Measurement-Based Server Selection within the Application-Layer Anycasting Architecture Mostafa H. Ammar College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Pastry Peter Druschel, Rice University Antony Rowstron, Microsoft Research UK Some slides are borrowed from the original presentation by the authors.
Advertisements

Akamai DNS Offerings RSA © Conference ©2013 AKAMAI | FASTER FORWARD TM Akamai DNS Solutions Enhanced DNS (eDNS) Scalable, outsourced, DNS solution.
Cloud Control with Distributed Rate Limiting Raghaven et all Presented by: Brian Card CS Fall Kinicki 1.
1 Server Selection & Content Distribution Networks (slides by Srini Seshan, CS CMU)
On the Effectiveness of Measurement Reuse for Performance-Based Detouring David Choffnes Fabian Bustamante Fabian Bustamante Northwestern University INFOCOM.
CompSci 356: Computer Network Architectures Lecture 21: Content Distribution Chapter 9.4 Xiaowei Yang
Computer Networks: Domain Name System. The domain name system (DNS) is an application-layer protocol for mapping domain names to IP addresses Vacation.
Module 8: Concepts of a Network Load Balancing Cluster
Application Layer Anycasting: A Server Selection Architecture and Use in a Replicated Web Service Presented in by Jayanthkumar Kannan On 11/26/03.
Adaptive Web Caching: Towards a New Caching Architecture Authors and Institutions: Scott Michel, Khoi Nguyen, Adam Rosenstein and Lixia Zhang UCLA Computer.
1 Chapter 1: Characterization of Distributed Systems From Coulouris, Dollimore and Kindberg Distributed Systems: Concepts and Design Edition 3, © Addison-Wesley.
Rutgers PANIC Laboratory The State University of New Jersey Self-Managing Federated Services Francisco Matias Cuenca-Acuna and Thu D. Nguyen Department.
Challenges, Opportunities and Initiatives Panel Statement Mostafa H. Ammar College of Computing Georgia Tech.
70-290: MCSE Guide to Managing a Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Environment Chapter 1: Introduction to Windows Server 2003.
Application Layer At long last we can ask the question - how does the user interface with the network?
Computer Networking Lecture 24 – Multicast.
Collaborative Web Caching Based on Proxy Affinities Jiong Yang, Wei Wang in T. J.Watson Research Center Richard Muntz in Computer Science Department of.
Prefix-Preserving IP Address Anonymization: Measurement-based Security Evaluation and a New Cryptography-based Scheme Jun Xu, Jinliang Fan, Mostafa Ammar,
Anycast Jennifer Rexford Advanced Computer Networks Tuesdays/Thursdays 1:30pm-2:50pm.
Application-Layer Anycasting: A Server Selection Architecture and Use in a Replicated Web Service IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking Vol.8, No. 4, August.
Topics in Reliable Distributed Systems Fall Dr. Idit Keidar.
SomeCast A Paradigm for Real-Time Adaptive Reliable Multicast Presented by: Ibrahim Matta IEEE Real-Time Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS ‘2000),
Threat infrastructure: proxies, botnets, fast-flux
70-293: MCSE Guide to Planning a Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Network, Enhanced Chapter 7: Planning a DNS Strategy.
1 Web Content Delivery Reading: Section and COS 461: Computer Networks Spring 2007 (MW 1:30-2:50 in Friend 004) Ioannis Avramopoulos Instructor:
1 A Framework for Highly Available Services Based on Group Communication Alan Fekete Idit Keidar University of Sidney MIT.
1 Towards a deployable IP Anycast service Hitesh Ballani, Paul Francis Cornell University {hitesh,
1CS 6401 Peer-to-Peer Networks Outline Overview Gnutella Structured Overlays BitTorrent.
Multicast and Anycast Mike Freedman COS 461: Computer Networks
ACDN: A CDN for Applications Pradnya Karbhari Michael Rabinovich Zhen Xiao Fred Douglis AT&T Labs -- Research.
1 Content Distribution Networks. 2 Replication Issues Request distribution: how to transparently distribute requests for content among replication servers.
Active Network Applications Tom Anderson University of Washington.
On the Power of Off-line Data in Approximating Internet Distances Danny Raz Technion - Israel Institute.
{ Content Distribution Networks ECE544 Dhananjay Makwana Principal Software Engineer, Semandex Networks 5/2/14ECE544.
Slow Web Site Problem Analysis Last Update Copyright 2013 Kenneth M. Chipps Ph.D. 1.
SMUCSE 4344 application layer. SMUCSE 4344 application vs. application-layer protocols application-layer protocol is just one piece –how the end hosts.
1 One-Click Hosting Services: A File-Sharing Hideout Demetris Antoniades Evangelos P. Markatos ICS-FORTH Heraklion,
Ao-Jan Su, David R. Choffnes, Fabián E. Bustamante and Aleksandar Kuzmanovic Department of EECS Northwestern University Relative Network Positioning via.
Application-Layer Anycasting By Samarat Bhattacharjee et al. Presented by Matt Miller September 30, 2002.
Microsoft Active Directory(AD) A presentation by Robert, Jasmine, Val and Scott IMT546 December 11, 2004.
Chapter 1: Introduction to Web Applications. This chapter gives an overview of the Internet, and where the World Wide Web fits in. It then outlines the.
CPSC 441: Multimedia Networking1 Outline r Scalable Streaming Techniques r Content Distribution Networks.
©2010 John Wiley and Sons Chapter 12 Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction Chapter 12- Automated Data Collection.
An Efficient Approach for Content Delivery in Overlay Networks Mohammad Malli Chadi Barakat, Walid Dabbous Planete Project To appear in proceedings of.
The Inter-network is a big network of networks.. The five-layer networking model for the internet.
Fast Handoff for Seamless wireless mesh Networks Yair Amir, Clauiu Danilov, Michael Hilsdale Mobisys’ Jeon, Seung-woo.
TOMA: A Viable Solution for Large- Scale Multicast Service Support Li Lao, Jun-Hong Cui, and Mario Gerla UCLA and University of Connecticut Networking.
Development of the domain name system Baoning Wu 01/30/2003.
Beyond Server Selection: Challenges in Multiple-Origin Content Distribution Mostafa H. Ammar College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta,
2: Application Layer1 Chapter 2: Application layer r 2.1 Principles of network applications  app architectures  app requirements r 2.2 Web and HTTP r.
Vytautas Valancius, Nick Feamster, Akihiro Nakao, and Jennifer Rexford.
© McLean HIGHER COMPUTER NETWORKING Lesson 4: Domain Name Service Description of domain names and name resolution Domain name servers and domain.
The Replica Location Service The Globus Project™ And The DataGrid Project Copyright (c) 2002 University of Chicago and The University of Southern California.
Load Distribution among Replicated Web Servers: A QoS-based Approach Marco Conti, Enrico Gregori, Fabio Panzieri WISP KAIST EECSD CALab Hwang.
PROP: A Scalable and Reliable P2P Assisted Proxy Streaming System Computer Science Department College of William and Mary Lei Guo, Songqing Chen, and Xiaodong.
CS Spring 2009 CS 414 – Multimedia Systems Design Lecture 30 – Media Server (Part 5) Klara Nahrstedt Spring 2009.
Globally Distributed Content Delivery Presenter: Baoning Wu 03/25/2003.
Algorithms and Techniques in Structured Scalable Peer-to-Peer Networks
Content Delivery Networks: Status and Trends Speaker: Shao-Fen Chou Advisor: Dr. Ho-Ting Wu 5/8/
Network Computing Laboratory Load Balancing and Stability Issues in Algorithms for Service Composition Bhaskaran Raman & Randy H.Katz U.C Berkeley INFOCOM.
John S. Otto Mario A. Sánchez John P. Rula Fabián E. Bustamante Northwestern, EECS.
Multicast in Information-Centric Networking March 2012.
Scaling Network Load Balancing Clusters
An example of peer-to-peer application
Module 8: Networking Services
Mohammad Malli Chadi Barakat, Walid Dabbous Alcatel meeting
Memory Management for Scalable Web Data Servers
Early Measurements of a Cluster-based Architecture for P2P Systems
Chapter 12: Automated data collection methods
EE 122: Lecture 22 (Overlay Networks)
Presentation transcript:

Measurement-Based Server Selection within the Application-Layer Anycasting Architecture Mostafa H. Ammar College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA

Contributors zSamrat Bhattacharjee zZongming Fei zEllen Zegura

Server Replication zImproves service scalability zServer Selection Problem How does a client determine which of the replicated servers to access zInterested in Wide-Area Replication

Server Selection Alternatives zDesignated Server (e.g., nearest) zRound robin assignment (e.g., DNS rotator) zExplicit list with user selection zServer-cluster techniques (Netdispatcher, Local Director)

Other Interesting Work zDSS -- BU zSPAND -- Berkeley zMirror Characterization -- CMU zIDMaps -- UMich, UCLA et al...

Anycasting zNetwork-Layer Anycasting in RFC 1541 yAnycast IP addresses yNetwork-layer metrics yPer-packet selection

Application-Layer Anycasting zGroup of servers identified by Anycast Name zClients request service from group identified by name zAutomatic connection to a “good” server

An Architecture Resolver Orange Server Group Green Server Group Green Service? Go to server y Server y

Resolver z“Close” to client zMaintains yAnycast group membership ySelection-enabling information zClient may provide filter that tells resolver how to select zDNS-like hierarchy of resolvers

Web Server Selection zAn instantiation of architecture zCriterion: Best Response Time y[client request, last byte received] yincludes path and server delays zProblem: Maintaining response time estimate for each server in anycast group at resolver

Response Time Estimation Alternatives zProbe zPush zUser-Experience

Overview of Approach zResolver probes for path-dependent response time (RT) zServer measures and pushes path-independent processing time (TUFR) zLighter-weight push more frequent than heavier-weight probe zProbe result used to calibrate pushed value zOscillation prevention measures

Resolvers Probe for RT and Associated TUFR Resolver Orange Server Group Green Server Group SF = RT/TUFR RT & TUFR Probe for well-known representative “dummy” file maintained by server. TUFR written in file by server

Servers Push TUFR Resolver Orange Server Group Green Server Group RT = SF x TUFR TUFR

Resolver and Server Interaction Content Server Push Daemon Resolver Probe Anycast Resolver ServerResolver Performance Updates Probes Server Pushes Probe Updates

Server Push Process zTypical server response cycle assign process to handle query parse query locate requested file repeat until file is written read from file write to network zMeasure and smooth time until first read (TUFR) zPush if significant change

Resolver Probe Process zRequest dummy file from server zMeasure response time

Hybrid Push/Probe Technique zResolver: request dummy file from server zMeasure response time (RT) zDummy file contains most recent TUFR zEach probe: compute scaling factor SF = RT/TUFR zEach Push: estimate response time RT = SF x TUFR

Evaluation of Hybrid Technique Resolver: UMD, Server: GT Probe 1/50 accesses, Push max 1/4 sec

Wide-Area Experiments UCLA WU UMD GT Servers: UCLA, GTx2, WU, Clients: UMDx4, GTx16, Resolvers: UMD, GT

Anycasting VS Random Selection

Summary of Experiments z 50% improvement using nearest server z Another 50% using Anycasting z More predictable Service

What if Anycasting is popular?

Avoiding Oscillations zIndicating “best” server when queried can result in oscillations zUse set of equivalent best servers zHysteresis to join and leave set zChoose randomly among set

Effect of Oscillation Prevention Technique Server Load Basic Technique Basic technique with oscillation prevention

Worried about Scalability? zMe Too! yMulticast pushed data yControl frequency of push/probe -- CMU’s results are encouraging yResolver can track “most promising” servers only yLimit number of Anycast Groups yUsers pay premium for service

Concluding Remarks zAppropriate guidance of clients to servers is an important infrastructure function zClient-perceived as well as global performance can be improved with the appropriate selection technology zEmerging services and network environment makes problem more challenging and more important