slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Buffer Sizing for Congested Internet Links Amogh Dhamdhere, Hao Jiang and Constantinos Dovrolis

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 37

Buffer Sizing for Congested Internet Links Amogh Dhamdhere, Hao Jiang and Constantinos Dovrolis - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 69 Views
  • Uploaded on

Buffer Sizing for Congested Internet Links Amogh Dhamdhere, Hao Jiang and Constantinos Dovrolis (amogh,hjiang,dovrolis)@cc.gatech.edu Networking and Telecommunications Group, College of Computing, Georgia Tech. Outline. Motivation and related work Objectives and traffic model

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 ' Buffer Sizing for Congested Internet Links Amogh Dhamdhere, Hao Jiang and Constantinos Dovrolis' - fiona-rios


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
slide1
Buffer Sizing for Congested Internet Links

Amogh Dhamdhere, Hao Jiang and Constantinos Dovrolis

(amogh,hjiang,dovrolis)@cc.gatech.edu

Networking and Telecommunications Group,

College of Computing,

Georgia Tech.

outline
Outline
  • Motivation and related work
  • Objectives and traffic model
  • The utilization constraint alone
  • Utilization and loss rate constraints
  • Parameter estimation and simulation results

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

motivation
Motivation
  • Router buffers are important in packet networks
    • Absorb rate variations of incoming traffic
    • Prevent packet losses during traffic bursts
  • Increasing buffer space increases the utilization of the link and decreases the loss rate
  • Increasing buffer also increases queuing delays !
    • So smaller buffers are desirable
  • Fundamental Question: What is the minimum buffer requirement to satisfy constraints on the utilization, loss rate and queuing delay ?

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

rules of thumb
Rules of Thumb
  • Some router vendors suggest 500ms of buffering.
    • Why 500ms ?
  • Bandwidth Delay Product rule: Capacity of link times the “typical” RTT (B = CT)
    • Which RTT should we use ?
    • Many TCP flows with different RTTs ?
    • How do different types of flows (large vs small) affect the buffer requirement ?
  • Several variants of this rule
    • e.g. Capacity times link delay

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

related work
Related Work
  • Approaches based on queuing models e.g. M/M/1/k
    • TCP is not open-loop. TCP flows are reactive
    • Modeling Internet traffic is difficult
  • “Stanford” model (Appenzeller et al. Sigcomm 2004)
    • Buffer requirement for full utilization decreases with square root of N
    • Did not consider the loss rate at the link
    • Assumed that flows are completely desynchronized
    • Applicable when the number of flows is large
  • Morris (1997 and 2000)
    • Buffer proportional to the number of flows (B = 6*N)
    • Considered all flows active at the link

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

outline1
Outline
  • Motivation and related work
  • Objectives and traffic model
  • The utilization constraint alone
  • Utilization and loss rate constraints
  • Parameter estimation and simulation results

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

our objectives
Our Objectives
  • Full utilization:
    • The average utilization of the link should be at least % when the offered load is sufficiently high
  • Maximum loss rate:
    • The loss rate p should not exceed , typically 1-2% for a saturated link
  • Minimum queuing delays:
    • High queuing delay causes higher transfer latencies and jitter
    • Also increases cost and power consumption
    • Should satisfy utilization and loss rate constraints with minimumamount of buffering possible
  • All of these objectives may not be feasible !

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

traffic classes
Traffic Classes
  • Locally Bottlenecked Persistent (LBP) TCP flows
    • Large TCP flows limited by losses at the target link
    • Loss rate p is equal to the loss rate at the target link
  • Remotely Bottlenecked Persistent (RBP) TCP flows
    • Large TCP flows limited by losses at target link and other links
    • Loss rate is greater than loss rate at target link
  • Window Limited Persistent TCP flows
    • Large TCP flows, throughput limited by the advertised window
  • Short TCP flows and non-TCP traffic

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

assumption
Assumption
  • Key Assumption: LBP flows account for most of the traffic at the target link (80-90 %)
  • In this case, we can ignore the buffering requirement of non-LBP flows
    • non-LBP flows also contribute to the utilization and loss rate at the target link
    • Contribution is small if fraction of non-LBP traffic is small
  • Our model is applicable in links where this assumption holds
  • Edge links and links in access networks are candidates

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

outline2
Outline
  • Motivation and related work
  • Objectives and traffic model
  • The utilization constraint alone
  • Utilization and loss rate constraints
  • Parameter estimation and simulation results

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

tcp window dynamics
TCP Window Dynamics
  • Saw-tooth behavior of TCP
  • Padhye (1998)
    • TCP throughput can be approximated by
    • Average window size is independent of RTT
    • Valid when loss rate is small

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

util constraint multiple tcp flows
Util. Constraint - Multiple TCP Flows
  • heterogeneous LBP flows with RTTs
  • Consider initially the worst-case scenario: Global Loss Synchronization.
  • All flows decrease windows simultaneously in response to losses.
  • We derive that
  • As a bandwidth-delay product
  • Where is the harmonic mean of the RTTs

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

util constraint multiple tcp flows1
Util. Constraint - Multiple TCP Flows
  • is called the effective RTT of the flows
    • Influenced more by smaller values
  • Intuition:
    • Flows with smaller RTTs have larger portion of their window in the bottleneck buffer
    • Hence have larger influence on the required buffer
    • Flows with large RTTs have larger portion of their window “on the wire”
  • Practical Implication:
    • A few connections with very large RTTs cannot significantly influence the buffer requirement, as long as most flows have small RTTs

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

partial synchronization model
Partial Synchronization Model
  • In practice, flows are not completely synchronized
  • Loss Burst Length: Number of packets lost by flows during a congestion event
  • Empirical observation: Loss burst length increases almost linearlywith i.e.
  • A simple probabilistic argument gives us,
  • Partial loss synchronization reduces the buffer requirement.

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

validation
Validation
  • ns2 simulations.
  • Heterogeneous flows,

%

  • Partial synchronization model accurately predicts the buffer requirement.
  • Deterministic model overestimates the buffer requirement !

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

outline3
Outline
  • Motivation and related work
  • Objectives and traffic model
  • The utilization constraint alone
  • Utilization and loss rate constraint
  • Parameter estimation and simulation results

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

utilization and loss rate
Utilization and Loss Rate
  • End-user perceived service is poor when the loss rate is more than 5-10%
  • Particularly for short and interactive flows
  • Results by Morris (1997)
    • High variability in the completion times of short transfers
    • Some “unlucky” flows suffer repeated losses and timeouts
  • The buffer size controls the loss rate
  • Upper bound the loss rate to . Assume is 1%

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

relation between loss rate and n
Relation between loss rate and N
  • homogeneous LBP flows at the target link. Link capacity C, flow RTTs T
  • Assume that the flows saturate the link and their throughput is given by
  • p is proportional to the square of
  • Hence to maintain loss rate at less than
  • But this requires admission control
    • Such schemes not deployed yet

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

flow proportional queueing
Flow Proportional Queueing
  • First proposed by Morris (2000)
  • Don’t limit
    • Increase RTTs to decrease loss rate
  • Increase RTT by increasing buffer, which increases queuing delay
  • Solving for B gives
    • Where
    • Practically, packets for , and packets for

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

flow proportional queueing contd
Flow Proportional Queueing (contd.)
  • Intuition:
    • packets per flow, either in buffer (B term) or “on the wire” ( term)
  • Differences with Morris’ FPQ scheme
    • Morris did not take into account the term
    • Set arbitrarily to 6 packets
    • Applied the rule for allflows active at the link
  • Increasing RTTs may violate delay constraint
    • In that case, choose the minimum buffer that can satisfy utilization and loss constraints

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

integrated model
Integrated Model
  • Separate results for utilization and loss rate constraints
  • Satisfy the most stringent of the two requirements
  • B for utilization decreases with , while B for loss rate increases with
  • : Crossover point
  • Called the BSCL formula

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

integrated model validation
Integrated Model - Validation
  • Simulations using ns2.
  • Heterogeneous flows, varied from 1 to 200.
  • Utilization % and loss constraint %

Utilization constraint

Loss rate constraint

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

outline4
Outline
  • Motivation and related work
  • Objectives and traffic model
  • The utilization constraint alone
  • Utilization and loss rate constraints
  • Parameter estimation and simulation results

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

parameter estimation
Parameter Estimation
  • Flow Classification:
    • Zhang et al. (2002): Classify TCP flows based on rate limiting factors
  • Number of LBP flows:
    • LBP flows: all rate reductions due to packet losses at target link
    • RBP flows: Some rate reductions due to losses elsewhere
  • Effective RTT:
    • Jiang et al. (2002): Passive algorithm to measure TCP Round Trip Times from packet traces
  • Loss Synchronization:
    • Measure loss burst length from trace or use approximation

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

evaluation setup
Evaluation - Setup
  • ns2 simulations.
  • Multi-level tree topology with wide range of RTTs (20ms to 550ms).
  • Target link capacity 50Mbps.
  • varied from 1 to 400.
  • 20 RBP flows, 10 window limited flows.
  • Mice flows with average size 14 packets, exponential inter-arrivals.
  • Non-LBP traffic (R) is varied between 5% and 20% of C.

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

results loss rate
Results – Loss Rate

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

results loss rate1
Results – Loss Rate

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

results loss rate2
Results – Loss Rate

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

results loss rate3
Results – Loss Rate
  • BSCL can bound loss rate close to the target, if R is less than 10%.
  • Accuracy decreases as fraction of non-LBP traffic increases.
  • Stanford model and the rule of thumb cannot bound loss rate.

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

results utilization
Results - Utilization
  • For a large number of flows, all three schemes achieve full utilization.
  • For smaller number of flows, BSCL sometimes leads to underutilization.
    • Due to the probabilistic nature of loss synchronization.

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

summary
Summary
  • Derived a buffer sizing formula (BSCL) for congested links, taking into account both utilization and loss rate of the target link.
  • Applicable for links in which 80-90% of the traffic comes from large locally bottlenecked TCP flows.
  • Account for the effects of heterogeneous RTTs and partial loss synchronization.
  • Validated the results through simulations.

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

slide32
Thank You !

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

parameter estimation1
Parameter estimation -
  • Distinguishing between LBP and RBP flows:
    • Intuition: For a LBP flow, rate reduction should be preceded by a loss at the target link.
    • For RBP flows, rate reduction will not always be accompanied by a loss at the target link (due to losses in other links).

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

why is buffer size important
Why is Buffer Size Important ?
  • Router buffer size affects:
    • Utilization of the link.
    • Loss rate of the link.
    • Fairness among TCP connections.
  • Results by Morris (1997):
    • A very small buffer can lead to underutilization.
    • Loss rate increases as the square of N.

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

partial synchronization model contd
Partial Synchronization Model (contd.)
  • Consider a congestion event with the average loss-burst length .
  • A simple probabilistic argument gives us,
  • Remarks:
    • For global loss synchronization, and the buffer requirement becomes B = CT.
    • Partial loss synchronization reduces the buffer requirement.
    • For heterogeneous connections, replace T with the effective RTT.

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

outline5
Outline
  • Motivation and related work
  • Objectives and traffic model
  • The utilization constraint alone
  • Utilization and loss rate constraints
  • Parameter estimation and simulation results

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

results loss rate4
Results - Loss Rate
  • BSCL can bound loss rate close to the target, if R is less than 10%.
  • Accuracy decreases as fraction of non-LBP traffic increases.
  • Stanford model and the rule of thumb cannot bound loss rate.

Amogh Dhamdhere

IEEE Infocom 2005

ad