AMP: A Better Multipath TCP for Data Center Networks

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Deconstructing Datacenter Packet Transport Mohammad Alizadeh, Shuang Yang, Sachin Katti, Nick McKeown, Balaji Prabhakar, Scott Shenker Stanford University.
Advertisements

Mohammad Alizadeh, Albert Greenberg, David A. Maltz, Jitendra Padhye Parveen Patel, Balaji Prabhakar, Sudipta Sengupta, Murari Sridharan Presented by Shaddi.
Improving Datacenter Performance and Robustness with Multipath TCP Costin Raiciu, Sebastien Barre, Christopher Pluntke, Adam Greenhalgh, Damon Wischik,
PFabric: Minimal Near-Optimal Datacenter Transport Mohammad Alizadeh Shuang Yang, Milad Sharif, Sachin Katti, Nick McKeown, Balaji Prabhakar, Scott Shenker.
Congestion Control: TCP & DC-TCP Swarun Kumar With Slides From: Prof. Katabi, Alizadeh et al.
Congestion control in data centers
Congestion Control Tanenbaum 5.3, /12/2015Congestion Control (A Loss Based Technique: TCP)2 What? Why? Congestion occurs when –there is no reservation.
Explicit Congestion Notification ECN Tilo Hamann Technical University Hamburg-Harburg, Germany.
Defense: Christopher Francis, Rumou duan Data Center TCP (DCTCP) 1.
1 Internet Networking Spring 2003 Tutorial 11 Explicit Congestion Notification (RFC 3168) Limited Transmit (RFC 3042)
1 TCP Transport Control Protocol Reliable In-order delivery Flow control Responds to congestion “Nice” Protocol.
1 Internet Networking Spring 2003 Tutorial 11 Explicit Congestion Notification (RFC 3168)
1 Chapter 3 Transport Layer. 2 Chapter 3 outline 3.1 Transport-layer services 3.2 Multiplexing and demultiplexing 3.3 Connectionless transport: UDP 3.4.
Data Communication and Networks
1 Spring Semester 2007, Dept. of Computer Science, Technion Internet Networking recitation #8 Explicit Congestion Notification (RFC 3168) Limited Transmit.
Jennifer Rexford Fall 2014 (TTh 3:00-4:20 in CS 105) COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks TCP.
Information-Agnostic Flow Scheduling for Commodity Data Centers
Congestion Control for High Bandwidth-Delay Product Environments Dina Katabi Mark Handley Charlie Rohrs.
Ns Simulation Final presentation Stella Pantofel Igor Berman Michael Halperin
ICTCP: Incast Congestion Control for TCP in Data Center Networks∗
TCP & Data Center Networking
Curbing Delays in Datacenters: Need Time to Save Time? Mohammad Alizadeh Sachin Katti, Balaji Prabhakar Insieme Networks Stanford University 1.
Transport Layer3-1 Chapter 3 outline r 3.1 Transport-layer services r 3.2 Multiplexing and demultiplexing r 3.3 Connectionless transport: UDP r 3.4 Principles.
B 李奕德.  Abstract  Intro  ECN in DCTCP  TDCTCP  Performance evaluation  conclusion.
Congestion control for Multipath TCP (MPTCP) Damon Wischik Costin Raiciu Adam Greenhalgh Mark Handley THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
Wei Bai with Li Chen, Kai Chen, Dongsu Han, Chen Tian, Hao Wang SING HKUST Information-Agnostic Flow Scheduling for Commodity Data Centers 1 SJTU,
© Janice Regan, CMPT 128, CMPT 371 Data Communications and Networking Congestion Control 0.
1 Three ways to (ab)use Multipath Congestion Control Costin Raiciu University Politehnica of Bucharest.
MMPTCP: A Multipath Transport Protocol for Data Centres 1 Morteza Kheirkhah University of Edinburgh, UK Ian Wakeman and George Parisis University of Sussex,
Revisiting Transport Congestion Control Jian He UT Austin 1.
Delay-based Congestion Control for Multipath TCP Yu Cao, Mingwei Xu, Xiaoming Fu Tsinghua University University of Goettingen.
Other Methods of Dealing with Congestion
MPTCP Implementation: Use cases for Enhancement Opportunities
Resilient Datacenter Load Balancing in the Wild
6.888 Lecture 5: Flow Scheduling
Impact of New CC on Cross Traffic
Internet Networking recitation #9
Topics discussed in this section:
Chapter 3 outline 3.1 transport-layer services
CUBIC Marcos Vieira.
Chapter 6 TCP Congestion Control
Improving Datacenter Performance and Robustness with Multipath TCP
Chapter 3 outline 3.1 Transport-layer services
Improving Datacenter Performance and Robustness with Multipath TCP
TCP Congestion Control
Multipath TCP Yifan Peng Oct 11, 2012
Congestion-Aware Load Balancing at the Virtual Edge
Hamed Rezaei, Mojtaba Malekpourshahraki, Balajee Vamanan
Augmenting Proactive Congestion Control with Aeolus
Congestion Control in Software Define Data Center Network
IT351: Mobile & Wireless Computing
The University of Adelaide, School of Computer Science
Congestion Control (from Chapter 05)
Chapter 6 TCP Congestion Control
Internet Networking recitation #10
Congestion Control (from Chapter 05)
Fast Congestion Control in RDMA-Based Datacenter Networks
Congestion Control (from Chapter 05)
Lecture 16, Computer Networks (198:552)
TCP Congestion Control
Congestion-Aware Load Balancing at the Virtual Edge
Lecture 17, Computer Networks (198:552)
Congestion Control (from Chapter 05)
Congestion Control (from Chapter 05)
Transport Layer: Congestion Control
Chapter 3 outline 3.1 Transport-layer services
Congestion Control (from Chapter 05)
TCP flow and congestion control
Congestion Control (from Chapter 05)
AMP: An Adaptive Multipath TCP for Data Center Networks
Presentation transcript:

AMP: A Better Multipath TCP for Data Center Networks Morteza Kheirkhah University of Edinburgh UK January 2017

Two Key Characteristics of Data Centre Networks (DCN) Diverse applications with diverse communication patterns and requirements Some apps are bandwidth hungry (online file storage) Other apps are latency sensitive (online search) Short flow dominance Majority of flows are short-lived with deadline in flow completion time (FCT). Majority of data volumes come from a few long flows. Data centers exhibit a highly dynamic network

Two Types of Network Congestion Persistent Congestion: Two or more long flows collide on a link (due to poor load-splitting of ECMP routing) Low overall network throughput Transient Congestion: Many short flows collide on a link High queuing delays and packet drop probability Latency sensitive short flows miss their deadlines

Persistent Congestion Existing Approaches Transient Congestion DCTCP (SIGCOMM ’10) D2TCP (SIGCOMM ’12) Persistent Congestion MPTCP (SIGCOMM ’11) Hedera (NSDI ’10) XMP (coNEXT ’13) Low latency for short flows High throughput for long flows XMP attempts to provide a good balance between the latency-throughput trade-off

Problems with XMP TCP Incast Last Hop Unfairness (LHU) XMP is not robust against the TCP Incast problem More subflows -> more packets -> buffer easily overflow -> higher chance of experiencing a retransmission timeout Last Hop Unfairness (LHU) XMP does not preserve network fairness when all its subflows compete with single-path flows at a shared link More subflows -> more throughput These problems are not only linked to XMP, they exist in any ECN-based variants of MPTCP

Incast (showcase) Multipath protocols use 4 subflows Flow size is 128KB Link rate 10Gbps Link delay 5us (RTT 20us) Switch buffer size is 100 packets The y-axies is log-scaled Data Center MultiPath (DCM) is another ECN-Capable MPTCP variants that we also proposed in this paper. The idea is to combine MPTCP with DCTCP. Multipath protocols complete their flows by 1-2 orders of magnitude longer than DCTCP

Last Hop Unfairness (example) Let’s assume: Propagation delay is zero Marking threshold (K) at switches sets to 4 packets (K=4) Minimum congestion window size sets to one packet (cwndmin=1) Normal situation Two single-path flows share the link fairly. Each flow generating two packets per RTT on average Persistent buffer inflation A new arriving packet always finds the queue size equal to K. Each flow is thus forced to reduce its cwnd to one packet Last Hop Unfairness The multipath flow (S5) with 4 subflows sending four times more packets than single-path flows The LHU leads to severe unfairness and escalates the likelihood of persistent buffer inflation significantly

Last Hop Unfairness (showcase) 8 DCTCP flows and one XMP flows As the number of XMP’s subflows increases, the impact of LHU problem increases

AMP: Adoptive Multipath TCP Key observation: When all subflows of a multipath flow have the smallest cwnd value, it is a good indicator that the subflows are at the same bottleneck link AMP’s subflow suppression/release algorithms: Suppression: When the minimum window state across all subflows remains for a small time period (e.g., 2 RTTs), AMP deactivate all subflows but one Release: When AMP no longer receives ECN-marked packets for some time period (e.g., 8 RTTs), it reactivates all suspended subflows AMP behaves like a single-path flow once it detects an Incast-like condition

AMP Simplifies Congestion Control Operation We make two key observations: RTT measurements of subflows are unnecessary for updating their cwnd (when ECN is used in a DCN) DCTCP-like window reduction slows down traffic shifting

AMP is robust against the TCP incast problem AMP under Incast Flow Size of 128KB AMP is robust against the TCP incast problem

AMP under LHU No. of multipath flows = 1 No. of subflow = 4 No LHU Severe LHU

Summary Existing multipath congestion control schemes fail to handle: The TCP incast problem that causes temporal switch buffer overflow due to synchronized traffic arrival The last hop unfairness that causes persistent buffer inflation and serious unfairness We designed AMP to effectively overcome these problems: AMP adoptively switches its operation between a multiple-subflow and single-subflow mode

AMP Paper and Source Code NS-3 implementation: https://github.com/mkheirkhah

Thank You!