1. Pathdiag: Automatic TCP Diagnosis Matt Mathis John Heffner Ragu Reddy 8/01/08 http://www.psc.edu/~mathis/papers/ PathDiag20080108.ppt

2. Outline Why is the end-to-end problem so difficult? The pathdiag solution How it works Features Other issues

3. Why is the end-to-end problem so difficult? By design TCP/IP hides the ‘net from upper layers –TCP/IP provides basic reliable data delivery –The “hour glass” between applications and networks This is a good thing, because it allows: –Invisible recovery from data loss, etc –Old applications to use new networks –New application to use old networks But then (nearly) all problems have the same symptom –Less than expected performance –The details are hidden from nearly everyone

4. TCP tuning is painful debugging All problems reduce performance –But the specific symptoms are hidden Any one problem can prevent good performance –Completely masking all other problems Trying to fix the weakest link of an invisible chain –General tendency is to guess and “fix” random parts –Repairs are sometimes “random walks” –Repair one problem at time at best The solution is to instrument TCP

5. The Web100 project Use TCP's ideal diagnostic vantage point –What is limiting the data rate? –RFC 4898 TCP-ESTATS-MIB Standards track Prototypes for Linux (www.Web100.org) and Windows Vista –Also TCP Autotuning Automatically adjusts TCP buffers Linux 2.6.17 default maximum window size is 4 M Bytes Announced for Vista - details unknown But this has lead to a new insight: –Nearly all symptoms scale with round trip time

6. Nearly all symptoms scale with RTT Examples –TCP Buffer Space: –Packet loss: Think: the extra time needed to overcome a flaw is proportional to the RTT

7. Symptom scaling breaks diagnostics Local Client to Server –Flaw has insignificant symptoms –All applications work, including all standard diagnostics –False pass all diagnostic tests Remote Client to Server: all applications fail –Leading to faulty implication of other components Implies that the flaw is in the wide are network

8. The confounded problems For nearly all network flaws –The only symptom is reduced performance –But the reduction is scaled by RTT Therefore, flaws are undetectable on short paths –False pass for even the best conventional diagnostics –Leads to faulty inductive reasoning about flaw locations –Diagnosis often relies on tomography and complicated inference techniques This is the real end-to-end problem

9. The pathdiag solution Test a short section of the path –Most often first or last mile Use Web100 to collect detailed TCP statistics –Loss, delay, queuing properties, etc Use models to extrapolate results to the full path –Assume that the rest of the path is ideal –You have to specify the end-to-end performance goal Data rate and RTT Pass/Fail on the basis of the extrapolated performance

10. Deploy as a Diagnostic Server Use pathdiag in a Diagnostic Server (DS) Specify End to End target performance –From server (S) to client (C) (RTT and data rate) Measure the performance from DS to C –Use Web100 in the DS to collect detailed statistics On both the path and client –Extrapolate performance assuming ideal backbone Pass/Fail on the basis of extrapolated performance

11. Demo Laptop Server PSC Skip 2 pages if demo

12. Pathdiag output

14. Pathdiag One click automatic performance diagnosis –Designed for (non-expert) end users Future version will better support both expert and non-expert –Accurate end-systems and last mile diagnosis Eliminate most false pass results Accurate distinction between host and path flaws Accurate and specific identification of most flaws –Basic networking tutorial info Help the end user understand the problem Help train 1st tier support (sysadmin or netadmin) Backup documentation for support escalation Empower the user to get it fixed –The same reports for users and admins

15. Under the covers Same base algorithm as “Windowed Ping” [Mathis, INET’94] –Aka “mping” –See http://www.psc.edu/~mathis/wping/ –Killer diagnostic in use at PSC in the early 90s –Stopped being useful with the advent of “fast path” routers Use a simple fixed window protocol –Scan window size in 1 second steps Pathdiag clamps cwnd to control the TCP window Varies step size – fine steps near interesting features –Measure data rate, loss rate, RTT, etc as window changes –Reports reflect key features of the measured data

16. Window Size vs Data Rate

17. Window Size vs Loss Rate

18. Window Size vs RTT

19. Window Size vs Power

20. Key NPAD/pathdiag features Results are intended for end-users –Provides a list of specific items to be corrected Failed tests are show stoppers for fast apps –Includes explanations and tutorial information –Clear differentiation between client and path problems –Accurate escalation to network or system admins –The reports are public and can be viewed by either Coverage for a majority of OS and last-mile network flaws –Coverage is one way – need to reverse client and server –Does not test the application – need application tools –Does not check routing – need traceroute –Eliminates nearly all(?) false pass results

21. More features Tests becomes more sensitive as the path gets shorter –Conventional diagnostics become less sensitive –Depending on models, perhaps too sensitive New problem is false fail (e.g. queue space tests) Flaws no longer completely mask other flaws –A single test often detects several flaws E.g. Can find both OS and network flaws in the same test –They can be repaired concurrently Archived DS results include raw web100 data –Can reprocess with updated reporting SW New reports from old data –Critical feedback for the NPAD project We really want to collect “interesting” failures

22. Impact Automatically diagnose first level problems –Easily expose all path bottlenecks that limit performance to less than 10 MByte/s –Easily expose all end-system/OS problems that limit performance to less than 10 MByte/s (Will become moot as autotuning is deployed) Empower the users to apply the proper motivation Still need to recalibrate user expectations –Less than 1 gigabyte / 2 minutes is too slow –Many paths should support 5 gigabytes/minute Less than 1 Gb/s

23. Recalibrate user expectations Long history of very poor network performance –Users do not know what to expect –Users have become completely numb –Users have no clue about how poorly they are doing Goal: New baseline expectations for R&E users: –10 Mbytes/s (80 Mb/s) over a 20 ms path. Everyone should be able to reach these rates by default People who can’t should know why or be angry

24. What about impact of the test traffic? Pathdiag server is single threaded –Only one test at a time Same load as any well tuned TCP application –Protected by TCP “fairness” Large flows are generally “softer” than small flows Large flows are easily disturbed by small flows Note that any short RTT flow is stiffer than a long RTT flow

25. NPAD/pathdiag deployment Why should a campus networking organization care? –“Zero effort” solution to miss-tuned end-systems –Accurate reports of real problems You have the same view as the user Saves time when there really is a problem You can document reality for management Suggestion: –Require pathdiag reports for all performance problems

26. Download and install User documentation: http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/pathdiag/ Follow the link to “Installing a Server” –Easily customized with a site specific skin –Designed to be easily upgraded with new releases Roughly every 2 months Improving reports through ongoing field experience –Drops into existing NDT servers Plans for future integration Enjoy!

27. Backup slides

28. The Wizard Gap

29. The Wizard Gap Updated Experts have topped out end systems & links –10 Gb/s NIC bottleneck –40 Gb/s “link” bandwidth (striped) Median I2 bulk rate is 3 Mbit/s –See http://netflow.internet2.edu/weekly/ Current Gap is about 3000:1 Closing the first factor of 30 should now be “easy”

30. Pathdiag Initial version aimed at “NSF domain scientists” –People with non-networking analytical background Report designed to –accurately identify subsystem –provide tutorial –provide good escalation to network or host admin –support the user as the ultimate judge of success Future plan to split reports –Even easier for non-experts –Better information for experts