1 / 10

Wide-area Network Measurement and Monitoring Services

Wide-area Network Measurement and Monitoring Services. Yan Chen and Randy Katz {yanchen, randy}@CS.Berkeley.EDU. Lots of applications/services may benefit from end-to-end distance monitoring/estimation Mirror Selection - VPN Management/Provisioning

oro
Download Presentation

Wide-area Network Measurement and Monitoring Services

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. Wide-area Network Measurement and Monitoring Services Yan Chen and Randy Katz {yanchen, randy}@CS.Berkeley.EDU • Lots of applications/services may benefit from end-to-end distance monitoring/estimation • Mirror Selection - VPN Management/Provisioning • Overlay Routing/Location - Peer-to-peer File System • Cache-infrastructure Configuration • Service Redirection/Placement Goal: Develop scalable, robust overlay performance and distance information collection/sharing infrastructure

  2. Decision/Design Procedures Dissemination Layer Federation for Sharing Layer Measurement Collection, Transformation and Storage Layer Measurement Layer Layered Architecture Application side Pull-/push- based APIs • What to measure, what tools? • Probe placement & density

  3. Measurement Layer • Problem formulation: Given N end hosts that belong to different administrative domains, how to select a subset of them to be probes and build an overlay distance monitoring service without knowing the underlying topology? • Solution: Internet Iso-bar • Cluster of hosts that perceive similar performance to Internet • For each cluster, select a monitor for active and continuous probing • The first one for monitoring site selection and stability evaluation with real Internet measurement data • Compare with other distance estimation services: Network Distance Map, GNP

  4. Framework of Internet Iso-bar • Define correlation distance between each pair of hosts • Apply generic clustering methods • Choose the center of each cluster as monitor • Periodically monitors measure distance among each other as well as the distance to the hosts in its cluster • Inter-cluster distance estimation dist(i,j) = dist(monitori, monitorj) • Intra-cluster distance estimation (i,j has same monitor m) dist(i,j) = (dist(i, m) + dist(j, m) ) / 2

  5. Correlation Distance • Network distance based • Using proximity: dij = measured network distance(pij) • Using Euclidean distanceofnetwork distance vector: Vi = [pi1, pi2, …, pin]T • Using cosine vector similarityofnetwork distance vector: • Geographical distance based • Using proximity

  6. Evaluation Methodology (I) • Experiments with NLANR AMP data set • 119 sites on US (106 after filtering out most off sites) • Traceroute between every pair of hosts every minute • Clustering uses daily geometric mean of round-trip time (RTT) • Evaluation uses daily 1440 measurement of RTT • Raw data: • 6/24/00 – • 12/3/01

  7. Summary of 80th percentile relative error for various distance estimation methods • Static approaches, like GNP, performs better in term of overall prediction accuracy • But very expensive in computation and communication cost for update, can’t capture congestion/path outage

  8. Evaluation II: Keynote Web Site Perspective Benchmarking • Measure Web site performance from more than 100 agents on the Internet • Heterogeneouscore network: various ISPs • Heterogeneousaccess network: • Dial up 56K, DSL and high-bandwidth business connections • 40 most popular Web servers for benchmarking (KB40) • TCP initial connection time, every 15 mins • 11/13/01 – 12/13/01 • Problem: how to reduce the number of agents and/or servers, but still represent the majority of end-user performance?

  9. Keynote Agent Locations • America (including Canada, Mexico): 67 agents • 29 cities: Houston, Toronto, LA, Minneapolis, DC, Boston, Miami, Dallas, NY, SF, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Chicago, Cincinnati, Portland, Vancouver, Seattle, Phoneix, San Diego, Denver, Sunnyvale, McLean, Atlanta, Tampa, St. Louis, Mexico, Kansas City, Pleasonton • 14 ISPs: PSI, Verio, UUNET, C&W, Sprint, Qwest, Genuity, AT&T, XO, Exodus, Level3, Intermedia, Avantel, SBC • Europe: 25 agents • 12 cities: London, Paris, Frankfurt, Munich, Oslo, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Helsinki, Milan, Stockholm, Madrid, Brussels • 16 ISPs: PSI, Cerbernet, Oleane, Level3, ECRC, Nextra, UUNET, TeleDanmark, KPNQwest, Inet, DPN, Xlink, Telia, Retevision, BT, Telephonica • Asia: 8 agents • 6 cities: Seoul, Singapore, Tokyo, Shanghai, Hongkong, Taipei • 8 ISPs: BORANet, SingTel, IIJ, ChinaTel, HKT, Kornet, NTTCOM, HiNet, • Australia: 3 agents • 3 cities: Sydney, Wellington, Melbourne • 3 ISPs: OzeMail, Telstra-Saturn, Optus

  10. Summary of 80th percentile relative error for Internet Iso-bar distance estimation • Omit other methods due to data limitation • Accuracy not as good as NLANR, but still acceptable

More Related