Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byOrion Grubbe Modified over 4 years ago

1
CS 268: Packet Scheduling Ion Stoica March 18/20, 2003

2
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu2 Packet Scheduling Decide when and what packet to send on output link -Usually implemented at output interface 1 2 Scheduler flow 1 flow 2 flow n Classifier Buffer management

3
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu3 Why Packet Scheduling? Can provide per flow or per aggregate protection Can provide absolute and relative differentiation in terms of -Delay -Bandwidth -Loss

4
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu4 Fair Queueing In a fluid flow system it reduces to bit-by-bit round robin among flows -Each flow receives min ( r i, f ), where r i – flow arrival rate f – link fair rate (see next slide) Weighted Fair Queueing (WFQ) – associate a weight with each flow [Demers, Keshav & Shenker 89] -In a fluid flow system it reduces to bit-by-bit round robin WFQ in a fluid flow system Generalized Processor Sharing (GPS) [Parekh & Gallager 92]

5
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu5 Fair Rate Computation If link congested, compute f such that 8 6 2 4 4 2 f = 4 : min(8, 4) = 4 min(6, 4) = 4 min(2, 4) = 2 10

6
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu6 Fair Rate Computation in GPS Associate a weight w i with each flow i If link congested, compute f such that 8 6 2 4 4 2 f = 2 : min(8, 2*3) = 6 min(6, 2*1) = 2 min(2, 2*1) = 2 10 ( w 1 = 3) ( w 2 = 1) ( w 3 = 1)

7
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu7 Generalized Processor Sharing 015210468 511111 Red session has packets backlogged between time 0 and 10 Other sessions have packets continuously backlogged flows link

8
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu8 Generalized Processor Sharing A work conserving GPS is defined as where -w i – weight of flow i -W i ( t 1, t 2 ) – total service received by flow i during [ t 1, t 2 ) -W ( t 1, t 2 ) – total service allocated to al flows during [ t 1, t 2 ) -B(t) – number of backlogged flows

9
9 Properties of GPS End-to-end delay bounds for guaranteed service [Parekh and Gallager 93] Fair allocation of bandwidth for best effort service [Demers et al. 89, Parekh and Gallager 92] Work-conserving for high link utilization

10
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu10 Packet vs. Fluid System GPS is defined in an idealized fluid flow model -Multiple queues can be serviced simultaneously Real system are packet systems -One queue is served at any given time -Packet transmission cannot be preempted Goal -Define packet algorithms approximating the fluid system -Maintain most of the important properties

11
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu11 Standard techniques of approximating fluid GPS -Select packet that finishes first in GPS assuming that there are no future arrivals Important properties of GPS -Finishing order of packets currently in system independent of future arrivals Implementation based on virtual time -Assign virtual finish time to each packet upon arrival -Packets served in increasing order of virtual times Packet Approximation of Fluid System

12
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu12 System Virtual Time Virtual time ( V GPS ) – service that backlogged flow with weight = 1 would receive in GPS

13
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu13 Service Allocation in GPS The service received by flow i during an interval [ t 1,t 2 ), while it is backlogged is

14
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu14 Virtual Time Implementation of Weighted Fair Queueing if session j backlogged in general a j k – arrival time of packet k of flow j S j k – virtual starting time of packet k of flow j F j k – virtual finishing time of packet k of flow j L j k – length of packet k of flow j

15
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu15 Virtual Time Implementation of Weighted Fair Queueing Need to keep per flow instead of per packet virtual start, finish time only System virtual time is used to reset a flows virtual start time when a flow becomes backlogged again after being idle

16
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu16 System Virtual Time in GPS 0412816 1/2 1/8 2*C C

17
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu17 Virtual Start and Finish Times Utilize the time the packets would start S i k and finish F i k in a fluid system 0412816

18
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu18 Goals in Designing Packet Fair Queueing Algorithms Improve worst-case fairness (see next): -Use Smallest Eligible virtual Finish time First (SEFF) policy -Examples: WF 2 Q, WF 2 Q+ Reduce complexity -Use simpler virtual time functions -Examples: SCFQ, SFQ, DRR, FBFQ, leap-forward Virtual Clock, WF 2 Q+ Improve resource allocation flexibility -Service Curve

19
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu19 Worst-case Fair Index (WFI) Maximum discrepancy between the service received by a flow in the fluid flow system and in the packet system In WFQ, WFI = O( n ), where n is total number of backlogged flows In WF2Q, WFI = 1

20
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu20 WFI example Fluid-Flow (GPS) WFQ (smallest finish time first): WFI = 2.5 WF2Q (earliest finish time first); WFI = 1

21
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu21 Hierarchical Resource Sharing Resource contention/sharing at different levels Resource management policies should be set at different levels, by different entities -Resource owner -Service providers -Organizations -Applications Link Provider 1 seminar video Stat Stanford.Berkeley Provider 2 WEB 155 Mbps 50 Mbps 10 Mbps 20 Mbps 100 Mbps 55 Mbps Campus seminar audio EECS

22
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu22 Hierarchical-GPS Example 41 1 111 Red session has packets backlogged at time 5 Other sessions have packets continuously backlogged 5 0 10 20 10 1 First red packet arrives at 5…and it is served at 7.5

23
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu23 Packet Approximation of H-GPS Idea 1 -Select packet finishing first in H-GPS assuming there are no future arrivals -Problem: Finish order in system dependent on future arrivals Virtual time implementation wont work Idea 2 -Use a hierarchy of PFQ to approximate H-GPS 64 3 2 1 GPS 10 Packetized H-GPS H-GPS 64 3 2 1 GPS 10

24
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu24 Problems with Idea 1 The order of the 4 th blue packet finish time and of the 1 st green packet finish time changes as a result of a red packet arrival Make decision here 41 1 111 5 10 1 Blue packet finish first Green packet finish first

25
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu25 Hierarchical-WFQ Example A packet on the second level can miss its deadline (finish time) by an amount of time that in the worst case is proportional to WFI 41 1 111 5 10 1 First red packet arrives at 5 …but it is served at 11 ! First level packet schedule Second level packet schedule

26
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu26 Hierarchical-WF2Q Example In WF2Q, all packets meet their deadlines modulo time to transmit a packet (at the line speed) at each level 41 1 111 5 10 1 First red packet arrives at 5..and it is served at 7 First level packet schedule Second level packet schedule

27
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu27 WF 2 Q+ WFQ and WF 2 Q -Need to emulate fluid GPS system -High complexity WF 2 Q+ -Provide same delay bound and WFI as WF 2 Q -Lower complexity Key difference: virtual time computation - - sequence number of the packet at the head of the queue of flow i - - virtual starting time of the packet at the head of queue i -B(t) - set of packets backlogged at time t in the packet system

28
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu28 Example Hierarchy

29
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu29 Uncorrelated Cross Traffic Delay under H-WFQ Delay under H-WF 2 Q+ Delay under H-SFQ Delay under H-SCFQ 20ms 60ms 40ms 20ms 60ms 40ms

30
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu30 Correlated Cross Traffic Delay under H-WFQ Delay under H-WF 2 Q+ Delay under H-SFQ Delay under H-SCFQ 20ms 60ms 40ms 20ms 60ms 40ms

31
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu31 Why Service Curve? WFQ, WF2Q, H-WF2Q+ -Guarantee a minimum rate: N – total number of flows -A packet is served no later than its finish time in GPS (H-GPS) modulo the sum of the maximum packet transmission time at each level For better resource utilization we need to specify more sophisticated services (example to follow shortly) Solution: QoS Service curve model

32
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu32 What is a Service Model? The QoS measures (delay,throughput, loss, cost) depend on offered traffic, and possibly other external processes. A service model attempts to characterize the relationship between offered traffic, delivered traffic, and possibly other external processes. external process Network element offered traffic delivered traffic (connection oriented)

33
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu33 Arrival and Departure Process Network Element R in R out R in (t) = arrival process = amount of data arriving up to time t R out (t) = departure process = amount of data departing up to time t bits t delay buffer

34
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu34 Traffic Envelope (Arrival Curve) Maximum amount of service that a flow can send during an interval of time t slope = max average rate b(t) = Envelope slope = peak rate t Burstiness Constraint

35
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu35 Service Curve Assume a flow that is idle at time s and it is backlogged during the interval ( s, t ) Service curve: the minimum service received by the flow during the interval ( s, t )

36
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu36 Big Picture t t slope = C t R in (t) Service curve bits R out (t)

37
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu37 Delay and Buffer Bounds t S (t) = service curve E(t) = Envelope Maximum delay Maximum buffer bits

38
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu38 Service Curve-based Earliest Deadline (SCED) Packet deadline – time at which the packet would be served assuming that the flow receives no more than its service curve Serve packets in the increasing order of their deadlines Properties -If sum of all service curves <= C*t -All packets will meet their deadlines modulo the transmission time of the packet of maximum length, i.e., L max /C bits Deadline of 4-th packet 1 2 3 4 t

39
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu39 Linear Service Curves: Example t bits t t Arrival curves t bits tt Service curves Arrival process Deadline computation Video FTP t Video packets have to wait after ftp packets

40
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu40 Non-Linear Service Curves: Example t bits t t Arrival curves t bits tt Service curves Arrival process Deadline computation t Video FTP Video packets transmitted as soon as they arrive

41
istoica@cs.berkeley.edu41 Summary WF2Q+ guarantees that each packet is served no later than its finish time in GPS modulo transmission time of maximum length packet -Support hierarchical link sharing SCED guarantees that each packet meets its deadline modulo transmission time of maximum length packet -Decouple bandwidth and delay allocations Question: does SCED support hierarchical link sharing? -No (why not?) Hierarchical Fair Service Curve (H-FSC) [Stoica, Zhang & Ng 97] -Support nonlinear service curves -Support hierarchical link sharing

Similar presentations

Presentation is loading. Please wait....

OK

7/15/2015HY220: Ιάκωβος Μαυροειδής1 HY220 Schedulers.

7/15/2015HY220: Ιάκωβος Μαυροειδής1 HY220 Schedulers.

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google