My Experiences, results and remarks to TCP BW and CT Measurements Tools Jiří Navrátil SLAC

My interests concerns on How to achieve full BW utilization Analysis ofTools for BW estimation New methods of CT detection

Inspiration Les Cottrell IEPM metrics Jin Gujun (LBNL) netest-2 recommendation Feng Wu-Chun (LANL) simulations Diana Katabi, Charles Blake (MIT) bottleneck detection

Area of saturation = area of full utilization TCP windows size (not sufficient for HSL) Parallel streams combination

Plop – linux (LANL) 2x 22 Mbit, 4x24 Mbit, 8x24Mbit Saturation point

Plop – linux (LANL) 2x 22 Mbit, 4x24 Mbit, 8x24Mbit

No big difference between speed for P2,P4,P8, .. Plop – linux (LANL) 2x 22 Mbit, 4x24 Mbit, 8x24Mbit No big difference between speed for P2,P4,P8, ..

Inflexion point Plop – linux (LANL) 2x 22 Mbit, 4x24 Mbit, 8x24Mbit

Plop – linux (LANL) 2x 22 Mbit, 4x24 Mbit, 8x24Mbit

Why such distribution of throughput for individual streams ?

Internet path Out In Virtual queue

Problems of slow and high loaded lines All parallel streams share same “virtual queue” All “my traffic” share same queue with outside CT visible in statistics for “streams speed” visible in time reports (In iperf)

Plop – linux (LANL) 2x 22 Mbit, 4x24 Mbit, 8x24Mbit

Plop – linux (LANL) 2x 22 Mbit, 4x24 Mbit, 8x24Mbit

Why I cannot achieve more bandwidth with less streams? Is there a CT ? I don’t know !

Plop – linux (LANL) 2x 22 Mbit, 4x24 Mbit, 8x24Mbit

Plop – linux (LANL) 2x 22 Mbit, 4x24 Mbit, 8x24Mbit

Plop – linux (LANL) 2x 22 Mbit, 4x24 Mbit, 8x24Mbit

Plop – linux (LANL) 2x 22 Mbit, 4x24 Mbit, 8x24Mbit

The other TCP applications behave very similarly in same environment Conclusion: The other TCP applications behave very similarly in same environment But not all applications are so aggressive as Iperf !

Used tools for BW estimations Pathrate Pathload Iperf Netest-2 Incite BWe UDPmon

Short characteristic of methods Patharate + accurate - not very reliable, long run time Pathload + accurate, fast, light - limited range of operation ( < 155 Mbps)

Small comparisons

Short characteristic of methods Iperf + reliable - must be configured to use full BW and postprocessed - heavy load of lines during operation Netest-2 + reliable, good reports - must be configured to use full BW, - accurate (different timing scheme)

Plop – linux (LANL) 2x 22 Mbit, 4x24 Mbit, 8x24Mbit

Plop – linux (LANL) 2x 22 Mbit, 4x24 Mbit, 8x24Mbit

Plop – linux (LANL) 2x 22 Mbit, 4x24 Mbit, 8x24Mbit

Plop – linux (LANL) 2x 22 Mbit, 4x24 Mbit, 8x24Mbit

INCITE: Edge-based Traffic Processing and Service Inference for High-Performance Networks Richard Baraniuk, Rice University; Les Cottrell, SLAC; Wu-chun Feng, LANL Incite BW estimator

P2 P1 BWe ~f(VQ) =f(dTR) dTR <0,RTT> dTS (20 ms) Time P1 P2 P1 P2 dtp2 dTR RTT P1 P2 dtp1

Plop – linux (LANL) 2x 22 Mbit, 4x24 Mbit, 8x24Mbit

dt ~ F(VQ) ~ F(Internet) freq= volume/dt volume ~ pkt_length*8 dt ~ F(VQ) ~ F(Internet) BWe=Mean(freq) Open Problem What is pkt_length?

Virtual queue All “my test traffic” share same queue with outside CT (It means that delay caused to my pkts by VQ is not dependent only on my pkt_lengths !) The accuracy is dependent on knowlegde of packet distribution on particular path. The average packet length ~1000 bytes gives reasonable results. Virtual queue

Filtering & Averaging ANL Current/Average CERN Current/Average

Good Morning !

KPNQest UK-problems

Load balancing on one path router

Incite CT detection CT = f (dTR) INCITE: Edge-based Traffic Processing and Service Inference for High-Performance Networks Richard Baraniuk, Rice University; Les Cottrell, SLAC; Wu-chun Feng, LANL Incite CT detection CT = f (dTR)

MF-CT Features and benefits No need access to routers ! Current monitoring systems for Load of traffic are based on SNMP or Flows (needs access to routers) Low cost: Allows permanent monitoring (20 pkts/sec ~ overhead 10 Kbytes/sec) Can be used as data provider for ABW prediction (ABW=BW-CT) We have 2 data points of CT per second !! Weak point for common use MATLAB code

MF-CT verification model UDP echo SNMP counter CERN SNMP counter internet SNMP counter SNMP counter IN2P3 SLAC SNMP counter MF-CT Simulator UDP echo