Research Rutherford Apparent Networks Size Matters: Performance Benefits (and Obstacles) of Jumbo Packets.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
IPv6 Victor T. Norman.
Advertisements

20.1 Chapter 20 Network Layer: Internet Protocol Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display.
20.1 Chapter 20 Network Layer: Internet Protocol Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display.
IPv4 - The Internet Protocol Version 4
IP datagrams Service paradigm, IP datagrams, routing, encapsulation, fragmentation and reassembly.
© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco Public 1 Addressing the Network – IPv4 Network Fundamentals – Chapter 6.
21.1 Chapter 21 Network Layer: Address Mapping, Error Reporting, and Multicasting Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction.
CCNA – Network Fundamentals
1 IP - The Internet Protocol Relates to Lab 2. A module on the Internet Protocol.
Doc.: IEEE /0604r1 Submission May 2014 Slide 1 Modeling and Evaluating Variable Bit rate Video Steaming for ax Date: Authors:
CSE551: Computer Network Review r Network Layers r TCP/UDP r IP.
Maximizing End-to-End Network Performance Thomas Hacker University of Michigan October 5, 2001.
Jumbo Packets for Application Performance Joint Techs Workshop Vancouver, BC 2005.
© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco Public 1 Version 4.0 OSI Transport Layer Network Fundamentals – Chapter 4.
By Aaron Thomas. Quick Network Protocol Intro. Layers 1- 3 of the 7 layer OSI Open System Interconnection Reference Model  Layer 1 Physical Transmission.
The Network Layer Chapter 5. The IP Protocol The IPv4 (Internet Protocol) header.
Chapter 5 The Network Layer.
IP-UDP-RTP Computer Networking (In Chap 3, 4, 7) 건국대학교 인터넷미디어공학부 임 창 훈.
GigE Knowledge. BODE, Company Profile Page: 2 Table of contents  GigE Benefits  Network Card and Jumbo Frames  Camera - IP address obtainment  Multi.
Chapter 4 Queuing, Datagrams, and Addressing
Draft-constantine-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-02.txt 1 TCP Throughput Testing Methodology IETF 77 Anaheim Barry Constantine Reinhard.
Lect3..ppt - 09/12/04 CIS 4100 Systems Performance and Evaluation Lecture 3 by Zornitza Genova Prodanoff.
CS 6401 Internet Protocol Outline Introduction to Internet Protocol Header and address formats ICMP Tools.
4: Network Layer4a-1 IP datagram format ver length 32 bits data (variable length, typically a TCP or UDP segment) 16-bit identifier Internet checksum time.
© Janice Regan, CMPT 128, CMPT 371 Data Communications and Networking Network Layer ICMP and fragmentation.
The Network Layer. Network Projects Must utilize sockets programming –Client and Server –Any platform Please submit one page proposal Can work individually.
JPL Campus Advanced ServicesCdL Claudia de Luna (818) December 4, 2000 JPL Campus Network Advanced.
1 IP: putting it all together Part 2 G53ACC Chris Greenhalgh.
© 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 Chapter 7: Transport Layer Introduction to Networking.
Towards a Common Communication Infrastructure for Clusters and Grids Darius Buntinas Argonne National Laboratory.
These materials are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported license (
TCP/IP Essentials A Lab-Based Approach Shivendra Panwar, Shiwen Mao Jeong-dong Ryoo, and Yihan Li Chapter 5 UDP and Its Applications.
Maximizing End-to-End Network Performance Thomas Hacker University of Michigan October 26, 2001.
Chap 9 TCP/IP Andres, Wen-Yuan Liao Department of Computer Science and Engineering De Lin Institute of Technology
© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco Public 1 Version 4.0 OSI Transport Layer Network Fundamentals – Chapter 4.
Fundamentals of Computer Networks ECE 478/578 Lecture #19: Transport Layer Instructor: Loukas Lazos Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering University.
Transport Layer: TCP and UDP. Overview of TCP/IP protocols Comparing TCP and UDP TCP connection: establishment, data transfer, and termination Allocation.
Bjorn Landfeldt, The University of Sydney 1 NETS 3303 Networked Systems Revision.
1 IP : Internet Protocol Computer Network System Sirak Kaewjamnong.
workshop eugene, oregon Network Performance Metrics Unix/IP Preparation Course July 19, 2009 Eugene, Oregon, USA Original Materials.
ICOM 6115©Manuel Rodriguez-Martinez ICOM 6115 – Computer Networks and the WWW Manuel Rodriguez-Martinez, Ph.D. Lecture 21.
Computer Security Workshops Networking 101. Reasons To Know Networking In Regard to Computer Security To understand the flow of information on the Internet.
1 Network Layer Lecture 16 Imran Ahmed University of Management & Technology.
CSC 600 Internetworking with TCP/IP Unit 7: IPv6 (ch. 33) Dr. Cheer-Sun Yang Spring 2001.
COP 5611 Operating Systems Spring 2010 Dan C. Marinescu Office: HEC 439 B Office hours: M-Wd 2:00-3:00 PM.
CS 4396 Computer Networks Lab
Transport Layer3-1 Chapter 4: Network Layer r 4. 1 Introduction r 4.2 Virtual circuit and datagram networks r 4.3 What’s inside a router r 4.4 IP: Internet.
Lecture 4 Overview. Ethernet Data Link Layer protocol Ethernet (IEEE 802.3) is widely used Supported by a variety of physical layer implementations Multi-access.
Department of Electronic Engineering City University of Hong Kong EE3900 Computer Networks Protocols and Architecture Slide 1 Use of Standard Protocols.
Performance Engineering E2EpiPEs and FastTCP Internet2 member meeting - Indianapolis World Telecom Geneva October 15, 2003
Prentice HallHigh Performance TCP/IP Networking, Hassan-Jain Chapter 13 TCP Implementation.
2010 kigali, rwanda Network Performance Metrics Unix/IP Preparation Course May 23, 2010 Kigali, Rwanda Original Materials by.
1 IEX8175 RF Electronics Avo Ots telekommunikatsiooni õppetool, TTÜ raadio- ja sidetehnika inst.
TCP transfers over high latency/bandwidth networks & Grid DT Measurements session PFLDnet February 3- 4, 2003 CERN, Geneva, Switzerland Sylvain Ravot
Size Matters: Network Performance on Jumbo Packets Summer 2004 Joint Techs Loki Jorgenson, Chief Scientist, Apparent Networks.
Uni Innsbruck Informatik th IETF, PMTUD WG: Path MTU Discovery Using Options draft-welzl-pmtud-options-01.txt Michael Welzl
Connect communicate collaborate Performance Metrics & Basic Tools Robert Stoy, DFN EGI TF, Madrid September 2013.
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco Public 1 OSI transport layer CCNA Exploration Semester 1 – Chapter 4.
Network layer (addendum) Slides adapted from material by Nick McKeown and Kevin Lai.
Graciela Perera Department of Computer Science and Information Systems Slide 1 of 18 INTRODUCTION NETWORKING CONCEPTS AND ADMINISTRATION CSIS 3723 Graciela.
VLAN Trunking Protocol
Net431:advanced net services
CS 457 – Lecture 10 Internetworking and IP
Extending IP to Low-Power, Wireless Personal Area Networks
TCP - Part I Relates to Lab 5. First module on TCP which covers packet format, data transfer, and connection management.
NTHU CS5421 Cloud Computing
Specialized Cloud Architectures
Chapter 4 Network Layer Computer Networking: A Top Down Approach 5th edition. Jim Kurose, Keith Ross Addison-Wesley, April Network Layer.
The Transport Layer Chapter 6.
32 bit destination IP address
Presentation transcript:

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks Size Matters: Performance Benefits (and Obstacles) of Jumbo Packets

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks 9k MTU Project test global path MTU on Abilene, CA*net4, CUDI and other R & E networks, plus create a useful researcher mapping tool Internet2 ATEAM - Advanced Test Engineering and Measurement Bill Rutherford (Rutherford Research/GAIT – Project Leader) Kevin Walsh, Nathaniel Mendoza (San Diego Supercomputing Center/SDSC) John Moore (Centaur Internet2 Technology Evaluation Center ITEC/NCSU North Carolina State University) Loki Jorgenson (Apparent Networks/SFU) Paul Schopis (Internet2 Technology Evaluation Center/ITEC- Ohio/ OARnet) Jorge Hernandez Serran (CUDI2/UNAM Mexico) Dave Hartzell (NASA Ames Research Center) Bill Jones (University of Texas Austin) Woojin Seok (Supercomputing Center Korea/KISTI)

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks 9k MTU Project Preliminary project flow Several Internet2 Joint Techs presentations Participation in HEP TRIUMF to CERN test run (Corrie Kost, Steven McDonald) Collaboration with equipment vendors Comprehensive testing on Abilene and CA*net4 First international 9k connection between I2 and C4 via StarLight Academic network and mapping system

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks 9k MTU Project Contributions Matt Mathis (Pittsburg Supercomputing Center) Theoretical considerations MTU role in TCP Joe St. Sauver (University of Oregon) Practical MTU considerations for campus and equipment issues Phillip Dykstra (Chief Scientist, WareOnEarth Communications Inc.) MTU related network tuning issues Bryan Caron (Network Manager Subatomic Physics, University of Alberta) CA*net4 testing

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks 9k MTU Project - Tools and Equipment NLANR Iperf tool to measure maximum TCP bandwidth reports bandwidth, delay, jitter, datagram loss Apparent Networks AppareNet network intelligence system Spirent Communications SmartBits 6000 series network analyzer automated testing from scripts high level of accuracy

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks Why Jumbo? Performance Benefits for high performance transfers High Energy Physics – TRIUMF to CERN test run National Light Rails/Paths Grid Networks/Next Generation Clusters Meteorology / Astrophysics / Bioinformatics Collaborative/interactive/video – access grid End-to-end path From NIC-to-NIC MTU requirement End station is typically the bottleneck Advent of Gig-E to the desktop

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks TCP Steady State If TCP window size and network capacity are not rate limiting factors then (roughly): 0.7 * Max Segment Size (MTU) e2e throughput < Round Trip Time (latency) sqrt[loss] M. Mathis, et.al. Double the MSS, double the throughput Halve the latency, double the throughput (shortest path matters) Halve the loss rate, 40% higher throughput

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks Frame Size vs. MTU vs. MSS – Ethernet Example

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks Abilene Results: iPerf NCSU   SDSC

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks About aNA appareNet Network for Academics Currently 16 sequencers across CA*net and Abilene NIS in Vancouver, Canada 10 Gig-E/Jumbo hosts 4 nodes in Canada BCNET Netera Alliance CA*net NOC ACORN-NS

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks – network intelligence Uses light, non-instrusive, adaptive active probing ICMP or UDP packets in various configurations Point-and-shoot to most IP addresses Performs comprehensive network path characterization Performs expert system diagnostics Single-ended  two-way measures (e.g. half-duplex different from full-duplex) Samples network to generate same view as best effort application (pre-TCP)

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks Abilene & CA*net Testing MTU 2048 MTU 3072 MTU 4096 MTU 5120 MTU 6144 MTU 7168 MTU 8192 MTU 9000 MTU

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks CA*net – 9k ORANs

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks CA*net4 Testing

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks L2 Trends Cisco ONS up to MTU CA*net4 L2 is implemented with ONS Cisco Catalyst 6000/3750 up to 9216/9018 MTU Foundry BigIron MG8 up to 9000 MTU “Jumbo frame support, up to 9 Kb, to expand data payload for network intense data transfer applications such as Storage Area Network (SAN) and Grid Computing.” Nortel Bay Stack 380 up to 9216 MTU “Jumbo frame support of up to 9,216 bytes is provided on each port for applications requiring large frames such as graphics and video applications.” Intel gigE and 10 x gigE NICs up to MTU Syskonnect gigE NICs up to 9000 MTU

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks L3 Trends Cisco 12000/7300 up to 9180/9192 MTU Juniper M & T series up to 9192 MTU Abilene backbone mainly Juniper T640 CA*net4 backbone are Juniper M20 or M40 Extreme series up to 9126 MTU “Jumbo Frames – Studies show server CPU utilization is reduced by as much as 50% with the use of jumbo frames in clustering applications. Extreme Networks has optimized around support for a 9K jumbo frame that delivers the most optimized performance for cluster applications.”

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks Multiprocessor OS

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks Scalability Issues current code approach scalable? strategy for minimizing memory footprint and processing overhead? implications for protocols? more stack tuning? (e.g. variable packet length?) byte counters? (e.g. IPv6 has a 16 bit counter) inter packet gaps? (e.g. IEEE 802.3z burst mode)

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks A Look Ahead Next-generation optical network-based virtual memory (VM) VM paging from disk scales with block transfer rate and mechanical seek latency VM paging from network scales with packet transfer rate and round trip time VM thrashing when OS is dominated by slow virtual memory swaps

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks Application Layer e2e application layer sensitivity look ahead Video or graphics (Nortel) Throughput, CPU utilization, Jitter, Drops Storage Area Network and Grid (Foundry) Throughput, CPU utilization Cluster applications (Extreme ) Throughput, CPU utilization

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks Initial CA*net4 Runs SDSC to Halifax

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks Initial CA*net4 Runs SDSC to CANARIE

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks Initial CUDI Runs SDSC to UNAM

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks Preventing MTU conflicts – Network Negotiation

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks MTU handling via Fragmentation Advantages: commonly implemented Disadvantages: extreme load on router some clients cannot reassemble packets Applications: ping router advertisements

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks MTU handling via RFC 1191 PMTU discovery Advantages: Router is not loaded Maximum performance achieved Disadvantages: reliance on ICMP easy to mis-configure Applications: almost all modern applications

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks GigE Black Hole Hop What is happening?: RFC 1191 and “TCP Slow Start” are interacting Packets are lost Retransmission happens, causing performance degradation Client responds to some packets, keeping connection open Overall performance appears slow to client

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks Avoiding GigE MTU problems Assign MTUs based on a per-subnet basis Be consistent with MTU values used Use 1500 bytes for legacy Ethernet (no registry hacks) We recommend 9000 bytes MTU for GigE when jumbo frames are used (standard for Internet2 Abilene Network) Remember to add 18 bytes when adjusting frame size (e.g. set NIC to 9018 bytes frame size to maintain a 9000 byte MTU) Remember not to arbitrarily filter out ICMP messages Careful use of VLANs Use of Layer 3 devices at MTU boundaries Maintain logical Layer 3 diagrams MTU: 9000

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks Path MTU Map Service Researcher tool to troubleshoot and help optimize path MTU

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks Resources Some Path MTU tools: ANA pMTU service – from ANA sequencers across I2/CA*net NCNE MTU Discovery Service – uses service located at NCNE pMTU Applet - Java-based client for end-user station Jumbo MTU Performance whitepaper

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks Demo: pMTU Client Demo pMTU applet

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks End of Presentation

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks GigE Black Hole Hop

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks MTU handling via fragmentation

Research Rutherford Apparent Networks MTU handling via RFC 1191 PMTU discovery