Stanford University, SLAC, NIIT, the Digital Divide & Bandwidth Challenge

1. Stanford University, SLAC, NIIT, the Digital Divide & Bandwidth Challenge Prepared by Les Cottrell, SLAC for the NIIT , February 22, 2006

2. Stanford University • Location

3. Some facts • Founded in 1890’s by Governor Leland Stanford & wife Jane • in memory of son Leland Stanford Jr. • Apocryphal story of foundation • Movies invented at Stanford • 1600 freshman entrants/year (12% acceptance), 7:1 student:faculty, students from 53 countries • 169K living Stanford alumni

4. Some alumni • Sports: Tiger Woods, John McEnroe • Sally Ride Astronaut • Vint Cerf “father of Internet” • Industry: • Hewlett & Packard, Steve Ballmer CEO Microsoft, Scott McNealy Sun … • Ex-presidents: Ehud Barak Israel, Alejandro Toledo Peru • US Politics: Condoleeza Rice, George Schultz, President Hoover

5. Some Startups • Founded Silicon Valley (turned orchards into companies): • Start by providing land and encouragement (investment) for companies started by Stanford alumni, such as HP & Varian • More recently: Sun (Stanford University Network), Cisco, Yahoo, Google

6. Excellence • 17 Nobel prizewinners • Stanford Hospital • Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) – my home: • National Lab operated by Stanford University funded by US Department of Energy • Roughly 1400 staff, + contractors & outside users => 3000, ~ 2000 on site at a given time • Fundamental research in: • Experimental particle physics • Theoretical physics • Accelerator research • Astro-physics • Synchrotron Light research • Has faculty to pursue above research and awards degrees, 3 Nobel prizewinners

7. Work with NIIT • Co-supervision of students, build research capacity, publish etc., for example: • Quantify the Digital Divide: • Develop a measurement infrastructure to provide information on the extent of the Digital Divide: • Within Pakistan, between Pak & other regions • Improve understanding, provide planning information, expectations, identify needs • Provide and deploy tools in Pakistan • MAGGIE-NS collaboration - projects: • TULIP - Faran • Network Weather Forecasting – Fawad, Fareena • Anomaly – Fawad, Adnan, Muhammad Ali • Detection, diagnosis and alerting • PingER Management - Waqar • MTBF/MTTR of networks – Not assigned • Federating Network monitoring Infrastructures – Asma, Abdullah • Smokeping, PingER, AMP, MonALISA, OWAMP … • Digital Divide – Aziz, Akbar, Rabail

8. Quantifying the Digital Divide: A scientific overview of the connectivity of South Asian and African Countries Les CottrellSLAC, Aziz RehmatullahNIIT, Jerrod WilliamsSLAC, Arshad AliNIIT Presented at the CHEP06 Meeting, Mumbai, India February 2006 www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/scs/net/talk05/icfa-chep06.ppt

9. Introduction • PingER project originally (1995) for measuring network performance for US, Europe and Japanese HEP community • Extended this century to measure Digital Divide for Academic & Research community • Last year added monitoring sites in S. Africa, Pakistan & India • Will report on network performance to these regions from US and Europe – trends, comparisons • Plus early results within and between these regions

10. Why does it matter? • Scientists cannot collaborate as equal partners unless they have connectivity to share data, results, ideas etc. • Distance education needs good communication for access to libraries, journals, educational materials, video, access to other teachers and researchers.

11. PingER coverage • ~120 countries (99% world’s connected population), 35 monitor sites in 14 countries • New monitoring sites in Cape Town, Rawalpindi, Bangalore • Monitor 25 African countries, contain 83% African population

12. Minimum RTT from US • Indicates best possible, i.e. no queuing • >600ms probably geo-stationary satellite • Only a few places still using satellite, mainly Africa • Between developed regions min-RTT dominated by distance • Little improvement possible Jan 2000 Dec 2003

13. World thruput seen from US • Derived throughput~MSS/(RTT*sqrt(loss)), Mathis Behind Europe 6 Yrs: Russia, Latin America 7 Yrs: Mid-East, SE Asia 10 Yrs: South Asia 11 Yrs: Cent. Asia 12 Yrs: Africa South Asia, Central Asia, and Africa are in Danger of Falling Even Farther Behind Many sites in DD have less connectivity than a residence in US or Europe

14. S. Asia & Africa from US • Data v. noisy but there are noticeable trends • India may be holding its own • Africa & Pakistan are falling behind Pakistan

15. Compare to US residence • Sites in many countries have bandwidth< US residence

16. India to India • Monitoring host in Bangalore from Oct ’05 • Too early to tell much, also need more sites, have some good contacts • 3 remote hosts (need to increase): • R&E sites in Mumbai & Hyderabad • Government site in AP • Lot of difference between sites, Gov. site sees heavy congestion

17. 50 Mbps 50 Mbps 50 Mbps PERN: Network Architecture International 2MB • HEC will invest $ 4M in Backbone • 3 To 9 Points-of-Presence (Core Nodes) • $ 2.4M from HEC to Public Universities for Last Mile Costs • Possible Dark Fiber Initiative 33 Mbps Lahore Core ATM/Router International 4MB 12 Universities Replica of Kr./Iba International 2MB 57 Mbps 65 Mbps 2x2Mbps 2x2Mbps Islamabad Core ATM/Router Karachi Core ATM/Router 23 Universities 22 Universities 2x2Mbps LAN Switch Customer University LAN Switch Access Router Access Router DRS DRS DRS DRS OF Node OFS DXX DXX OFS OFS DXX DXX University University University University

18. Pakistan to Pakistan • 3 monitoring sites in Islamabad/Rawalpindi • NIIT via NTC, NIIT via Micronet, NTC (PERN supplier) • All monitor 7 Universities in ISB, Lahore, KHI, Peshawar • Careful: many University sites have proxies in US & Europe • Minimum RTTs: best NTC 6ms, NIIT/NTC 10ms - extra 4ms for last mile, NIIT/Micronet 60ms – slower links different routes • Queuing = Avg(RTT)-Min(RTT) • NIIT/NTC heavily congested • 200-400ms queuing • Better when students holiday • NIIT/Micronet & NTC OK • Outages show fragility NIIT Holiday

19. Pakistan Network Fragility Remote host outages NIIT/NTC NTC NIIT/Micronet NIIT outage NIIT/NTC heavily congested Other sites OK

20. Pakistan International fragility • Typically once a month losses go to 20% • Infrastructure appears fragile • Losses to QEA & NIIT are 3-8% averaged over month Loss % RTT ms Feb05 Another fiber outage, this time of 3 hours! Power cable dug up by excavators of Karachi Water & Sewage Board Jul05 • Fiber cut off Karachi causes 12 day outage Jun-Jul ’05, Huge losses of confidence and business

21. Many systemic factors:Electricity, Import duties,Skills M. Jensen

22. Average Cost $ 11/kbps/Month

23. Routing in Africa • Seen from ZA • Only Botswana & Zimbabwe are direct • Most go via Europe or USA • Wastes costly international bandwidth

24. Loss within Africa

25. Satellites vs Terrestrial • Terrestrial links via SAT3 & SEAMEW (Mediterranean) • Terrestrial not available to all within countries, EASSy will help PingER min-RTT measurements from S. African TENET monitoring station

26. Between Regions • Red ellipses show within region • Blue = min(RTT) • Red = min-avg RTT • India/Pak green ellipses • ZA heavy congestion • Botswana, Argentina, Madascar, Ghana, BF • India better off than Pak

27. Overall • Sorted by Median throughput • Within region performance better (blue ellipses) • Europe, N. America, E. Asia Russia generally good • M. East, Oceania, S.E. Asia, L. America acceptable • Africa, C. Asia, S. Asia poor

28. Examples • India got Internet connectivity in 1989, China 1994 • India is 34Mbits/s backbones, one possible 622Mbits/s • China is deploying multi 10Gbits/s • Brazil and India had similar International connectivity in 2001, now Brazil is at multi-Gbits/s • Pakistan PERN backbone is 50Mbits/s, and end sites are ~1Mbits/s • Growth in # Internet users (2000-2005): 420% Brazil, China 393%, 5000% Pakistan, 900% India, demand outstripping growth • www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

29. Conclusions • S. Asia and Africa ~ 10 years behind and falling further behind creating a Digital Divide within a Digital Divide • India appears better than Africa or Pakistan • Last mile problems, and network fragility • Decreasing use of satellites, still needed for many remote countries in Africa and C. Asia • EASSy project will bring fibre to E. Africa • Growth in # users 2000-2005 400% Africa, 5000% Pakistan networks not keeping up • Need more sites in developing regions and longer time period of measurements

30. More information • Thanks to: Harvey Newman & ICFA for encouragement & support, Anil Srivastava (World Bank) & N.Subramanian (Bangalore) for India, NIIT, NTC and PERN for Pakistan monitoring sites, FNAL for PingER management support, Duncan Martin & TENET (ZA). • Future: work with VSNL & ERnet for India, Julio Ibarra & Eriko Porto for L. America, NIIT & NTC for Pakistan • Also see: • ICFA/SCIC Monitoring report: • www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/icfa/icfa-net-paper-jan06/ • Paper on Africa & S. Asia • www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/scs/net/papers/chep06/paper-final.pdf • PingER project: • www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/pinger/

31. SC|05 Bandwidth Challenge ESCC Meeting 9th February ‘06 Yee-Ting Li Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

32. LHC Network Requirements CERN/Outside Resource Ratio ~1:2Tier0/( Tier1)/( Tier2) ~1:1:1 ~PByte/sec ~150-1500 MBytes/sec Online System Experiment CERN Center PBs of Disk; Tape Robot Tier 0 +1 Tier 1 10 - 40 Gbps FNAL Center IN2P3 Center INFN Center RAL Center ~10 Gbps Tier 2 Tier2 Center Tier2 Center Tier2 Center Tier2 Center Tier2 Center ~1-10 Gbps Tier 3 Tens of Petabytes by 2007-8.An Exabyte ~5-7 Years later. Institute Institute Institute Institute Physics data cache 1 to 10 Gbps Tier 4 Workstations

33. Overview • Bandwidth Challenge • ‘The Bandwidth Challenge highlights the best and brightest in new techniques for creating and utilizing vast rivers of data that can be carried across advanced networks.‘ • Transfer as much data as possible using real applications over a 2 hour window • We did… • Distributed TeraByte Particle Physics Data Sample Analysis • ‘Demonstrated high speed transfers of particle physics data between host labs and collaborating institutes in the USA and worldwide. Using state of the art WAN infrastructure and Grid Web Services based on the LHC Tiered Architecture, they showed real-time particle event analysis requiring transfers of Terabyte-scale datasets.’

34. Overview • In detail, during the bandwidth challenge (2 hours): • 131 Gbps measured by SCInet BWC team on 17 of our waves (15 minute average) • 95.37TB of data transferred. • (3.8 DVD’s per second) • 90-150Gbps (peak 150.7Gbps) • On day of challenge • Transferred ~475TB ‘practising’ (waves were shared, still tuning applications and hardware) • Peak one way USN utlisation observed on a single link was 9.1Gbps (Caltech) and 8.4Gbps (SLAC) • Also wrote to StorCloud • SLAC: wrote 3.2TB in 1649 files during BWC • Caltech: 6GB/sec with 20 nodes

35. Networking Overview • We had 22 10Gbits/s waves to the Caltech and SLAC/FNAL booths. Of these: • 15 waves to the Caltech booth (from Florida (1), Korea/GLORIAD (1), Brazil (1 * 2.5Gbits/s), Caltech (2), LA (2), UCSD, CERN (2), U Michigan (3), FNAL(2)). • 7 x 10Gbits/s waves to the SLAC/FNAL booth (2 from SLAC, 1 from the UK, and 4 from FNAL). • The waves were provided by Abilene, Canarie, Cisco (5), ESnet (3), GLORIAD (1), HOPI (1), Michigan Light Rail (MiLR), National Lambda Rail (NLR), TeraGrid (3) and UltraScienceNet (4).

36. Network Overview

37. Hardware (SLAC only) • At SLAC: • 14 x 1.8Ghz Sun v20z (Dual Opteron) • 2 x Sun 3500 Disk trays (2TB of storage) • 12 x Chelsio T110 10Gb NICs (LR) • 2 x Neterion/S2io Xframe I (SR) • Dedicated Cisco 6509 with 4 x 4x10GB blades • At SC|05: • 14 x 2.6Ghz Sun v20z (Dual Opteron) • 10 QLogic HBA’s for StorCloud Access • 50TB Storage at SC|05 provide by 3PAR (Shared with Caltech) • 12 x Neterion/S2io Xframe I NICs (SR) • 2 x Chelsio T110 NICs (LR) • Shared Cisco 6509 with 6 x 4x10GB blades

38. Hardware at SC|05

39. Software • BBCP ‘Babar File Copy’ • Uses ‘ssh’ for authentication • Multiple stream capable • Features ‘rate synchronisation’ to reduce byte retransmissions • Sustained over 9Gbps on a single session • XrootD • Library for transparent file access (standard unix file functions) • Designed primarily for LAN access (transaction based protocol) • Managed over 35Gbit/sec (in two directions) on 2 x 10Gbps waves • Transferred 18TBytes in 257,913 files • DCache • 20Gbps production and test cluster traffic

40. BWC Aggregate Bandwidth Last year (SC|04)

41. Cumulative Data Transferred Bandwidth Challenge period

42. Component Traffic

43. SLAC-FermiLab-UK Bandwidth Contributions FNAL-UltraLight SLAC-ESnet-USN UKLight In to booth FermiLab-HOPI SLAC-ESnet Out from booth

44. SLAC Cluster Contributions ESnet routed ESnet SDN layer 2 via USN In to booth Bandwidth Challenge period Out from booth

45. SLAC/FNAL Booth Aggregate Waves Mbps

46. Problems… • Managerial/PR • Initial request for loan hardware took place 6 months in advance! • Lots and lots of paperwork to keep account of all loan equipment • Logistical • Set up and tore down a pseudo production network and servers in a space of week! • Testing could not begin until waves were alight • Most waves lit day before challenge! • Shipping so much hardware not cheap! • Setting up monitoring

47. Problems… • Tried to configure hardware and software prior to show • Hardware • NICS • We had 3 bad Chelsios (bad memory) • Xframe II’s did not work in UKLight’s Boston machines • Hard-disks • 3 dead 10K disks (had to ship in spare) • 1 x 4Port 10Gb blade DOA • MTU mismatch between domains • Router blade died during stress testing day before BWC! • Cables! Cables! Cables! • Software • Used golden disks for duplication (still takes 30 minutes per disk to replicate!) • Linux kernels: • Initially used 2.6.14, found sever performance problems compared to 2.6.12. • (New) Router firmware caused crashes under heavy load • Unfortunately, only discovered just before BWC • Had to manually restart the affected ports during BWC

48. Problems • Most transfers were from memory to memory (Ramdisk etc). • Local caching of (small) files in memory • Reading and writing to disk will be the next bottleneck to overcome

49. Conclusion • Previewed the IT Challenges of the next generation Data Intensive Science Applications (High Energy Physics, astronomy etc) • Petabyte-scale datasets • Tens of national and transoceanic links at 10 Gbps (and up) • 100+ Gbps aggregate data transport sustained for hours; We reached a Petabyte/day transport rate for real physics data • Learned to gauge difficulty of the global networks and transport systems required for the LHC mission • Set up, shook down and successfully ran the systems in < 1 week • Understood and optimized the configurations of various components (Network interfaces, router/switches, OS, TCP kernels, applications) for high performance over the wide area network.

50. Conclusion • Products from this the exercise • An optimized Linux (2.6.12 + NFSv4 + FAST and other TCP stacks) kernel for data transport; after 7 full kernel-build cycles in 4 days • A newly optimized application-level copy program, bbcp, that matches the performance of iperf under some conditions. • Extensions of Xrootd, an optimized low-latency file access application for clusters, across the wide area • Understanding of the limits of 10 Gbps-capable systems under stress. • How to effectively utilize 10GE and 1GE connected systems to drive 10 gigabit wavelengths in both directions. • Use of production and test clusters at FNAL reaching more than 20 Gbps of network throughput. • Significant efforts remain from the perspective of high-energy physics • Management, integration and optimization of network resources • End-to-end capabilities able to utilize these network resources. This includes applications and IO devices (disk and storage systems)