1 / 22

Fast Resilient Jumbo Frames in Wireless LANs

Fast Resilient Jumbo Frames in Wireless LANs. Apurv Bhartia University of Texas at Austin apurvb@cs.utexas.edu Joint work with Anand Padmanabha Iyer, Gaurav Deshpande, Eric Rozner and Lili Qiu IWQoS 2009 July 15, 2009. Motivation. Lossy wireless medium

rory
Download Presentation

Fast Resilient Jumbo Frames in Wireless LANs

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. Fast Resilient JumboFrames in Wireless LANs Apurv Bhartia University of Texas at Austin apurvb@cs.utexas.edu Joint work with Anand Padmanabha Iyer, Gaurav Deshpande, Eric Rozner and Lili Qiu IWQoS 2009 July 15, 2009

  2. Motivation • Lossy wireless medium • Novel techniques have been proposed … … but each of them alone is insufficient Partial Recovery Rate Adaptation Jumbo Frames Our goal: identify the synergy between these techniques and exploit it

  3. State of the Art • Jumbo Frames • Proprietary solutions for frame aggregations [Atheros Super G, TI frame concatenation] • 802.11n frame aggregation standard • Require specific hardware support • Entire packet needs to be retransmitted • Partial Packet Recovery • Require specific hardware support [MRD, SOFT, PPR] • Leverage PHY layer information [SOFT, PPR] • if PHY layer information is available, FRJ can benefit to provide higher gain • Rate Adaptation • SampleRate, ONOE (madwifi), RRAA • Over-estimates the actual loss rate • Adapt rate according to frame loss rate • Over-estimates the actual loss rate Holistic Approach is missing !

  4. Our Contributions • Identify interactions between the three techniques • Exploit the synergy between the schemes • Works for both single and multi-hop topologies • Develop resilient jumbo frames • Achieve high throughput under both low and high loss conditions • Develop partial recovery aware rate adaptation • Develop a prototype implementation

  5. Synergy Between Design Space Reduces effective data loss rate Better partial recovery Increases effectiveness of jumbo frames Less collisions – effective recovery Partial Recovery Loss Increases with frame size Partial Recovery Aware Rate Adaptation Partial Recovery Aware Rate Adaptation Partial Recovery Aware Rate Adaptation Rate Adaptation Jumbo Frames Higher tx rates! Increased tx rates reduces contention losses Constant MAC overhead Reduces relative cost of RTS/CTS Higher tx rates – increases relative MAC overhead More data for constant overhead Benefit increases with increased tx rates

  6. 2.5ACK Resilient Jumbo Frames • Use jumbo frames • High throughput in good conditions • In bad conditions … • … re-transmit only corrupted segments • Saves the overhead of retransmitting complete frames R S

  7. Resilient Jumbo Frame • Core Components • Resilient Jumbo Frames which applies partial recovery to jumbo frames • Partial recovery ‘aware’ rate adaptation • Data Frames 4 4 4 Segment 2 Segment N Header Segment 1 CRC CRC CRC Frame ID Type Rate Bitmap Length SS Header CRC 4 2 2 4 4 1 1

  8. Resilient Jumbo Frame (Cont.) • Receiver Feedback • Combination of MAC-layer and 2.5-layer ACKs • MAC-layer ACKs • Adjustment of back-off window in IEEE 802.11 • Increased reliability and efficiency than 2.5 ACKs • 2.5-layer ACKs • To support partial recovery • Unicast for improved reliability and cumulative Frame Offset N Segment Bitmap N Frame CRC Frame Offset Header Segment Bitmap 1 Start Frame Seg No Type Rate Frame Bitmap

  9. Approach • Retransmission • Disable MAC layer retransmissions • set MAC retry count = 0 • Retransmit the frames at the 2.5-layer • Triggered by • 2.5-layer ACKs • If 1st Retx: frames with higher seq nos or some segments in this frame are ACKed [first data transmissions is in-order] • If 2nd or higher: some new segments in this frame are ACKed • Retransmission Timeout • Standard approach as in TCP

  10. Partial Recovery Aware Rate Adaptation • Traditional schemes identify optimal rate using frame loss rate • Overestimates the loss rate • Lower data transmissions rates are selected • Challenges for the ‘new’ scheme • Accurate estimation of channel condition at various data rates • Selecting rate that maximizes throughput under partial recovery Estimate throughput based on loss statistics !

  11. Partial Recovery Aware Rate Adaptation • Estimating Channel Condition • Sender periodically broadcasts probe packets • Sent at different data rates • CurrRater [current data rate] • CurrRate-r [one rate below the current data rate] • CurrRate+r [one rate above the current data rate] • Sent at a frequency of 5 probes/second • Limit the overhead Probe ID Type Rate Header CRC Payload Per rate

  12. Partial Recovery Aware Rate Adaptation • Probe Response • Sent by the receiver • Estimates the channel condition using • Header Loss Rate (HL) – header corruption • Segment Loss Rate (SL) – segment corruption • Communicates this info using probe response • Transmitted via MAC-layer unicast • High reliability • Default Probe response [HL = 1, SL = 1] • To account for lost probes Rate1 BER1 HL1 Frame CRC Type Rate1 BER1 HL1 Probe Response ID

  13. 30 i = 1 NSi-1 × (HL + (1 – HL) × SL ) otherwise NSi = (HS + NSi + segmentSize) rate preambleTime + 1 i = 1 Pi-1 × (HL + (1 – HL) × (1- (1 – SL) )) otherwise Pi = NSi-1 Partial Recovery Aware Rate Adaptation • Sender selects the rate that gives the best throughput estimation RTS + SIFS + CTS + SIFS ) DATA + SIFS + ACK + useRTS + RTSOverhead T =∑ Pi ×(Backoff + DIFS + i=1..MaxRetries + 1 NSi Time for ith data tx No of segments in ith tx Probability of sending the ith tx Throughput = (NS1 – NSMaxRetries + 2) × SegmentSize/T

  14. Testbed Topology • 24 machines • Madwifi driver and CLICK toolkit • Initial rate = 24Mbps • Tx Power = 18 dBm • Total throughput • Per flow throughput • Jain’s Fairness Index

  15. Schemes Compared • Sample Rate using 1500 byte frames [SR/1500-bytes] • Sample Rate using 3000 byte frames [SR/3000-bytes] • Same as SR/1500, but uses jumbo frames • Similar to Atheros Super G Fast Frame feature • FRJ using 3000 byte frames, 30 segments With and without RTS/CTS

  16. Experimental Results: Single Flow SR/1500: 14.17 Mbps SR/3000: 16.93 Mbps FRJ: 23.81 Mbps Moderate Link Conditions: Partial Recovery is more effective Cumulative Fraction SR/1500: 0.68 Mbps SR/3000: 0.68 Mbps FRJ: 1.1 Mbps Throughput (Mbps) FRJ benefit is 40.6% - 68.0% under single flow

  17. 25 FRJ SR/1500 bytes SR/3000 bytes FRJ w/ RTS SR/1500 bytes w/ RTS SR/3000 bytes w/ RTS 20 15 10 Average Total Throughput (Mbps) 5 0 -5 1 6 2 4 8 # Flows Experimental Results: Multiple Flows Randomly chosen flows! More collisions => increase in header losses FRJ constantly outperforms Schemes w/o RTS/CTS perform well FRJ benefit ranges from 10% (1 flow) to 64% (6 flows)

  18. Experimental Results : Multiple Flows SR/1500: 0.30 Mbps SR/3000: 0.38 Mbps FRJ: 0.57 Mbps Cumulative Fraction Throughput (Mbps) Average Throughput SR/1500: 0.84 MbpsFRJ: 1.68Mbps SR/3000: 1.05 Mbps

  19. Experimental Results: Multiple Flows • Fairness • Difference is within 10% • Most cases it is close to 0 Fairness Index # Flows FRJ’s performance gain does not come at the cost of compromising fairness!

  20. Conclusion • Main contributions • Identify interplay between jumbo frames, PPR and rate adaptation • Jumbo frames with partial recovery • Partial recovery aware rate adaptation • Demonstrate the effectiveness of this solution through testbed experiments • Future work • More effective partial recovery schemes and coding techniques • Dynamically configurable RTS/CTS • FRJ-aware route selection

  21. Thank you!apurvb@cs.utexas.edu

  22. 25 FRJ SR/1500 bytes SR/3000 bytes FRJ w/ RTS SR/1500 bytes w/ RTS SR/3000 bytes w/ RTS 20 15 10 Average Total Throughput (Mbps) 5 0 -5 1 6 2 4 8 # Flows

More Related