T HE C OLLAPSE (~1100 BC) OF M YCENAEAN C IVILIZATION Santorini 500 yrs earlier.
U NDERSTANDING TCP I NCAST T HROUGHPUT C OLLAPSE IN D ATACENTER N ETWORKS Presenter: Aditya Agarwal...
-
Upload
bartholomew-rich -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
2
Transcript of U NDERSTANDING TCP I NCAST T HROUGHPUT C OLLAPSE IN D ATACENTER N ETWORKS Presenter: Aditya Agarwal...
UNDERSTANDING TCP INCAST THROUGHPUT COLLAPSE IN DATACENTER NETWORKS
Presenter: Aditya AgarwalTyler Maclean
MOTIVATION/IMPORTANCEMOTIVATION/IMPORTANCE
Internet datacenters support a myriad of service and applications. Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon
Vast majority of datacenter use TCP for communication between nodes.
The unique workload, scale and environment of internet datacenter violate the WAN assumption on which TCP was originally designed. RTO = 200ms (default value in Linux) 2-3 order of magnitude greater than the RTT in the data center
WHAT IS THE PROBLEMWHAT IS THE PROBLEM
Incast communication pattern:
Try to understand TCP incast throughput collapse. Prove this problem is general, An analytical model Modifications to TCP and make sure that it works
client
server
swit
ch server
server
THE CONTRIBUTIONSTHE CONTRIBUTIONS
Reproduce the problem in our own experimental testbeds and demonstrate the generality of Incast.
Propose a quantitative model that accounts some of the observed Incast behavior.
Implement several intuitive modifications to the TCP stack in Linux, and prove that some modifications are more helpful than others.
ROADMAPROADMAP
Experiment setting: Workload
Experiment results: Initial Finding Deep analysis
Quantitative Models Conclusions
WORKLOAD SETTINGWORKLOAD SETTING
Map Reduce like application: Receiver requests k blocks of data from S storage
servers. Each block of data striped across S storage servers Each server responses with a “fixed” amount of
data. (fixed-fragment workload) Client won’t request block k+1 until all the
fragments of block k have been received. Setting:
k=100 S = 1-48 fragment size : 256KB
DETER NETWORK SECURITY DETER NETWORK SECURITY TESTBEDTESTBED
400 PCs, located at USC ISI and UC Berkeley Supported operating systems include Linux,
FreeBSD, Windows
INITIAL RESULTSINITIAL RESULTS
Different sender experience long , synchronized TCP retransmission timeout (RTO) events. RTO =200ms (default
value in WAN environment)
MINOR AND INTUITIVE MINOR AND INTUITIVE MODIFICATIONSMODIFICATIONS
Decrease the minimum RTO timer from 200ms Randomize the minimum RTO timer Smaller multiplier for the RTO exponential back
off Randomize the multiplier for the RTO
exponential back off.
INITIAL RESULTSINITIAL RESULTS
Smaller multiplier for the RTO exponential back off Useless
Randomize the multiplier for the RTO exponential back off Useless
There are only a tiny number of exponential back offs for the entire transfer
INITIAL RESULTSINITIAL RESULTS
Randomize the RTO timer Useless, but also no
penalty
Because the servers share the same switch, all subsequent switch buffer overflow events will be synchronized for all sender.???
ANALYSIS IN DEPTHANALYSIS IN DEPTH
Different RTO Timers Observations:
Initial goodput min occurs at the same number of servers.
Larger min RTO timer value, max goodput occurs at large number of senders.
Smaller RTO timer value has faster goodput “recovery” rate
The decrease rate after local max is the same between different min RTO settings.
DELAY ACKS AND HIGH DELAY ACKS AND HIGH RESOLUTION TIMERSRESOLUTION TIMERS
Improving methods proposed by [11] Turn off the delay
ACKs function (defaults delayed ACKs threshold is 40ms)
Use high resolution Timer.
CONGESTION WINDOWS CONGESTION WINDOWS WITH/WITHOUT DELAY ACKSWITH/WITHOUT DELAY ACKS
SMOOTHED RTT SMOOTHED RTT WITH/WITHOUT DELAY ACKSWITH/WITHOUT DELAY ACKS
DIFFERENT WORKLOADDIFFERENT WORKLOAD
SUB-OPTIMAL BEHAVIOR WITH REGARDS SUB-OPTIMAL BEHAVIOR WITH REGARDS TO DELAYED ACKS IS WORKLOAD TO DELAYED ACKS IS WORKLOAD INDEPENDENT.INDEPENDENT.
CANNOT MATCH THE RESULTS IN CANNOT MATCH THE RESULTS IN PREVIOUS WORK[11]PREVIOUS WORK[11]
SMOOTHED RTT SMOOTHED RTT WITH/WITHOUT DELAY ACKSWITH/WITHOUT DELAY ACKS
QUANTITATIVE MODELSQUANTITATIVE MODELS
Net good put:
D: total amount of data to be sent, 100 blocks of 256KB L: total transfer time of the workload without and RTO
events. R: the number of RTO events during the transfer S: number of server: r: the value of the minimum RTO timer value
D
L (R* r)
S *D
L (R* r)
FIT THE CURVE OF THE NUMBER OF FIT THE CURVE OF THE NUMBER OF RTO EVENTSRTO EVENTS
EQUATION OF LEQUATION OF L
I is the inter-packet waiting time
HOW GOOD IS THEIR ANALYSIS HOW GOOD IS THEIR ANALYSIS MODEL?MODEL?
FURTHER ANALYSIS ON R FURTHER ANALYSIS ON R AND IAND I
Number of RTO event is similar for different RTO values( 200ms and 1ms).
Interpkt waiting is vary different for different RTO value( 200ms and 1ms).
QUALITATIVE REFINEMENT FOR QUALITATIVE REFINEMENT FOR THEIR MODELTHEIR MODEL
As the number of sender increase, the number of RTO event per sender increases. Beyond a certain number of sender, the number of RTO event is constant.
When a network resource becomes saturated, it is saturated at the same time for all senders.
After a congestion event, the senders enter the TCP RTO state. The RTO timer expires at each sender with a uniform distribution in time and a constant delay after the congestion event.
T is increase as the number of sender increase, however, T is bounded.
MORE EXPLANATIONS MORE EXPLANATIONS
A smaller minimum RTO timer value means larger goodput values for the initial minimum.
The initial goodput minimum occurs at the same number of senders, regardless the value of the minimum RTO times.
The second order goodput peak occurs at a higher number of senders for a larger RTO timer value
The smaller the RTO timer values, the faster the rate of recovery between the goodput minimum and the second order goodput maximum.
After the second order goodput maximum, the slope of goodput decrease is the same for different RTO timer values.
CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS
Study the dynamic of Incast. Propose a simple mathematical model to
explain the observed trends Account for the difference between their
observation and that in previous work.