1. 1 SLAC IEPM PingER and BW monitoring & tools PingER Presented by Les Cottrell, SLAC At LBNL, Jan 21, 2003 www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/scs/net/talk03/lbl-jan04.ppt

2. 2 History of the PingER Project Early 1990’s: SLAC begins pinging nodes around the world to evaluate the quality of Internet connectivity between SLAC and other HEP Institutions. Around 1996: The PingER project was funded making it the first Internet end-to-end monitoring tool available to the HEP community. Today: Believed to be the most extensive Internet end-to-end performance monitoring tool in the world PingER

3. 3 PingER Today Today, the PingER Project includes 35 Monitoring- hosts in 12 countries. They are monitoring Remote- hosts in 80 countries. Over 55 remote sites. PingER THESE COUNTRIES COVER 75% OF THE WORLD POPULATION AND 99% OF THE INTERNET CONNECTED POPULATION!!! Just added Pakistan! Colored by region Colored countries have remote PingER hosts

4. 4 PingER Architecture There are three types of hosts Remote-hosts: hosts being monitored Monitoring-hosts: Make ping measurements to remote hosts Archive/Analysis- hosts: gather data from Monitoring-sites, analyze & make reports Archive Monitoring REMOTE PingER

5. 5 Methodology Every 30 mins send 11*100Byte followed by 10*1000Byte pings from monitor to remote host Low impact: –By default < 100bits/s per monitor-remote host pair –Can reduce to ~ 10bits/s –No need for co-scheduling of monitors Uses ubiquitous ping –No software to install at any of over 500 remote hosts –Very important for hosts in developing countries By centrally gathering the data, archiving, analyzing and reporting, the requirements for monitoring hosts are minimal (typically 1-2 days to install etc.)

6. 6 Performance is improving Developed world improving factor of 10 in 4-5 years S.E. Europe, Russia, catching up India & Africa worse off & falling behind Developing world 3-10 years behind Worldwide performance Many institutes in developing world have less performance than a household in N. America or Europe

7. 7 Current State – Aug ‘03 (throughput Mbps) Within region performance better –E.g. Ca|EDU|GOV-NA, Hu-SE Eu, Eu-Eu, Jp-E Asia, Au-Au, Ru- Ru|Baltics Africa, Caucasus, Central & S. Asia all bad Bad < 200kbits/s < DSL Poor > 200 < 500kbits/s Acceptable > 500kbits/s, < 1000kbits/s Good > 1000kbits/s Monitoring Country Remote regions

8. 8 Network Readiness Index vs Throughput NRI from Center for International Development, Harvard U. http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cr/pdf/gitrr2002_ch02.pdf http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cr/pdf/gitrr2002_ch02.pdf NRI correlates reasonably well with Network Readiness Internet for all focus A&R focus NRI Top 14 Finland 5.92 US 5.79 Singapore 5.74 Sweden 5.58 Iceland 5.51 Canada 5.44 UK5.35 Denmark 5.33 Taiwan5.31 Germany5.29 Netherlands 5.28 Israel 5.22 Switzerland 5.18 Korea 5.10

9. 9 Typical uses Troubleshooting  Discerning if a reported problem is network related  Identify the time a problem started  Provide quantitative analysis for Network specialists  Identifying step functions, periodic network behavior, and recognize problems affecting multiple sites.  Setting expectations (e.g. SLAs)  Identifying need to upgrade  Providing quantitative information to Policy makers & Funding agencies  Seeing the effects of upgrades PingER

10. 10 Pakistan performance Karachi NIIT/Rawalpindi Islamabad Lahore Loss % RTT ms Routes: ESnet (hops 3-6) - SNV SINGTEL (7-12) - Karachi Pakistan Telecom Karachi Rawalpindi Routes: ESnet (hops 3-6) - SNV SINGTEL (7-12) - Karachi Pakistan Telecom Karachi Lahore Routes: ESnet (hops 3-8) - DC ATT (9-21) - Karachi

11. 11 NIIT performance from U.S. (SLAC) Ping RTT & Loss Nb. Heavy losses during congested day-times Bandwidth measurements using packet pair dispersion & TCP ABW (pkt-pair dispersion):Average To NIIT: ~350Kbits/s From NIIT: 365 Kbits/s Iperf/TCP: Average: To NIIT: ~320Kbits/s From: NIIT 40Kbits/s Can also derive throughput (assuming standard TCP) from RTT & loss using: BW~1.2*S(1460B)/(RTT*sqrt(loss)  ~ 260Kbits/s Nominal path bottleneck capacity 1Mbits/s Preliminary results, started measurements end Dec 2003. Avg daily: loss~1-2%, RTT~320ms

12. 12 In Summary PingER provides ongoing support for monitoring and maintaining the quality of Internet connectivity for the world wide scientific community. Information is available publicly on the web http:// www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/pingtable.pl PingER also quantifies the extent of the “Digital Divide” and provides information to policy makers and funding agencies. PingER

13. 13 IEPM-BW Need something for high-performance links –10pings/30 mins, i.e. min=0.21% in day, or 0.007% in month (10 -8 BER) – today’s better links exceed this –Ping losses may not be like TCP losses Need for Grid, HENP applications and high- performance network connections –Set expectations, planning –Trouble-shooting, improving performance –Application steering –Testing new transports (e.g. FAST, HS-TCP, RBUDP, UDT), applications, monitoring tools (e.g. QIperf, packet-pair techniques …) in production environments –Compare with passive measurements, advertised capacities

14. 14 Methodology Monitoring host every 90 minutes (+- randomization) cycles through collaborating hosts at several remote sites: –Sends active probes in-turn for: bbftp, gridtcp, bbcp, iperf1, iperf, (qiperf), ping, abwe … Also measures traceroutes at 15min intervals Uses ssh for code deployment, management and to start & stop servers remotely –Deploy server code for iperf, ABwE, bbftp, GridFTP & various utilities 10 monitoring sites, each with between 2 and 40 remote hosts monitored –Main users SLAC (BaBar) & FNAL (D0, CDF, CMS) Data archived, analyzed, displayed at monitoring hosts

15. 15 Deployment 100Mbits/s host Monitor 125 measured bw Aug ‘02 HENPGbits/s host Net research

16. 16 Visualization Time series: –Overplot multiple metrics –+ route changes –Zoom, history –Choose individual metrics Histograms Scatter plots Access to data

17. 17 Traceroutes Analyse for unique routes, assign route #s Display route # at start, then “.” if no change If significant change, the display route # in red Hour of day Links to: –History –Reverse –Single host –Raw data –Summary for emailing –Available BW –Topology Host Several routes changes simultaneously Hour of day Demo

18. 18 Topology Select times & hosts & direction on table Mouse_over to see router name Click on router to see sub path below Colored by deduced AS Click on end nodes to see names of all hops

19. 19 Performance (ABwE) Current bottleneck capacity (Usually limited by 100FE) Cross-traffic Available bandwidth Iperf (90m) Mbits/s 24 hours Requires ABwE server (mirror) at remote sites Gets performance for both directions Low impact 40 * 1000 byte packets Less than a second for result Can do “real-time” performance monitoring

20. 20

21. 21 Heavy load (xtraffic) appeared It shows new DBC on the path Normal situation ABwE/Iperf match: Hadrian to UFL IPLS shows traffic 800-900 Mbits/s CALREN shows sending traffic 600 Mbits/s

22. 22 Abing CLI Demo abing command line tool –Since low impact (40*1000 packets) can run like ping

23. 23 Navigation MonALISA

24. 24 Prediction, trouble shooting For ABwE: Working on auto detection of long term (many minutes) step changes in bandwidth –Developed simple algorithm and qualifying effectiveness –Looking at NLANR (McGregor/H-W Braun plateau change detector) http://www.ripe.net/pam2001 /Abstracts/talk_03.htmlhttp://www.ripe.net/pam2001 /Abstracts/talk_03.html –Look at correlation between performance & route changes & RTT –For significant changes, gather: RTT, routes (fwd/rev, before & after if changed), NDT info, bandwidth info (fwd & rev) –Fold in diurnal changes –Generate real-time email alerts with filtering Predictions Diurnal demo

25. 25 Program API Not realistic to look at thousands of graphs Programs also want to look at data. E.g. –Data placement for replica servers –Analysis, visualization (e.g. MonALISA) –Trouble shooting Correlate data from many sources when suspect/spot problem Publish the data in standard way W3C Web Service, GGF OGSI Grid Service –Currently XMLRPC and SOAP servers –Using Network Measurement Working Group schema ( NM-WG.xsd)NM-WG.xsd Demo mainly proof of principal, to access IEPM single & multistream iperf, multistream GridFTP & bbftp, ABwE and PingER data –Not pushing deployment and use until schema more solid

26. 26 IEPM SOAP Client #!/usr/local/bin/perl -w use SOAP::Lite; my $node = "node1.cacr.caltech.edu"; my $timePeriod="20031201-20031205T143000"; my $measurement = SOAP::Lite ->service('http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/tools/soap/wsdl/IEPM_profile.wsdl') ->GetBandwidthAchievableTCP("$node", "$timePeriod"); print “Host=“.$measurement->{'subject'}->{'destination'}->{'name'},"\n"; print $measurement->{'subject'}->{'destination'}->{'address'}->{'IP'},"\n"; print “Times:\n”.$measurement->{'path.bandwidth.achievable.TCP'} ->{'timestamp'}->{'startTime'},"\n"; print “Values:\n”.$measurement->{'path.bandwidth.achievable.TCP'} ->{'achievableThroughputResult'}->{'value'},"\n"; Host=node1.cacr.caltech.edu Not-disclosed Times: 1070528106 1070533504 1070538907 1070544307 1070549706 1070555108 1070560505 107 0565907 1070571306 1070576706 1070582106 1070587506 1070592906 1070598310 107060 3706 1070609111 1070614506 1070619905 1070625306 1070630706 1070636106 107064150 8 1070646905 1070652306 1070657705 Values: 183.5 174.3 196.76 188.75 196.67 196.05 195.86 187.69 192.91 152.99 181.85 193.0 3 190.21 190.54 168.71 166.79 196.17 172.1 183.77 194.44 195.84 194.01 192.49 17 1.55 176.43 Results For more see: http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/tools/web_services/http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/tools/web_services/ Demo: http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/tools/soap/IEPM_client.htmlhttp://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/tools/soap/IEPM_client.html

27. 27 For More Information PingER: –www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/pinger /www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/pinger / ICFA/SCIC Network Monitoring report, Jan04 –www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/icfa/icfa-net-paper-jan04.htmlwww.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/icfa/icfa-net-paper-jan04.html The PingER Project: Active Internet Performance Monitoring for the HENP Community, IEEE Communications Magazine on Network Traffic Measurements and Experiments.The PingER Project: Active Internet Performance Monitoring for the HENP Community IEPM-BW –http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/bw/http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/bw/ ABWE: www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/bw/abwe/abwe-cf-iperf.html and http:// moat.nlanr.net/PAM2003/PAM2003papers/3781.pdf www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/bw/abwe/abwe-cf-iperf.html moat.nlanr.net/PAM2003/PAM2003papers/3781.pdf PingER