Infopipes and the Infopipe Stub Generator Galen Swint, Calton Pu, Younggyun Koh, Wenchang Yan

1. Infopipes and the Infopipe Stub Generator Galen Swint, Calton Pu, Younggyun Koh, Wenchang Yan

2. Overview • The Infosphere project • Goals of the ISG • Implementation • Current results • Infopipes and OEP • Future Work

3. The Infosphere Project • Distributed computing with RPC is hard • RPC semantics do not fit streaming applications • Need services to be more composable • QoS concerns • “expanded” QoS • eliminate redundant QoS coding • Enhance portability • Same specification can be made for several different comm. machines

4. Motivation • RPC • Procedure call abstraction hides network • Application must address QoS • Does not understand application packets • Request/Response is an unnatural fit for streaming media (movies/sound) • Composable? • Basis for CORBA, RMI, Sun RPC, SOAP • We need an information-centric abstraction that is network aware to complement RPC

5. Goals for ISL/ISG • Form the core of an Infopipe toolkit • ISL • Simple description for flows • Support datatypes • Support “basic” composition • QoS requirements • ISG • Generate datatypes, communication stubs • Support multiple communication layers • Support multiple languages

6. Implementation • ISG becomes part of a process • XSLT + C++ • Brand new XIP (Young) • New comm. added more quickly (but needs more typing!) • XSLT allows easy modularity in templates (xsl:include) • Must re-implement the aspects • Buzzword compliant

7. Implementation v0.2

8. Mean Time Std. Dev. Java RMI 1.5 sec 0.1 sec ECho/Infopipe 0.35 sec 0.04 sec TCP socket 0.152 sec 0.001 sec μ-benchmarks • Round trip time (ping-pong) • One number sent and received on separate simplex channels • 100 experiments of 1000 ping-pongs

9. Experiment 1 - UAV • UAV demo • DoD project • ECho • Remote camera sends data via wireless link • Demonstrates code uploading • ISG generates replacement comm. code from SIP/XIP

10. Mean Time Std. Dev. Original 19.5 ms 0.6 ms Infopipe 19.6 ms 0.7 ms • Frame transfer • 101 runs, discard first • No statistical difference Mean Time Std. Dev. Original 598 ms 33 ms Infopipe 606 ms 45 ms Experiment 1 - UAV - Results • Initialization • 101 runs, discard first • No statisical difference Same performance with 36% fewer LOC!

11. Conclusions • No performance hit • Substantial LOC savings • Time savings for development • Potential portability • LOC savings probably varies with App

12. OEP Integration Recap • Participation in BBN OEP • Source-based filters for adaptive constrained resource management in the Multi-UAV demo • New filters as Infopipes (compression, encryption) • Better DRE application programs and better QoS support (more platforms and dimensions) • Infopipe software tools • Infopipe Stub Generator, program viewer, other tools • Demo apps (BBN OEP, Boeing OEP, etc)

13. New Infopipe Functionality • Three kinds of filters (and more) • Image filters (lower/higher resolution, B&W) • Compression (gzip, lzo, JPEG) • Encryption (Rijndael) • Two underlying platforms • BSD sockets/TCP and TAO AVStreams/UDP • And more: event channels, publish/subscribe • Automated QoS management • Adaptation by choosing appropriate combination of filters (also controlled manually at runtime)

14. DVDview MPEG/PPM PBIO/XML PBIO/XML Middle Middle PBIO/XML PBIO/XML Stub Stub Stub Stub parser parser method method generator generator WebCam Abstract Infopipe View Defragmenter Assembler BBN Video Distributor ATR (PPM) UDP Wireless Link-TCP QuO Contract Filter Control GUI Source Filter

15. Infopipe Stub Generator XML XML XMLparser Middlemethod XMLgenerator Stub Stub Single Filter Experiments Application GUI for Infopipe Specification Infopipe Spec. Lang. (ISL) (evolving) ISL2XIP XIP (fixed, extensible)

16. DVDview MPEG/PPM Image Filter Compress Encrypt Source Decompress Decrypt Multiple-Filter Experiment (1) • Refining the information flow by combining Infopipes through connectors ATR

17. DVDview MPEG/PPM Source Multiple-Filter Experiment (2) • Self-configured Infopipes (when data stream is unencrypted, system bypasses the decryption stage) Compress Image Filter Decompress ATR

18. DVDview MPEG/PPM Compress Intermediate Processing Encrypt UAV Decompress Decrypt Multiple-Filter Experiment (3) • Adaptive and flexible distribution of Infopipe stages at runtime Source Image Filter Distributor ATR

19. XMLparser Middlemethod XMLgenerator XMLparser Middlemethod XMLgenerator Stub Stub Stub Stub Middlemethod XMLgenerator Stub Stub XMLparser Middlemethod Stub Stub Connector Specialization Different machines SocketConnector IPCConnector Function Call Conn. Same machine Same process/CPU Function Call Conn.

20. Future Work • Stabilize comm. layers • Some basic type checking • Use aspects for QoS (w/Lenin S.) • Wrap in specialization (w/Young K.) • Use aspects for performance adaptation

21. Planned Experiments • Infopipe (filter) development and integration • Development cost/time, variety of filter code • Code quantity (ISL/XIP module size), quality (runtime overhead), portability (variety of underlying platforms) • Integration into OEP, making QoS work with new filters (measure QoS dimensions below) • QoS dimensions and trade-offs • Performance (e.g., latency, bandwidth, image resolution) • Security (e.g., encryption level) • Other platforms in OEP that support QoS

22. Credits • Initial stub generator – Morimori • ECho – Greg Eisenhauer, Karsten Schwan • Java socket template – Younggyun Koh • C socket template – Volkan Altuntas • Initial QoS – Wei Han • Demo harnesses, demo integration – Wenchang Yan • Initial UAV demo – Fabian Bustamante, P@rick Widener

23. XIP Example • Creating a data type • From the UAV demo, this holds a frame <datatype name="Raw_data"> <arg type="integer" name="tag" /> <arg type="char" name="ppm1" /> <arg type="char" name="ppm2" /> <arg type="integer" name="size" /> <arg type="integer" name="width" /> <arg type="integer" name="height" /> <arg type="integer" name="maxval" /> <arrayArg type="byte" name="buff" size="155000" /> </datatype>

24. XIP Example • Creating a filter • From the UAV example, this crops an image to half size <filter name="cropImage1Cto2C" uri="cropImage.ecl" inType="Raw_data1C" outType="Raw_data2C" takesParams="1" paramType="Params_rectangle" />

25. XIP Example • Declaring a simple, singular pipe • From UAV example, the sender and receivers • Note each is only a half-pipe <pipe name="uavSender" absMachine="ECho2"> <outport name="send1" type="Raw_data" /> </pipe> <pipe name="uavReceiverNormal" absMachine="ECho2"> <inport name="receive1" type="Raw_data" /> </pipe>

26. XIP Example • Connecting pipes together <composedPipe name="multiUAV"> <declarations> <pipe name="sender" class="uavSender" /> <pipe name="receiver" class="uavReceiverNormal" /> </declarations> <ports /> <connections> <connection> <from pipe="sender" port="send1" /> <to pipe="receiver" port="receive1" /> </connection> </connections> </composedPipe>

27. ISG Template • Snippet for current version of ISG • Submit function for sending data • for-each command generates for multiple outputs • “nodePipeOutConnect” captures some semantic data about the template <xsl:for-each select="/xip/pipes/pipe[@name=$thisPipeClass]/outport"> <xsl:variable name="portName" select="@name"/> <nodePipeOutConnect mark="true"> int <xsl:value-of select="$thisPipeName"/>_<connType/>_<xsl:value-of select="$portName"/><connName/>Submit( ); </nodePipeOutConnect> </xsl:for-each>

28. Et voila! • The code produced //int sender__send1Submit( CarrierStruct * ); int sender__send1Submit( );

29. Mean Time Std. Dev. ECho/Infopipe 2.6 sec 0.015 sec TCP socket 0.122 sec 0.003 sec • 1000 Integers • Loop 10,000 times sending 1,000 integers (4000 bytes) Mean Time Std. Dev. ECho/Infopipe 3.463 sec 0.004 sec TCP socket 3.393 sec 0.003 sec μ-benchmarks • Single Integer • Loop 100,000 times sending 1 integer (4 bytes)