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
- [tmrg] TCP Evaluation Suite David
- Re: [tmrg] TCP Evaluation Suite Michael Welzl
- Re: [tmrg] TCP Evaluation Suite Sally Floyd
- Re: [tmrg] TCP Evaluation Suite SCHARF, Michael
- Re: [tmrg] TCP Evaluation Suite Patrik Halfar