Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
1 End-to-End Detection of Shared Bottlenecks Sridhar Machiraju and Weidong Cui Sahara Winter Retreat 2003
2
2 Problem Statement Given 2 end-to-end flows f1 and f2, do they share a bottleneck (a congested link i.e., link with packet drops) (OR) Given 2 routes R1 and R2 on the Internet, do they share a bottleneck link?
3
3 Why is this hard? No information from the network Only information available – delay and drops. Lots of noise – delay from intermediate links and drops on other links Bottlenecks may change over time
4
4 Why solve this problem? Overlays – –RON - Decide if rerouting flows bypasses congestion points or not –RON – Does such rerouting affect existing flows? Which ones? –Cooperative overlays – overlay does not want to share bottleneck with a “friendly overlay” –OverQoS – Useful to cluster together overlay links based on shared bottlenecks
5
5 Why solve this problem (cont.)? Other applications –Massive backups of data from different servers – do them in parallel? –Content distribution – is the use of multipath going to improve performance? –Kazaa – parallel downloads from peers –Multihomed ASs can evaluate the “orthogonality” in terms other than fault- tolerance
6
6 Related Work Past work done only with Y or Inverted-Y topologies using Poisson probes, packet pairs and inter-arrival times. Receivers Senders
7
7 Goals Provide a general solution for double-Y topology Work with multiple bottlenecks and provide an indicator of shared congestion Be able to use active probe flows and also passively observed (TCP) flows Complexity issues for clustering flows
8
8 Motivation of Our Techniques Droptail queues + TCP – queues exhibit bursty loss periods + no losses Queues build-up until bursty losses and decrease in sizes before increasing again Provides motivation for correlating periods of drops and delays (proportional to queue sizes) But…
9
9 Synchronization Lag 0 T d1d1 d2+d2+ Flow 1 Flow 2 Time Sender 1 Sender 2 012 345678 012 34567 012 3456 012 34 Synchronization Lag = 3T Note: is bounded by RTT max /2
10
10 Overview of Our Techniques We propose 2 techniques – –Probability Distribution (PD) technique –Cross-Correlation (CC) technique PD is based on getting the peak of the discrete probability distribution of, minimum time between drop of a flow and drop of the other CC is based on getting the maximum cross- correlation assuming various synch. lags
11
11 PD Technique For each dropped packet of a flow, plot PD of minimum of the time differences between its sending time and the sending times of dropped packets of other flow If shared bottleneck, we expect (ideally) a 1 at d 2 - d 1 + ; All flows may not see drops during same burst, so use threshold < 1 for peak We may see more than 1 drop in a burst; cluster drops into bursts and use time differences between starts of bursts
12
12 PD technique (contd.) Robustness issues: synch. lag must be smaller than the time difference between consecutive drops of a flow Delay 1 Delay 2 Packet Loss
13
13 Cross-Correlation (CC) Technique Key ideas –Two “back-to-back” packets from two different flows will experience similar packet drop/delay at the bottleneck –If we can generate two sequences of “back-to- back” packets from two different flows, then we can calculate their cross-correlation coefficient of losses or delays to measure their “similarity”. –If the cross-correlation coefficient is greater than some threshold, then the two flows share a bottleneck. Network
14
14 Questions about the CC Technique How to generate two sequences of “back-to-back” packets? –UDP probes with a constant interval T average interval <= T/2 –Shift the sequence to overcome the synch. lag How long should the two sequences be to get a significant result? –When the CC coefficient becomes relatively stable –But no less than a minimum period of time What should the threshold be? –Use 0.1 in the experiments –Why 0.1?
15
15 Overcome the Synchronization Problem Delay 1 Delay 2 Shift 2 packets Packet Loss Find the max cross-correlation by shifting one of the two sequences within some range The value of the optimal shift is an estimation of the synchronization lag.
16
16 Wide-Area Experiments Challenges –Access to hosts distributed globally? –How to verify our experimental results? Solutions –PlanetLab (http://www.planet-lab.org) –Set up an overlay network with double-Y topology –Application-level routers monitor losses and delays
17
17 Topology with Shared Bottleneck (I) Vancouver Seattle Wisc Atlanta Bologna Sydney
18
18 Topology without Shared Bottleneck (II) Vancouver Seattle Wisc Atlanta Bologna Sydney
19
19 Experimental Setup Active Probing –40 bytes per packet –Every 10ms Log packet arrival times on every node –Also can get information of losses from these logs Traces from 10mins to 60mins Threshold = 0.1 for the PD and CC techniques
20
20 Overall Results Exp #Packet DropsPD Technique Loss CC Technique Delay CC Technique shared Non- shared Peak Value Est. Lag CC Coeff. Est. Lag CC Coeff. Est. Lag 1(20mins)32096< 0.1- - - 2(10mins)67721650.2160ms0.2250ms0.1250ms 3(10mins)2070320.45100ms0.8180ms< 0.1- 4(10mins)812252< 0.1-0.38-1.17s0.99-1.17s 5(30mins)05565< 0.1- - - 6(60mins)102721127<0.1-0.236s< 0.1- 7(10mins)159257< 0.1-0.75-1.15< 0.1- 8(10mins)18951120.11180ms0.55300ms< 0.1- Failed Cases
21
21 Why the Delay CC Technique fails? Delay spikes at the non-shared part.
22
22 Why the PD Technique fails? Large synchronization lag Few number of drops at the bottleneck
23
23 Open Issues Parameter Selection –What should the thresholds be? Active vs. Passive Probing –Active probing: waste network resources –Passive probing: cannot control the size/rate of the probing sequences. Multiple Bottlenecks –Our techniques are not limited to the cases of single bottlenecks. –But need more quantitative evaluations Probability of sharing a bottleneck –How often should we generate probing sequence to detect if two flows share a bottleneck? –Can we give a probability rather than a 0-1 decision?
24
24 Conclusions Problem –Detect if 2 end-to-end flows share a bottleneck Challenge –Synchronization lag in double-Y topology Techniques –The Probability Distribution Technique –The Loss/Delay Cross-Correlation Technique Experimental Results –The Loss CC technique succeeds with all experiments –The Delay CC technique fails in some experiments due to delay spikes at the non-shared part –The PD technique fails in some experiments due to large synch. Lag and few number of losses at the bottleneck
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.