1 / 27

PingER Project - Internet End-to-End Performance Monitoring Tool

Learn about the history, architecture, and methodology of the PingER Project, a global Internet monitoring tool. See current network performance data and understand its significance in bridging the digital divide.

montgomeryjames
Download Presentation

PingER Project - Internet End-to-End Performance Monitoring Tool

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. SLAC IEPM PingER and BW monitoring & tools Presented by Les Cottrell, SLAC At LBNL, Jan 21, 2003 www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/scs/net/talk03/lbl-jan04.ppt PingER

  2. History of the PingER Project • Early 1990’s: SLAC begins pinging nodes around the world to evaluate the quality of Internet connectivity between SLAC and other HEP Institutions. • Around 1996: The PingER project was funded making it the first Internet end-to-end monitoring tool available to the HEP community. • Today: Believed to be the most extensive Internet end-to-end performance monitoring tool in the world PingER

  3. PingER Today • Today, the PingER Project includes 35 Monitoring-hosts in 12 countries. They are monitoring Remote-hosts in 80 countries. Over 55 remote sites. • THESE COUNTRIES COVER 75% OF THE WORLD POPULATION AND 99% OF THE INTERNET CONNECTED POPULATION!!! Just added Pakistan! Colored by region Colored countries have remote PingER hosts PingER

  4. PingER Architecture Archive Archive Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring REMOTE REMOTE REMOTE REMOTE REMOTE REMOTE REMOTE REMOTE There are three types of hosts • Remote-hosts: hosts being monitored • Monitoring-hosts: Make ping measurements to remote hosts • Archive/Analysis- hosts: gather data from Monitoring-sites, analyze & make reports PingER

  5. Methodology • Every 30 mins send 11*100Byte followed by 10*1000Byte pings from monitor to remote host • Low impact: • By default < 100bits/s per monitor-remote host pair • Can reduce to ~ 10bits/s • No need for co-scheduling of monitors • Uses ubiquitous ping • No software to install at any of over 500 remote hosts • Very important for hosts in developing countries • By centrally gathering the data, archiving, analyzing and reporting, the requirements for monitoring hosts are minimal (typically 1-2 days to install etc.)

  6. Worldwide performance • Performance is improving • Developed world improving factor of 10 in 4-5 years • S.E. Europe, Russia, catching up • India & Africa worse off & falling behind • Developing world 3-10 years behind • Many institutes in developing world have less performance than a household in N. America or Europe

  7. Current State – Aug ‘03 (throughput Mbps) Monitoring Country • Within region performance better • E.g. Ca|EDU|GOV-NA, Hu-SE Eu, Eu-Eu, Jp-E Asia, Au-Au, Ru-Ru|Baltics • Africa, Caucasus, Central & S. Asia all bad Remote regions Acceptable > 500kbits/s, < 1000kbits/s Bad < 200kbits/s < DSL Poor > 200 < 500kbits/s Good > 1000kbits/s

  8. Network Readiness Index vs Throughput • NRI from Center for International Development, Harvard U. http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cr/pdf/gitrr2002_ch02.pdf NRI Top 14 Finland 5.92 US 5.79 Singapore 5.74 Sweden 5.58 Iceland 5.51 Canada 5.44 UK 5.35 Denmark 5.33 Taiwan 5.31 Germany 5.29 Netherlands 5.28 Israel 5.22 Switzerland 5.18 Korea 5.10 A&R focus Internet for all focus • NRI correlates reasonably well with Network Readiness

  9. Typical uses • Troubleshooting • Discerning if a reported problem is network related • Identify the time a problem started • Provide quantitative analysis for Network specialists • Identifying step functions, periodic network behavior, and recognize problems affecting multiple sites. • Setting expectations (e.g. SLAs) • Identifying need to upgrade • Providing quantitative information to Policy makers & Funding agencies • Seeing the effects of upgrades PingER

  10. Pakistan performance Routes: ESnet (hops 3-8) - DC ATT (9-21) - Karachi Karachi NIIT/Rawalpindi Routes: ESnet (hops 3-6) - SNV SINGTEL (7-12) - Karachi Pakistan Telecom Karachi Rawalpindi Loss % Islamabad RTT ms Routes: ESnet (hops 3-6) - SNV SINGTEL (7-12) - Karachi Pakistan Telecom Karachi Lahore Lahore

  11. NIIT performance from U.S. (SLAC) Preliminary results, started measurements end Dec 2003. Nb. Heavy losses during congested day-times Avg daily: loss~1-2%, RTT~320ms Ping RTT & Loss Bandwidth measurements using packet pair dispersion & TCP ABW (pkt-pair dispersion):Average To NIIT: ~350Kbits/s From NIIT: 365 Kbits/s Iperf/TCP: Average: To NIIT: ~320Kbits/s From: NIIT 40Kbits/s Can also derive throughput (assuming standard TCP) from RTT & loss using: BW~1.2*S(1460B)/(RTT*sqrt(loss)  ~ 260Kbits/s Nominal path bottleneck capacity 1Mbits/s

  12. In Summary PingER provides ongoing support for monitoring and maintaining the quality of Internet connectivity for the world wide scientific community. Information is available publicly on the web http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/pingtable.pl PingER also quantifies the extent of the “Digital Divide” and provides information to policy makers and funding agencies. PingER

  13. IEPM-BW • Need something for high-performance links • 10pings/30 mins, i.e. min=0.21% in day, or 0.007% in month (10-8 BER) – today’s better links exceed this • Ping losses may not be like TCP losses • Need for Grid, HENP applications and high-performance network connections • Set expectations, planning • Trouble-shooting, improving performance • Application steering • Testing new transports (e.g. FAST, HS-TCP, RBUDP, UDT), applications, monitoring tools (e.g. QIperf, packet-pair techniques …) in production environments • Compare with passive measurements, advertised capacities

  14. Methodology • Monitoring host every 90 minutes (+- randomization) cycles through collaborating hosts at several remote sites: • Sends active probes in-turn for: bbftp, gridtcp, bbcp, iperf1, iperf, (qiperf), ping, abwe … • Also measures traceroutes at 15min intervals • Uses ssh for code deployment, management and to start & stop servers remotely • Deploy server code for iperf, ABwE, bbftp, GridFTP & various utilities • 10 monitoring sites, each with between 2 and 40 remote hosts monitored • Main users SLAC (BaBar) & FNAL (D0, CDF, CMS) • Data archived, analyzed, displayed at monitoring hosts

  15. Deployment HENP 100Mbits/s host Gbits/s host Monitor Net research 125 measured bw Aug ‘02

  16. Visualization • Time series: • Overplot multiple metrics • + route changes • Zoom, history • Choose individual metrics Scatter plots Histograms Access to data

  17. Traceroutes • Analyse for unique routes, assign route #s • Display route # at start, then “.” if no change • If significant change, the display route # in red Several routes changes simultaneously • Links to: • History • Reverse • Single host • Raw data • Summary for emailing • Available BW • Topology Hour of day Hour of day Host Demo

  18. Topology • Select times & hosts & direction on table • Mouse_over to see router name • Click on router to see sub path below • Colored by deduced AS • Click on end nodes to see names of all hops

  19. Performance (ABwE) • Requires ABwE server (mirror) at remote sites • Gets performance for both directions • Low impact 40 * 1000 byte packets • Less than a second for result • Can do “real-time” performance monitoring Current bottleneck capacity (Usually limited by 100FE) Iperf (90m) Mbits/s Available bandwidth Cross-traffic 24 hours

  20. ABwE/Iperf match: Hadrian to UFL CALREN shows sending traffic 600 Mbits/s Heavy load (xtraffic) appeared It shows new DBC on the path Normal situation IPLS shows traffic 800-900 Mbits/s

  21. Abing CLI • Demo abing command line tool • Since low impact (40*1000 packets) can run like ping

  22. Navigation • MonALISA

  23. Prediction, trouble shooting • For ABwE: • Working on auto detection of long term (many minutes) step changes in bandwidth • Developed simple algorithm and qualifying effectiveness • Looking at NLANR (McGregor/H-W Braun plateau change detector) • http://www.ripe.net/pam2001/Abstracts/talk_03.html • Look at correlation between performance & route changes & RTT • For significant changes, gather: RTT, routes (fwd/rev, before & after if changed), NDT info, bandwidth info (fwd & rev) • Fold in diurnal changes • Generate real-time email alerts with filtering Diurnal Predictions demo

  24. Program API • Not realistic to look at thousands of graphs • Programs also want to look at data. E.g. • Data placement for replica servers • Analysis, visualization (e.g. MonALISA) • Trouble shooting • Correlate data from many sources when suspect/spot problem • Publish the data in standard way • W3C Web Service, GGF OGSI Grid Service • Currently XMLRPC and SOAP servers • Using Network Measurement Working Group schema ( NM-WG .xsd) • Demo mainly proof of principal, to access IEPM single & multistream iperf, multistream GridFTP & bbftp, ABwE and PingER data • Not pushing deployment and use until schema more solid

  25. IEPM SOAP Client #!/usr/local/bin/perl -w use SOAP::Lite; my $node = "node1.cacr.caltech.edu"; my $timePeriod="20031201-20031205T143000"; my $measurement = SOAP::Lite ->service('http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/tools/soap/wsdl/IEPM_profile.wsdl') ->GetBandwidthAchievableTCP("$node", "$timePeriod"); print “Host=“ .$measurement->{'subject'}->{'destination'}->{'name'},"\n"; print $measurement->{'subject'}->{'destination'}->{'address'}->{'IP'},"\n"; print “Times:\n”.$measurement->{'path.bandwidth.achievable.TCP'} ->{'timestamp'}->{'startTime'},"\n"; print “Values:\n”.$measurement->{'path.bandwidth.achievable.TCP'} ->{'achievableThroughputResult'}->{'value'},"\n"; Host=node1.cacr.caltech.edu Not-disclosed Times: 1070528106 1070533504 1070538907 1070544307 1070549706 1070555108 1070560505 107 0565907 1070571306 1070576706 1070582106 1070587506 1070592906 1070598310 107060 3706 1070609111 1070614506 1070619905 1070625306 1070630706 1070636106 107064150 8 1070646905 1070652306 1070657705 Values: 183.5 174.3 196.76 188.75 196.67 196.05 195.86 187.69 192.91 152.99 181.85 193.0 3 190.21 190.54 168.71 166.79 196.17 172.1 183.77 194.44 195.84 194.01 192.49 17 1.55 176.43 Results For more see: http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/tools/web_services/ Demo: http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/tools/soap/IEPM_client.html

  26. For More Information • PingER: • www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/pinger/ • ICFA/SCIC Network Monitoring report, Jan04 • www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/icfa/icfa-net-paper-jan04.html • The PingER Project: Active Internet Performance Monitoring for the HENP Community, IEEE Communications Magazine on Network Traffic Measurements and Experiments. • IEPM-BW • http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/bw/ • ABWE: www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/bw/abwe/abwe-cf-iperf.html and http://moat.nlanr.net/PAM2003/PAM2003papers/3781.pdf PingER

More Related