1 / 21

IEPM/PingER Project

IEPM/PingER Project. Les Cottrell, SLAC DoE 2004 PI Network Research Meeting, FNAL Sep 15-17 ‘04 www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/scs/net/talk03/scidac-pinger-sep04.ppt. Outline. PingER Purpose etc. Methodology Results PingER-NG ≡ IEPM-BW Low network impact bandwidth tool (INCITE)

niabi
Download Presentation

IEPM/PingER Project

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. IEPM/PingER Project Les Cottrell, SLAC DoE 2004 PI Network Research Meeting, FNAL Sep 15-17 ‘04 www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/scs/net/talk03/scidac-pinger-sep04.ppt

  2. Outline • PingER • Purpose etc. • Methodology • Results • PingER-NG ≡ IEPM-BW • Low network impact bandwidth tool (INCITE) • Traceroute viz • Topology (INCITE)

  3. PingER • Uses ping to provides lightweight performance monitoring: • < 100bits/s per pair measured • No software to install at remote sites • Measures loss, RTT, reachability, jitter • For planning, trouble shooting • Originally (1990s) for HENP sites • More recently also to characterize the Digital Divide • ICFA/SCIC, Internet2 Hard to Reach Places, WSIS, ICTP/eJDS

  4. Methodology • Use ubiquitous ping • Each 30 minutes from monitoring site to target : • 1 ping to prime caches • by default send11x100Byte pkts followed by 10x1000Byte pkts • Low network impact + no software to install / configure / maintain at remote sites + no passwords / accounts needed = good for developing sites / regions • Record loss & RTT, (+ reorders, duplicates) • Derive throughput, jitter, unreachability …

  5. Architecture • Hierarchical vs. full mesh WWW HTTP Ping SLAC Reports & Data Archive FNAL Archive ~35 Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Cache Monitoring Remote 1 monitor host remote host pair Remote Remote Remote ~550

  6. Coverage • In last 9 months added: • Several sites in Russia (thanks GLORIAD) • Many hosts in Africa (5=>36 now in 27 out of 54 countries) • Monitoring sites in Pakistan and Brazil (Sao Paolo and Rio) • Now monitoring 650 sites in 115 countries • Working to install monitoring host in Bangalore, India Monitoring site Remote site

  7. World View C. Asia, Russia, S.E. Europe, L. America, M. East, China: 4-5 yrs behind India, Africa: 7 yrs behind S.E. Europe, Russia: catching up Latin Am., Mid East, China: keeping up India, Africa: falling behind Important for policy makers

  8. View from CERN • Confirms view from N. America From the PingER project August 2004.

  9. From Developing Regions Novosibirsk Novosibirsk NSK to Moscow used to be OK but loss went up in Sep. 2003 GLORIAD may help Brazil (Sao Paolo) As expected Brazil to L. America is good Actually dominated by Brazil to Brazil To Chile & Uruguay poor since goes via US

  10. Technology Achievement Index (TAI) • TAI captures how well a country is creating and diffusing technology and building a human skills base. • TAI from UNDP hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2001/en/pdf/techindex.pdf TAI top 12 Finland 0.744 US 0.733 Sweden 0.703 Japan 0.698 Korea Rep. of 0.666 Netherlands 0.630 UK 0.606 Canada 0.589 Australia 0.587 Singapore 0.585 Germany 0.583 Norway 0.579 US & Canada off-scale

  11. PingER-NG = IEPM-BW • Need measurement tools for high-performance paths/applications • BER 10-8 takes > day to see 1 loss • Ping losses ≠ TCP losses • Build infrastructure to • Measure with: • Iperf (TCP mem-to-mem), GridFTP, bbftp • Lightweight packet pair dispersion • Evaluate measurement tools

  12. Low impact bandwidth measurement • Goals: • Make a measurement in < second rather than tens of seconds • Injects little network traffic • Provide reasonable agreement with more intense methods (e.g. iperf) • Enables: • Measurements of low performance links (e.g. to developing countries) • Helps avoid need for scheduling • More frequent measurements (minutes vs. hours) • Lower impact more friendly

  13. Low impact Bandwidth • Use 20 packet pairs to roughly estimate dynamic bw Capacity & Xtraffic, then Available = Capacity – Xtraffic • Capacity µ min pair separation; Xtrafficµ packet pair dispersion Dynamic bandwidth capacity (DBC) Iperf Available bandwidth = DBC – X-traffic Cross-traffic ABwE SLAC to Caltech Mar 19, 2004

  14. Achievable throughput & file transfer • IEPM-BW • High impact (iperf, bbftp, GridFTP …) measurements 90+-15 min intervals Fwd route change Iperf abing bbftp iperf1 Min RTT Rev route change Avg RTT Select focal area

  15. Anomalous Event Detection • Too many graphs to scan by hand, need to automate • SLAC Caltech link performance dropped by factor 5 for ~ month before noticed, fixed within 4 hours of reporting • Looking for long-term step down changes in bandwidth • Use modified “plateau” algorithm from NLANR • Divide data into history & trigger buffer • If y < mh – b * sh then trigger, else history (b = 2) • When trigger buffer fills: if mt < d * mh, then have an event

  16. Route table Example • Compact so can see many routes at once History navigation Route # at start of day, gives idea of root stability Multiple route changes (due to GEANT), later restored to original route Mouseover for hops & RTT Available bandwidth Raw traceroute logs for debugging Textual summary of traceroutes for email to ISP Description of route numbers with date last seen User readable (web table) routes for this host for this day

  17. Another example Get AS information for routes Level change Host not pingable TCP probe type Intermediate router does not respond ICMP checksum error

  18. Topology • Choose times and hosts and submit request Hour of day Alternate route SLAC ESnet Alternate rt GEANT JAnet Nodes colored by ISP Mouseover shows node names Click on node to see subroutes Click on end node to see its path back Also can get raw traceroutes with AS’ IN2P3 CESnet CLRC DL CLRC

  19. Putting it together SLAC ESnet P P P CENIC Abilene P P Supernet SOX

  20. New features in works (with NIIT) • Improve new site set-up tools • Improve management • Discover non working links faster • Improve access to data and meta data • Provide data base with lat/long, country etc. • Add web services access • Improve visualization: • Provide map with drill down to node information • Automate production of long term trend plots for regions • More node selection capabilities • Traceroute measurement and analysis

  21. More • PingER Project • http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/pinger/ • IEEE Communications Magazine on Network Traffic Measurements and Experiments. • ICFA/SCIC Network Monitoring report, Jan ‘04 • http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/icfa/icfa-net-paper-jan04/ • IEPM-BW • http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/

More Related