1 / 43

Scheduling file transfers on a circuit-switched network

Scheduling file transfers on a circuit-switched network. Student: Hojun Lee Advisor: Professor M. Veeraraghavan Committee: Professor E. K. P. Chong Professor S. Torsten Professor S. Panwar

ringo
Download Presentation

Scheduling file transfers on a circuit-switched network

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. Scheduling file transfers on a circuit-switched network Student: Hojun Lee Advisor: Professor M. Veeraraghavan Committee: Professor E. K. P. Chong Professor S. Torsten Professor S. Panwar Professor M. Veeraraghavan Date: 5/10/04

  2. Problem statement Increasing file sizes (e.g., multimedia, eScience: particle physics) Increasing Link rates (e.g., optical fiber) example) Current TCP connection with: 1) 1500B (MTU), 2)100 ms round-trip time(RTT), and 3) a steady throughput of 10Gbps; would require at most one packet drop every 5,000,000,000 packets (not realistic) Current protocols (e.g., tcp) do not exploit high bandwidth to decrease file transfer delay (p = packet loss rate and )

  3. Solutions to this problem • Limit upgrades to end hosts • Scalable TCP (Kelly) • High speed TCP (Floyd) • FAST TCP (Low, et al.) • Upgrade routers within the Internet • Larger Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) ~ proposed by Mathis

  4. Our proposed solution: Circuit-switched High-speed End-to-End Transport ArcHitecture (CHEETAH) End-to-end circuit setup and release dynamically CHEETAH: add-on basis to current Internet

  5. File transfers using CHEETAH • Set up circuit transfer file release circuit • Do not keep circuit open during user think time • Only unidirectional circuit used • Utilization reasons • Mode of operation of circuit-switched network • Call-blocking mode • “All-or nothing” full-bandwidth allocation approach • Attempt a circuit setup: • If it succeeds end host will enjoy a much shorter file-transfer delay than on the TCP/IP path • If it fails fall back to the TCP/IP path • Call-queueing mode

  6. Analytical model for blocking mode • (mean delay if the circuit setup is attempted): (1) = call blocking probability, = the mean call-setup delay, = time to transfer a file, ~= • : ~ Padhye et al., Cardwell et al. (Modeling TCP Latency) ~ function of RTT, bottleneck link rate r, packet loss , and round-trip propagation delay

  7. Routing decision • Comparewith • resort directly to the TCP/IP path • attempt circuit setup

  8. File transfer delays for large files( 1GB and 1TB) over TCP/IP path

  9. Numerical results for transfer delays of file size [5MB – 1GB] Link rate = 100 Mbps, , k = 20  Should always attempt a circuit setup for these parameters

  10. Numerical results for transfer delays of file size [5MB – 1GB] Con’t Link rate = 1 Gbps, , k = 20 Cross over file size exists for small propagation delay environment

  11. Crossover file sizes r = 1 Gbps, Tprop = 0.1 ms, k = 20 r = 100 Mbps, Tprop = 0.1 ms, k = 20 ckt. Sw. network ckt. Sw. network TCP/IP path TCP/IP path • For high propagation-delay environment, always attempt a circuit (utilization implications) • This work was presented at PFLDNET2003 Workshop [1] and Opticomm2003 [2].

  12. Motivation for call queueing • Example: Large file transfer (1TB) Network TCP/IP path D H Circuit path  Delay = 4 days 14.9 hours Ploss = 0.0001, Tprop = 50ms r = 1 Gbps,  1TB/1Gbps = 2.2 hours Call setup attempt

  13. Problem with call queueing • Low bandwidth utilization • Reason: up-stream switches hold resources while for waiting for down-stream switches to admit a call instead of using the wait period to admit short calls that only traverse upstream segments setup setup Switch 2 link 2 Switch 1 link 1 Host B Host A While call is being queue for link 2 resources, link 1 resources are idle The call waits (queues) until resources become available on link 1, reserves and holds bandwidth for this call until the call is setup all through

  14. Idea! Use knowledge of file sizes to “schedule” calls • Network knows • File sizes of admitted calls • Bandwidth of admitted calls • When a new call arrives: • The network can figure out when resources will become available for the new call • Network can schedule the new call for a delayed start and provide this information to the requesting end host • End host can then compare this delay with the expected delay on TCP/IP path

  15. Call scheduling on a single link • Main question: • Since files can be transferred at any rate, what rate should the network assign to a given file transfer?

  16. One simple answer • In circuit switched networks, use fixed bandwidth allocation for the duration of a file transfer TDM/FDM scheme • Transmission capacity C (bits/sec) divided among n streams • Transmission of a file of L(bits) will take Ln/C sec • Even if other transfers complete before this transfer, bandwidth cannot be increased for this particular transfer • Packet-switched system • Statistical multiplexing

  17. Our answer • Greedy scheme ~ allocates maximum bandwidth available that is less than of equal to , which is the maximum rate requested for call • Varying-Bandwidth List Scheduling(VBLS): • End host specifies the file size, maximum bandwidth limit and a desired start time, and the network returns a time-range capacity allocation vector assigning varying bandwidth levels in different time ranges for the transfer • VBLS with Channel Allocation (VBLS/CA): • Special case of practical interest • Tracks actual channel allocations in different time ranges

  18. Notation Specified in call request i Switch’s response

  19. VBLS algorithm • Initialization step: set time , remaining file size check for available bandwidth at (if  find next change point in curve), set  “next change point” • Case 1 ( and can be transmitted before the next change point in curve) • set , , , ; Terminate loop • Case 2 ( and cannot be transmitted before the next change point in curve) • set , “next change point” in curve, • set , “next change point” , • continue repeat loop (go to Initialization step)

  20. VBLS algorithm con’t • Case 3 ( and can be transmitted before the next change pint in curve) • set , , , ; Terminate loop • Case 4 ( and cannot be transmitted before the next change in curve) • set , “next change point” in curve, • set , “next change point” , • continue repeat loop (go to Initialization step)

  21. Example of VBLS by figure :Available time ranges Shared single link S1 Circuit Switch Ch. 1 D TRC1 Ch. 2 S2 Ch. 3 TRC2 Ch. 4 S3 t=1 t=2 t=3 t=4 t=5 TRC3 4 3 2 1 time

  22. VBLS/CA algorithm • Four additions: • Track channel availability with time for each channel in addition to tracking total available bandwidth curve ( ). Furthermore, track the channel availability in each time change point in • Track the set of open channels - to save the switch programming time • If multiple channels are allocated with the same time range, we count each allocation as a separate entry in the Time-Range-channeL (TRL) vector • For many candidate channels, there are two rules: • 1’st rule: If file transfer completes within a time range, choose the channel with smallest leftover time • 2nd rule: If file transfer does not complete within a time range, choose the channel with largest leftover time

  23. Example of VBLS/CA 12.5 MB can be sent

  24. Traffic model • File arrival request ~ Poisson process • File size( ) distribution ~ the bounded Pareto distribution, where , the shape parameter (for the entire simulation 1.1), k , and p are the lower and upper bounds, respectively, of allowed file-size range • ~ varies depending on the simulation settings

  25. Validation of simulation against analytical results Assumptions: • All file requests set their to match the link capacity, C. • Arrival rate is Poisson process • Service rate is bounded Pareto distribution • k = 500MB and p = 100GB Analytical model: , where

  26. Sensitivity analysis We carry out four experiments: (1) To understand the impact of when all calls request the constant (2) To understand the impact of the allowed file-size range (i.e., parameters (k and p)) (3) To understand the impact of the when calls request the three different values of (i.e., (1,2,4) and (1,5,10)) (4) To understand the impact of the size of

  27. Sensitivity analysis Con’t First Experiment: k = 500MB, p = 100GB, and (1, 5, 10, and 100 channels) File latency comparison Mean file transfer delay comparison File latency: the mean waiting time across all files transferred Mean file transfer delay: file latency + mean service time (transmission delay)

  28. Sensitivity analysis Con’t Second Experiment: Case 1: k = 500MB, p = 100GB, = 1.1 Case 2: k = 10GB, p = 100GB, = 1.1 Question: In which case is the variance is larger at first glance? Case 2 Case 2 Case 1 Case 1

  29. Sensitivity analysis Con’t Third Experiment Case 1: (per-channel rate) = 10Gbps, C = 1Tbps (100 channels), Case 2: (per-channel rate) = 1Gbps, C =100Gbps (100 channels), File throughput: long-run average of the file size divided by the file transfer delay Case 1 Case 2

  30. Sensitivity analysis Con’t Fourth Experiment Assumptions: 1. all calls request the same and the link capacity C = 100 channels 2. vary the value of the discrete time unit (Tdiscrete) as 0.05, 0.5, 1, and 2 sec.

  31. Comparison of VBLS with FBLS and PS Basic simulation setup: • File arrival requests ~ Poisson process • Per channel rate = 10Gbps, = 1, 5, or 10 channels (30%, 30%, and 40%) • Bound Pareto input parameters: = 1.1, k = 5MB, and p = 1GB • Packet-switched system: files are divided into packets (1500B), and arrive at the infinite packet buffer at a constant packet rate equal to divided by the packet length

  32. Comparison of VBLS with FBLS and PS Con’t • The performance of the VBLS scheme has proved to be much better than the FBLS scheme • The throughput performance of VBLS is indistinguishable from packet switching. This serves to illustrate our main point – that by taking into account file sizes and varying the bandwidth allocation for each transfer over its transfer duration, we mitigate the performance degradation usually associated with circuit-based methods. • This work was presented at GAN’04[3] and PFLDNET’04[4] and will be published in ICC2004 [5].

  33. Call scheduling on multiple-link case • Multiple-link cases • Centralized online greedy scheme • Create a new reflecting the available bandwidth for all links • Distributed online greedy scheme • Needs some kind of mechanism to merge TRC and TRL vectors for multiple switches • Practical issues • Clock synchronization • Propagation delay

  34. Some additional notations for multiple-link case

  35. VBLS example for M = 1 by figure :Available time ranges X (blocked) Ch. 4 SW2 SW3 SW1 Ch. 3 D1 S1 Ch. 2 Ch. 1 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 t=1 t=2 t=3 t=4 t=5 t=6 time t=1 t=2 t=3 t=4 t=5 t=6 time

  36. VBLS example for M = 2 by figure :Available time ranges Ch. 4 SW2 SW3 SW1 Ch. 3 D1 S1 Ch. 2 Ch. 1 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 t=1 t=2 t=3 t=4 t=5 t=6 time t=1 t=2 t=3 t=4 t=5 t=6 time

  37. Traffic model Bounded Pareto input parameters: = 1.1, k = 500MB, and p = 100GB Study traffic: the mean call interarrival time used by Source is 10 files/sec (constant) Interference traffic: the mean call interarrival times used for the interference traffic are varied (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 file/sec)

  38. Sensitivity analysis We carry out two experiments: (1) To understand the impact of M (Multiplicative factor)  M = 2, 3, and 4 (2) To understand the impact of the discrete time unit (Tdiscrete)  Tdiscrete = 0.01, 0.1, and 1 sec

  39. Sensitivity analysis Con’t First experiment (Impact of M): varies the size of M as 2, 3, and 4, but fixes propagation delay and Tdiscreteas 5ms and 10ms respectively. Percentages of blocked calls comparison File throughput comparison

  40. Sensitivity analysis Con’t Second experiment (Impact of Tdiscrete): varies the size of Tdiscreteas 0.01, 0.1, and 1 sec, but fixes propagation delay and M as 5ms and 3 respectively. Percentages of blocked calls comparison File throughput comparison

  41. Future work • We can include a second class of user requests specifically targeted at interactive applications (long-holding time applications), i.e., remote visualization and simulation steering. Such requests will be specified as • The simulation results for the multiple-link case are only preliminary • More possible sets of comparison via simulations • Varying the propagation delays for the links, but fixing other parameters such as M and Tdiscrete • Comparison between TCP/IP(FAST TCP) and VBLS scheme • Assume finite buffer instead of infinite buffer • Take into account the effect of congestion control, retransmission mechanism when the packet loss exists due to the buffer overflow • Might degrade the performance of packet-switched system

  42. References • M. Veeraraghavan, H. Lee and X. Zheng, “File transfers across optical circuit-switched networks,” PFLDnet 2003, Feb. 3-4, 2003, Geneva, Switzerland. • M. Veeraraghavan, X. Zheng, H. Lee, M. Gardner, W. Feng, "CHEETAH: Circuit-switched High-speed End-to-End Transport ArcHitecture,” accepted for publication in the Proc. of Opticomm 2003, Oct. 13-17, Dallas, TX. • H. Lee, M. Veeraraghavan, , E.K.P. Chong, H. Li, “Lambda scheduling algorithm for file transfers on high-speed optical circuits,” Workshop of Grids and Advanced Networks (GAN’04), April 19-22, 2004, Chicago, Illinois. • M. Veeraraghavan, X. Zheng, W. Feng, H. Lee, E. K. P. Chong, and H. Li, “Scheduling and Transport for File Transfers on High-speed Optical Circuits,” PFLDNET 2004, Feb. 16-17, 2004, Argonne, Illinois, http://www.-didc.lbl.gov/PFLDnet2004/. • M. Veeraraghavan, H. Lee, E.K.P. Chong, H. Li, “A varying-bandwidth list scheduling heuristic for file transfers,” in Proc ofICC2004, June 20-24, Paris, France. • M. Veeraraghavan, X. Zheng, W. Feng H. Lee, E.K.P. Chong, H. Li, “Scheduling and Transport for File Transfers on High-speed Optical Circuits,” JOGC 2004 (Journal of Grid Computing)

  43. Thank you!

More Related