1 / 34

Fast TCP

Fast TCP. Matt Weaver CS622 Fall 2007. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance. David X. Wei, Student Member, IEEE, Cheng Jin, Steven H. Low, Senior Member, IEEE, and Sanjay Hegde. Abstract.

airell
Download Presentation

Fast TCP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Fast TCP • Matt Weaver • CS622 Fall 2007

  2. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance David X. Wei, Student Member, IEEE, Cheng Jin, Steven H. Low, Senior Member, IEEE, and Sanjay Hegde

  3. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance Abstract • FAST TCP is a congestion control algorithm that attempts to solve the problems of congestion control. • This paper covers: • The algorithm itself. • Performance metrics 3

  4. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance Background • “Congestion control is a distributed algorithm to share network resources among competing users.” • A difficult problem to solve... • Resource needs vary, depending on time of day. • Available resources is usually static. 4

  5. FAST TCP FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance • FAST is a recursive acronym: • FAST AQM Scalable TCP • AQM: Active Queue Management • TCP: Transmission Control Protocol (duh) 5

  6. Current Issues FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance • As congestion is monitored, current algorithms slow down monitoring as packets are dropped, the average sending rate depends on low loss probability. • High data transmission rates are required for low loss. • Usually lower than WiFi can support. 6

  7. Solution FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance • FAST TCP uses queues to store a constant number of packets. • If too few packets are queued, the sending rate increases. • If too few, the rate decreases. 7

  8. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance Congestion Control Current TCP congestion control algorithm (aka Reno). • At the packet level, linear increase by one packet per roundtrip time (RTT) is too slow, and multiplicative decrease per loss event is too drastic. • At the flow level, maintaining large average congestion windows requires an extremely small equilibrium loss probability. • At the packet level, oscillation in congestion window is unavoidable because TCP uses a binary congestion signal (packet loss). • At the flow level, the dynamics is unstable, leading to severe oscillations that can only be reduced by the accurate estimation of packet loss probability and a stable design of the flow dynamics. 8

  9. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance Motivations • Two levels of design: • The flow level (macroscopic) covers: • QoS • Stability • etc • Packet level (microscopic) covers: • The same goals, but focused on end to end. • Reno suffered because higher level control was considered after the micro level. 9

  10. Calculations • Congestion and utility: • U calculates utility for each stakeholder (user) at a given flow. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance 10

  11. Calculations • Equilibrium (FAST): • Equilibrium (Reno): FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance 11

  12. Calculations • “A key departure of our model from those in the literature is that we assume that a source’s send rate, defined as xi(t) :=wi(t)=Ti(t), cannot exceed the throughput it receives. “ FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance 12

  13. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance Dynamic Structure • The weakness of current schemes versus FAST is shown for large window sizes. 13

  14. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance Equilibrium • Equilibrium measures congestion consistency. 14

  15. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance Differences • Though all of the aforementioned algorithms look different at the packet level, they actually have similar structures at the flow and equilibrium levels. 15

  16. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance Performance Test 1 • To test performance, packet data is pushed through a semi-articial network. • Identical sender and receiver boxes, running dummynet on FreeBSD. • Emulated router. • Dummynet running: • Paths with RTTs of 50, 100, 150, and 200ms. • Second path with a bottleneck capacity of 8M/s and a buffer size of 2,000 packets shared by all the delay pipes. 16

  17. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance Results • Dynamic state I: • Small flows, large windows • Dynamic state II: • Larger flows 17

  18. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance Dynamic State I 18

  19. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance Throughputkbps Queue(avg)# of pkts FAST vs Reno I Sec 19

  20. Dynamic State II FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance 20

  21. Dynamic State II FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance 21

  22. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance FAST vs Reno II 22

  23. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance BIC 23

  24. Performance Test 2 FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance • Dummynet tests are limited to a single bottleneck and the same protocols. • NS-2 Simulation run in lab: • Same algorithm. • Noise added to eliminate phase artifacts. 24

  25. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance 25

  26. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance 26

  27. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance 27

  28. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance 28

  29. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance 29

  30. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance 30

  31. Conclusion FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance • Because of the use of queues, FAST TCP can handle lower transmission rates. • The paper also covers some simulated scenarios (too lengthy to cover properly here). 31

  32. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance Caveat Emptor • Possibly biased research: • Jin Cheng, Steve Low, and David Wei (the authors) patented and market the FAST TCP algorithm. • FAST TCP implementation sold as FastSoft Aria (a 1 U rack mountable hardware solution). http://www.fastsoft.com/ • Ao Tang proposed that these measurements were somewhat misleading in another paper. 32

  33. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance Other CC Algorithms • BIC TCP • Compound TCP • CUBIC • H-TCP • High Speed TCP • HSTCP-LP • Hybla • New Reno • Tahoe • TCP-Illinois • TCP-LP • TCP-SACK • TCP-Veno • Westwood • Westwood+ • XCP • YeAH-TCP 33

  34. FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance Related Work • Tang, A., Wang, J., Low, S. H., and Chiang, M. 2007. Equilibrium of heterogeneous congestion control: existence and uniqueness. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 15, 4 (Aug. 2007), 824-837. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2007.893885 • Ma, J., Ruutu, J., and Wu, J. 2000. An enhanced TCP mechanism—fast-TCP in IP networks with wireless links. Wirel. Netw. 6, 5 (Nov. 2000), 375-379. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1019118421144 • Gu, Y., Hong, X., and Grossman, R. L. 2004. Experiences in Design and Implementation of a High Performance Transport Protocol. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing (November 06 - 12, 2004). Conference on High Performance Networking and Computing. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 22. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SC.2004.24 • Grieco, L. A. and Mascolo, S. 2004. Performance evaluation and comparison of Westwood+, New Reno, and Vegas TCP congestion control. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 34, 2 (Apr. 2004), 25-38. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/997150.997155 34

More Related