characterization and evaluation of tcp and udp based transport on real networks l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Characterization and Evaluation of TCP and UDP-based Transport on Real Networks PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Characterization and Evaluation of TCP and UDP-based Transport on Real Networks

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 20
tao

Characterization and Evaluation of TCP and UDP-based Transport on Real Networks - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

153 Views
Download Presentation
Characterization and Evaluation of TCP and UDP-based Transport on Real Networks
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

  1. Characterization and Evaluation of TCP and UDP-based Transport on Real Networks Les Cottrell, Saad Ansari, Parakram Khandpur, Ruchi Gupta, Richard Hughes-Jones, Michael Chen, Larry McIntosh, Frank Leers SLAC, Manchester University, Chelsio and Sun Protocols for Fast Long Distance Networks, Lyon, France February, 2005 www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/scs/net/talk05/pfld-feb05.ppt Partially funded by DOE/MICS Field Work Proposal on Internet End-to-end Performance Monitoring (IEPM), also supported by IUPAP

  2. Project goals • Evaluate various techniques for achieving high bulk-throughput on fast long-distance real production WAN links • Compare & contrast: ease of configuration, throughput, convergence, fairness, stability etc. • For different RTTs • Recommend “optimum” techniques for data intensive science (BaBar) transfers using bbftp, bbcp, GridFTP • Validate simulator & emulator findings & provide feedback

  3. Techniques rejected • Jumbo frames • Not an IEEE standard • May break some UDP applications • Not supported on SLAC LAN • Sender mods only, HENP model is few big senders, lots of smaller receivers • Simplifies deployment, only a few hosts at a few sending sites • So no Dynamic Right Sizing (DRS) • Runs on production nets • No router mods (XCP/ECN)

  4. Software Transports • Advanced TCP stacks • To overcome AIMD congestion behavior of Reno based TCPs • BUT: • SLAC “datamover” are all based on Solaris, while advanced TCPs currently are Linux only • SLAC production systems people concerned about non-standard kernels, ensuring TCP patches keep current with security patches for SLAC supported Linux version • So also very interested in transport that runs in user space (no kernel mods) • Evaluate UDT from UIC folks

  5. Hardware Assists • For 1Gbits/s paths, cpu, bus etc. not a problem • For 10Gbits/s they are more important • NIC assistance to the CPU is becoming popular • Checksum offload • Interrupt coalescence • Large send/receive ofload (LSO/LRO) • TCP Offload Engine (TOE) • Several vendors for 10Gbits/s NICs, at least one for 1Gbits/s NIC • But currently restricts to using NIC vendor’s TCP implementation • Most focus is on the LAN • Cheap alternative to Infiniband, MyriNet etc.

  6. Protocols Evaluated • TCP (implementations as of April 2004) • Linux 2.4 New Reno with SACK: single and parallel streams (Reno) • Scalable TCP (Scalable) • Fast TCP • HighSpeed TCP (HSTCP) • HighSpeed TCP Low Priority (HSTCP-LP) • Binary Increase Control TCP (BICTCP) • Hamilton TCP (HTCP) • Layering TCP (LTCP) • UDP • UDT v2.

  7. Methodology (1Gbit/s) • Chose 3 paths from SLAC • Caltech (10ms), Univ Florida (80ms), CERN (180ms) • Used iperf/TCP and UDT/UDP to generate traffic • Each run was 16 minutes, in 7 regions SLAC bottleneck Caltech/UFL/CERN TCP/UDP Iperf or UDT Ping 1/s iperf ICMP/ping traffic 4 mins 2 mins

  8. Behavior Indicators • Achievable throughput • Stability S= σ/μ (standard deviation/average) • Intra-protocol fairness F =

  9. Behavior wrt RTT • 10ms (Caltech): Throughput, Stability (small is good), Fairnessminimum (over regions 2 thru 6) (closer to 1 is better) • Excl. FAST ~ 720±64Mbps, S~0.18±0.04, F~0.95 • FAST ~ 400±120Mbps, S=0.33, F~0.88 • 80ms (U. Florida): Throughput, Stability • All ~ 350±103Mbps, S=0.3±0.12, F~0.82 • 180ms (CERN): • All ~ 340±130Mbps, S=0.42±0.17, F~0.81 • The Stability and Fairness effects are more manifest on longer RTT, so focus on CERN

  10. Reno single stream • Low performance on fast long distance paths • AIMD (add a=1 pkt to cwnd / RTT, decrease cwnd by factor b=0.5 in congestion) • Net effect: recovers slowly, does not effectively use available bandwidth, so poor throughput • Remaining flows do not take up slack when flow removed Multiple streams increase recovery rate Congestion has a dramatic effect SLAC to CERN Recovery is slow RTT increases when achieves best throughput

  11. Fast • Also uses RTT to detect congestion • RTT is very stable: σ(RTT) ~ 9ms vs 37±0.14ms for the others 2nd flow never gets equal share of bandwidth Big drops in throughput which take several seconds to recover from SLAC-CERN

  12. HTCP • One of the best performers • Throughput is high • Big effects on RTT when achieves best throughput • Flows share equally Appears to need >1 flow to achieve best throughput Two flows share equally SLAC-CERN

  13. BICTCP • Needs > 1 flow for best throughput

  14. UDTv2 • Similar behavior to better TCP stacks • RTT very variable at best throughputs • Intra-protocol sharing is good • Behaves well as flows add & subtract

  15. Overall Scalable is one of best, but inter-protocol is poor (see Bullot et al.) BIC & HTCP are about equal UDT is close, BUT cpu intensive (used to be much (factor of 10) worse) Fast gives low RTT values & variability All TCP protocols use similar cpu (HSTCP looks poor because throughput low)

  16. 10Gbps tests • At SC2004 using two 10Gbps dedicated paths between Pittsburgh and Sunnyvale • Using Solaris 10 (build 69) and Linux 2.6 • On Sunfire Vx0z (dual & quad 2.4GHz 64 bit AMD Opterons) with PCI-X 133MHz 64 bit • Only 1500 Byte MTUs • Achievable performance limits (using iperf) • Reno TCP (multi-flows) vs UDTv2, • TOE (Chelsio) vs no TOE (S2io)

  17. Results • UDT limit was ~ 4.45Gbits/s • Cpu limited • TCP Limit was about 7.5±0.07 Gbps, regardless of: • Whether LAN (back to back) or WAN • WAN used 2MB window & 16 streams • Whether Solaris 10 or Linux 2.6 • Whether S2io or Chelsio NIC • Gating factor=PCI-X • Raw bandwidth 8.53Gbps • But transfer broken into segments to allow interleaving • E.g. with max memory read byte count of 4096Bytes with Intel Pro/10GbE LR NIC limit is 6.83Gbits/s • One host with 4 cpus & 2 NICs sent 11.5±0.2Gbps to two dual cpu hosts with 1 NIC each • Two hosts to two hosts (1 NIC/host) 9.07Gbps goodput forward & 5.6Gbps reverse

  18. TCP CPU Utilization • CPU power important • Each cpu=2.4GHz • Throughput increases with flows • Util. not linear(throughput) • Depends on flows too Chelsio(TOE) • Normalize GHz/Gbps • Chelsio + TOE + Linux 2.6.6 • S2io + CKS offload + Sol10 • S2io supports LSO but Sol10 did not, so not used • Microsoft reports 0.017GHz/Gbps with Windows+S2io/LSO, 1 flow

  19. Conclusions • Need testing on real networks • Controlled simulation & emulation critical for understanding • BUT need to verify, and results look different than expected (e.g. Fast) • Most important for transoceanic paths • UDT looks promising, still needs work for > 6Gbits/s • Need to evaluate various offloads (TOE, LSO ...) • Need to repeat inter-protocol fairness vs Reno • New buses important, need NICs to support then evaluate

  20. Further Information • Web site with lots of plots & analysis • www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/scs/net/papers/pfld05/ruchig/Fairness/ • Inter-protocols comparison (Journal of Grid Comp, PFLD04) • www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-10402.pdf • SC2004 details • www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/monitoring/bulk/sc2004/