Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byCarlos Hoyte Modified over 3 years ago

1
Available Bandwidth Estimation Manish Jain Networking and Telecom Group CoC, Georgia Tech

2
8803 Class Presentation2 09/23/2003 Outline Introduction and definitions Estimation methodologies Train of Packet Pairs(TOPP) Self Loading Periodic Streams (SLoPS) Packet Train Gap Model Open Issues

3
8803 Class Presentation3 09/23/2003 Varies with time u i : utilization of link i in time interval ( 0 <= u i <= 1 ) Available bandwidth in link i: Available bandwidth in path (Avail-bw): Tight link: minimum avail-bw link Definition Available Bandwidth: unutilized capacity

4
8803 Class Presentation4 09/23/2003 Available Bandwidth:time varying metric defines sampling/averaging timescale Average avail-bw in Does not tell how avail-bw varies Variation range gives more information t A(t ) T

5
8803 Class Presentation5 09/23/2003 Why do we care ? ssthresh in TCP Streaming applications SLA verification Overlay routing End-to-end admission control

6
8803 Class Presentation6 09/23/2003 Measuring per-hop available bandwidth Can be measured at each link from interface utilization data using SNMP MRTG graphs: 5-minute averages But users do not normally have access to SNMP data And MRTG graphs give only per-hop avail-bandwidth

7
8803 Class Presentation7 09/23/2003 Measuring path Available Bandwidth Blast path with UDP packets Intrusive Carter & Crovella: cprobe (Infocom 1996) Packet train dispersion does not measure available bandwidth (Dovrolis et.al. Infocom’01) Measure throughput of large TCP transfer TCP throughput depends on network buffer Ribeiro et.al. : Delphi (ITC’00) Correct estimation when queuing occurs only at single link Assumes that cross traffic can be modelled by MWM model

8
8 A New End-to-end probing and analysis method for estimating bandwidth bottlenecks B. Melander et al, In Global Internet Symposium, 2000

9
8803 Class Presentation9 09/23/2003 Introduction In one hop: In two hop: CjCj C j+1 O j-1 OjOj M j-1 O j+1 MjMj In FCFS queue, output rate is function of input rate and cross-traffic rate C j+1 -M j > C j -M j-1

10
8803 Class Presentation10 09/23/2003 Key Idea:TOPP o :sending rate f: receiving rate where i is number links with different available bandwidth For i=1 =1/C tight 1 =1-A tight /C tight Break points

11
8803 Class Presentation11 09/23/2003 Algorithm Algorithm: Send n probe pairs with a minimum rate Record receive rate at receiver Increment rate by fixed and repeat Measure available bandwidth from the relation of o/f vs o Avail-bw and capacity of other links can be measured if links in ascending order of avail-bw In practice, break points may be hard to identify

12
12 End-to-end Available Bandwidth: Measurement Methodology, Dynamics and Relation with TCP Throughput M. Jain and C. Dovrolis, In IEEE/ACM TON, August 2003

13
8803 Class Presentation13 09/23/2003 Key idea: SLoPS Examine One-Way Delay (OWD) variations of a fixed rate stream Relate rate to avail-bw OWD : D i = T arrive -T = T arrive - T send + Clock_Offset(S,R) SLoPS uses relative OWDs, D i = D i+1 – D i-1 (independent of clock offset) With a stationary & fluid model for the cross traffic, and FIFO queues: If R > min Ai, then D i > 0 for I = 1…N Else D i = 0 for for I = 1…N send S R R R

14
8803 Class Presentation14 09/23/2003 Illustration of SLoPS Periodic Stream: K packets, size L bytes, rate R = L/T If R>A, OWDs gradually increase due to self-loading of stream

15
8803 Class Presentation15 09/23/2003 Trend in real data For some rate R Increasing trend in OWDs R > Avail-bw No trend in OWDs R < Avail-bw

16
8803 Class Presentation16 09/23/2003 Iterative algorithm in SLoPS At sender: Send periodic stream n with rate R n At receiver: Measure OWDs D i for i=1…K At receiver: Notify sender of trend in OWDs At sender: If trend is :- increasing (i.e. R n >A ) repeat with R n+1 < R n non-increasing (i.e. R n R n Selection of R n+1 : Rate adjustment algorithm Terminate if R n+1 – R n < : resolution of final estimate

17
8803 Class Presentation17 09/23/2003 If things were black and white… Grey region: Rate R not clearly greater or smaller than Avail-bw during the duration of stream Rate R is within variation range of avail-bw

18
8803 Class Presentation18 09/23/2003 Big Picture Increasing trend R > variation range of Avail-bw No trend R < variation range of Avail-bw Grey trend R inside variation range

19
8803 Class Presentation19 09/23/2003 Grey region Rate adjustment algorithm Increasing trend : R max = R(n) R(n+1) = (G max + R max) /2 Non-increasing trend: R min = R(n) R(n+1) = (G max +R min )/2 Grey region & R(n) > G max: G max = R(n) R(n+1) = (G max + R max )/2 Grey region & R(n) < G min: G min = R(n) R(n+1) = (G min + R min )/2 Terminate if: (R max – G max ) && (R min – G min ) < R max > A R min < A G max G min Variation Range

20
8803 Class Presentation20 09/23/2003 How do we detect an increasing trend? Infer increasing trend when PCT or PDT trend 1.0

21
8803 Class Presentation21 09/23/2003 Verification approach Simulation Multi-hop topology Cross traffic: Exponential and Pareto interarrivals Varying load conditions Experiment Paths from U-Delaware to Greek universities and U-Oregon MRTG graphs for most heavily used links in path Compare pathload measurements with avail-bw from MRTG graph of tight link In 5-min interval, pathload runs W times, each for q i secs 5- min average avail-bw R reported by pathload:

22
8803 Class Presentation22 09/23/2003 Verification: Simulation Effect of tight link load Pathload range versus avail-bw during simulation (average of 50 runs) 5 Hop, C tight =10Mbps, util non-tight =.6 % Center of pathload range: good estimate of average of avail-bw

23
8803 Class Presentation23 09/23/2003 Verification: Experiment Tight link: U-Ioannina to AUTH (C=8.2Mbps), =1Mbps

24
8803 Class Presentation24 09/23/2003 Avail-bw Variability versus stream length Relative variation index: Longer probing stream observe lower variability However, longer streams can be more intrusive

25
8803 Class Presentation25 09/23/2003 Avail-bw variability versus traffic load Heavier link utilization leads to higher avail-bw variability

26
26 Evaluation and Characterization of Available Bandwidth Techniques N. Hu et al, JSAC, August 2003

27
8803 Class Presentation27 09/23/2003 Packet Pair Model: Single Hop Assumption: Fluid cross traffic In practice, CT is bursty Packet train will capture average Input Case1: G o = G i – q/C < G i Case2: G o =m/C+G b GiGi GoGo GoGo q m/C t t t In single hop path Competing traffic may be inserted between packet pair Packet pair gap at receiver is function of cross traffic

28
8803 Class Presentation28 09/23/2003 Packet Train Model: Single Hop Assumption: Only increased gap sees CT Packet dispersion not affected by CT at post-tight link Where Total numer of probing packets = M+K+N GiGi GbGb Gi+Gi+ t t

29
8803 Class Presentation29 09/23/2003 IGI and PTR Algorithm Start by sending out packet train with minimum gap ( g B ) If gap@receiver != gap@sender Send another train with increased gap Else calculate available bandwidth IGI: Use equation PTR: Available Bandwidth = Rate of last train measured at receiver

30
8803 Class Presentation30 09/23/2003 Summary: Single Hop Model IGI: Need to know the capacity of tight link Assume that tight link is same as narrow link PTR: Same as TOPP Relation of amount of cross-traffic and dispersion May not hold in multi-hop path

31
8803 Class Presentation31 09/23/2003 Open Issues Integrate avail-bw estimation methodology with application Use data packets in place of probe packets Implement avail-bw estimation algorithm in network interface card Allow routers to do avail-bw estimation Can we make some short-term predictions of avail- bw? High bandwidth paths Time stamping packets MTU limitations

32
8803 Class Presentation32 09/23/2003 Pathchirp Uses exponentially spaced packet train Main idea: Avail-bw > R k, if q k >= q k+1 Avail-bw < R k, otherwise Can be used when probe packets are close enough Identify excursions: consecutive packets show increased queuing delays Per-packet avail-bw E k Final estimate: Expected value of R k

Similar presentations

OK

Receiver-driven Layered Multicast S. McCanne, V. Jacobsen and M. Vetterli SIGCOMM 1996.

Receiver-driven Layered Multicast S. McCanne, V. Jacobsen and M. Vetterli SIGCOMM 1996.

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on media research tools Ppt on expository text for kids Ppt on air pollution by gas turbine Dentist appt on your birthday Ppt on steps of humility Ppt on job evaluation methods Ppt on save environment drawing Ppt on project tiger free Ppt on annual sports day Ppt on normal distribution