1 / 25

High performance Throughput

High performance Throughput. Les Cottrell – SLAC Lecture # 5a presented at the 26 th International Nathiagali Summer College on Physics and Contemporary Needs, 25 th June – 14 th July, Nathiagali, Pakistan.

jerold
Download Presentation

High performance Throughput

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. High performance Throughput Les Cottrell – SLAC Lecture # 5a presented at the 26th International Nathiagali Summer College on Physics and Contemporary Needs, 25th June – 14th July, Nathiagali, Pakistan Partially funded by DOE/MICS Field Work Proposal on Internet End-to-end Performance Monitoring (IEPM), also supported by IUPAP

  2. How to measure • Selected about a dozen major collaborator sites in California, Colorado, Illinois, FR, CH, UK over last 9 months • Of interest to SLAC • Can get logon accounts • Use iperf • Choose window size and # parallel streams • Run for 10 seconds together with ping (loaded) • Stop iperf, run ping (unloaded) for 10 seconds • Change window or number of streams & repeat • Record streams, window, throughput (Mbits/s), loaded & unloaded ping responses

  3. SLAC to CERN thruput vs windows & streams Hi-perf = big windows & multiple streams Improves ~ linearly with streams for small windows Default window size 1MB 100kB 64kB 16kB 32kB 8kB

  4. E.g. thruput vs windows &streams ANL Caltech Colorado Window IN2P3, FR CERN, CH Mbits/s Daresbury, UK Streams I NFN, IT Mbits/s Mbits/s

  5. Progress towards goal:100 Mbytes/s Site-to-Site • Focus on SLAC – Caltech over NTON; • Using NTON wavelength division fibers up & down W. Coast US; • Replaced Exemplar with 8*OC3 & Suns with Pentium IIIs & OC12 (622Mbps) • SLAC Cisco 12000 with OC48 (2.4Gbps) and 2 ×OC12; • Caltech Juniper M160 & OC48 • ~500 Mbits/s single stream achieved recently over OC12.

  6. SC2000 WAN Challenge • SC2000, Dallas to SLAC RTT ~ 48msec • SLAC/FNAL booth: Dell PowerEdge PIII 2 * 550MHz with 64bit PCI + Dell 850MHz both running Linux, each with GigE, connected to Cat 6009 with 2GigE bonded to Extreme SC2000 floor switch • NTON: OC48 to GSR to Cat 5500 Gig E to Sun E4500 4*460MHz and Sun E4500 6*336MHz • Internet 2: 300 Mbits/s • NTON 960Mbits/s • Details: • www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/monitoring/bulk/sc2k.html

  7. Iperf throughput conclusions 1/2 • Can saturate bottleneck links • For a given iperf measurement, streams share throughput equally. • For small window sizes throughput increases linearly with number of streams • Predicted optimum window sizes can be large (> Mbyte) • Need > 1 stream to get optimum performance • Can get close to max thruput with small (<=32Mbyte) with sufficient (5-10) streams • Improvements of 5 to 60 in thruput by using multiple streams & larger windows • Loss not sensitive to throughput

  8. Iperf thruput conclusions 2/2 Site Window Streams Throughput CERN 256kB 2 9.45Mbits/ CERN 64kB 8 26.8Mbits/s Caltech 256kB 2 1.7Mbits/s Caltech 64kB 8 4.6Mbits/s • For fixed streams*window product, streams are more effective than window size: • There is an optimum number of streams above which performance flattens out • See www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/monitoring/bulk/

  9. Network Simulator (ns-2) • From UCB, simulates network • Choice of stack (Reno, Tahoe, Vegas, SACK…) • RTT, bandwidth, flows, windows, queue lengths … • Compare with measured results • Agrees well • Confirms observations (e.g. linear growth in throughput for small window sizes as increase number of flows)

  10. Agreement of ns2 with observed

  11. Ns-2 thruput & loss predict 90% • Indicates on unloaded link can get 70% of available bandwidth without causing noticeable packet loss • Can get over 80-90% of available bandwidth • Can overdrive: no extra throughput BUT extra loss

  12. Simulator benefits • No traffic on network (nb throughput can use 90%) • Can do what if experiments • No need to install iperf servers or have accounts • No need to configure host to allow large windows • BUT • Need to estimate simulator parameters, e.g. • RTT use ping or synack • Bandwidth, use pchar, pipechar etc., moderately accurate • AND its not the real thing • Need to validate vs. observed data • Need to simulate cross-traffic etc

  13. Impact of cross-traffic on Iperf between SLAC & GSFC/ Maryland All TCP traffic iperf HTTP bbftp SCP From SLAC To SLAC Iperf port traffic

  14. Impact on Others • Make ping measurements with & without iperf loading • Loss loaded(unloaded) • RTT

  15. Impact of applying QoS • Defined 3 classes of service, application marked packets: • Scavenger service (1%), Best effort, & Priority service (30%) • Used DiffServ features in Cisco 7507 with DS3 link • Appears to work as expected Measurements made by Dave Hartzell, of GreatPlains net, May 01

  16. Improvements for major International BaBar sites Links are being improved: ESnet, PHYnet, GARR, Janet, TEN-155 Improvements to come: IN2P3 => 155Mbps RAL => 622Mbps Throughput improvements of 1 to 16 times in a year

  17. Gigabit/second networking CERN • The start of a new era: • Very rapid progress towards 10Gbps networking in both the Local (LAN) and Wide area (WAN) networking environments are being made. • 40Gbps is in sight on WANs, but what after? • The success of the LHC computing Grid critically depends on the availability of Gbps links between CERN and LHC regional centers. • What does it mean? • In theory: • 1GB file transferred in 11 seconds over a 1Gbps circuit (*) • 1TB file transfer would still require 3 hours • and 1PB file transfer would require 4 months • In practice: • major transmission protocol issues will need to be addressed (*) according to the 75% empirical rule

  18. Very high speed file transfer (1) CERN • High performance switched LAN assumed: • requires time & money. • High performance WAN also assumed: • also requires money but is becoming possible. • very careful engineering mandatory. • Will remain very problematic especially over high bandwidth*delay paths: • Might force the use Jumbo Frames because of interactions between TCP/IP and link error rates. • Could possibly conflict with strong security requirements

  19. Very high speed file transfer (2) CERN • Following formula proposed by Matt Mathis/PSC (“The Macroscopic Behavior of the TCP Congestion Avoidance Algorithm”) to approximate the maximum TCP throughput under periodic packet loss: (MSS/RTT)*(1/sqrt(p)) • where MSS is the maximum segment size, 1460 bytes, in practice,and “p” is the packet loss rate. • Are TCP's "congestion avoidance" algorithms compatible with high speed, long distance networks. • The "cut transmit rate in half on single packet loss and then increase the rate additively (1 MSS by RTT)" algorithm may simply not work. • New TCP/IP adaptations may be needed in order to better cope with “lfn”, e.g. TCP Vegas

  20. Acceptable link error rates CERN

  21. Very high speed file transfer (tentative conclusions) CERN • Tcp/ip fairness only exist between similar flows, i.e. • similar duration, • similar RTTs. • Tcp/ip congestion avoidance algorithms need to be revisited (e.g. Vegas rather than Reno/NewReno) • faster recovery after loss, selective acknowledgment. • Current ways of circumventing the problem, e.g. • Multi-stream & parallel socket • just bandages or the practical solution to the problem? • Web100, a 3MUSD NSF project, might help enormously! • better TCP/IP instrumentation (MIB), will allow read/write to internal TCP parameters • self-tuning • tools for measuring performance • improved FTP implementation • applications can tune stack • Non-Tcp/ip based transport solution, use of Forward Error Corrections (FEC), Early Congestion Notifications (ECN) rather than active queue management techniques (RED/WRED)?

  22. Optimizing streams • Choose # streams to optimize throughput/impact • Measure RTT from Web100 • App controls # streams

  23. WAN thruput conclusions • High FTP performance across WAN links is possible • Even with 20-30Mbps bottleneck can do > 100Gbytes/day • OS must support big windows selectable by application • Need multiple parallel streams • Loss is important in particular interval between losses • Compression looks promising, but needs cpu power • Can get close to max thruput with small (<=32Mbyte) with sufficient (5-10) streams • Improvements of 5 to 60 in thruput by using multiple streams & larger windows • Impacts others users, need Less than Best Effort QoS service

  24. More Information • This talk: • www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/scs/net/talk/slac-wan-perf-apr01.htm • IEPM/PingER home site • www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/ • Transfer tools: • http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/Adye/talks/010402-ftp/html/sld015.htm • TCP Tuning: • www.ncne.nlanr.net/training/presentations/tcp-tutorial.ppt

  25. High Speed Bulk Throughput • Driven by: • Data intensive science, e.g. data grids • HENP data rates, e.g. BaBar 300TB/year, collection doubling yearly, i.e. PBytes in couple of years • Data rate from experiment ~ 20MBytes/s ~ 200GBytes/d • Multiple regional computer centers (e.g. Lyon-FR, RAL-UK, INFN-IT, LBNL-CA, LLNL-CA, Caltech-CA) need copies of data • Boeing 747 high throughput, BUT poor latency (~ 2 weeks) & very people intensive • So need high-speed networks and ability to utilize • High speed today = few hundred GBytes/day (100GB/d ~ 10Mbits/s) Data vol Moore’s law

More Related