Grid InterNetworking and QoS for the Grid

1. Grid InterNetworking andQoS for the Grid Michael Welzl http://www.welzl.at DPS NSG Team http://dps.uibk.ac.at/nsg Institute of Computer Science University of Innsbruck Q2S Colloquium Q2S/NTNU, Trondheim 4 September, 2006

2. Grid InterNetworking

3. What is the Grid? • Metaphor: power grid • just plug in, don‘t care where (processing) power comes from,don‘t care how it reaches you • Common definition:The real and specific problem that underlies the Grid concept is coordinated resource sharing and problem solving in dynamic, multi institutional virtual organizations[Ian Foster, Carl Kesselman and Steven Tuecke, “The Anatomy of the Grid – Enabling Scalable Virtual Organizations”, International Journal on Supercomputer Applications, 2001] • Common terms:Virtual Team - members of one or several Virtual Organizations who use a Grid • Most of the time... • the real and specific goal is High Performance Computing • virtual organizations and virtual teams are well defined(as opposed to the SETI@Home usage scenario) • i.e. not an „open“ system, security is a big issue

4. Scope • Grid history: parallel processing at a growing scale • Parallel CPU architectures • Multiprocessor machines • Clusters • (“Massively Distributed“) computers on the Internet Size • Traditional goal: processing power • Grid people = parallel people; thus, goal has not changed much • Broader definition (“resource sharing“) • reasonable - e.g., computers also have harddisks :-) • New research areas / buzzwords: Wireless Grid, DataGrid, Pervasive Grid, [this space reserved for your favorite research area] Grid • sometimes perhaps a little too broad, e.g., “P2P Working Group“ is now part of the Global Grid Forum Reasonable to focus on this.

5. Dynamic Instantiation Service Orchestration Quality of Service Grid Workflows based on activities Service Description Discovery, Selection Deployment, Invocation Web Services Descriptor Generation Component Interaction Optimization, Adaptation Components OMP Legacy codes Legacy Codes OMP Java MPI MPI MPI HPF HPF Grid Workflow Applications • Components are built, Web (Grid) Services are defined,Activities are specified • Activities (which may communicate with each other) should automatically be distributed by a scheduler

6. UIBK-DPS development: ASKALONA Grid Application Development and Computing Environment XML

7. Grid requirements • Efficiency + ease of use • Programmer should not worry (too much) about the Grid • Underlying system has to deal with • Error management • Authentification, Authorization and Accounting (AAA) • Efficient Scheduling / Load Balancing • Resource finding and brokerage • Naming • Resource access and monitoring • No problem: we do it all - in Middleware • de facto standard: “Globus Toolkit“ • installation of GT3 in our high performance system: 1 1/2 hours or so... • yes, it truly does it all :) 1000s of addons - GridFTP, MDS, NWS, GRAM, .. • this is just the basis - e.g., ASKALON is layered on top of Globus

8. Grid-network peculiarities • Special behavior • Predictable traffic pattern - this is totally new to the Internet! • Web: users create traffic • FTP download: starts ... ends • Streaming video: either CBR or depends on content! (head movement, ..) • Could be exploited by congestion control mechanisms • Distinction: Bulk data transfer (e.g. GridFTP) vs. control messages (e.g. SOAP) • File transfers are often “pushed“ and not “pulled“ • Distributed System which is active for a while • overlay based network enhancements possible • Multicast • P2P paradigm: “do work for others for the sake of enhancing the whole system (in your own interest)“ can be applied - e.g. act as a PEP, ... • sophisticated network measurements possible • can exploit longevity and distributed infrastructure • Special requirements • file transfer delay predictions • note: useless without knowing about shared bottlenecks • QoS, but for file transfers only (“advance reservation“)

9. Enriched with customisednetwork mechanisms Original Internet technology EC-GIN Today‘s Grid applications EC-GIN enabledGrid applications Real-time multimedia applications (VoIP, video conference, ..) Research gap: Grid-specificnetwork enhancements Bringing the Grid to its full potential ! Applications with specialnetwork properties andrequirements Driving a racing caron a public road Traditional Internet applications(web browser, ftp, ..)

10. What is EC-GIN? • European project: Europe-China Grid InterNetworking • STREP in European IST FP6 Call 6 • 2.2 MEuro, 11 partners (7 Europe + 4 China) • Networkers developing mechanisms for Grids

11. Research Challenges • Research Challenges: • How to model Grid traffic? • Much is known about web traffic (e.g. self-similarity) - but the Grid is different! • How to simulate a Grid-network? • Necessary for checking various environment conditions • May require traffic model (above) • Currently, Grid-Sim / Net-Sim are two separate worlds(different goals, assumptions, tools, people) • How to specify network requirements? • Explicit or implicit, guaranteed or “elastic“, various possible levels of granularity • How to align network and Grid economics? • Combined usage based pricing for various resources including the network • What P2P methods are suitable for the Grid? • What is the right means for storing short-lived performance data?

12. GIN API GIN API Traditional method Our approach Some issues: application interface... • How to specify properties and requirements • Should be simple and flexible - use QoS specification languages? • Should applications be aware of this? Trade-off between service granularity and transparency!

13. Data flow Intermediary helper Grid end system Grid end system (a) Traditional PEP Grid end system Intermediary helper ... and peer awareness Data flow Data flow Grid end system (b) NSG PEP

14. Conflict! Problem: How Grid folks see the Internet Just like Web Service community • Abstraction - simply use what is available • still: performance = main goal • Existing transport system(TCP/IP + Routing + ..) works well • QoS makes things better, the Grid needs it! • we now have a chance for that, thanks to IPv6 Absolutely not like Web Service community ! Wrong. • Quote from a paper review: • “In fact, any solution that requires changing the TCP/IP protocol stack is practically unapplicable to real-world scenarios, (..).“ • How to change this view • Create awareness - e.g. GGF GHPN-RG published documents such as“net issues with grids“, “overview of transport protocols“ • Develop solutions and publish them! (EC-GIN, GridNets)

15. (Real-life)coding begins Thesis writing Research begins Real-life tests begin Ideal Thesis writing Research begins (Simulation)coding begins A time-to-market issue Typical Grid project Result: thesis + running code;tests in collaboration withdifferent research areas Typical Network project Result: thesis + simulationcode; perhaps early real-lifeprototype (if students did well)

16. Machine-only communication • Trend in networks: from support of Human-Human Communication • email, chat • via Human-Machine Communication • web surfing, file downloads (P2P systems), streaming media • to Machine-machine Communication • Growing number of commercial web service based applications • New “hype“ technologies: Sensor nets, Autonomic Computing vision • Semantic Web (Services): first big step for supporting machine-only communication at a high level • So far, no steps at a lower level • This would be like RTP, RTCP, SIP, DCCP, ... for multimedia apps:not absolutely necessary, but advantageous

17. Grid Future work Web serviceapplications Sensor nets The long-term value of Grid-net research • Key for achieving this: change viewpoint from“what can we do for the Grid“ to “what can the Grid do for us“(or from “what does the Grid need“ to “what does the Grid mean to us“) • A subset of Grid-net developments willbe useful for other machine-onlycommunication systems!

18. QoS for the Grid A Grid InterNetworking exampe

19. QoS: the state-of-the-art :-( Papers from SIGCOMM‘03 RIPQOS Workshop: “Why do we care, what have we learned?“ • QoS`s Downfall: At the bottom, or not at all!Jon Crowcroft, Steven Hand, Richard Mortier,Timothy Roscoe, Andrew Warfield • Failure to Thrive: QoS and the Culture of Operational NetworkingGregory Bell • Beyond Technology: The Missing Pieces for QoS SuccessCarlos Macian, Lars Burgstahler, Wolfgang Payer, Sascha Junghans, Christian Hauser, Juergen Jaehnert • Deployment Experience with Differentiated ServicesBruce Davie • Quality of Service and Denial of ServiceStanislav Shalunov, Benjamin Teitelbaum • Networked games --- a QoS-sensitive application for QoS-insensitive users?Tristan Henderson, Saleem Bhatti • What QoS Research Hasn`t Understood About RiskBen Teitelbaum, Stanislav Shalunov • Internet Service Differentiation using Transport Options:the case for policy-aware congestion controlPanos Gevros

20. Key reasons for QoS failure • Required participation of end users and all intermediate ISPs • “normal“ Internet users want Internet-wide QoS, or no QoS at all • In a Grid, a “virtual team“ wants QoS between its nodes • Members of the team share the same ISPs - flow of $$$ is possible • Technical inability to provision individual (per-flow) QoS • “normal“ Internet users • unlimited number of flows come and go at any time • heterogeneous traffic mix • Grid users • number of members in a “virtual team“ may be limited • clear distinction between bulk data transfer and SOAP messages • appearance of flows mostly controlled by machines, not humans •  QoS can work for the Grid ! • still, often practical problems (involvement of many ISPs for global Grid, ..)

21. Proposed architecture • Goal: efficient per-flow QoS without signaling to routers • ultimate dream (very long-term goal): without any router involvement!(99% instead of 100% reliable guarantees) • Idea: use traditional coarse-grain QoS (DiffServ) to differentiate between • long-lived bulk data transfer with advance reservation(EF) and • everything else (= SOAP etc. over TCP) (best effort) • Allows us to assume isolated traffic; planned to drop this requirement later • Because data transfers are long lived, apply admission control • Flows signal to resource broker (RB) when joining or leaving the network • Mandate usage of one particular congestion control mechanism for all flows in the EF aggregate • Enables efficient resource usage because flows are elastic

22. Key ingredients of our QoS soup • Link capacities must be known, paths should be stable(capacity information should be updated upon routing change) • Shared bottlenecks must be known • Bottlenecks must be fairly shared by congestion control mechanism irrespective of RTT (max-main fairness required, i.e. all flows must increase their rates until they reach their limit) • No signaling to routers = no way to enforce proper behavior there must be no cheaters • User incentive: fair behavior among cooperating nodes among which Grid application is distributed • Unfair behavior between Grid apps 1 and 2 in same Grid neglected(usually acceptable, as used by same Virtual Organization)

23. Link capacities must be known • Can be attained with measurements • Working on permanently active, (mostly) passive measurement system for the Grid that detects capacity with packet pair • send two packets p1 and p2 in a row; high probability that p2 is enqueued exactly behind p1 at bottleneck • at receiver: calculate bottleneck bandwidth via time between p1 and p2 • e.g. TCP: “Delayed ACK“receiver automatically sendspacket pairs passive TCP receivermonitoring is quite good! • exploit longevity - minimizeerror by listening for along time

24. Shared bottlenecks must be known • Simple basis: distributed traceroute tool • enhancement: traceroute terminates early upon detection of known hop • Handle “black holes“ in traceroute • generate test messages from A, B to C - identify signature from B in A‘s traffic • method has worked in the past: “controlled flooding“ for DDoS detection

25. increase/decreasefactors are f(RTT) Congestion Control mechanism must be max-min fair • Was once said to be impossible without per-flow state in routers • not true; XCP and some others • but these explicit require router support... • Main problem: dependence on RTT • three good indications that this can be removed without router support • CADPC/PTP (my Ph.D. thesis)... • max-min fairness based on router feedback, but only capacity and available bandwidth (could also be obtain by measuring) • Result in old paper on phase effects by Sally Floyd • TCP Libra • Problem: efficiency - no max-min fair “high-speed“ CC mechanism without router support • now: plan to change existing one based on knowledge from above examples

26. 2. yes 4. ok 1. may I join? 3. I quit Per-flow QoS without signaling to routers Traditional method: signaling to edge routers (e.g. with COPS) at this point! Synchronization ofdistributed (P2P based)database; all flows knownto all brokers Synchronization ofdistributed (P2P based)database; all flows knownto all brokers Synchronization ofdistributed (P2P based)database; link capacitiesknown to all brokers continuous measurements;update to BB upon path change

27. Efficiency via elasticity • QoS guarantees in Grid: „File will be transferred within X seconds“ enables flexible resource usage

28. Efficiency via elasticity /2 • Flow 1 stopped, flows 2-4 automatically increase their rates • leading to earlier termination times E2‘-E4‘; known to (calculated by) BB

29. Efficiency via elasticity /3 • Flow 5 asks BB for admission • BB knows about current rates and promised E2-E4, grants access

30. Efficiency via elasticity /4 • Flow 2 terminates in time • Flows 3-5 will also terminate in time Additional flow admitted and earlier termination times than promised!

31. Elasticity without Congestion Control? • Significant amount of additional signaling necessary As flow 5 is admitted, signal “reduce your rates“ toflows 2-4 required! As Flow-1 stops, Flows 2-4 could increase their rates Without congestion control, signal “increase your rates“ to flows 2-4 required!

32. Additional considerations • How to assign different rates to different flows? • max-min fairness: if a sender “acts“ like two, it obtains twice the rate • consider rate consisting of slots (e.g. 1 kbit/s = 1 slot) • flows can consist of several slots • let congestion control mechanism operate on slots • Possibility:admit new flows when things look even worse • in previous example, flows terminated earlier despite the entry of flow 5 unnecessary, would be possible to reduce their rates a bit(main goal of architecture: say „yes“ to requests and fulfil them) • what if only one of the flows would terminate earlier than promised? • introduce unfairness: remove slots from a flow which previously increased its rate if deadline can still be kept (calculated in BB) • disadvantage: more signaling again

33. Difficult & distant future work • Drop requirement of traffic isolation via DiffServ • constantly obtain and update conservative estimate of available bandwidth using packet pair (works without saturating link) • ensure that limit is never exceeded; “condition red“ otherwise! • Some open questions... • does this require the CC mechanism to be TCP-friendly? • condition red: reduce slots, or let flows be aggressive for a short time? • How to handle routing changes • will be noticed, but can reduce capacity  break QoS guarantee • condition red; can happen in worst case, but to be avoided at all cost • mitigation methods • very conservative estimate of available bandwidth; leave headroom • tell senders to reroute via intermediate end systems • Bottom line: lots of complicated issues, but possible to solve them

34. Thank you! Questions?