mode OQ switch with different queuing discipline (called PIFO) • Cell-Mode CIOQ w/ CCF (and speedup S=2) emulates any PIFO cell-mode OQ switch [Chuang et al.,1999] • But, CCF does not maintain contiguous packet forwarding over the fabric! Packet Mode CIOQ Cell Mode CIOQ w/ S=2 PIFO Cell-Mode OQ = Packet Mode OQ

  22. Intuition for Emulation Algorithms Packet Mode CIOQ • Two sub-steps: • Framing • Contiguous Decomposition Cell Mode CIOQ w/ S=2 Packet Mode OQ

  23. time Frame-Based Schedulers Works in pipelined frame-based manner Within each frame: • Builda demand matrix for this frame • Schedule the demand matrix of the previous frame

  24. ≤2T + + + + + + + ≤2T + + + + + + + ≤2T + + + + + + + ≤2T + + + ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ 2T 2T 2T 2T Building the Demand Matrix • At each frame of size T, CCF forwards at most 2T cells from each input and to each output. Number of cells CCF sent from input 1 to output 1 in the last frame Problem: A packet may span several frames.

  25. Building the Demand Matrix • Count only packets whose last cell is forwarded by the CCF in the frame • Each row/column in the matrix is bounded by 2T+N(Lmax-1) • For each input-output pair only cells of one additional packet can be added. • Translates into RQD of 2T+Lmax-2.

  26. Intuition for Emulation Algorithms Packet Mode CIOQ • Two sub-steps: • Framing • Contiguous Decomposition Cell Mode CIOQ w/ S=2 Packet Mode OQ

  27. Decomposing the Demand Matrix • Challenge: Decompose the matrix into permutations while maintaining contiguous packet delivery. • Each permutation dictates a scheduling decision. • Speedup = Number of permutations/Frame Length • First try: optimal Birkhoff von-Neumann decomposition results in 2T+N(Lmax-1) permutations.

  28. Cells left from 1 to 1 Iteration t-1 • Speedup: RQD: 2T+Lmax-2 Contiguous Greedy Decomposition • To maintain contiguous packet delivery: • If (i,j) was matched in iteration t-1 and there are more (i,j) cells to schedule  keep for iteration t. • Find a greedy matching for the rest of the matrix. Iteration t

  29. Our Results:Speedup-RQD tradeoff Speedup 2Lmax S=4+ (2N(Lmax-1)-1)/T RQD = 2T+Lmax-2 Next… 4 2 RQD

  30. Packet-Mode Emulation w/ S2 Packet Mode CIOQ • Separate demand matrix for every possible packet size • Concatenate packets of the same size into mega-packets of size k=LCM(1,…,Lmax) • Leftover matrix for each size m • Two sub-steps: • Framing • Contiguous Decomposition Cell Mode CIOQ w/ S=2 Packet Mode OQ

  31. Packet-Mode Emulation w/ S2 Packet Mode CIOQ • Optimally decompose (w/ Birkhoff von-Neumann) • the mega-packets matrix • then the leftover matrices • Two sub-steps: • Framing • Contiguous Decomposition Cell Mode CIOQ w/ S=2 Packet Mode OQ

  32. Wrap-up Packet-mode scheduling can be done with the same speedup as cell-mode scheduling • With the price of bounded RQD • Future work: lower bounds ??

  33. Thank You!

More Related