measurements of internet performance for niit pakistan jan feb 2004 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Measurements of Internet performance for NIIT, Pakistan Jan – Feb 2004 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Measurements of Internet performance for NIIT, Pakistan Jan – Feb 2004

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 12

Measurements of Internet performance for NIIT, Pakistan Jan – Feb 2004 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 519 Views
  • Uploaded on

PingER. Measurements of Internet performance for NIIT, Pakistan Jan – Feb 2004. From Les Cottrell, SLAC For presentation by Prof. Arshad Ali, NIIT. PingER. Results: Worldwide performance. Performance is improving Developed world improving factor of 10 in 4-5 years

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 'Measurements of Internet performance for NIIT, Pakistan Jan – Feb 2004' - Patman


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
measurements of internet performance for niit pakistan jan feb 2004

PingER

Measurements of Internet performance for NIIT, Pakistan Jan – Feb 2004

From Les Cottrell, SLAC

For presentation by Prof. Arshad Ali, NIIT

PingER

results worldwide performance
Results: Worldwide performance
  • Performance is improving
  • Developed world improving factor of 10 in 4-5 years
  • S.E. Europe, C.AsiaRussia, catching up
  • India & Africa worse off & falling behind
  • Developing world 3-10 years behind
  • Many institutes in developing world have less performance than a household in N. America or Europe!!
to pakistan performance
To Pakistan performance

Routes: ESnet (hops 3-8) - DC

ATT (9-21) - Karachi

Karachi

NIIT/Rawalpindi

Routes: ESnet (hops 3-6) - SNV

SINGTEL (7-12) - Karachi

Pakistan Telecom

Karachi

Rawalpindi

Loss %

Islamabad

RTT ms

Routes: ESnet (hops 3-6) - SNV

SINGTEL (7-12) - Karachi

Pakistan Telecom

Karachi

Lahore

Lahore

from pakistan performance
From Pakistan Performance

Route: Pakistan Telecom (2-5)

Rawalpindi, Karachi

SingTel (6-10)

ESnet (11-14) - PAIX

NIIT to SLAC

Route: Pakistan Telecom (2-5) Rawalpindi, Karachi Concert (6-9) London DataTAG (11-12) .de

NIIT to CERN

Note similarities, probably due to common bottleneck, probably in Pakistan

niit performance from u s slac
NIIT performance from U.S. (SLAC)

Preliminary results, started measurements end Dec 2003.

Nb. Heavy losses during congested day-times

Avg daily:

loss~1-2%,

RTT~320ms

Ping RTT & Loss

Bandwidth measurements using packet pair dispersion & TCP (Jan 2004)

abing (pkt-pair dispersion):Average To NIIT: ~350Kbits/s From NIIT: ~365 Kbits/s

Iperf/TCP (with SLAC): Average: To NIIT: ~320Kbits/s From NIIT: ~330Kbits/s

Iperf/TCP (with CERN): Average: To NIIT: ~270Kbits/s From NIIT: ~300Kbits/s

Can also derive throughput (assuming standard TCP) from RTT & loss (monthly) using: BW~1.2*S(1460B)/(RTT*sqrt(loss)  ~ 260Kbits/s (SLAC to NIIT)

~ 630Kbits/s (NIIT to SLAC | CERN)

Nominal path bottleneck capacity 364 Kbits/s

available bandwidth feb 04 after upgrade
Available Bandwidth (Feb ‘04 after upgrade)
  • green line is the bandwidth capacity of current bottleneck
    • deduced from the minimum packet separation
  • blue line is available bandwidth = capacity-cross-traffic.
  • Use available bandwidth estimator (abing)
    • Uses packet pair dispersion
    • Low impact, 40*1450Byte packets
    • Repeat once/minute
    • Client at SLAC, mirror/server at NIIT
  • Iperf confirms with:
    • 948Kbps (2streams),
    • 952Kbps (4streams),
    • 1042Kbps (10streams)
to ncp pakistan
To NCP Pakistan
  • Cannot use PingER to measure to ncp.edu.pk
    • Pings blocked at FLAG router (62.216.145.154, AS15412) on way to Comsats (Pakistani ISP)
  • Working with NCP to try and resolve
    • Trying to contact FLAG
  • Using abing instead
    • Indicates 2Mbps
    • But link is 384Kbps
  • Iperf shows 235 - 245 Kbps
  • Rate limiting or shaping?

~ 2MBits/s, but link is 384Kbps

Looking for discrepancy

within pakistan
Within Pakistan
  • SLAC – Karachi U:
    • ESnet (hops 3-8) – DC ATT (9-21) – Karachi
  • SLAC – NIIT RawalpindiI:
    • ESnet (hops 3-6) – SNV, SINGTEL (7-12) – Karachi, Pakistan Telecom Karachi-Rawalpindi
  • SLAC - U Lahore, similar to NIIT
  • SLAC – NSC:
    • ESnet (hops 1-6), C&W (7-11) Santa Clara – NY, FLAG (12-16) NY – London – Karlsruhe, Comsats
  • NIIT – NSC (Rawalpindi – Islamabad) few miles apart,
    • No peering in Pakistan, can this be changed?
    • Route goes via England:
      • PIE (hops 1-5), Concert (6-9)- London, FLAG (10-14) London – Karachi, Comsats (15)
    • Takes longer than to SLAC
conclusions
Conclusions
  • Big performance differences to sites, depend on ISP (at least 3 ISPs seen for Pakistan A&R sites)
  • To NIIT:
    • Before upgrade got about 300Kbps - 380Kbps at best
    • After upgrade get 1 Mbps, as expected
    • The bottleneck appears to be in Pakistan
    • There is often congestion (packet loss & extended RTTs) during busy periods each weekday
    • Video will probably be sensitive to packet loss, so it may depend on the time of day
    • H.323 (typically needs 384Kbps + 64Kbps), would appear to have been be marginal at best before upgrade, since upgrade has been very successful.
  • No peering Pakistan between NIIT and NSC
bulk data transfer
Bulk Data Transfer
  • Transfer time to send a file of various sizes between 2 sites with given capacity
    • assume can utilize 50% of capacity
    • format hours:mins:seconds

File size

Typical BaBar file sizes 500MB-1GB

PingER

interactive use
Interactive Use
  • Voice needs RTT < 250ms or else listener does not know when to speak
  • RTT > 400ms makes productive interactive work such as interactive telnet/X-windows style typing difficult
    • Screen does not match the keyboard, especially when correcting text
  • Losses:
    • Losses > 10% TCP connections fail
    • Losses >4-6% make video conferencing unintelligible for non-native language speakers
    • Losses of > 3-5% make TCP perform badly
    • Random loss of 2.5% will make Voice over IP annoying every 30 seconds or so
    • More realistic burst losses will cause VoIP to be annoying at >1% losses

PingER

more information
More information
  • NUST Institute of Information Technology (NIIT)
    • http://www.niit.edu.pk/
  • PingER project
    • http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/pinger/
  • ABwE available bandwidth estimator
    • www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/bw/abwe/abwe-cf-iperf.html