Re: [tmrg] TCP Evaluation Suite

Patrik Halfar <ihalfar@fit.vutbr.cz> Sun, 10 July 2011 11:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ihalfar@fit.vutbr.cz>
X-Original-To: tmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF57B21F85D8 for <tmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 04:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_17=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_47=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hcrCG2tjy4Gk for <tmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 04:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kazi.fit.vutbr.cz (kazi6.fit.vutbr.cz [IPv6:2001:67c:1220:808::93e5:80c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0715721F85CF for <tmrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 04:36:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (cst-prg-132-17.vodafone.cz [46.135.132.17]) (authenticated user=ihalfar mech=PLAIN bits=0) by kazi.fit.vutbr.cz (envelope-from ihalfar@fit.vutbr.cz) (8.14.5/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6ABZO55001854 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <tmrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 13:35:29 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 13:30:17 +0200
Message-ID: <5sf3xfrxuflxo25i6udjfdyh.1310297417642@email.android.com>
From: Patrik Halfar <ihalfar@fit.vutbr.cz>
To: "IRTF's transport modeling research group" <tmrg@irtf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 147.229.8.12
Subject: Re: [tmrg] TCP Evaluation Suite
X-BeenThere: tmrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: IRTF's transport modeling research group <tmrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: IRTF's transport modeling research group <tmrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/tmrg>, <mailto:tmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/tmrg>
List-Post: <mailto:tmrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/tmrg>, <mailto:tmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 11:36:13 -0000

Sent from my Streak

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>; wrote:

>Hi!
>
>I think it's great to see that this is being taken ahead!
>
>Stefan Hirschmann has done a master thesis with me, in which he 
>investigated a different approach to Slow Start. As a starting point, I 
>told him to look at this test suite for evaluations - but, 
>unsurprisingly, we found it inadequate for the types of analyses needed 
>to compare variations of Slow Start. He therefore extended it to cover 
>some necessary scenarios - all of this can be found in his thesis:
>http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~michawe/teaching/dipls/hirschmann.pdf
>
>This may or may not have some relevance for the test suite... I'm not 
>suggesting to change or extend the scope because this work has been 
>going on for too long already and it would be just great if someone 
>could quickly finish it now. Still, there could be some useful 
>information for you in this thesis, so I felt like sharing it.
>
>Cheers,
>Michael
>
>PS: Since Stefan actively used the test suite, he may be able to give 
>some direct answers to the questions below. I think he's on this list...
>
>
>On 6/28/11 9:05 AM, David wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> I have been working on a revised version of the TCP test suite (see
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-tmrg-tests-02) as well as its ns-2
>> implementation. In the process we have identified a number of design decisions
>> to be made.  Below, we propose some possibilities, but would like to get
>> research group consensus on them before releasing the next draft.
>>
>> Some of these possibilities are based on practical issues to do with the
>> implementation of the draft in ns-2. This email is meant to bring everyone up to
>> date with the progress, explain some of the practical background, and open the
>> floor for comments, criticisms, suggestions, etc. I especially especially
>> solicit responses to the questions between "***".
>>
>> So far, most of the work has been with the basic dumbbell scenarios.
>>
>>
>> Note there are some ascii diagrams that require a fixed with font to be viewed
>> correctly.
>>
>>
>> 1. TMIX TRAFFIC
>>
>> 1.1 Background on the traffic traces:
>>
>> The test suite uses Tmix to replay traces of TCP connection arrivals and their
>> resulting origin-destination interatactions, including the amount of data for
>> each interaction. The Tmix traffic used in the scenarios is not symmetric and
>> not stationary.
>>
>> Some analysis of the traffic would be good to have as part of the suite, and is
>> being investigated.
>>
>>
>> 1.2 Background concerning scaling the traffic.
>>
>> To adjust the traffic load for the given scenarios, the connection arrival times
>> are scaled.
>> Connections are started at:
>> 	          time = scale * connection_start_time
>>
>> The smaller the scale the higher (in general) the traffic.
>>
>> Note that changing the connection start times also changes the way the traffic
>> interacts, potentially changing the "clumping" of traffic bursts.
>>
>>
>> 1.3 Simulation start up
>>
>> Background:
>>
>> To accelerate the system start up, the system is "prefilled" to approximate a
>> "steady state" of congestion. All connections that would have started in time=0s
>> to time=prefill are started more closely together spaced over a MaxRTT period
>> before time=prefill.  The idea behind this is to lessen the time taken before
>> measurements can be taken. Measurements are begin after time=2*prefill
>>
>>
>> Fixed with font required.
>> eg.
>>                       <---->
>> 			MaxRTT
>> |--------------------|----|-------------------------|
>> t=0                       t=prefill                 t=2*prefill
>>                       ^
>>                       | start connections here.
>>
>>
>>
>> *** Does any one foresee problems with attempting to reduce the necessary
>>    simulation warmup time with this method? ***
>>
>>
>> 1.4. Packet sizes
>>
>> The draft calls for 10% 536B and 90% 1500B TCP packets. To achieve this, we have
>> added a new MSS record has been added to the Tmix traffic vector files, and Tmix
>> enhanced to use it. The original traces have been processed so that the TCP MSS
>> for each tmix connection is selected randomly (i.i.d.) with 10% 496B and 90%
>> 1460B.
>>
>> Rationale: The maximum segment size is generally constant for any particular
>> 	      connection.
>>
>> *** Is it enough to randomly select the MSS for each connection in the trace
>>      file without being concerned how much traffic each connection generates?
>>      ***
>>
>> 2. SCALE SELECTION and LOSS TARGETS
>>
>> The connection arrival times are scaled for each scenario so as to achieve a
>> certain average loss rate at the most congested queue on the central link. The
>> draft in general omitted the target loss rates, but noted that moderate
>> congestion had about a 1-2% loss rate for the access link.
>>
>> In these scenarios packet loss is not primarily caused by long lived TCP
>> sessions in congestion avoidance mode cyclically filling the buffer. It is often
>> caused by the "collision" of multiple TCP sessions starting together.
>>
>> It was difficult to achieve any stable results with these targets for the
>> dial-up and geostationary satellite cases. Both of these scenarios experience
>> very bursty loss, with the dial-up scenario by being by far the worst. For these
>> scenarios we propose:
>>
>> Geostationary satellite: Mild congestion 2%, Moderate congestion 6% Dial-up link
>> (64kbps): Mild congestion 5%, Moderate congestion 15%
>>
>> Wireless link: to be studied.
>>
>> The rule of thumb was moderate congestion is three times the loss of mild
>> congestion. For the non-congested link traffic we propose a connection arrival
>> rate of half that of the mild-congestion scenario.
>>
>>
>> *** Do these targets seem reasonably practical? Comments? Suggestions? ***
>>
>> 3. SIMULATION TIMES
>>
>> The draft recommended at least 100s. We have found that this is not sufficient
>> in any but the data center and transoceanic scenarios.
>>
>> The simulation times listed below are rough minima which provide enough
>> averaging for a reliable determination of the connection arrival time scaling
>> for the target loss rates. Final values require further study.
>>
>> Approximate simulation times:
>>   - data center: ~85s (including 35s warmup)
>>   - transoceanic: ~100s (40s warmup)
>>   - access link: ~360s (60s warmup)
>>   - geostationary: ~740s (40s warmup)
>>   - dial-up: ~5100s (100s warmup)
>>
>> NOTES
>> 	1. The traffic is not stationary.
>> 	2. data center and transoceanic links have thousands of concurrent
>> 	TCP sessions and take a significant amount of real time.
>>
>>
>> *** Is everyone happy with simulation times varying according to the scenario?
>>      Comments? Suggestions? ***
>>
>>
>> 3. BASIC DUMBBELL SCENARIOS:
>>
>> 3.1 Topology:
>>
>> Topologies mainly are as described in draft with changes highlighted below.
>>
>> 3.1.1 Data Center and Transoceanic
>>
>> Currently a central link of 1Gbps is the fastest speed that can be
>> practically simulated with ns-2. We propose that these experiments use a
>> 1Gbps central link.
>>
>>
>> *** Is this reasonable? Comments? Suggestions? ***
>>
>> 3.1.2 Geostationary satellite
>>
>>
>> The draft proposed a topology with a 40Mbps bidirectional central link. The
>> access links were asymmetric 40/4 Mbps on one side of the central link, and
>> 4/40Mbps on the other side of the central link.
>>
>> We propose that this scenario be altered to model a network connected to a
>> hub, connected via satellite to the backbone Internet. The central link
>> models the asymmetric satellite connection. See below:
>>
>> Fixed with font required.
>>
>>             Node_1                                      Node_4
>>                   \                                    /
>>                    \          satellite link          /
>>            Node_2 --- Router_1 -------------- Router_2 --- Node_5
>>                    /                                  \
>>                   /          4Mbps--->                  \
>>             Node_3<---40Mbps              Node_6
>>
>>
>> We propose that the delay parameters are as in the draft, and that the
>> access links are set at 100Mbps.
>>
>>
>> Rationale:
>> 	   1. Our (inexhaustive) scan of current commercial satellite offerings
>> 	   didn't show common use of the draft scenario.
>>
>> 	   2. The proposed scenario seemed more common in practice (though
>> 	   sometimes the link is more asymmetric (ie 1Mbps up and 40Mbps down).
>>
>> 	   2. It is consistent with the other wired dumbbell scenarios, with
>> 	   congestion on the central link.
>>
>> 	   4. Having congestion on some of the access links, each of which carry
>> 	   different traffic makes it difficult to determine the appropriate
>> 	   "scale" factor for connection arrivals to achieve the target level of
>> 	   congestion.
>>
>>
>> *** Do you agree with this proposed change in topology? Can you see problems
>>      with it? Comments? Changes? Enhancements? Caveats? ***
>>
>>
>> 3.2 Buffer sizes
>>
>> The draft suggests a buffer size of 100ms. This is roughly the median base
>> RTT of possible paths for the access link scenario (actually 102ms).
>>
>> This size is too big for the data center scenario.  It is very impractical for
>> the dial-up link (less than 1 packet!).
>>
>> To deal with these issues, while attempting to provide a standard type of
>> test, We propose the following buffer sizes:
>>
>>        1. Access-link, data-center, trans-oceanic, and geostationary scenario
>>        central link buffers are set to the median base RTT. This results in
>>        buffer sizes of 102ms, 22ms, 232ms, and 702ms respectively (these being
>>        converted to the integer number of 1500B packets that achieve this,
>>        rounded down).
>>
>>        2. The dial-up link have its central link buffers set at 6 packets. This
>>        allows for 3 concurrent 2 packet bursts.
>>
>>        3. The wireless scenario is still being investigated.
>>
>>
>>
>> *** Do these proposed buffer sizes seem reasonable? Comments? Suggestions?
>>      Other proposals? ***
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>tmrg mailing list
>tmrg@irtf.org
>https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/tmrg