1. SCAN: A Dynamic, Scalable, and Efficient Content Distribution Network Yan Chen, Randy H. Katz, John D. Kubiatowicz {yanchen, randy, kubitron}@CS.Berkeley.EDU EECS Department UC Berkeley

2. Outlines Motivation Goal and Challenges Previous Work SCAN Architecture and Components Evaluation Methodology Results Conclusions

3. Motivation Scenario: World Cup 2002

4. Goal and Challenges Dynamic choice of number and location of replicas –Clients’ QoS constraints: latency, staleness –Servers’ capacity constraints Efficient resource consumption –Small delay, bandwidth consumption for replica update –Small replica management cost Scalability: millions of objects, clients and servers No global network topology knowledge Provide content distribution to clients with good latency and staleness, while retaining efficient and balanced resource consumption of the underlying infrastructure

5. Previous Work Replica Placement –Research communities: optimal static replica placement Assume clients’ distributions, access patterns & IP topology No consideration for clients’ QoS or servers’ capacity constraints –CDN operators: un-cooperative, ad hoc placement Centralized CDN name server cannot record replica locations – place many more than necessary (ICNP ’02) Update Multicast –No inter-domain IP multicast –Most application-level multicast (ALM) unscalable Split root as common solution, suffers consistency overhead

6. adaptive coherence data plane network plane data source Web content server CDN server client replica always update cache SCAN: Scalable Content Access Network DOLR mesh

7. Components of SCAN Decentralized Object Location & Routing (DOLR) –Properties needed Scalable location with guaranteed success Search with locality –Improve the scalability of d-tree: each member only maintains states for its parent and direct children Simultaneous Dynamic Replica Placement and d- tree Construction –Replica search: Singular, Localized or Exhaustive –Replica placement on DOLR path: Lazy or Eager

8. parent candidate data plane network plane c s DOLR path Replica Search proxy DOLR mesh Singular Search

9. Replica Search parent candidates Localized search data plane network plane c s parent sibling server child proxy DOLR path client child Greedy load distribution DOLR mesh

10. data plane network plane c s proxy DOLR path first placement choice Replica Placement: Eager DOLR mesh

11. Replica Placement: Lazy data plane network plane c s proxy DOLR path client child first placement choice DOLR mesh

12. Evaluation of Alternatives Two dynamic overlay approaches –Overlay_naïve: Singular search + Eager placement –Overlay_smart: Localized search + Lazy placement Compared with static placement + IP multicast –Overlay_static: With global overlay topology –IP_static: With global IP topology (ideal) Metrics –Number of replicas deployed, load distribution –Multicast performance: Relative Delay Penalty (RDP) and bandwidth consumption –Tree construction traffic (packets and bandwidth)

13. Methodology Network Topology –5000-node network with GT-ITM transit-stub model –SCAN nodes placed randomly or on transit nodes NS-like Packet-level Network Simulations Workloads –Synthetic flash crowd: all clients access a hot object in random order –Real Web server traces: NASA and MSNBC Web SitePeriodDuration# Requests# Clients# objects MSNBC8/2/199910–11am1.6M140K4186 NASA7/1/1995All day64K51773258

14. Methodology: Sensitivity Analysis Various Client/Server Ratio Various Server Density Various Latency & Capacity Constraints Various Network Topologies –Average over 5 topologies with different setup All Have Similar Trend of Results –Overlay_smart has close-to-optimal (IP_static) number of replicas, load distribution, multicast performance with reasonable amount of tree construction traffic

15. Number of Replicas Deployed and Load Distribution Overlay_smart uses only 30-60% of replicas than overlay_naïve and very close to IP_static Overlay_smart has two times better load distribution than od_naïve, overlay_static and very close to IP_static

16. Multicast Performance 85% of overlay_smart Relative Delay Penalty (RDP) less than 4 Bandwidth consumed by overlay_smart is very close to IP_static, and is only 1/3 of bandwidth by overlay_naive

17. Tree Construction Traffic Including “join” requests, “ping” messages, replica placement and parent/child registration Overlay_smart consumes 3 - 4 times of traffic than overlay_naïve, and the traffic of overlay_naïve is quite close to IP_static Far less frequent event than access & update dissemination

18. Conclusions P2P networks can be used to construct CDNs SCAN: Scalable Content Access Network with good QoS, efficiency and load balancing –Simultaneous dynamic replica placement & d-tree construction –Leverage DOLR to improve scalability and locality In particular, overlay_smart recommended –Localized search + Lazy placement –Close to optimal number of replicas, good load distribution, low multicast delay and bandwidth penalty at the price of reasonable construction traffic

19. Results on Web Server Traces Limited simulations, most URLs have very few requests Overlay_smart uses only one third to half replicas than overlay_naïve for hot objects

20. data plane network plane data source Web content server CDN server client replica always update cache SCAN: Scalable Content Access Network adaptive coherence DOLR mesh

21. parent candidate data plane network plane c s DOLR path Replica Search proxy DOLR mesh Singular Search

22. Replica Search parent candidates Localized search data plane network plane c s parent sibling server child proxy DOLR path client child Greedy load distribution

23. data plane network plane c s proxy Tapestry overlay path first placement choice parent candidate Dynamic Replica Placement: naïve Tapestry mesh Singular Search Eager Placement

24. Dynamic Replica Placement: smart Localized search Lazy placement Greedy load distribution data plane parent candidates network plane c s parent sibling server child proxy Tapestry overlay path client child first placement choice