100 GFTP: An Ultra-High Speed Data Transfer Service Over Next Generation 100 Gigabit Per Second Network - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
100 GFTP: An Ultra-High Speed Data Transfer Service Over Next Generation 100 Gigabit Per Second Network PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
100 GFTP: An Ultra-High Speed Data Transfer Service Over Next Generation 100 Gigabit Per Second Network

play fullscreen
1 / 37
100 GFTP: An Ultra-High Speed Data Transfer Service Over Next Generation 100 Gigabit Per Second Network
196 Views
Download Presentation
jerrica
Download Presentation

100 GFTP: An Ultra-High Speed Data Transfer Service Over Next Generation 100 Gigabit Per Second Network

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

    1. 100 GFTP: An Ultra-High Speed Data Transfer Service Over Next Generation 100 Gigabit Per Second Network Dantong Yu Stony Brook University/Brookhaven National Lab

    2. Outline Project Personnel Update Dantong Yu, Thomas Robertazzi Post-doctoral associates Qian Chen (September/27/2010) Shudong Jin (Oct./01/2010) Student members: Yufen Ren, Tan Li, Rajat Sharma Project Introduction and challenges Software Architecture Project Plan and Intermediate Testbed Technical Discussion between RDMA v.s. TCP

    3. End-to-End 100G Networking

    4. Problems Definition and Scope Conventional data transfer protocol (TCP/IP) and file I/O have performance gaps. Reliable transfer (error checking and recovery) at 100G speed Coordinated data transfer flow efficiently traverses file systems and network, data path decomposition data read-in: from source disk to user memory (backend data path) Need External Collaborators to work on this together Transport: Source memory to destination host memory (frontend data path) Data write-out: from user memory to destination disks (backend data path) Cost-effective end to end data transfer (10x10GE v.s. 1X100GE) from sources to sinks Reduced port counts.

    5. Challenges (Manageable) Host System Bottlenecks: Intel Architecture: Quick Path Interface: Theoretical Rate: 6.4 GT/s, 6.4*16(effective link width)*2 (two links for bidirectional)/8 = 25.6GByptes AMD Architecture: HyperTransport For HT 3.1, 16 bits bus width gives the same rate 25.6GBytes. Requires: PCI-2.0 (500MB per lane) x 16 = 8GB (one direction) is required. PCI and PCI-based network card All NIC are PCI-2.0 (500MB per lane) x 8 = 4GB (one direction) Fastest PCI-2.0 (500MB per lane) x 16 = 8GB (one direction) is required for 40Gbps. PCI-3.0 x 16 which doubles the speed of PCI-2.0 is required for 100Gbps.

    6. Challenges with some uncertainties and Proposed Solution File System Bottlenecks: how to do file stage-in/out Kernel/software stacks slow, the same problem as TCP. Look into the zero Copy, Data was moved into the user space in one copy. Fopen, sendfile, O_DIRECT, each has some problem or restriction. Look into Lustre RDMA to pull data directly into the user space. Can a single file client (single server) pull files in the speed of 100Gbps? Look for collaborators who have this type of expertise. Storage: Need to support 100Gbps In/Out by disk spindles Multiple RAID controllers (large cache). LSI 3ware supports up to 2.5GByte/second READ. Multiple RAID controllers to accomplish 100Gbps. i.e. Multiple files need to be streamed into buffer in parallel. Switch fabric interconnects disk servers and FTP 100 servers. Storage Aggregation from disks into FTP server disk partition. Look for collaborators who have this type of expertise.

    7. FTP 100 Design Challenges Such high performance data transfer requires multiple file R/W. Implement the buffer management (stream multiple files into a buffer in the system memory or NIC card memory), and provide handshake with the backend file systems Challenge of synchronization between Read/Write

    8. End System Multi-Layer Capability View 8

    9. FTP Develop with OpenFabrics rdmacm: rdma communication. User space libraries for establishing RDMA communication. Includes both Infiniband specific and general RDMA communications management libraries for unreliable datagram, reliable connected, and multi-cast data transfers. libibverbs is a library that allows userspace processes to use InfiniBand/RDMA "verbs" directly. rdmacm: rdma communication. User space libraries for establishing RDMA communication. Includes both Infiniband specific and general RDMA communications management libraries for unreliable datagram, reliable connected, and multi-cast data transfers. libibverbs is a library that allows userspace processes to use InfiniBand/RDMA "verbs" directly. rdmacm: rdma communication. User space libraries for establishing RDMA communication. Includes both Infiniband specific and general RDMA communications management libraries for unreliable datagram, reliable connected, and multi-cast data transfers. libibverbs is a library that allows userspace processes to use InfiniBand/RDMA "verbs" directly.

    10. An example of ftp via OpenFabric

    11. One Year Roadmap

    12. 25 Gbps Lustre System Testbed IN Plan

    13. 40 Gbps Data Transfer Testbed for December/2010

    14. 100 Gbps Data Transfer Testbed Proposal

    15. Conclusion For one data transfer stream, the RDMA transport is twice as fast as TCP, while the RDMA has only 10% of CPU load compare with the CPU load under TCP, without disk operation. FTP includes two components: Networking and File operation. Compare with the RDMA operation, file operation (limited by the disk performance) takes most of the CPU usage. Therefore, a well-designed file buffer mode is critical.

    16. Future work Setup Lustre environment, and configure Lustre with RDMA function Start FTP migration to RDMA Source control Bug database Document Unit Test

    17. SOME PRELIMINARY RESULTS

    18. Current Environment Whether there is a switch? Between the two server? Whether there is a switch? Between the two server?

    19. Tool - iperf Migrate iperf 2.0.5 to the RDMA environment with OFED(librdmacm and libibverbs). 2000+ Source Lines of Code added. From 8382 to 10562. iperf usage extended -H: RDMA transfer mode instead of TCP/UDP -G: pr(passive read) pw(passive write) Data read from server. Server writes into clients. -O: output data file, both TCP server and RDMA server Only one stream to transfer

    20. Test Suites test suits 1: memory -> memory test suits 2: file -> memory -> memory test case 2.1: file(regular file) -> memory -> memory test case 2.2: file(/dev/zero) -> memory -> memory test suits 3: memory -> memory -> file test case 3.1: memory -> memory -> file(regular file) test case 3.2: memory -> memory -> file(/dev/null) test suits 4: file -> memory -> memory -> file test case 4.1: file ( regular file) -> memory -> memory -> file( regular file) test case 4.2: file(/dev/zero) -> memory -> memory -> file(/dev/null)

    21. File choice File operation with Standard I/O library fread, fwrite, Cached by OS Input with /dev/zero wants to test the maximum application data transfer include file operation read, which means disk is not the bottleneck Output with /dev/null wants to test the maximum application data transfer include file operation write, which means disk is not the bottleneck

    22. Buffer choice RDMA operation block size is 10MB RDMA READ/WRITE one time Previous experiment shows that, in this environment, if the block size more than 5MB, there is little effect to the transfer speed TCP read/write buffer size is the default TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)

    23. Test case 1: memory -> memory CPU

    24. Test case 1: memory -> memory Bandwidth

    25. Test case 2.1: (fread) file(regular file) -> memory -> memory CPU

    26. Test case 2.1: (fread) file(regular file) -> memory -> memory Bandwidth

    27. Test case 2.2 (five minutes) file(/dev/zero) -> memory -> memory CPU

    28. Test case 2.2 (five minutes) file(/dev/zero) -> memory -> memory Bandwidth

    29. Test case 3.1 (200G file are generated): memory -> memory -> file(regular file) CPU Bandwidths are almost the same!Bandwidths are almost the same!

    30. Test case 3.1 (200G file are generated): memory -> memory -> file(regular file) Bandwidth Bandwidths are almost the same!Bandwidths are almost the same!

    31. Testcase 3.2: memory -> memory -> file(/dev/null) CPU

    32. Testcase 3.2: memory -> memory -> file(/dev/null) Bandwidth

    33. Test case 4.1: file(r) -> memory -> memory -> file(r) CPU

    34. Test case 4.1: file(r) -> memory -> memory -> file(r) Bandwidth

    35. Test case 4.2: file(/dev/zero) -> memory -> memory -> file(/dev/null) CPU

    36. Test case 4.2: file(/dev/zero) -> memory -> memory -> file(/dev/null) Bandwidth