1. GNEW’2004 – 15/03/2004 DataTAG project Status & Perspectives Olivier MARTIN - CERN GNEW’2004 workshop 15 March 2004, CERN, Geneva

2. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 2 March 15, 20042 Presentation outline  Project overview  Testbed characteristics and evolution  Major networking achievements  Where are we?  Lambda Grids  Networking testbed requirements  Acknowledgements  Conclusions

3. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 3 March 15, 20043 DataTAG Mission  EU  US Grid network research  High Performance Transport protocols  Inter-domain QoS  Advance bandwidth reservation  EU  US Grid Interoperability  Sister project to EU DataGRID T rans A tlantic G rid

4. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 4 March 15, 20044 http://www.datatag.org Project partners

5. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 5 March 15, 20045 Funding agencies Cooperating Networks

6. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 6 March 15, 20046 EU collaborators  Brunel University  CERN  CLRC  CNAF  DANTE  INFN  INRIA  NIKHEF  PPARC  UvA  University of Manchester  University of Padova  University of Milano  University of Torino  UCL

7. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 7 March 15, 20047 US collaborators  ANL  Caltech  Fermilab  FSU  Globus  Indiana  Wisconsin  Northwestern University  UIC  University of Chicago  University of Michigan  SLAC  Starlight

8. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 8 March 15, 20048 Workplan  WP1:  Establishment of a high performance intercontinental Grid testbed (CERN)  WP2:  High performance networking (PPARC)  WP3  Bulk data transfer validations and application performance monitoring (UvA)  WP4  Interoperability between Grid domains (INFN)  WP5 & WP6  Dissemination and project management (CERN)

9. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 9 March 15, 20049 Integration DataTAG/WP4 framework and relationships DataTAG/WP4 framework and relationships HICB/HIJTB Interoperabilitystandardization HEP applications, Other experiments

10. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 10 March 15, 200410 Testbed evolution  The DataTAG testbed evolved from a simple 2.5 Gb/s Layer3 testbed (Sept. 2002) into an extremely rich multi- vendor 10 Gb/s Layer2/Layer3 testbed (Sept. 2003)  Alcatel, Chiaro, Cisco, Juniper, PRocket  Exclusive access to the testbed is granted through an advance testbed reservation application  Direct extensions to Amsterdam UvA/Surfnet (10G) & Lyon INRIA/VTHD (2.5G)  Layer 2 extension to INFN/CNAF over GEANT & GARR using Juniper’s CCC  Layer 2 extension to the OptiPuter project at UCSD (University of California San Diego) through Abilene and CENIC under way.  1 st L2/L3 Transatlantic testbed with native 10Gigabit Ethernet access.

11. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 11 March 15, 200411 Cisco7606 r04chi Cisco7609 stm16 (T-Systems) r05chi-JuniperM10 r06chi-Alcatel7770 r05gva-JuniperM10 r06gva Alcatel7770 SURF NET stm16(Colt) backup+projects s01chi Extreme S5i VTHD/INRIA stm16 (FranceTelecom) Chicago Geneva ONS15454 Alcatel 1670 SURFNET CESNET ONS15454 stm64 (GC) CNAF GEANT Linux PCs STM64 edoardo.martelli@cern.ch last update: 20030909 Linux PCs Juniper T320 Linux PCs JuniperM10 GEANT Cisco7609 Linux PCs StarLight Cisco6509 StarLight Force10 ABILENE 1G ethernet 2.5G STM16 10G ethernet 10Gbps Optical wave (T-Systems) VTHD/INRIA Alcate l7770 10G STM64 DataTAG testbed phase 1 (2.5Gbps) DataTAG testbed phase 2 (10Gbps) simplified

12. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 12 March 15, 200412

13. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 13 March 15, 200413 DataTAG testbed Alcatel Chiaro Cisco Juniper PRocket

14. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 14 March 15, 200414 Main networking achievements (1)  Internet landspeed records have been beaten one after the other by the DataTAG project partners and/or teams closely associated with DataTAG:  Atlas Canada lightpath experiments during iGRID2002 (Gigabit Ethernet) and Telecom World 2003 (10Gigabit Ethernet, aka WAN- PHY)  New Internet2 landspeed record (I2 LSR) by Nikhef/Caltech team (SC2002)  FAST, GridDT, HS-TCP, Scalable TCP experiments (DataTAG partners & Caltech)  Intel 10GigE tests between CERN (Geneva) and SLAC (Sunnyvale) (CERN, Caltech, Los Alamos Nationa Laboratory, SLAC)  2.38 Gbps sustained rate, single flow, 1TB in one hour  I2 LSR awarded during Internet2 Spring member meeting (April 2003)

15. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 15 March 15, 200415 ATLAS Canada Lightpath trials TRIUMF Vancouver & CERN Geneva through Amsterdam CANARIE 2xGbE circuits StarLight SURFnet 2xGbE circuits NetherLight “A full Terabyte of real data was transferred at rates equivalent to a full CD (680MB) in under 8 seconds and a DVD in under 1 minute” Wade Hong et al 09/2002 Subsequent 10GigE WAN-PHY Experiments during Telecom World 2003 Bringing effective data transfer rates below one second per CD!

16. March 15, 200416 On Feb. 27-28 2003, a terabyte of data was transferred in 3700 seconds by S. Ravot of Caltech between the Level3 PoP in Sunnyvale near SLAC and CERN through the TeraGrid router at StarLight from memory to memory with a single TCP/IPv4 stream. This achievement translates to an average rate of 2.38 Gbps (using large windows and 9kB “jumbo frames”). This beat the former record by a factor of ~2.5 and used the 2.5Gb/s link at 99% efficiency. 10GigE Data Transfer Trial European Commission Huge distributed effort, 10-15 highly skilled people monopolized for several weeks!

17. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 17 March 15, 200417 10G DataTAG testbed extension to Telecom World 2003 and Abilene/Cenic Sponsors: Cisco, HP, Intel, OPI (Geneva’s Office for the Promotion of Industries & Technologies), Services Industriels de Geneve, Telehouse Europe, T-Systems On September 15, 2003, the DataTAG project was the first transatlantic testbed offering direct 10GigE access using Juniper’s VPN layer2/10GigE emulation.

18. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 18 March 15, 200418 Main networking achievements (2)  Latest IPv4 & IPv6 I2LSR were awarded, live from the Internet2 fall member meeting in Indianapolis, to Caltech & CERN during Telecom World 2003:  May 6, 2003:  987 Mb/s single TCP/IP v6 stream  October 1, 2003  5.44 Gb/s single TCP/IP v4 stream between Geneva and Chicago:  1.1TB in 26 minutes or one 680MB CD in 1 second  More records have been established by Caltech & CERN since then:  November 6, 2003:  5.64 Gb/s single TCP/IP v4 stream between Geneva and Los Angeles (CENIC PoP) across DataTAG and Abilene.  November 11, 2003,  4 Gb/s single TCP/IP v6 stream between Geneva and Phoenix (Arizona) through Los Angeles  February 24, 2004  6.25 Gb/s with 9 streams for 638 seconds, i.e. half a terabyte transferred between CERN in Geneva and the CENIC PoP in Los Angeles across DataTAG and Abilene.

19. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 19 March 15, 200419 Internet2 landspeed record history (IPv4&IPv6) Impact of a single multi- Gb/s flow on the Abilene backbone

20. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 20 March 15, 200420 Significance of I2LSRs to the Grid?  Essential to establish the feasibility of multi-Gigabit/second single stream IPv4 & IPv6 data transfers:  Over dedicated testbeds in a first phase  Then across academic & research backbones  Last but not least across campus networks  Disk to disk rather than memory to memory  Study impact of high performance TCP over disk servers  Next steps:  Above 6Gb/s expected soon between CERN and Los Angeles (Caltech/CENIC PoP) across DataTAG & Abilene  Goal is to reach 10Gb/s with new PCI Express buses  Study alternatives to standard TCP (Reno)  Non-TCP transport (Tsunami, SABUL/VDT)  HS-TCP, Scalable TCP, H-TCP, FAST, Grid-DT, Wesley+, etc…

21. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 21 March 15, 200421 Main networking achievements (3)  QoS Layer2: VLAN Layer2: VLAN Juniper M10 1 GE bottleneck IP-Qos configured Layer2: VLAN Layer2: VLAN AF Geneva BE  Advance bandwidth reservation  GARA extensions  AAA extensions

22. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 22 March 15, 200422 Where are we?  The DataTAG project came up at exactly the right time:  Back in the late 2000, 2.5 Gb/s looked futuristic  10GigE, especially host interfaces, did not really exist  However, it was already very clear that the standard TCP stack (Reno/Newreno) was problematic  Much hope was placed on autotuning (Web100/Net100) & ECN/RED like solutions  Actual bit error rates of transatlantic circuits were over-estimated  Much better shape than expected on over-provisioned R&D backbones such as Abilene, Canarie, GEANT  For how long?  One of the strongest proof made by DataTAG is the extreme vulnerability of production R&D backbones in the presence of high performance flows (i.e. 10GigE or even less)

23. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 23 March 15, 200423 Where are we (cont)?  For many years the Wide Area Network has been the bottlemeck, this is no longer the case in many countries, thus making the deployment of data intensive Grid infrastructure, in principle, possible, e.g.  EGEE the DataGrid successor  Recent I2LSR records show, for the first time ever, that the network can be truly transparent and that throughput is only limited by the end hosts and/or campus network infrastructures.  Challenge shifted from getting adequate bandwidth to deploying adequate LANs and cybersecurity infrastructure as well as making effective use of it!  Non-trivial transport protocol issues still need to be resolved  The only encouraging sign is that this is now widely recognized  But we are still quite far from converging on a practical solution?

24. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 24 March 15, 200424 Layer1/2/3 networking (1)  Conventional layer 3 technology is no longer fashionable because of:  High associated costs, e.g. 200/300 KUSD for a 10G router interfaces  Implied use of shared backbones  The use of layer 1 or layer 2 technology is very attractive because it helps to solve a number of problems, e.g.  1500 bytes Ethernet frame size (layer1)  Protocol transparency (layer1 & layer2)  Minimum functionality hence, in theory, much lower costs (layer1&2)

25. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 25 March 15, 200425 Layer1/2/3 networking (2)  « Lambda Grids » are becoming very popular:  Pros:  circuit oriented model like the telephone network, hence no need for complex transport protocols  Lower equipment costs (i.e. « in theory » a factor 2 or 3 per layer)  the concept of a dedicated end to end light path is very elegant  Cons:  « End to end » still very loosely defined, i.e. site to site, cluster to cluster or really host to host  Higher circuit costs, Scalability, Additional middleware to deal with circuit set up/tear down, etc  Extending dynamic VLAN functionality to the campus network is a potential nightmare!

26. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 26 March 15, 200426 « Lambda Grids » What does it mean?  Clearly different things to different people, hence the « apparently easy » consensus!  Conservatively, on demand « site to site » connectivity  Where is the innovation?  What does it solve in terms of transport protocols?  Where are the savings?  Less interfaces needed (customer) but more standby/idle circuits needed (provider)  Economics from the service provider vs the customer perspective? »Traditionally, switched services have been very expensive, Usage vs flat charge Break even, switches vs leased, few hours/day Why would this change?  In case there are no savings, why bother?  More advanced, cluster to cluster  Implies even more active circuits in parallel  Even more advanced, Host to Host  All optical  Is it realisitic?

27. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 27 March 15, 200427 Networking testbed requirements  Multi-vendor  Unless a particular research group is specifically interested by the behaviour of TCP in the presence of out of order packets, running high performance TCP tests across a Juniper M160 backbone is pretty useless.  IPv6 achievable performance vary widely between different vendors  MPLS & QoS implementations also veary widely  Interoperability  Dynamic  Implies manpower & money  Partitionable  Reservation application  Reconfigurable  Avoid manual recabling, implies Electronic or Optical switch/patch panel  Extensible  Extensions to other networks  Implies collaboration  Not limited to network equipment, must also include high performance servers, high perf. Disks & NICs,  Coordination with other testbeds

28. Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004 28 March 15, 200428 Acknowledments  The project would not have accumulated so many successes without the active participation of our North American colleagues, in particular:  Caltech/DoE  University of Illinois/NSF  iVDGL  Starlight  Internet2/Abilene  Canarie  and our European sponsors and colleagues as well, in particular:  European Union’s IST program  Dante/GEANT  GARR  Surfnet  VTHD  The GNEW2004 workshop is yet another example of successful collaboration between Europe and USA