1. Performance Evaluation of a Communication Round over the Internet
Omar Bakr Idit Keidar
MIT MIT/Technion
PODC 2002

2. Communication Round
Exchange of information from all hosts to all hosts
Part of many distributed algorithms, systems
consensus, atomic commit, replication, ...

3. Common Metric for Evaluating Algorithms
Number of rounds (or steps) they require

4. Questions
What is the best way to implement a communication round over the Internet
decentralized vs. centralized
How long is a communication round over the Internet?

5. Prediction is Hard Internet is unpredictable, diverse, …
Different answers for different topologies, different times
Different performance metrics
local running time one host is engaged in algorithm
overall running time from when first host starts to when last host finishes

6. “Communication Round” Primitive
Initiated by some host
Propagates data from every host to every other host connected to it

7. Example Implementations
All-to-all
Leader
Secondary Leader

8. Experiment I 10 hosts: Taiwan, Korea, US academia, ISPs
TCP/IP (connections always up)
Algorithms:
All-to-all
Leader (initiator)
Secondary leader (not initiator)
periodically initiated at each host
- 650 times over 3.5 days

9. Computing Overall Running Time
Elapsed time from initiation (at initiator) until all hosts terminate
Requires estimating clock differences
Clocks not synchronized, drift
We compute difference over short intervals
Compute 3 different ways
Achieve accuracy within 20 ms. on 90% of runs

10. Teaser: Comparing Performance Based on Number of Steps
All-to-all: 2
Leader: 3
Secondary Leader: 4

11. Predicting Overall Runnig Times From MIT
Ping-measured latencies (IP):
Longest link latency 240 milliseconds
Longest link to MIT 150 milliseconds
= 390
= 450

12. Measured Running Times Runs Initiated at MIT
All-to-All
Leader
Overall
Local
Prediction
390
300
450
Average (runs under 2 sec)
811
295
541
335
% runs over
2 seconds
55% 3%
13% 6%
Running times in milliseconds

13. What’s Going On? Loss rates on two links are very high
42% and 37%
Taiwan to two ISPs in the US
Loss rates on other links up to 8%
Upon loss, TCP’s timeout is big
More than round-trip-time
All-to-all sends messages on lossy links
Often delayed by loss

14. Distribution of Running Times Up to 1.3 sec. at MIT

15. Running Times Runs Initiated at Taiwan
% runs over
2 seconds
Average (runs under 2 sec)
Sec. Leader
overall local
Leader
All-to-all 7%
13%
43%
64%
24%
54%
607
679
844
1120
645
866
Running times in milliseconds

16. Distribution of Running Times in Taiwan

17. What’s Going On? Taiwan Good link Lossy link MIT
Hosts’s with bad links to Taiwan
Other Hosts
Leader
Secondary Leader
All-to-all

18. Experiment II: Removing Taiwan
Overall running times much better
For every initiator and algorithm, less than 10% over 2 seconds (as opposed to 55% previously)
All-to-all overall still worse than others!
either Leader or Secondary Leader best, depending on initiator
loss rates of 2% - 8% are not negligible
all-to-all sends O(n2) messages; suffers
But, all-to-all has best local running times

19. Probability of Delay due to Loss
If all links would have same latency
assume 1% loss on all links; 10 hosts (n=10)
Leader sends 3(n-1) = 27 messages
probability of at least one loss: » 24%
All-2-all sends n(n-1) = 90 messages
probability of at least one loss: » 60%
In reality, links don’t have same latency
only loss on long links matters

20. Conclusions Message loss causes high variation in TCP link latencies
latency distribution has high variance, heavy tail
Latency distribution determines expected time for receiving O(n) concurrent messages
Secondary leader helps
No triangle inequality, especially for loss
Different for overall vs. local running times
Number of rounds/steps not sufficient metric
One-to-all and all-to-all have different costs