1. The Impact of False Sharing on Shared Congestion Management Srinivasa Aditya Akella Joint work with Srini Seshan and Hari Balakrishnan 28 Feb, 2001

2. Introduction  Predominant model for congestion control  Slow-start  AIMD  Not always optimal  Multiple concurrent flows from Src to Dest may share a bottleneck  Compete for resources rather than co-operate  Especially visible in the context of Web transfers

3. Sharing Congestion Information...  Solution - share congestion information  Granularity of sharing  Common destination host (network interface)  All destination hosts on the same IP subnet  Set of flows sharing congestion info - macroflow

4. False Sharing  Flows sharing congestion state might not share the same bottleneck  Sender has no knowledge  False sharing in the Internet  Flows are treated differently- Service Differentiation  Flows take different paths - Path Diversity

5. False Sharing  Service Differentiation  Integrated Services  Differentiated Services (DiffServ)  Path Diversity  Network Load Balancers  Network Address translators (NATs)

6. Questions...  Impact on performance and correctness  Compromise to end-to-end congestion control?  Degradation in performance of individual flows?  Detection  Under what conditions can false-sharing be detected?  Response  How should congestion sharing systems be modified?  What effect do these modifications have?  What should be the default behavior?

7. Quantifying the Penalty XXX needs to be fixed  Analysis  False sharing reduces observed flow throughput   share   False sharing increases observed flow loss rate   _noshare = sqrt(  )   _share = 

8. Service Differentiation  Network treats different flows differently  Bandwidth allocation and buffer resources  IETF DiffServ architecture  Three PHBs : Assured Forwarding, Expedited Forwarding, Best Effort  Nortel's implementation of Diffserv  Experiments with two traffic classes : AF and BE  WRR for bandwidth sharing  RIO (for AF) and RED (for BE) for buffer management  Styles of buffer management  Shared and unshared

9. Topology for Diffserv

10. Results...  Predicted throughput = XXX need to fill  The faster connection is slowed down by the slower one  Slower connection is never persistently overloaded  Loss rate for the slower connection does not increase appreciably with sharing

11. Path Diversity  Two flows taking different routes may not share a bottleneck  Two scenarios where path diversity leads to false sharing  Dispersity Routing  NATs  Three distinct categories  Unshared bottleneck  No shared bottleneck link  Semi-shared bottleneck  One of the unshared paths has a bottleneck  Fully shared bottleneck  No bottlenecks in the unshared portions  RTTs would be different

12. Topology for Unshared Bottleneck

13. Results for Unshared-Bottleneck  Bandwidth is close to the prediction  Loss rates followed similar pattern as with the DiffServ case

14. Delays and Losses...  Delays vary independently of each other  Losses are uncorrelated  Variations and delays in losses in one flow are more correlated than those across flows

15. Path Diversity, Other Cases

16. Fully Shared Bottleneck - How is it Different?  Variations in delay seem correlated  The two flows share a common point of congestion  The flows should not share congection information

17. Detection " Test description – Rubenstein's Delay and Loss Correlation tests – Need modifications to be a part of the architecture " Flows might undergo false-sharing if even one of their bottlenecks is unshared " Two differentially served flows might observe statistically dependent delays " Scheduler at the sender might apportion bandwidths non-uniformly " Congestion control schemes depend on RTTs – Aggregating flows with different RTTs would lead to false sharing

18. Loss-correlation Test  Idea -- Losses are likely to come in bursts  This should hold across flows from the same source when a bottleneck is shared  Rubenstein's tests compare the auto and cross correlation metrics for pairs of flows  Does not detect unshared bottlenecks  Need a test to detect all if all bottlenecks are shared  New test - Symmetric Loss Correlation  Loss and cross correlation metrics defined in a manner independent of the flows solves the problem  However, packets across flows are assumed to be spaced closer than those within a flow -- Not always true  A fix -- Schedule transmmissions appropriately

19. Delay-correlation Test " Delay = f(propagation time, queueing delay) – Queueing delay (Q)can vary significantly with time – Current Q is strongly related to recently values " Challanges with measuring delay – Clocks cannot be easily synchronized " Use change in delay or the relative delay – Methodology of the tests " Use timestamps to compute delays " Compute correlations " Correlation is independent of constant differences

20. Out-of-Order Test  Flows might have fundamentally different delays  DelayCorr does not identify this  Loss and Delay tests might help detect false-sharing  MultiPath Routing where bottleneck is shared  Out-of-Order test handles this well  Look at packet reordering from a source  Reordering by more than 3 packets => No sharing  Limitation: Packets must be delivered to the same physical destination  Cannot be applied to situations like NAT  Rely on RTTs in such situations

21. Genuine Sharing is Harder to Detect

22. Evaluation of the Tests  Two metrics for each tests  Detection time  Probability of correct decision  Which test is the best?  Out-of-order tests are mostly accurate  Loss tests are neither timely nor accurate  Delay tests are timely but not as accurate  Symmetric Loss test ouputs correct result much more often than the asymmetric test

23. Response to False Sharing  Design Issues  Default behavior: share information and detect false- sharing  Scheduling  False sharing detected more easily than genuine sharing  Default of no-sharing makes no sense with out-of- order tests  Upon detection, stop sharing  In CM, associate the different flows to different macroflows  Relatively small confidence intervals can be used  No significant penalty due to an incorrect decision

24. Performance  How good can restoration possibly be?  False sharing may penalize flows significantly  It might take time to restore performance  However, the greater the penalty, the easier it is to detect  Approach to performance evaluation -- multiple, de-randomized, offline runs  Performance restored in less then a factor of 3 of time taken to detect