Hybrid network traffic engineering system hntes
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 44

Hybrid network traffic engineering system (HNTES) PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 48 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Hybrid network traffic engineering system (HNTES). Zhenzhen Yan, M. Veeraraghavan, Chris Tracy University of Virginia ESnet June 23, 2011 Please send feedback/comments to: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Download Presentation

Hybrid network traffic engineering system (HNTES)

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


Hybrid network traffic engineering system hntes

Hybrid network traffic engineering system (HNTES)

Zhenzhen Yan, M. Veeraraghavan, Chris Tracy

University of Virginia ESnet

June 23, 2011

Please send feedback/comments to:

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

This work was carried out as part of a sponsored research project from the US DOE ASCR program office on grant DE-SC002350


Outline

Outline

  • Problem statement

  • Solution approach

    • HNTES 1.0 and HNTES 2.0 (ongoing)

  • ESnet-UVA collaborative work

  • Future work: HNTES 3.0 and integrated network

  • Project web site: http://www.ece.virginia.edu/mv/research/DOE09/index.html


Problem statement

Problem statement

  • Hybrid network isone that supports both IP-routed and circuit services on:

    • Separate networks as in ESnet4, or

    • An integrated network

  • Ahybrid network traffic engineering system (HNTES) is one that moves data flows between these two services as needed

    • engineers the traffic to use the service type appropriate to the traffic type


Two reasons for using circuits

Two reasons for using circuits

  • Offer scientists rate-guaranteed connectivity

    • necessary for low-latency/low-jitter applications such as remote instrument control

    • provides low-variance throughput for file transfers

  • Isolate science flows from general-purpose flows


Role of hntes

Role of HNTES

  • HNTES is a network management system and if proven, it would be deployed in networks that offer IP-routed and circuit services


Outline1

Outline

  • Problem statement

  • Solution approach

    • Tasks executed by HNTES

    • HNTES architecture

    • HNTES 1.0 vs. HNTES 2.0

    • HNTES 2.0 details

  • ESnet-UVA collaborative work

  • Future work: HNTES 3.0 and integrated network


Three tasks executed by hntes

Three tasks executed by HNTES

1.

online:

upon flow arrival

2.

3.


Hntes architecture

HNTES architecture

  • Offline flow analysis and populate MFDB

  • RCIM reads MFDB and programs routers to port mirror packets from MFDB flows

  • Router mirrors packets to FMM

  • FMM asks IDICM to initiate circuit setup as soon as it receives packets from the router corresponding to one of the MFDB flows

  • IDCIM communicates with IDC, which sets up circuit and PBR for flow redirection to newly established circuit

  • HNTES 1.0


Heavy hitter flows

Heavy-hitter flows

  • Dimensions

    • size (bytes): elephant and mice

    • rate: cheetah and snail

    • duration: tortoise and dragonfly

    • burstiness: porcupine and stingray

  • Kun-chan Lan and John Heidemann, A measurement study of correlations of Internet flow characteristics. ACMComput. Netw. 50, 1 (January 2006), 46-62.


Hntes 1 0 vs hntes 2 0

HNTES 1.0 vs. HNTES 2.0

  • Focus: DYNAMIC (or online) circuit setup

  • IDC circuit setup delay is about 1 minute

  • Can use circuits only for

  • long-DURATION flows

  • HNTES 1.0 logic


Rationale for hntes 2 0

Rationale for HNTES 2.0

  • Why the change in focus?

    • Size is the dominant dimension of heavy-hitter flows in ESnet

    • Large sized (elephant) flows have negative impact on mice flows and jitter-sensitive real-time audio/video flows

    • Do not need to assign individual circuits for elephant flows

    • Flow monitoring module impractical if all data packets from heavy-hitter flows are mirrored to HNTES


Hntes 2 0 solution

HNTES 2.0 solution

  • Task 1: offline algorithm for elephant flow identification - add/delete flows from MFDB

  • Nightly analysis of MFDB for new flows (also offline)

    • Task 2: IDCIM initiates provisioning of rate-unlimited static MPLS LSPs for new flows if needed

    • Task 3: RCIM configures PBR in routers for new flows

  • HNTES 2.0 does not use FMM

  • MFDB: Monitored Flow Data Base

  • IDCIM: IDC Interface Module

  • RCIM: Router Control Interface Module

  • FMM: Flow Monitoring Module


Hntes 2 0 use rate unlimited static mpls lsps

HNTES 2.0: use rate-unlimited static MPLS LSPs

  • LSP 1 to site PE router

  • With rate-limited LSPs: If the PNNL router needs to send elephant flows to 50 other ESnet routers, the 10 GigE interface has to be shared among 50 LSPs

  • A low per-LSP rate will decrease elephant flow file transfer throughput

  • With rate-unlimited LSPs, science flows enjoy full interface bandwidth

  • Given the low rate of arrival of science flows, probability of two elephant flows simultaneously sharing link resources, though non-zero, is small. Even when this happens, theoretically, they should each receive a fair share

  • No micromanagement of circuits per elephant flow

  • Rate-unlimited virtual circuits feasible with MPLS technology

  • Removes need to estimate circuit rate and duration

  • 10 GigE

  • LSP 50 to site PE router

  • PNNL-located

  • ESnet PE router

  • PNWG-cr1

  • ESnet core router


Hntes 2 0 monitored flow database mfdbv2

HNTES 2.0 Monitored flow database (MFDBv2)

  • Flow analysis table

  • Identified elephant flows table

  • Existing circuits table


Hntes 2 0 task 1 flow analysis table

HNTES 2.0 Task 1Flow analysis table

  • Definition of “flow”: source/destination IP address pair (ports not used)

  • Add sizes for a flow from all flow records in say one day

  • Add flows with total size > threshold (e.g. 1GB) to flow analysis table

  • Enter 0 if a flow size on any day after it first appears is < threshold

  • Enter NA for all days other than when it first appears as a > threshold sized flow

  • Sliding window: number of days


Hntes 2 0 task 1 identified elephant flows table

HNTES 2.0 Task 1Identified elephant flows table

  • Sort flows in flow analysis table by a metric

  • Metric: weighted sum of

    • persistency measure

    • size measure

  • Persistency measure: Percentage of days in which size is non-zero out of the days for which data is available

  • Size measure: Average per-day size measure (for days in which data is available) divided by max value (among all flows)

  • Set threshold for weighted sum metric and drop flows whose metric is smaller than threshold

  • Limits number of rows in identified elephant flows table


Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis

  • Size threshold, e.g., 1GB

  • Period for summation of sizes, e.g., 1 day

  • Sliding window, e.g., 30 days

  • Value for weighted sum metric


Is hntes 2 0 sufficient

Is HNTES 2.0 sufficient?

  • Will depend on persistency measure

    • if many new elephant flows appear each day, need a complementary online solution

  • Online  Flow Monitoring Module (FMM)


Outline2

Outline

  • Problem statement

  • Solution approach

    • HNTES 1.0 and HNTES 2.0 (ongoing)

  • ESnet-UVA collaborative work

    • Netflow data analysis

    • Validation of Netflow based size estimation

    • Effect of elephant flows

      • SNMP measurements

      • OWAMP data analysis

    • GridFTP transfer log data analysis

  • Future work: HNTES 3.0 and integrated network


Netflow data analysis

Netflow data analysis

  • Zhenzhen Yan coded OFAT (Offline flow analysis tool) and R program for IP address anonymization

  • Chris Tracy is executing OFAT on ESnet Netflow data and running the anonymization R program

  • Chris will provide UVA Flow Analysis table with anonymized IP addresses

  • UVA will analyze flow analysis table with R programs, and create identified elephant flows table

  • If high persistency measure, then offline solution is suitable; if not, need HNTES 3.0 and FMM!


Findings nersc mr2 april 2011 one month data

Findings: NERSC-mr2, April 2011 (one month data)

Persistency measure = ratio of (number of days in which flow size > 1GB) to (number of days from when the flow first appears)

Total number of flows = 2281 Number of flows that had > 1GB transfers every day = 83


Data doors

Data doors

  • Number of flows from NERSC data doors = 84 (3.7% of flows)

  • Mean persistency ratio of data door flows = 0.237

  • Mean persistency ratio of non-data door flows = 0.197

  • New flows graph right skewed  offline is good enough? (just one month – need more months’ data analysis)

  • Persistency measure is also right skewed  online may be needed


Validation of size estimation from netflow data

Validation of size estimation from Netflow data

  • Hypothesis

    • Flow size from concatenated Netflow records for one flow can be multiplied by 1000 (since the ESnet Netflow sampling rate is 1 in 1000 packets) to estimate actual flow size


Experimental setup

Experimental setup

  • GridFTP transfers of 100 MB, 1GB, 10 GB files

  • sunn-cr1 and chic-cr1 Netflow data used

  • Chris Tracy set up this experiment


Flow size estimation experiments

Flow size estimation experiments

  • Workflow inner loop (executed 30 times):

    • obtain initial value of firewall counters at sunn-cr1 and chic-cr1 routers

    • start GridFTP transfer of a file of known size

    • from GridFTP logs, determine data connection TCP port numbers

    • read firewall counters at the end of the transfer

    • wait 300 seconds for Netflow data to be exported

  • Repeat experiment 400 times for 100MB, 1 GB and 10 GB file sizes

  • Chris Tracy ran the experiments


Create log files

Create log files

  • Filter out GridFTP flows from Netflow data

  • For each transfer, find packet counts and byte counts from all the flow records and add

  • Multiply by 1000 (1-in-1000 sampling rate)

  • Output the byte and packet counts from the firewall counters

  • Size-accuracy ratio = Size computed from Netflow data divided by size computed from firewall counters

  • Chris Tracy wrote scripts to create these log files and gave UVA these files for analysis


Size accuracy ratio

Size-accuracy ratio

  • Sample mean shows a size-accuracy ratio close to 1

  • Standard deviation is smaller for larger files.

  • Dependence on traffic load

  • Sample size = 50

  • Zhenzhen Yan analyzed log files


Outline3

Outline

  • Problem statement

  • Solution approach

    • HNTES 1.0 and HNTES 2.0 (ongoing)

  • ESnet-UVA collaborative work

    • Netflow data analysis

    • Validation of Netflow based size estimation

    • Effect of elephant flows

      • SNMP measurements

      • OWAMP data analysis

    • GridFTP log analysis

  • Future work: HNTES 3.0 and integrated network


Effect of elephant flows on link loads

Effect of elephant flows on link loads

  • SNMP link load averaging over 30 sec

  • Five 10GB GridFTP transfers

  • Dashed lines: rest of the traffic load

  • 10 Gb/s

  • 2.5 Gb/s

  • CHIC-cr1

  • interface SNMP load

  • SUNN-cr1

  • interface SNMP load

  • 1 minute

  • Chris Tracy


Owamp one way ping

OWAMP (one-way ping)

  • One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)

    • 9 OWAMP servers across Internet2 (72 pairs)

    • The system clock is synchronized

    • The “latency hosts” (nms-rlat) are dedicated only to OWAMP

    • 20 packets per second on average (10 for ipv4, 10 for ipv6) for each OWAMP server pair

    • Raw data for 2 weeks obtained for all pairs


Study of surges consecutive higher owamp delays on 1 minute basis

Study of “surges” (consecutive higher OWAMP delays on 1-minute basis)

  • Steps:

    • Find the 10th percentile delay bacross the 2-weeks data set

    • Find the 10th percentile delay i for each minute

    • If i > n × b, iis considered a surge point (n = 1.1, 1.2, 1.5)

    • Consecutive surge points are combined as a single surge


Study of surges cont

Study of surges cont.

  • Sample absolute values of 10th percentile delays


Pdf of surge duration

PDF of surge duration

  • a surge lasted for 200 mins

  • the median value is 34 mins


95 th percentile per minute

95th percentile per minute

  • The 95 percentile delay per min was 4.13 (CHIC-LOSA), 10.1 (CHIC-KANS) and 5.4 (HOUS-LOSA) times the one way propagation delay


Future work determine cause s of surges

Future workDetermine cause(s) of surges

  • Host (OWAMP server) issues?

    • In addition to OWAMP pings, OWAMP server pushes measurements to Measurement Archive at IU

  • Interference from BWCTL at HP LAN switch within PoP?

    • Correlate BWCTL logs with OWAMP delay surges

  • Router buffer buildups due to elephant flows

    • Correlate Netflow data with OWAMP delay surges

  • If none of above, then surges due to router buffer buildups resulting from multiple simultaneous mice flows


Gridftp data analysis findings

GridFTP data analysis findings

  • All GridFTP transfers from NERSC GridFTP servers that > 100 MB: one month (Sept. 2010)

  • Total number of transfers: 124236

  • Data from GridFTP logs


Throughput of gridftp transfers

Throughput of GridFTP transfers

  • Total number of transfers: 124236

  • Most transfers get about 50 MB/sec or 400 Mb/s


Variability in throughput for files of the same size

Variability in throughput for files of the same size

  • There were 145 file transfers of size 34359738368 (bytes) – 34 GB approx.

  • IQR (Inter-quartile range) measure of variance is 695 Mbps

  • Need to determine other end and consider time


Outline4

Outline

  • Problem statement

  • Solution approach

    • HNTES 1.0 and HNTES 2.0 (ongoing)

  • ESnet-UVA collaborative work

  • Future work: HNTES 3.0 and integrated network


Hntes 3 0

HNTES 3.0

  • Online flow detection

    • Packet header based schemes

    • Payload based scheme

    • Machine learning schemes

  • For ESnet

    • Data door IP address based 0-length (SYN) segment mirroring to trigger PBR entries (if full mesh of LSPs), and LSP setup (if not a full mesh)

    • PBR can be configured only after finding out the other end’s IP address (data door is one end)

    • “real-time” analysis of Netflow data

      • Need validation by examining patterns within each day


Hntes in an integrated network

HNTES in an integrated network

  • Setup two queues on each ESnet physical link; each rate-limited

  • Two approaches

    • Use different DSCP taggings

      • General purpose: rate limited at 20% capacity

      • Science network: rate limited at 80% capacity

    • IP network + MPLS network

      • General purpose: same as approach I

      • Science network: full mesh of MPLS LSPs mapped to 80% queue

    • Ack: Inder Monga


    Comparison

    Comparison

    • In first solution, there is no easy way to achieve load balancing of science flows

    • Second solution:

      • MPLS LSPs are rate unlimited

      • Use SNMP measurements to measure load on each of these LSPs

      • Obtain traffic matrix

      • Run optimization to load balance science flows by rerouting LSPs to use whole topology

      • Science flows will enjoy higher throughput than in the first solution because TE system can periodically re-adjust routing of LSPs


    Discuss integration with idc

    Discuss integration with IDC

    • IDC established LSPs have rate policing at ingress router

    • Not suitable for HNTES redirected science flows

    • Add a third queue for this category

    • Discussion with Chin Guok


    Summary

    Summary

    • HNTES 2.0 focus

      • Elephant (large-sized) flows

      • Offline detection

      • Rate-unlimited static MPLS LSPs

      • Offline setting of policy based routes for flow redirection

    • HNTES 3.0

      • Online PBR configuration

      • Requires flow monitoring module to receive port mirrored packets from routers and execute online flow redirection after identifying other end

    • HNTES operation in an integrated network


  • Login