1 / 31

Internet Performance Dynamics

Explore the root causes of long response times in wide area services like the Web and develop techniques for analyzing and separating server and network effects to optimize performance.

pshelton
Download Presentation

Internet Performance Dynamics

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. Internet Performance Dynamics Paul Barford Boston University Computer Science Department http://cs-people.bu.edu/barford/ Fall, 2000

  2. Motivation • What are the root causes of long response times in wide area services like the Web? • Servers? • Networks? • Server/network interaction?

  3. A Challenge LS LS HS HS HS mean = 8.3 sec. LS Mean = 13.0 sec. HS mean = 5.8 sec. LS Mean = 3.4 sec. HS mean = 8.3 sec. LS mean = 13.0 sec. HS mean = 5.8 sec. LS mean = 3.4 sec. Day 1 Day 2 Histograms of file transfer latency for 500KB files transferred between Denver and Boston Precise separation of server effects from network effects is difficult

  4. What is needed? • A laboratory enabling detailed examination of Web transactions (Web “microscope”) • Wide Area Web Measurement (WAWM) project testbed • Technique for analyzing transactions to separate and identify causes of delay • Critical path analysis of TCP

  5. Web Transactions “under a microscope” Global Internet WebServer Distributed Clients

  6. Generating Realistic Server Workloads • Approaches: • Trace-based: • Pros: Exactly mimics known workload • Cons: “black box” approach, can’t easily change parameters of interest • Analytic: synthetically create a workload • Pros: Explicit models can be inspected and parameters can be varied • Cons: Difficult to identify, collect, model and generate workload components

  7. SURGE: Scalable URL Reference Generator • Analytic Web workload generator • Based on 12 empirically derived distributions • Explicit, parameterized models • Captures “heavy-tailed” (highly variable) properties of Web workloads • SURGE components: • Statistical distribution generator • Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request generator • Currently being used at over 130 academic and industrial sites world wide • Adopted by W3C for HTTP-NG testbed

  8. Seven workload characteristics captured in SURGE BF EF1 EF2 Off time SF Off time BF EF1 Characteristic Component Model System Impact File Size Base file - body Lognormal File System * Base file - tail Pareto * Embedded file Lognormal * Single file1 Lognormal * Single file 2 Lognormal * Request Size Body Lognormal Network * Tail Pareto * Document Popularity Zipf Caches, buffers Temporal Locality Lognormal Caches, buffers OFF Times Pareto * Embedded References Pareto ON Times * Session Lengths Inverse Gaussian Connection times * Model developed during the SURGE project

  9. HTTP request generator • Supports both HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 • ON/OFF thread is a “user equivalent” SURGE Client System ON/OFF Thread ON/OFF Thread ON/OFF Thread SURGE Client System Network Web Server System SURGE Client System

  10. SURGE and SPECWeb96 exercise servers very differently Surge SPECWeb96

  11. SURGE’s flexibility allows easy experimentation HTTP/1.0 HTTP/1.1

  12. Web Transactions “under a microscope” Global Internet WebServer Distributed Clients

  13. WAWM Infrastructure • 13 clients distributed around the global Internet • Execute transactions of interest • One server cluster at BU • Local load generators running SURGE enable server to be placed under any load condition • Active and passive measurements from both server and clients • Packet capture via “tcpdump” • GPS timers

  14. WAWM client systems Harvard University, MA Purdue University, IN University of Denver, CO ACIRI, Berkeley, CA HP, Palo Alto, CA University of Saskatchewan, Canada University Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil University Simon Bolivar, Venezuela EpicRealm - Dallas, TX EpicRealm – Atlanta, GA EpicRealm - London, England EpicRealm - Tokyo, Japan Internet2/Surveyor Others??

  15. What is needed? • A laboratory enabling detailed examination of Web transactions (Web “microscope”) • Wide Area Web Measurement (WAWM) project testbed • Technique for analyzing transactions to separate and identify causes of delay • Critical path analysis of TCP

  16. Identifying root causes of response time • Delays can occur at many points along the end-to-end path simultaneously • Pinpointing where delays occur and which delays matter is difficult • Our goal is to identify precisely the determiners of response time in TCP transactions Router 1 Client Server Router 3 Router 2

  17. Critical path analysis (CPA) for TCP transactions • CPA identifies the precise set of events that determine execution time of a distributed application • Web transaction response time • Decreasing duration of any event on the CP decreases response time • not true for events off the CP • Profiling the CP for TCP enables accurate assignment of delays to: • Server delay • Client delay • Network delay (propagation, network variance and drops) • Applied to HTTP/1.0 • Could apply to other applications (eg. FTP)

  18. Window-based flow control in TCP System Time line Graph Client Server D D 1 or more data packets A A D Client Server D D D A A A A ACK packet D D D D D D D D D A A A A D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

  19. TCP flows as a graph • Vertices are packet departures or arrivals • Data, ACK, SYN, FIN • Directed edges reflect Lamport’s “happens before” relation • On client or server or over the network • Weights are elapsed time • Assumes global clock synchronization • Profile associates categories with edge types • Assignment based on logical flow

  20. Original Data Flow Rounds Critical Path Profile Client Server Number Bytes Liberated Client Server 1 1:2920 Network Delay 1461:2921 1461:2921 Network Delay ack 2921 2 2921:7300 ack 2921 Server Delay Network Delay 5841:7301 5841:7301 Client Delay 3 7301:13140 ack 7301 Network Delay ack 7301 Server Delay Network Delay 11681:13141 13141:17520 4 11681:13141 ack 10221 Network Delay ack 10221 Server Delay drop 17521 drop 17521 5 17520:24820 ack 16061 17521:20441 Drop Delay ack 16061 20441:24821 ack 16061 Network Delay 16061:17521 16061:17521 Client Delay 6 24821:27740 ack 24821 Network Delay ack 24821 Network Delay 24821:27741 24821:27741 7 27741:30660 ack 27741 Network Delay ack 27741 27741:29201 Network Delay 27741:29201

  21. tcpeval • Inputs are “tcpdump” packet traces taken at end points of transactions • Generates a variety of statistics for file transactions • File and packet transfer latencies • Packet drop characteristics • Packet and byte counts per unit time • Generates both timeline and sequence plots for transactions • Generates critical path profiles and statistics for transactions • Freely distributed

  22. Implementation Issues • tcpeval must recreate TCP state at end points as packets arrive • Capturing packets at end points makes timer simulation unnecessary • “Active round” must be maintained • Packet filter problems must be addressed • Dropped packets • Added packets • Out of order packets • tcpeval works across platforms for RFC 2001 compliant TCP stacks

  23. CPA results for 1KB file 6 packets are typically on the critical path • Latency is dominated by server load for BU to Denver path

  24. CP time line diagrams for 1KB file Low Server Load High Server Load

  25. CPA results for 20KB file 14 packets are typically on the critical path • Both server load and network effects are significant

  26. The Challenge LS LS HS HS HS mean = 8.3 sec. LS Mean = 13.0 sec. HS mean = 5.8 sec. LS Mean = 3.4 sec. HS mean = 8.3 sec. LS mean = 13.0 sec. HS mean = 5.8 sec. LS mean = 3.4 sec. Day 1 Day 2 Histograms of file transfer latency for 500KB files transferred between Denver and Boston

  27. CPA results for 500KB file 56 packets are typically on the critical path • Latency is dominated by network effects Day 1 Day 2

  28. Active versus Passive Measurements • Understanding active (Zing) versus passive (tcpdump) network measurements • Figure shows active measures are a poor predictor of TCP performance • Goal is to be able to predict TCP performance using active measurements

  29. Related work • Web performance characterization • Client studies [Catledge95,Crovella96] • Server studies [Mogul95, Arlitt96] • Wide area measurements • NPD [Paxson97], Internet QoS [Huitema00], Keynote Systems Inc. • TCP analysis • TCP modeling [Mathis97, Padhye98,Cardwell00] • Graphical TCP analysis [Jacobson88, Brakmo96] • Automated TCP analysis [Paxson97] • Critical path analysis • Parallel program execution [Yang88, Miller90] • RPC performance evaluation [Schroeder89]

  30. Conclusions • Using SURGE, WAWM can put realistic Web transactions “under a microscope” • Complex interactions between clients, the network and servers in the wide area can lead to surprising performance • Complex packet transactions can be effectively understood using CPA • CP profiling of BU to Denver transactions allowed precise assignment of delays • Latency for small files is dominated by server load • Latency for large files is dominated by network effects • Relationship between active and passive measurement is not well understood • Future work – lots of things to do!

  31. Acknowledgements • Mark Crovella • Vern Paxson, Anja Feldmann, Jim Pitkow, Drue Coles, Bob Carter, Erich Nahum, John Byers, Azer Bestavros, Lars Kellogg-Stedman, David Martin • Xerox, Inc., EpicRealm Inc., Internet2 • Michael Mitzenmacher, Kihong Park, Carey Williamson, Virgilio Almeida, Martin Arlitt

More Related