Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byAusten George Modified over 9 years ago
1
CENTAUR: Realizing the Full Potential of Centralized WLANs Through a Hybrid Data Path Vivek Shrivastava*, Shravan Rayanchu, Suman Banerjee University of Wisconsin-Madison 1 Nabeel Ahmed, Srinivasan Keshav University of Waterloo, Ontario Konstantina Papagiannaki Intel Labs, Pittsburgh Arunesh Mishra Google Inc. * viveks@cs.wisc.edu
2
2 Centralization of Enterprise WLANs 2 Vivek Shrivastava Wireless controller Access Point Clients Internet
3
3 Centralization of Enterprise WLANs 3 Vivek Shrivastava Power control Channel assignment Common control plane functions
4
4 Centralization of Enterprise WLANs 4 Vivek Shrivastava What about data plane functions? Power control Channel assignment Data scheduling ?
5
55 Vivek Shrivastava Can centralized scheduling help?
6
66 Vivek Shrivastava Can centralized scheduling help? Hidden terminals
7
77 Vivek Shrivastava Hidden terminals Can centralized scheduling help?
8
88 Vivek Shrivastava Hidden terminals Can centralized scheduling help?
9
99 Vivek Shrivastava 1.Carrier sense Hidden terminals Can centralized scheduling help?
10
10 Vivek Shrivastava 2. Channel free, transmit Hidden terminals Can centralized scheduling help?
11
11 Vivek Shrivastava Collision! Backoffs Low throughputs 3. Collision ! Can centralized scheduling help?
12
12 How bad is it ? 12 Vivek Shrivastava Experiments on production building-wide WLANs W1: 5 floors 9 APs, 45 clients W2: 1 floor 21 APs, 51 clients 10% links suffer more than 70% throughput reduction
13
13 Vivek Shrivastava A lost opportunity ? Suppose infrastructure can gather conflict data
14
14 Vivek Shrivastava A lost opportunity ? And when packets arrive …
15
15 Vivek Shrivastava A lost opportunity ? … realize interference will happen …
16
16 Vivek Shrivastava A lost opportunity ? 1.Transmit first packet
17
17 Vivek Shrivastava A lost opportunity ? 1.Transmit first packet 2.Transmit second packet with delay
18
18 Vivek Shrivastava Use an in-band scheduler Simple FIFO schedule with interference avoidance Scheduling functionality
19
19 What about exposed terminals ? 19 Vivek Shrivastava In our experiments, about 41%of link pairs suffer from exposed terminal interference Disabling carrier sense to solve the problem can be dangerous for uplink, non-enterprise traffic We will show how centralization can help even here
20
20 Challenge Centralization has obvious overheads How to make this feasible and useful under Real applications Common large-scale wireless environments Presence of uplink and non-enterprise traffic Requirements of no client modifications 20 Vivek Shrivastava
21
21 Contributions 1. Design CENTAUR, a hybrid (partly centralized, partly distributed) scheduling approach Resolves hidden and exposed terminals Requires no client modifications Requires no carrier sense disabling 2. Evaluate CENTAUR on two WLAN testbeds with real-world traffic traces 1.48x greater throughput for bulk data traffic 1.38x reduction in web-transaction times 21 Vivek Shrivastava
22
22 Outline A naïve attempt at centralized scheduling (DET) Our hybrid centralized scheduler (CENTAUR) Evaluation Related Work Summary 22 Vivek Shrivastava
23
23 Outline A naïve attempt at centralized scheduling (DET) Our hybrid centralized scheduler (CENTAUR) Evaluation Related Work Summary 23 Vivek Shrivastava
24
24 Vivek Shrivastava DET: A Simple Deterministic Scheduler
25
25 Vivek Shrivastava DET: A Simple Deterministic Scheduler Input: Conflict graph
26
26 Vivek Shrivastava DET: A Simple Deterministic Scheduler Goal: Schedule each incoming downlink packet Input: Conflict graph
27
27 Vivek Shrivastava DET: A Simple Deterministic Scheduler 1234 Transmission slots Goal: Schedule each incoming downlink packet Input: Conflict graph
28
28 Vivek Shrivastava DET: A Simple Deterministic Scheduler 1234 Transmission slots 1.New packet arrives
29
29 Vivek Shrivastava DET: A Simple Deterministic Scheduler 1234 Transmission slots 1.New packet arrives 2.Find the earliest conflict free slot
30
30 Vivek Shrivastava DET: A Simple Deterministic Scheduler 1234 Transmission slots 1.New packet arrives 2.Find the earliest conflict free slot
31
31 Vivek Shrivastava DET: A Simple Deterministic Scheduler 1234 Transmission slots 1.New packet arrives 2.Find the earliest conflict free slot 3.Schedule the packet in that slot 5
32
Performance of DET 4x No gains for exposed terminals; Non- conflicting links perform worse under load 32 Vivek Shrivastava
33
33 Outline A naïve attempt at centralized scheduling (DET) Our hybrid centralized scheduler (CENTAUR) Evaluation Related Work Summary 33 Vivek Shrivastava
34
34 Overview of CENTAUR Incorporate basic DET scheduler Tackle DET’s shortcomings: Amortize scheduling overhead Improve performance for exposed links Avoid degrading normal links Coexist with non-enterprise and uplink traffic 34 Vivek Shrivastava
35
35 (1) Avoid Scheduling Overheads Problem: Per-packet scheduling performs poorly under high network loads Solution: Schedule packets in batches (or epochs) 35 Vivek Shrivastava
36
36 (1) Avoid Scheduling Overheads Problem: Per-packet scheduling performs poorly under high network loads Solution: Schedule packets in batches (or epochs) 36 Vivek Shrivastava
37
37 (1) Avoid Scheduling Overheads Problem: Per-packet scheduling performs poorly under high network loads Solution: Schedule packets in batches (or epochs) 37 Vivek Shrivastava Wired ack
38
38 (1) Avoid Scheduling Overheads Problem: Per-packet scheduling performs poorly under high network loads Solution: Schedule packets in batches (or epochs) 38 Vivek Shrivastava
39
39 (1) Avoid Scheduling Overheads Problem: Per-packet scheduling performs poorly under high network loads Solution: Schedule packets in batches (or epochs) 39 Vivek Shrivastava
40
40 (1) Avoid Scheduling Overheads Problem: Per-packet scheduling performs poorly under high network loads Solution: Schedule packets in batches (or epochs) 40 Vivek Shrivastava
41
41 (1) Avoid Scheduling Overheads Problem: Per-packet scheduling performs poorly under high network loads Solution: Schedule packets in batches (or epochs) 41 Vivek Shrivastava
42
42 (1) Avoid Scheduling Overheads Problem: Per-packet scheduling performs poorly under high network loads Solution: Schedule packets in batches (or epochs) 42 Vivek Shrivastava Wired ack
43
43 (1) Avoid Scheduling Overheads Problem: Per-packet scheduling performs poorly under high network loads Solution: Schedule packets in batches (or epochs) 43 Vivek Shrivastava
44
44 (2) Improve Exposed Terminals 44 Vivek Shrivastava Problem: Exposed links can operate in parallel but don’t due to carrier-sensing Solution: Schedule batch of packets, fix backoff periods
45
45 Vivek Shrivastava (2) Improve Exposed Terminals Problem: Exposed links can operate in parallel but don’t due to carrier-sensing Solution: Schedule batch of packets, fix backoff periods
46
46 Vivek Shrivastava Variable wired delay (2) Improve Exposed Terminals Problem: Exposed links can operate in parallel but don’t due to carrier-sensing Solution: Schedule batch of packets, fix backoff periods
47
47 Vivek Shrivastava (2) Improve Exposed Terminals Problem: Exposed links can operate in parallel but don’t due to carrier-sensing Solution: Schedule batch of packets, fix backoff periods
48
48 Vivek Shrivastava Carrier sense, deferral (2) Improve Exposed Terminals Problem: Exposed links can operate in parallel but don’t due to carrier-sensing Solution: Schedule batch of packets, fix backoff periods
49
49 Vivek Shrivastava (2) Improve Exposed Terminals Problem: Exposed links can operate in parallel but don’t due to carrier-sensing Solution: Schedule batch of packets, fix backoff periods
50
50 Vivek Shrivastava (2) Improve Exposed Terminals Problem: Exposed links can operate in parallel but don’t due to carrier-sensing Solution: Schedule batch of packets, fix backoff periods
51
51 Vivek Shrivastava Schedule packets in batches (2) Improve Exposed Terminals Problem: Exposed links can operate in parallel but don’t due to carrier-sensing Solution: Schedule batch of packets, fix backoff periods
52
52 Vivek Shrivastava (2) Improve Exposed Terminals Problem: Exposed links can operate in parallel but don’t due to carrier-sensing Solution: Schedule batch of packets, fix backoff periods
53
53 Vivek Shrivastava (2) Improve Exposed Terminals Problem: Exposed links can operate in parallel but don’t due to carrier-sensing Solution: Schedule batch of packets, fix backoff periods
54
54 Vivek Shrivastava First packets can be out of sync (2) Improve Exposed Terminals Problem: Exposed links can operate in parallel but don’t due to carrier-sensing Solution: Schedule batch of packets, fix backoff periods
55
55 Vivek Shrivastava Waiting packets synchronized by carrier sense ! (2) Improve Exposed Terminals Problem: Exposed links can operate in parallel but don’t due to carrier-sensing Solution: Schedule batch of packets, fix backoff periods
56
56 Vivek Shrivastava (2) Improve Exposed Terminals Problem: Exposed links can operate in parallel but don’t due to carrier-sensing Solution: Schedule batch of packets, fix backoff periods
57
57 Vivek Shrivastava After first packet, both APs transmit simultaneously. (2) Improve Exposed Terminals Problem: Exposed links can operate in parallel but don’t due to carrier-sensing Solution: Schedule batch of packets, fix backoff periods
58
58 (3) Avoid Degrading Normal Links 58 Vivek Shrivastava AB CD Hidden terminals Non- hidden/Non- exposed
59
59 (3) Avoid Degrading Normal Links 59 Vivek Shrivastava AB CD Scheduler
60
60 (3) Avoid Degrading Normal Links 60 Vivek Shrivastava AB CD Scheduler
61
61 (3) Avoid Degrading Normal Links 61 Vivek Shrivastava AB CD Scheduler
62
62 (3) Avoid Degrading Normal Links 62 Vivek Shrivastava AB CD Scheduler Hybrid scheduling
63
63 Outline A naïve attempt at centralized scheduling (DET) Our hybrid centralized scheduler (CENTAUR) Evaluation Related Work Summary 63 Vivek Shrivastava
64
64 Large-Scale Experiments Platform: Two WLAN testbeds in separate buildings Topology Representative: 7 APs, 12 clients Traffic and metrics UDP, TCP, VoIP, HTTP (real traces) Throughput, delay, MOS, web transaction delay 64 Vivek Shrivastava
65
65 Result 1: UDP/TCP Performance 65 Vivek Shrivastava
66
66 Result 1: UDP/TCP Performance 66 Vivek Shrivastava DCF
67
67 Result 1: UDP/TCP Performance 67 Vivek Shrivastava DCF
68
68 Result 1: UDP/TCP Performance 68 Vivek Shrivastava DCF Per Packet
69
69 Result 1: UDP/TCP Performance 69 Vivek Shrivastava DCF Per Packet
70
70 Result 1: UDP/TCP Performance 70 Vivek Shrivastava Epoch Based DCF Per Packet
71
71 Result 1: UDP/TCP Performance 71 Vivek Shrivastava Epoch Based DCF Per Packet Hidden terminal starves some clients
72
72 Result 1: UDP/TCP Performance 72 Vivek Shrivastava Epoch Based DCF Per Packet Better fairness than DCF
73
73 Result 1: UDP/TCP Performance 73 Vivek Shrivastava Epoch Based DCF Per Packet Exploits exposed terminals, higher system throughput
74
74 Result 1: UDP/TCP Performance 74 Vivek Shrivastava Epoch Based DCF Per Packet Avg. delay is smallest for epoch based scheduling
75
75 Result 1: UDP/TCP Performance 75 Vivek Shrivastava Epoch Based DCF Per Packet 90 th percentile delays are higher for epoch based scheduling
76
76 Result 1: UDP/TCP Performance 76 Vivek Shrivastava Epoch Based DCF Per Packet CENTAUR yields up to 60% higher total throughput and 50% lower per-packet delay compared to DCF
77
77 More Results in Paper Centaur micro-benchmarks: performance for exposed and hidden terminals under centaur Uplink traffic: coexistence and persistent gains with different fractions of uplink traffic Data rate: robust to changes in data rate and ARF Realistic HTTP traces: significant reduction in web transaction delay VoIP traffic: better performance (MOS) for voice traffic with small epoch duration 77 Vivek Shrivastava
78
78 Related Work Commercial WLAN offerings (Aruba, Meru) Theoretical formulations (Vaidya ‘00, Kanodia ‘01) Epoch based scheduling (Kompella ‘05, 802.11n/e) Interference mitigation (CMAP, SIC, Shuffle) 78 Vivek Shrivastava
79
79 Summary Interference a growing problem in enterprises Careful design of a centralized data plane provides substantial performance gains CENTAUR implements a hybrid data path to improve aggregate performance without client modifications CENTAUR does not disable carrier sense and co-exists with non-enterprise and uplink traffic 79 Vivek Shrivastava
80
80 Future work Even more efficient conflict graph generation What if we were allowed client modifications ? Questions ?
81
Characterizing System Latencies System delays are high and variable, leading to inaccuracies for per-packet scheduling 81
82
82 Evaluation of Micro-Probing 82 Vivek Shrivastava Topologies20 node30 node Bandwidth Tests 16.2 mins1hr 11 mins Micro- Probing ~4 secs~11 secs Can be computed in stages with each instance taking ~ 2.5ms
83
83 Result 2: Impact of Uplink Traffic 83 Vivek Shrivastava Vary proportion of downlink/uplink traffic 6 different configurations 80/20 ➔ 40/60 (downlink/uplink) Results: Downlink: 1.6x ➔ 6.8x gain in throughput Uplink: 1x ➔ 1.18x gain in throughput CENTAUR provides persistent gains for different proportions of uplink and downlink traffic load
84
84 Three topologies Hidden Heavy topology ➔ 10 links Exposed Heavy topology ➔ 6 links Mixed Topology ➔ 12 links Results: Up to 50% gain in overall system throughput Up to 6x gain for HT; Up to 1.7x gain for ET Result 3: Impact of Topology 84 Vivek Shrivastava Improvements from using CENTAUR can be seen across many different network topologies
85
85 Result 2: Impact of Uplink Traffic 85 Vivek Shrivastava CENTAUR provides persistent gains for different proportions of uplink and downlink traffic load
86
86 Result 3: Impact of Topology 86 Vivek Shrivastava Improvements from using CENTAUR can be seen across many different network topologies
87
87 CENTAUR Micro-Benchmarks (1) 87 Vivek Shrivastava Exposed Terminals
88
88 CENTAUR Micro-Benchmarks (II) 88 Vivek Shrivastava Hidden Terminals
89
89 Result 1: UDP/TCP Performance 89 Vivek Shrivastava Client Index (1-12) CENTAUR yields up to 60% higher total throughput and 50% lower per-packet delay compared to DCF
90
Other approaches to Hidden/Exposed Terminals Mechanis m Target Problem Approach Client Changes Evaluation CMAP [NSDI ‘07] ZigZag [Sigcomm ’08] SIC [Mobicom ’08] Centau r Expose d Hidden Expose dHidden Disable CS Signal manipulation Centralized Scheduling Yes No 802.11 GNU Radio 802.11 Adaptive RTS/CTS [VTC ’03] Hidden Extra Signaling Yes 802.11
91
March,30 2009 Prelim 2009 Other approaches to Hidden/Exposed Terminals Mechanis m Target Problem Approach Client Changes Evaluation CMAP [NSDI ‘07] ZigZag [Sigcomm ’08] SIC [Mobicom ’08] Centau r Expose d Hidden Expose dHidden Disable CS Signal manipulation Centralized Scheduling Yes No 802.11 GNU Radio 802.11 Adaptive RTS/CTS [VTC ’03] Hidden Extra Signaling Yes 802.11 Solve both hidden/exposed
92
March,30 2009 Prelim 2009 Other approaches to Hidden/Exposed Terminals Mechanis m Target Problem Approach Client Changes Evaluation CMAP [NSDI ‘07] ZigZag [Sigcomm ’08] SIC [Mobicom ’08] Centau r Expose d Hidden Expose dHidden Disable CS Signal manipulation Centralized Scheduling Yes No 802.11 GNU Radio 802.11 Adaptive RTS/CTS [VTC ’03] Hidden Extra Signaling Yes 802.11 No client side changes for Centaur
93
CENTAUR: Realizing the Full Potential of Centralized WLANs Through a Hybrid Data Path Vivek Shrivastava*, Shravan Rayanchu, Suman Banerjee University of Wisconsin-Madison 93 Nabeel Ahmed, Srinivasan Keshav University of Waterloo, Ontario Konstantina Papagiannaki Intel Labs, Pittsburgh Arunesh Mishra Google Inc.
94
94 WLANsHP Labs Seoul National University Our Testbed Exposed Terminals 39%9%50% Hidden Terminals 43%70%39% Growth of Interference in Enterprise Wireless LANs 94 Interference an increasing problem according to leading enterprise WLAN vendor Vivek Shrivastava
95
95 Centralization of Enterprise WLANs 95 Centralized control for better network security and manageability Vivek Shrivastava
96
96 Can Centralized Data Plane Scheduling Help? 96 Vivek Shrivastava
97
97 (2) Improve Exposed Terminals 97 Vivek Shrivastava Problem: Exposed links can operate in parallel but don’t due to carrier-sensing Solution: Schedule batch of packets to each exposed AP Fix back-off periods and use carrier-sensing to align transmissions -- double throughput!
98
98 Related Work Commercial WLAN offerings (Aruba, Meru) Research proposals (MiFi, DenseAP, Smarta) TXOP in 802.11e/802.11n packet aggregation Interference Mitigation (CMAPs, ZigZag, SIC) 98 Vivek Shrivastava
99
99 Types of Interference Hidden Terminals Collisions Carrier Sense Exposed Terminals Focus on downlink conflicts Vivek Shrivastava 11
100
100 Can Centralized Data Plane Scheduling Help? 100 Vivek Shrivastava X Y
101
101 Can Centralized Data Plane Scheduling Help? 101 Vivek Shrivastava X Y
102
102 Can Centralized Data Plane Scheduling Help? 102 Vivek Shrivastava X Y
103
103 Vivek Shrivastava Can Centralized Data Plane Scheduling Help? Hidden terminals
104
104 Quantifying Downlink Hidden Terminals 104 Vivek Shrivastava 10% links suffer severe hidden terminal interference
105
105 Quantifying Downlink Exposed Terminals 105 41% links can obtain double the throughput with CS disabled, indicating exposed terminal interference Vivek Shrivastava
106
106 Result 1: UDP/TCP Performance 106 Vivek Shrivastava
107
107 Result 1: UDP/TCP Performance 107 Vivek Shrivastava
108
108 Result 1: UDP/TCP Performance 108 Vivek Shrivastava
109
109 Centralization of Enterprise WLANs 109 Vivek Shrivastava
110
110 (2) Improve Exposed Terminals 110 Vivek Shrivastava Problem: Exposed links can operate in parallel but don’t due to carrier-sensing Solution: Schedule batch of packets to each exposed AP Fix back-off periods and use carrier sensing to align transmissions -- double throughput!
111
111 (2) Improve Exposed Terminals 111 Vivek Shrivastava Problem: Exposed links can operate in parallel but don’t due to carrier-sensing Solution: Schedule batch of packets to each exposed AP Fix back-off periods and use carrier sensing to align transmissions -- double throughput!
112
112 (3) Avoid Degrading Normal Links 112 Vivek Shrivastava
113
113 1. Can it solve any interference problems prevalent in enterprise WLANs Hidden and exposed terminals 88% of links suffer some losses due to co- channel interference (Jigsaw, Sigcomm 2007) 2. If so, how can we implement it efficiently for practical WLAN deployments No client modifications, support legacy clients Coexistence with non-enterprise, uplink traffic 113 Vivek Shrivastava Can Centralized Data Plane Help?
114
114 Quantifying Downlink Interference Prior Work: Jigsaw [Sigcomm2006] analysis reveals 56% of all interference traffic is downlink in nature. Our Work: Two production WLANs W1: 5 floors, 9 APs, 45 clients W2: 1 floor, 21 APs, 51 clients Download ‘bulk’ traffic from the Internet 114 Vivek Shrivastava
115
115 WLANsUW-MadisonUW-Ontario Exposed Terminals 39%9% Hidden Terminals 43%70% Growth of Interference in Enterprise Wireless LANs 115 Interference an increasing problem according to leading enterprise WLAN vendor Vivek Shrivastava
116
116 Centralization of Enterprise WLANs 116 Vivek Shrivastava Can centralized data plane be useful for improving performance in WLANs ? About 70-80% of enterprise traffic is downlink in nature
117
117 (3) Avoid Degrading Normal Links 117 Vivek Shrivastava AB CD Scheduler
118
118 (3) Avoid Degrading Normal Links 118 Vivek Shrivastava AB CD Scheduler
119
119 (3) Avoid Degrading Normal Links 119 Vivek Shrivastava AB CD Scheduler
120
120 (3) Avoid Degrading Normal Links 120 Vivek Shrivastava AB CD Scheduler Hybrid scheduling
121
121 Outline DET - A deterministic scheduler CENTAUR - A hybrid centralized scheduler Evaluation Related Work Summary 121 Vivek Shrivastava
122
122 Outline DET - A deterministic scheduler CENTAUR - A hybrid centralized scheduler Evaluation Related Work Summary 122 Vivek Shrivastava
123
Performance of DET 4x No gains for exposed terminals; Non- conflicting links perform worse under load 123 Vivek Shrivastava
124
124 Outline DET - A deterministic scheduler CENTAUR - A hybrid centralized scheduler Evaluation Related Work Summary 124 Vivek Shrivastava
125
125 DET: A Simple Deterministic Scheduler Key Idea: Perform per-packet scheduling Given Conflict graph G = (L,E) Scheduled packets {P 1, P 2,..., P r }; Unscheduled P r+1 Objective Minimize t(P r+1 ) Constraint: No two packets on interfering links are scheduled together Schedule downlink packets only 125 Vivek Shrivastava
126
126 1. What are the problems it can solve ? Hidden and exposed terminals 2. Can we implement it efficiently ? No client modifications Coexistence with non-enterprise & uplink traffic Don’t disable carrier sensing 126 Vivek Shrivastava Can centralized scheduling help?
127
127 Vivek Shrivastava Can centralized scheduling help?
128
128 Vivek Shrivastava DET: A Simple Deterministic Scheduler Packets arriving Schedule one packet at a time Consider packets in order of arrival 1234 Transmission slots
129
129 What about exposed terminals ? 129 41% links can obtain double the throughput with CS disabled, indicating exposed terminal interference Vivek Shrivastava
130
130 Vivek Shrivastava Use an in-band scheduler Simple FIFO schedule with interference avoidance scheduler
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.