1 / 28

Fast Protocols for High-Speed Networks: Enhancing TCP and AQM for Ultrascale Applications

This presentation explores the FAST protocols developed at Caltech aimed at improving TCP and Active Queue Management (AQM) for ultrafast networks. With bandwidth capacities exceeding 10 Gbps and delays around 50-200 ms, the focus is on enhancing throughput while maintaining stability and fairness in data transfer. Key objectives include addressing the urgent need for efficient data-sharing systems in high-energy physics research, demonstrated through experiments and design implementations with partners like CERN and Cisco.

leda
Télécharger la présentation

Fast Protocols for High-Speed Networks: Enhancing TCP and AQM for Ultrascale Applications

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. FAST Protocolsfor High Speed Network David Wei @ netlab, Caltech For HENP WG, Feb 1st 2003

  2. WAN in Lab Caltech research & production networks • Internet: distributed feedback control system • TCP: adapts sending rate to congestion • AQM: feeds back congestion information Rf (s) x y Chicago CERN TCP AQM q p Rb’(s) StarLight Calren2/Abilene Geneva Multi-Gbps 50-200ms delay SURFNet Theory Experiment Amsterdam Implementation equilibrium 155Mb/s 10Gb/s slow start FAST retransmit time out FAST recovery FAST Protocols for Ultrascale Networks People Faculty Doyle (CDS,EE,BE) Low (CS,EE) Newman (Physics) Paganini (UCLA) Staff/Postdoc Bunn (CACR) Jin (CS) Ravot (Physics) Singh (CACR) Students Choe (Postech/CIT) Hu (Williams) J. Wang (CDS) Z.Wang (UCLA) Wei (CS) Industry Doraiswami (Cisco) Yip (Cisco) Partners CERN, Internet2, CENIC, StarLight/UI, SLAC, AMPATH, Cisco netlab.caltech.edu/FAST

  3. FAST project • Goal: Protocols (TCP/AQM) for ultrascale networks • Bandwidth: 10Mbps ~ > 100 Gbps • Delay: 50-200ms delay • Research: Theory, algorithms, design, implement, demo, deployment • Urgent Need: • Large amount of Data to share (500TB in SLAC) • Typical file in SLAC transfer ~1 TB (15 mins with 10Gbps)

  4. NewYork ABILENE UK STARLIGHT SuperJANET4 ESNET NL GENEVA SURFnet Wave Triangle GEANT CALREN It STAR-TAP GARR-B Fr Renater HEP Network (DataTAG) • 2.5 Gbps Wavelength Triangle 2002 • 10 Gbps Triangle in 2003 Newman (Caltech)

  5. ’01 155 ’02 622 ’03 2.5 Projected performance ’04 5 ’05 10 Ns-2: capacity = 155Mbps, 622Mbps, 2.5Gbps, 5Gbps, 10Gbps 100 sources, 100 ms round trip propagation delay J. Wang (Caltech)

  6. Current TCP (Linux Reno) Throughput as function of the time Chicago -> CERN Linux kernel 2.4.19 Traffic generated by iperf (I measure the throughput over the last 5 sec) TCP single stream RTT = 119ms MTU = 1500 Duration of the test : 2 hours By Sylvain Ravot (Caltech)

  7. Current TCP (Linux Reno) As MTU increase… 1.5K, 4K, 9K … By Sylvain Ravot (Caltech)

  8. Better? ???? By Some Dreamers (Somewhere) 

  9. FAST Sunnyval -> CERN Linux kernel 2.4.18-FAST enabled RTT = 180 ms MTU = 1500 Network • CERN (Geneva)  SLAC (Sunnyvale), GE, Standard MTU By C. Jin & D. Wei (Caltech)

  10. Theoretical Background

  11. Congestion control R xi(t) xi(t) xi(t)

  12. Congestion control AQM: Example congestion measure pl(t) • Loss (Reno) • Queueing delay (Vegas) yl(t) →pl(t) xi(t) xi(t) xi(t) TCP pl(t)

  13. pl(t) • AQM: • DropTail • RED • REM/PI • AVQ xi(t) TCP: • Reno • Vegas TCP/AQM • Congestion control is a distributed asynchronous algorithm to share bandwidth • It has two components • TCP: adapts sending rate (window) to congestion • AQM: adjusts & feeds back congestion information • They form a distributed feedback control system • Equilibrium & stability depends on both TCP and AQM • And on delay, capacity, routing, #connections

  14. Equilibrium • Performance • Throughput, loss, delay • Fairness • Utility Dynamics • Local stability • Cost of stabilization Methodology Protocol (Reno, Vegas, RED, REM/PI…)

  15. Goal: Fast AQM Scalable TCP • Equilibrium properties • Uses end-to-end delay (and loss) as congestion measure • Achieves any desired fairness, expressed by utility function • Very high bandwidth utilization (99% in theory) • Stability properties • Stability for arbitrary delay, capacity, routing & load • Good performance • Negligible queueing delay & loss introduced by the protocol • Fast response

  16. Implementation and Experiment

  17. Implementation First Version (demonstrated in SuperComputing Conf, Nov 2002): • Sender-side kernel modification (Good for File sharing service) • Challenges: • Effects ignored in theory • Large window size and high speed

  18. Network Topology Geneva 7000km Sunnyvale Baltimore 3000km 1000km Chicago SC2002 Baltimore, Nov 2002 Highlights SCinetCaltech-SLAC experiments • FAST TCP • Standard MTU • Peak window = 14,255 pkts • Throughput averaged over > 1hr • 925 Mbps single flow/GE card • 9.28 petabit-meter/sec • 1.89 times LSR • 8.6 Gbps with 10 flows • 34.0 petabit-meter/sec • 6.32 times LSR • 21TB in 6 hours with 10 flows 10 9 Geneva-Sunnyvale 7 #flows FAST 2 Baltimore-Sunnyvale 1 2 1 I2 LSR netlab.caltech.edu/FAST C. Jin, D. Wei, S. Low FAST Team and Partners

  19. FAST BMPS Mbps = 106 b/s; GB = 230 bytes • C. Jin, D. Wei, S. Low • FAST Team and Partners

  20. FAST BMPS Mbps = 106 b/s; GB = 230 bytes • C. Jin, D. Wei, S. Low • FAST Team and Partners

  21. FAST BMPS Mbps = 106 b/s; GB = 230 bytes • C. Jin, D. Wei, S. Low • FAST Team and Partners

  22. FAST BMPS Mbps = 106 b/s; GB = 230 bytes • C. Jin, D. Wei, S. Low • FAST Team and Partners

  23. FAST Aggregate throughput 88% FAST • Standard MTU • Utilization averaged over > 1hr 90% 90% Average utilization 92% 95% 6hr 1.1hr 6hr 1hr 1hr 1 flow 2 flows 7 flows 9 flows 10 flows C. Jin, D. Wei, S. Low

  24. FAST vs Linux TCP (2.4.18-3) 92% FAST • Standard MTU • Utilization averaged over 1hr 2G 48% Average utilization 95% 1G 27% 16% 19% txq=100 txq=10000 Linux TCP Linux TCP FAST Linux TCP Linux TCP FAST C. Jin (Caltech)

  25. Trial Deployment FAST Kernel Installed: • SLAC: Les Cottrell, etc. www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/monitoring/bulk/fast • FermiLab: Michael Ernst, etc. Coming soon: • 10-Gbps NIC Testing (Sunnyval - CERN) • Internet2 • …

  26. Detailed Information: • Home Page: http://Netlab.caltech.edu/FAST • Theory: http://netlab.caltech.edu/FAST/overview.html • Implementation & Testing: http://netlab.caltech.edu/FAST/software.html • Publications: http://netlab.caltech.edu/FAST/publications.html

  27. Acknowledgments netlab.caltech.edu/FAST FAST • Theory • D. Choe (Postech/Caltech), J. Doyle, S. Low, F. Paganini (UCLA), J. Wang, Z. Wang (UCLA) • Prototype • C. Jin, D. Wei • Experiment/facilities • Caltech: J. Bunn, C. Chapman, C. Hu (Williams/Caltech), H. Newman, J. Pool, S. Ravot (Caltech/CERN), S. Singh • CERN: O. Martin, P. Moroni • Cisco: B. Aiken, V. Doraiswami, R. Sepulveda, M. Turzanski, D. Walsten, S. Yip • DataTAG: E. Martelli, J. P. Martin-Flatin • Internet2: G. Almes, S. Corbato • Level(3): P. Fernes, R. Struble • SCinet: G. Goddard, J. Patton • SLAC: G. Buhrmaster, R. Les Cottrell, C. Logg, I. Mei, W. Matthews, R. Mount, J. Navratil, J. Williams • StarLight: T. deFanti, L. Winkler • TeraGrid: L. Winkler • Major sponsors • ARO, CACR, Cisco, DataTAG, DoE, Lee Center, NSF

  28. Thanks Questions?

More Related