texas a&m university {sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu improving tcp performance in high...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
219 views
TRANSCRIPT
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
Improving TCP Performance in High Bandwidth High RTT Links Using Layered Congestion Control
Sumitha Bhandarkar Saurabh Jain
A. L. Narasimha ReddyTexas A & M University
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
Layering Concepts
• Design Constraints – Fairness among flows of similar RTT – RTT unfairness no worse than TCP– Fair to TCP in slow networks
• Two dimensional congestion control– Increase layers, if no losses for extended period– Per-RTT window increase more aggressive at
higher layers
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
• Layering– Start layering when window > WT
– Associate each layer with a step size K
– When window increases from previous addition of layer by K, increment number of layers
– For each layer K, increase window by K per RTT
Number of layers determined dynamically based on current network conditions.
Layering Concepts (Cont.)
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
K
Layering Concepts (Cont.)
K + 1
K
K - 1
LayerNumber
WK-1
Minimum Window Corresponding to the layer
Number of layers = K when WK W WK+1
WK
WK+1
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
• Constraint 1 : – rate of increase for flow at higher layer should be lower
than flow at lower layer
• Constraint 2 : – After a loss, recovery time for a larger flow should be more
than the smaller flow
(K1 > K2, for all K1, K2 2)
Framework
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
• Decrease behavior : – Multiplicative decrease
• Increase behavior :– Additive increase with additive factor = layer
number
W = W + K/W
A Design Choice
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
• After loss, drop at most one layer
• Constraint for choice of K:
• We choose
A Design Choice (Cont.)
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
• Choice of :Since after loss, at most one layer is dropped,
(We choose = 0.15 corresponding to K = 19)
A Design Choice (Cont.)
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
Time to claim bandwidth
Analysis
Speedup inPacket recovery time
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
• Steady state throughput
where K' is the layer corresponding to steady state window size, is the window decrease factor and p is the steady state loss probability
Analysis (Cont.)
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
• RTT Unfairness– With random losses, RTT unfairness similar to TCP– With synchronized losses, RTT unfairness is– Can be easily compensated
• Modify increase behavior W = W + (KR * K) / W
• When KR RTT (1/3), RTT unfairness similar to TCP
• When KR RTT, linear RTT unfairness (window size independent of RTT)
– Loss model depends on type of queue management, level of multiplexing etc.
Analysis (Cont.)
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
Window Comparison
Experimental Evaluation
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
Link Utilization
Experimental Evaluation
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
Fairness among multiple flows
Experimental Evaluation
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
Dynamic Link Sharing
Experimental Evaluation
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
Interaction with TCP
Experimental Evaluation
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
RTT Unfairness
Experimental Evaluation
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
• Why LTCP ?– Current design remains AIMD– Dynamically changes increase factor– Retains convergence and fairness properties– Simple to understand/implement– RTT unfairness similar to TCP
Conclusions
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
• Characterize losses on actual high speed links
• Study alternate designs for LTCP framework
• Compare with other TCP based high speed solution. Preliminary results show – observed loss probability with LTCP is lower
than other schemes– improved RTT unfairness– better TCP tolerance in high speed networks
Future Work
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
RTT Unfairness
Comparison with BIC(Preliminary Results)
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
Questions ?
Additional questions/feedback welcome at
{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
Thank You...
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
Simulation Topology
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
• HS-TCPSally Floyd, “HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion Windows”, RFC 3649 Dec 2003.
• Scalable TCPTom Kelly, “Scalable TCP: Improving Performance in HighSpeed Wide AreaNetworks”, ACM Computer Communications Review, April 2003.
• FASTCheng Jin, David X. Wei and Steven H. Low, “FAST TCP: motivation, architecture,algorithms, performance”, IEEE Infocom, March 2004.
• BICLisong Xu, Khaled Harfoush, and Injong Rhee, “Binary Increase Congestion Control forFast Long-Distance Networks”, IEEE Infocom, March 2004.
• HTCPR. N. Shorten, D. J. Leith, J. Foy, and R. Kilduff, “H-TCP Protocol for High-Speed LongDistance Networks”, PFLDnet 2004, February 2003.
Related Work
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
• Probability of loss for LTCP
• Probability of loss for TCP
RTT Fairness(Random Loss Model)
Texas A&M University{sumitha,saurabhj,reddy}@ee.tamu.edu
Observed Loss Rates
Comparison with BIC(Preliminary Results)
Single Flow, 1Gbps bottleneck link