1 / 42

Olivier Martin, CERN NEC’2005 Conference, VARNA (Bulgaria)

The ongoing evolution from Packet based networks to Hybrid Networks in Research & Education Networks. Olivier Martin, CERN NEC’2005 Conference, VARNA (Bulgaria). Presentation Outline . The demise of conventional packet based networks in the R&E community

tevin
Download Presentation

Olivier Martin, CERN NEC’2005 Conference, VARNA (Bulgaria)

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. The ongoing evolution from Packet based networks to Hybrid Networks in Research & Education Networks Olivier Martin, CERN NEC’2005 Conference, VARNA (Bulgaria)

  2. Presentation Outline • The demise of conventional packet based networks in the R&E community • The advent of community managed dark fiber networks • The Grid & its associated Wide Area Networking challenges • « on-demand Lambda Grids » • Ethernet over SONET & new standards • WAN-PHY, GFP, VCAT/LCAS, G.709, OTN NEC’2005 conference

  3. 1 6 5 4 3 2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Gbit/s 1024 10 Gbit/s 160 10 Gbit/s 32 10 Gbit/s 16 4 10 Gbit/s 8 10 Gbit/s 4 10 Gbit/s 2 I/0 Rates = Optical Wavelength Capacity Important Threshold OC-192c 10-GE 1.7 Gbit/s OC-48c OC-48c System Capacity (Mbit/s) 565 Mbit/s GigE OC-12c Fast Ethernet 135 Mbit/s OC-3c Optical DWDM Capacity Ethernet Internet Backbone T3 Ethernet T1 Year 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 OC-768c 40-GE NEC’2005 conference

  4. Internet Backbone Speeds MBPS IP/ OC12c OC3c ATM-VCs T3 lines T1 Lines

  5. IP IP ATM IP SONET/SDH SONET/SDH Optical Optical Optical IP Over Optical IP Over ATM IP Over SONET/SDH High Speed IP Network Transport Trends Multiplexing, protection and management at every layer IP Signalling ATM SONET/SDH Optical B-ISDN Higher Speed, Lower cost, complexity and overhead

  6. Network Exponentials • Network vs. computer performance • Computer speed doubles every 18 months • Network speed doubles every 9 months • Difference = order of magnitude per 5 years • 1986 to 2000 • Computers: x 500 • Networks: x 340,000 • 2001 to 2010 • Computers: x 60 • Networks: x 4000 Moore’s Law vs. storage improvements vs. optical improvements. Graph from Scientific American (Jan-2001) by Cleo Vilett, source Vined Khoslan, Kleiner, Caufield and Perkins. Intro to Grid Computing and Globus Toolkit™

  7. Know the user (3 of 12) # of users A C B ADSL GigE LAN F(t) BW requirements A -> Lightweight users, browsing, mailing, home use B -> Business applications, multicast, streaming, VPN’s, mostly LAN C -> Special scientific applications, computing, data grids, virtual-presence

  8. What the user (4 of 12) Total BW A B C ADSL GigE LAN BW requirements A -> Need full Internet routing, one to many B -> Need VPN services on/and full Internet routing, several to several C -> Need very fat pipes, limited multiple Virtual Organizations, few to few

  9. So what are the facts (5 of 12) • Costs of fat pipes (fibers) are one/third of equipment to light them up • Is what Lambda salesmen told Cees de Laat (University of Amsterdam & Surfnet) • Costs of optical equipment 10% of switching 10 % of full routing equipment for same throughput • 100 Byte packet @ 10 Gb/s -> 80 ns to look up in 100 Mbyte routing table (light speed from me to you on the back row!) • Big sciences need fat pipes • Bottom line: create a hybrid architecture which serves all users in one coherent and cost effective way

  10. Utilization trends Gbps Network Capacity Limit Jan 2005

  11. Regional Today’s hierarchical IP network Other national networks National or Pan-National IP Network NREN A NREN C NREN B NREN D University

  12. Regional Tomorrow’s peer to peer IP network World World National DWDM Network World Child Lightpaths NREN B NREN A NREN C NREN D Child Lightpaths University Server

  13. Creation of application VPNs Direct connect bypasses campus firewall University Dept High Energy Physics Network CERN Commodity Internet Research Network University University Bio-informatics Network University University eVLBI Network

  14. Production vs Research Campus Networks • Increasingly campuses are deploying parallel networks for high end users • Reduces costs by providing high end network capability to only those who need it • Limitations of campus firewall and border router are eliminated • Many issues in regards to security, back door routing, etc • Campus networks may follow same evolution as campus computing • Discipline specific networks being extended into the campus

  15. CAVEwave acquires a separate wavelength between Seattle and Chicago and wants to manage it as part of its network including add/drop, routing, partition etc NLR Condominium lambda network Original CAVEwave UCLP intended for projects like National LambdaRail

  16. GEANT2 POP Design

  17. UltraLight Optical Exchange Point • L1, L2 and L3 services • Interfaces • 1GE and 10GE • 10GE WAN-PHY (SONET friendly) • Hybrid packet- and circuit-switched PoP • Interface between packet- & circuit-switched networks • Control plane is L3 Photonic switch Calient or Glimmerglass Photonic Cross Connect Switch

  18. Tier2 Center Tier2 Center Tier2 Center Tier2 Center Tier2 Center HPSS HPSS HPSS HPSS LHC Data Grid Hierarchy CERN/Outside Resource Ratio ~1:2Tier0/( Tier1)/( Tier2) ~1:1:1 ~PByte/sec ~100-400 MBytes/sec Online System Experiment CERN 700k SI95 ~1 PB Disk; Tape Robot Tier 0 +1 HPSS 10 Gbps Tier 1 FNAL: 200k SI95; 600 TB IN2P3 Center INFN Center RAL Center 2.5/10 Gbps Tier 2 ~2.5 Gbps Tier 3 Institute ~0.25TIPS Institute Institute Institute Physicists work on analysis “channels” Each institute has ~10 physicists working on one or more channels Physics data cache 0.1–1 Gbps Tier 4 Workstations NEC’2005 conference

  19. Deploying the LHC Grid Lab m Uni x grid for a regional group CERN Tier 1 Uni a UK USA Lab a France Tier 1 Tier3 physics department Uni n Tier2 Japan Italy CERN Tier 0 Desktop Lab b Germany Taipei? Lab c  Uni y Uni b grid for a physics study group   The LHC Computing Centre les.robertson@cern.ch NEC’2005 conference

  20. Lab m Uni x Uni a CERN Tier 1 UK Lab a USA France Tier 1 physics department Uni n Tier2 Japan Italy CERN Tier 0 physicist Germany ……….  Lab b Lab c  Uni y Uni b  What you get les.robertson@cern.ch NEC’2005 conference

  21. Main Networking Challenges • Fulfill the, yet unproven, assertion that the network can be « nearly » transparent to the Grid • Deploy suitable Wide Area Network infrastructure (50-100 Gb/s) • Deploy suitable Local Area Network infrastructure (matching or exceeding that of the WAN) • Seamless interconnection of LAN & WAN infrastructures • firewall? • End to End issues (transport protocols, PCs (Itanium, Xeon), 10GigE NICs (Intel, S2io), where are we today: • memory to memory: 7.5Gb/s (PCI bus limit) • memory to disk: 1.2MB (Windows 2003 server/NewiSys) • disk to disk: 400MB (Linux), 600MB (Windows) NEC’2005 conference

  22. Main TCP issues • Does not scale to some environments • High speed, high latency • Noisy • Unfair behaviour with respect to: • Round Trip Time (RTT • Frame size (MSS) • Access Bandwidth • Widespread use of multiple streams in order to compensate for inherent TCP/IP limitations (e.g. Gridftp, BBftp): • Bandage rather than a cure • New TCP/IP proposals in order to restore performance in single stream environments • Not clear if/when it will have a real impact • In the mean time there is an absolute requirement for backbones with: • Zero packet losses, • And no packet re-ordering • Which re-inforces the case for “lambda Grids” NEC’2005 conference

  23. TCP dynamics(10Gbps, 100ms RTT, 1500Bytes packets) • Window size (W) = Bandwidth*Round Trip Time • Wbits = 10Gbps*100ms = 1Gb • Wpackets = 1Gb/(8*1500) = 83333 packets • Standard Additive Increase Multiplicative Decrease (AIMD) mechanisms: • W=W/2 (halving the congestion window on loss event) • W=W + 1 (increasing congestion window by one packet every RTT) • Time to recover from W/2 to W (congestion avoidance) at 1 packet per RTT: • RTT*Wp/2 = 1.157 hour • In practice, 1 packet per 2 RTT because of delayed acks, i.e. 2.31 hour • Packets per second: • RTT*Wpackets = 833’333 packets NEC’2005 conference

  24. Single TCP stream performance under periodic losses • TCP throughput much more sensitive to packet loss in WANs than LANs • TCP’s congestion control algorithm (AIMD) is not well-suited to gigabit networks • The effect of packets loss can be disastrous • TCP is inefficient in high bandwidth*delay networks • The future performance-outlook for computational grids looks bad if we continue to rely solely on the widely-deployed TCP RENO Loss rate =0.01%: • LAN BW utilization= 99% • WAN BW utilization=1.2% Bandwidth available = 1 Gbps

  25. Responsiveness • Time to recover from a single packet loss: 2 C . RTT r = C : Capacity of the link 2 . MSS • Large MTU accelerates the growth of the window • Time to recover from a packet loss decreases with large MTU • Larger MTU reduces overhead per frames (saves CPU cycles, reduces the number of packets)

  26. Internet2 land speed record history (IPv4 & IPv6) period 2000-2004 NEC’2005 conference

  27. Layer1/2/3 networking (1) • Conventional layer 3 technology is no longer fashionable because of: • High associated costs, e.g. 200/300 KUSD for a 10G router interfaces • Implied use of shared backbones • The use of layer 1 or layer 2 technology is very attractive because it helps to solve a number of problems, e.g. • 1500 bytes Ethernet frame size (layer1) • Protocol transparency (layer1 & layer2) • Minimum functionality hence, in theory, much lower costs (layer1&2) NEC’2005 conference

  28. Layer1/2/3 networking (2) • « 0n-demand Lambda Grids » are becoming very popular: • Pros: • circuit oriented model like the telephone network, hence no need for complex transport protocols • Lower equipment costs (i.e. « in theory » a factor 2 or 3 per layer) • the concept of a dedicated end to end light path is very elegant • Cons: • « End to end » still very loosely defined, i.e. site to site, cluster to cluster or really host to host • Higher circuit costs, Scalability, Additional middleware to deal with circuit set up/tear down, etc • Extending dynamic VLAN functionality is a potential nightmare! NEC’2005 conference

  29. « Lambda Grids » What does it mean? • Clearly different things to different people, hence the apparently easy consensus! • Conservatively, on demand « site to site » connectivity • Where is the innovation? • What does it solve in terms of transport protocols? • Where are the savings? • Less interfaces needed (customer) but more standby/idle circuits needed (provider) • Economics from the service provider vs the customer perspective? • Traditionally, switched services have been very expensive, • Usage vs flat charge • Break even, switches vs leased, few hours/day • Why would this change? • In case there are no savings, why bother? • More advanced, cluster to cluster • Implies even more active circuits in paralle • Is it realistic? • Even more advanced, Host to Host or even « per flow » • All optical • Is it really realisitic? NEC’2005 conference

  30. Some Challenges • Real bandwidth estimates given the chaotic nature of the requirements. • End-end performance given the whole chain involved • (disk-bus-memory-bus-network-bus-memory-bus-disk) • Provisioning over complex network infrastructures (GEANT, NREN’s etc) • Cost model for options (packet+SLA’s, circuit switched etc) • Consistent Performance (dealing with firewalls) • Merging leading edge research with production networking NEC’2005 conference

  31. Tentative conclusions • There is a very clear trend towards community managed dark fiber networks • As a consequence National Research & Education Networks are evolving into Telecom Operators, is it right? • In the short term, almost certainly YES • In the longer term, probably NO • In many countries, there is NO other way to have affordable access to multi-Gbit/s networks, therefore this is clearly the right move • The Grid & its associated Wide Area Networking challenges • « on-demand Lambda Grids » are, according to me, extremely doubtful! • Ethernet over SONET & new standards will revolutionize the Internet • WAN-PHY (IEEE) has, according to me NO future! • However, GFP, VCAT/LCAS, G.709, OTN are very likely to have a very bright future. NEC’2005 conference

  32. Single TCP stream between Caltech and CERN • Available (PCI-X) Bandwidth=8.5 Gbps • RTT=250ms (16’000 km) • 9000 Byte MTU • 15 min to increase throughput from 3 to 6 Gbps • Sending station: • Tyan S2882 motherboard, 2x Opteron 2.4 GHz , 2 GB DDR. • Receiving station: • CERN OpenLab:HP rx4640, 4x 1.5GHz Itanium-2, zx1 chipset, 8GB memory • Network adapter: • S2IO 10 GbE CPU load = 100% Single packet loss Burst of packet losses

  33. High Throughput Disk to Disk Transfers: From 0.1 to 1GByte/sec • Server Hardware (Rather than Network) Bottlenecks: • Write/read and transmit tasks share the same limited resources: CPU, PCI-X bus, memory, IO chipset • PCI-X bus bandwidth: 8.5 Gbps [133MHz x 64 bit] • Link aggregation (802.3ad): Logical interface with two physical interfaces on two independent PCI-X buses. • LAN test: 11.1 Gbps (memory to memory) Performance in this range (from 100 MByte/sec up to 1 GByte/sec) is required to build a responsive Grid-based Processing and Analysis System for LHC

  34. Transferring a TB from Caltech to CERN in 64-bit MS Windows • Latest disk to disk over 10Gbps WAN: 4.3 Gbits/sec (536 MB/sec) - 8 TCP streams from CERN to Caltech; 1TB file • 3 Supermicro Marvell SATA disk controllers + 24 SATA 7200rpm SATA disks • Local Disk IO – 9.6 Gbits/sec (1.2 GBytes/sec read/write, with <20% CPU utilization) • S2io SR 10GE NIC • 10 GE NIC – 7.5 Gbits/sec (memory-to-memory, with 52% CPU utilization) • 2*10 GE NIC (802.3ad link aggregation) – 11.1 Gbits/sec (memory-to-memory) • Memory to Memory WAN data flow, and local Memory to Disk read/write flow, are not matched when combining the two operations • Quad Opteron AMD848 2.2GHz processors with 3 AMD-8131 chipsets: 4 64-bit/133MHz PCI-X slots. • Interrupt Affinity Filter: allows a user to change the CPU-affinity of the interrupts in a system. • Overcome packet loss with re-connect logic. • Proposed Internet2 Terabyte File Transfer Benchmark

  35. UltraLight: Developing Advanced Network Services for Data Intensive HEP Applications • UltraLight: a next-generation hybrid packet- and circuit-switched network infrastructure • Packet switched: cost effective solution; requires ultrascale protocols to share 10G  efficiently and fairly • Circuit-switched:Scheduled or sudden “overflow” demands handled by provisioning additional wavelengths; Use path diversity, e.g. across the US, Atlantic, Canada,… • Extend and augment existing grid computing infrastructures (currently focused on CPU/storage) to include the network as an integral component • Using MonALISA to monitor and manage global systems • Partners: Caltech, UF, FIU, UMich, SLAC, FNAL, MIT/Haystack; CERN, NLR, CENIC, Internet2; Translight, UKLight, Netherlight; UvA, UCL, KEK, Taiwan • Strong support from Cisco

  36. UltraLight MPLS Network • Compute path from one given node to another such that the path does not violate any constraints (bandwidth/administrative requirements) • Ability to set the path the traffic will take through the network (with simple configuration, management, and provisioning mechanisms) • Take advantage of the multiplicity of waves/L2 channels across the US (NLR, HOPI, Ultranet and Abilene/ESnet MPLS services) • EoMPLS will be used to build layer2 paths • natural step toward the deployment of GMPLS

  37. Summary • For many years the Wide Area Network has been the bottleneck; this is no longer the case in many countries thus making deployment of a data intensive Grid infrastructure possible! • Recent I2LSR records show for the first time ever that the network can be truly transparent and that throughputs are limited by the end hosts • Challenge shifted from getting adequate bandwidth to deploying adequate infrastructure to make effective use of it! • Some transport protocol issues still need to be resolved; however there are many encouraging signs that practical solutions may now be in sight. • 1GByte/sec disk to disk challenge. Today: 1 TB at 536 MB/sec from CERN to Caltech • Still in Early Stages; Expect Substantial Improvements • Next generation network and Grid system: UltraLight • Deliver the critical missing component for future eScience: the integrated, managed network • Extend and augment existing grid computing infrastructures (currently focused on CPU/storage) to include the network as an integral component.

  38. 10G DataTAG testbed extension to Telecom World 2003 and Abilene/Cenic On September 15, 2003, the DataTAG project was the first transatlantic testbed offering direct 10GigE access using Juniper’sVPN layer2/10GigE emulation. NEC’2005 conference

More Related