1 / 56

CS634 Advanced Computer Networking Computer Science College of William and Mary

On the Self-Similar Nature of Ethernet Traffic . Presented by: Feng Yan. Will E. Leland, Walter Willinger and Daniel V. Wilson BELLCORE Murad S. Taqqu Boston University. CS634 Advanced Computer Networking Computer Science College of William and Mary. Overview.

kaz
Download Presentation

CS634 Advanced Computer Networking Computer Science College of William and Mary

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. On the Self-Similar Nature of Ethernet Traffic Presented by: Feng Yan Will E. Leland, Walter Willinger and Daniel V. Wilson BELLCOREMurad S. Taqqu Boston University • CS634 Advanced Computer Networking • Computer Science • College of William and Mary

  2. Overview • What is Self Similarity? • Ethernet Traffic is Self-Similar • Implications of Self Similarity • Conclusion • Discussion

  3. part 1: What is Self-Similarity ?

  4. Intuition of Self-Similarity • Something “feels the same” regardless of scale What is that???

  5. Intuition of Self-Similarity • Something “feels the same” regardless of scale Self-similar in nature

  6. Intuition of Self-Similarity • Something “feels the same” regardless of scale The Koch snowflake fractal

  7. Intuition of Self-Similarity • Something “feels the same” regardless of scale The Koch snowflake fractal

  8. Intuition of Self-Similarity • Something “feels the same” regardless of scale The Koch snowflake fractal

  9. Intuition of Self-Similarity • Something “feels the same” regardless of scale

  10. Intuition of Self-Similarity • Categories: • Exact self-similarity: Strongest Type • Approximate self-similarity: Loose Form • Statistical self-similarity: Weakest Type

  11. Intuition of Self-Similarity Statistical self-similarity: Only numerical or statistical measures that are preserved across scales Approximate self-similarity: Recognisably similar but not exactly so. e.g. Mandelbrot set

  12. Stochastic Objects In case of Stochastic Objects e.g. time-series Self-similarity is used in the distributional sense

  13. Why Self-Similarity Important? • Recently, network packet traffic has been identified as being self-similar. • Current network traffic modeling using Poisson distributing (etc.) does not take into account the self-similar nature of traffic. • This leads to inaccurate modeling of network traffic.

  14. Problems with Current Models • A Poisson process • When observed on a fine time scale will appear bursty • When aggregated on a coarse time scale will flatten (smooth) to white noise • A Self-Similar (fractal) process • When aggregated over wide range of time scales will maintain its bursty characteristic

  15. Self-Similarity by picture Ethernet traffic August’89 trace packets per time unit

  16. Current Modeling by picture

  17. Side-by-side View

  18. Compare by view

  19. Consequences of Self-Similarity Reality (self-similar): Aggregation Bursty Data Streams Bursty Aggregate Streams Consequence: Inaccuracy Current Model: Aggregation Bursty Data Streams Smooth Pattern Streams

  20. Mathematical Definitions • Long-range Dependence • autocorrelation decays slowly • Hurst Parameter • Developed by Harold Hurst (1965) • H is a measure of “burstiness” • also considered a measure of self-similarity • 0 < H < 1 • H increases as traffic increases • i.e., traffic becomes more self-similar

  21. Properties of Self Similarity • X = (Xt : t = 0, 1, 2, ….) is covariance stationary random process (i.e. Cov(Xt,Xt+k) does not depend on t for all k) • Let X(m)={Xk(m)} denote the new process obtained by averaging the original series X in non-overlapping sub-blocks of size m. • Mean , variance 2 • Suppose that Autocorrelation Functionr(k)  k -β, 0<β<1 e.g. X(1)= 4,12,34,2,-6,18,21,35Then X(2)=8,18,6,28X(4)=13,17

  22. Definition by Auto-correlation • X is exactly second-order self-similar if • The aggregated processes have the same autocorrelation structure as X. i.e. • r (m) (k) = r(k), k0 for all m =1,2, … • X is asymptotically second-order self-similar ifthe above holds when[ r (m) (k)  r(k), m  ] • Most striking feature of self-similarity: Correlation structures of the aggregated process do not degenerate as m  

  23. Definition by Auto-correlation ACF lag

  24. Definition by Auto-correlation

  25. Traditional Models • Correlation structures of their aggregated processes degenerate as m   i.e. r (m) (k)  0 as m , for k = 1,2,3,... • Short Range Dependence Processes: • Exponential Decay of autocorrelations • i.e. r(k) ~ pk , as k , 0 < p < 1 • Summation is finite

  26. Long Range Dependence • Processes with Long Range Dependence are characterized by an autocorrelation function that decays hyperbolically as k increases • Important Property: This is also called non-summability of correlation

  27. Intuition • The intuition behind long-range dependence: • While high-lag correlations are all individually small, their cumulative affect is important • Gives rise to features drastically different from conventional short-range dependent processes

  28. The Measure of Self-Similarity ! • Hurst Parameter H , 0.5 < H < 1 • Three approaches to estimate H (Based on properties of self-similar processes) • Variance Analysis of aggregated processes • Rescaled Range (R/S) Analysis for different block sizes: time domain analysis • Periodogram Analysis: frequency domain analysis (Whittle Estimator)

  29. Variance Analysis • Variance of aggregated processes decays as: • Var(X(m)) = am-b as m infinite, • For short range dependent processes (e.g. Poisson Process): • Var(X(m)) = am-1 as m infinite, • Plot Var(X(m)) against m on a log-log plot • Slope > -1 indicative of self-similarity

  30. Variance Plot Example Slope=-0.7 Slope=-1

  31. The R/S statistic For a given set of observations, Rescaled Adjusted Range or R/S statistic is given by where

  32. Example • Xk = 14,1,3,5,10,3 • Mean = 36/6 = 6 • W1 =14-(1*6 )=8 • W2 =15-(2*6 )=3 • W3 =18-(3*6 )=0 • W4 =23-(4*6 )=-1 • W5 =33-(5*6 )=3 • W6 =36-(6*6 )=0 R/S = 1/S*[8-(-1)] = 9/S

  33. The Hurst Effect • For self-similar data, rescaled range or R/S statistic grows according to cnH • H = Hurst Paramater, > 0.5 • For short-range processes , • R/S statistic ~ dn0.5 • History: The Nile river • In the 1940-50’s, Harold Edwin Hurst studied the 800-year record of flooding along the Nile river. • (yearly minimum water level) • Finds long-range dependence.

  34. Pox plot example Slope = 1.0 Slope = 0.79 Slope = 0.5

  35. Whittle Estimator • Provides a confidence interval • Property: Any long range dependent process approaches fractional Gaussian noise (FGN), when aggregated to a certain level • Test the aggregated observations to ensure that it has converged to the normal distribution

  36. Summary • Self-similarity manifests itself in several equivalent fashions: • Non-degenerate autocorrelations • Slowly decaying variance • Long range dependence • Hurst effect

  37. part 2: Ethernet Traffic is Self-Similar

  38. The Famous Data • Leland and Wilson collected hundreds of millions of Ethernet packets without loss and with recorded time-stamps accurate to within 100µs. • Data collected from several Ethernet LAN’s at the Bellcore Morristown Research and Engineering Center at different times over the course of approximately 4 years.

  39. Plots Showing Self-Similarity (Ⅰ) H=1 H=0.5 H=0.5 Estimate H  0.8

  40. Plots Showing Self-Similarity (Ⅱ) High Traffic 5.0%-30.7% Mid Traffic 3.4%-18.4% Low Traffic 1.3%-10.4% Packets Higher Traffic, Higher H

  41. H : A Function of Network Utilization • Observation shows “contrary to Poisson” • Network Utilization H • As number of Ethernet users increases, the resulting aggregate traffic becomes burstier instead of smoother

  42. Difference in low traffic H values • Pre-1990: host-to-host workgroup traffic • Post-1990: Router-to-router traffic • Low period router-to-router traffic consists mostly of machine-generated packets • Tend to form a smoother arrival stream, than low period host-to-host traffic

  43. Summary • Ethernet LAN traffic is statistically self-similar • H : the degree of self-similarity • H : a function of utilization • H : a measure of “burstiness” • Models like Poisson are not able to capture self-similarity

  44. part 3: Impact of Self Similarity

  45. Comparison

  46. Two Effects • The superposition of many ON/OFF sources whose ON-periods and OFF-periods exhibit the Noah Effect produces aggregate network traffic that features the Joseph Effect. • Noah Effect: high variability or infinitevariance Joseph Effect: Self-similar or long-range dependent traffic Also known as packet train models

  47. Existing Models • Traditional traffic models: finite variance ON/OFF source models • Superposition of such sourcesbehaves like white noise, with only short range correlations

  48. Easy Modeling: Noah Effect • Questions related to self-similarity can be reduced to practical implications of Noah Effect • Queuing and Network performance • Network Congestion Controls • Protocol Analysis

  49. Queuing Performance • The Queue Length distribution • Traditional (Markovian) traffic: decreases exponentially fast • Self-similar traffic: decreases much more slowly • Not accounting for Joseph Effect can lead to overly optimistic performance Effect of H (Burstiness)

More Related