1 / 24

CapProbe: An Efficient and Accurate Capacity Estimation Technique

CapProbe: An Efficient and Accurate Capacity Estimation Technique. Rohit Kapoor**, Ling-Jyh Chen*, Li Lao*, M.Y. Sanadidi*, Mario Gerla* ** Qualcomm Corp R&D *UCLA Computer Science Department. 100 Mbps. 50 Mbps. 100 Mbps. 10 Mbps ( Link Capacity ). The Capacity Estimation Problem.

stian
Download Presentation

CapProbe: An Efficient and Accurate Capacity Estimation Technique

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. CapProbe: An Efficient and Accurate Capacity Estimation Technique Rohit Kapoor**, Ling-Jyh Chen*, Li Lao*, M.Y. Sanadidi*, Mario Gerla* ** Qualcomm Corp R&D *UCLA Computer Science Department

  2. 100 Mbps 50 Mbps 100 Mbps 10 Mbps (Link Capacity) The Capacity Estimation Problem • Estimate minimum link capacity on an Internet path, as seen at the IP level • Design Goals • End-to-end: assume no help from routers • Inexpensive: Minimal additional traffic and processing • Fast: converges to capacity fast enough for the application

  3. Applications • Adaptive multimedia streaming • Congestion control • Capacity planning by ISPs • Overlay network structuring • Wireless link monitoring and mobility detection

  4. 20Mbps 10Mbps 5Mbps 10Mbps 20Mbps 8Mbps T1 Narrowest Link T2 T3 T3 T3 T3 Packet Pair Dispersion

  5. Ideal Packet Dispersion • No cross-traffic Capacity = (Packet Size) / (Dispersion)

  6. Expansion of Dispersion • Cross-traffic (CT) serviced between PP packets • Second packet queues due to Cross Traffic (CT )=> expansion of dispersion =>Under-estimation • More pronounced when CT pkt size < probe pkt size

  7. Compression of Dispersion • First packet queueing => compressed dispersion => Over-estimation • More pronounced when CT pkt size > probe pkt size

  8. Previous Work • Jacobson’s Pathchar • Estimates capacity for every link • Sends varying size packets • Relies on round trip delays • Packet Pairs (PP) • Crovella • Capacity is reflected by the packet pair dispersion that occurs with highest frequency • Lai • Filters samples whose dispersion reflects a capacity greater than their “potential bandwidth” • Both these techniques assume unimodal distribution • Paxson showed distribution can be multimodal

  9. Previous Work • Dovrolis’ Work • Analyzed under/over estimation of capacity • Designed Pathrate • First send packet pairs • If multimodal, send packet trains • Identifies modes to distinguish ADR (Asymptotic Dispersion Rate), PNCM (Post Narrow Capacity Mode) and Capacity Modes • Previously proposed techniques have relied either on dispersion or delay

  10. Key Observation • First packet queues more than the second • Compression • Over-estimation • Second packet queues more than the first • Expansion • Under-estimation • Both expansion and compression are the result of probe packets experiencing queuing • Sum of PP delay includes queuing delay

  11. CapProbe Approach • Filter PP samples that do not have minimum queuing time • Dispersion of PP sample with minimum delay sum reflects capacity • CapProbe combines both dispersion and e2e transit delay information

  12. Techniques for Convergence Detection • Consider set of packet pair probes 1…n • If min(d1) + min(d2) ≠ min(d1+d2), dispersion obtained from min delay sum may be distorted • Above condition increases correct detection probability to that of a single packet (as opposed to packet pair) • If above minimum delay sum condition is not satisfied in a run • New run, with packet size of probes • Increased if bandwidth estimated varied a lot across probes • Errors in dispersion measured by OS • Decreased if bandwidth estimated varied little across probes • Packet sizes too large to go through without queuing

  13. Experiments • Simulations • TCP (responsive), CBR (non-responsive), LRD (Pareto) cross-traffic • Path-persistent, non-persistent cross-traffic

  14. Bandwidth Estimate Frequency Minimum Delay Sums Over-Estimation Cross Traffic Rate Cross Traffic Rate Simulations • 6-hop path: capacities {10, 7.5, 5.5, 4, 6, 8} Mbps • PP pkt size = 200 bytes, CT pkt size = 1000 bytes • Path-Persistent TCP Cross-Traffic

  15. Bandwidth Estimate Frequency Minimum Delay Sums Under-Estimation Simulations • PP pkt size = CT pkt size = 500 bytes • Non-Persistent TCP Cross-Traffic

  16. Bandwidth Estimate Frequency Minimum Delay Sums Simulations • Non-Persistent UDP CBR Cross-Traffic • Case where CapProbe may not work • UDP (non-responsive), extremely intensive • No correct samples are obtained

  17. CapProbe Accuracy • Sufficient requirement • At least one PP sample where both packets experience no CT induced queuing delay. • How realistic is this requirement? • Internet is reactive (mostly TCP): high chance of some probing samples not being queued • To validate, we performed extensive experiments • Only cases where such undistorted samples are not obtained is when cross-traffic is UDP and very intensive (typically >75% load)

  18. Second Packet First Packet Link No Queue No Cross Traffic Packets Probability of Obtaining Sample • Assuming PP samples arrive in a Poisson manner • Poisson cross-traffic: product of probabilities • No queue in front of first packet: p(0) = 1 – λ/μ • No CT packets enter between the two packets (conservative estimate) • Only dependent on arrival process • p = p(0) * e- λL/μ = (1 – λ/μ) * e- λL/μ • Analysis also for Deterministic and Pareto cross-traffic

  19. Probability of Obtaining Sample (cont) Avg number of samples required to obtain an unqueued PP for a single link; Poisson cross-traffic Avg number of samples required to obtain an unqueued PP for a single link; LRD cross-traffic

  20. Effect of Packet Size on Accuracy • For CapProbe to estimate accurately • Neither packet of the PP should queue due to cross traffic • Second packet of PP • Smaller  less chances of queuing due to cross-traffic • First packet of PP • Probability of queuing independent of size (queuing theory) • Thus, smaller PP packets  higher probability of sample not subject to queuing • Previous authors (Dovrolis) have shown that • Smaller packets reduce chances of under-estimation but increase chances of over-estimation

  21. Effect of Packet Size on Accuracy • Our observations are entirely consistent with earlier ones • For the second packet, smaller packet size  Smaller probability of being queued  Relative probability of queuing of first packet is increased  Chances of over-estimation are increased Frequency of occurrence of bandwidth samples when packet size of probes is (a) 100 and (b) 1500 bytes

  22. Measurements- Internet, Internet2 (Abilene), Wireless (802.11, Bluetooth) • CapProbe implemented using PING packets, sent in pairs

  23. Issues • CapProbe may be implemented either in the kernel or user mode • Kernel mode more accurate, particularly over high-speed links • One-way or round-trip estimation • One-way • Requires cooperation from receiver • Can be used to estimate forward/reverse link • Active vs passive • Probing packets or data packets used as probes • Heavy cross-traffic/extremely fast links • Difficulty in correct estimation

  24. Summary • CapProbe is accurate, fast, and inexpensive, across a wide range of scenarios • Potential applications in overlay structuring, and in case of fast changing wireless link speeds • High-speed dispersion measurements needs more investigation • CapProbe website: http://nrl.cs.ucla.edu/CapProbe

More Related