1 / 36

Flowlet Switching

Flowlet Switching. Srikanth Kandula Shan Sinha & Dina Katabi. ISPs Want to Split Traffic Across Multiple Paths . ISPs Want to Split Traffic Across Multiple Paths . Load balancing to remove hot spots

tilly
Download Presentation

Flowlet Switching

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. Flowlet Switching Srikanth Kandula Shan Sinha & Dina Katabi

  2. ISPs Want to Split Traffic Across Multiple Paths

  3. ISPs Want to Split Traffic Across Multiple Paths • Load balancing to remove hot spots • Rebalance traffic when unpredictable events occur (Outages, DoS, BGP reroutes, Flash Crowds, …) 70% 30%

  4. ISPs Want to Split Traffic Across Multiple Paths Unpredictable Traffic Rebalance Traffic • Load balancing to remove hot spots • Rebalance traffic when unpredictable events occur (Outages, DoS, BGP reroutes, Flash Crowds, …) 70% 30%

  5. ISPs Want to Split Traffic Across Multiple Paths Unpredictable Traffic • Load balancing to remove hot spots • Rebalance traffic when unpredictable events occur (Outages, DoS, BGP reroutes, Flash Crowds, …) 30% 70%

  6. Much research on balancing and rebalancing load, • But implementation is hard particularly with dynamic ratios • Either sacrifice accuracy or reorder TCP packets

  7. Much research on balancing and rebalancing load, • But implementation is hard particularly with dynamic ratios • Either sacrifice accuracy or reorder TCP packets Problem • Given the desired split ratios – possibly dynamic • Split traffic accurately, at the edge router, without reordering TCP’s packets

  8. Existing Scheme 1: Packet-Based Splitting • Assign packets to paths proportional to the desired ratios • Reorders TCP packets causing bad throughput

  9. Existing Scheme 2: Flow-Based Splitting • Assign TCP flows to each path proportional to the desired ratio • Flows are not all equal: Elephants & Mice • So, estimate the rate of each TCP flow • But rates change with time • Too complex • Very inaccurate if desired ratios change

  10. How to Split Traffic? Flow-Based • Inaccurate • No packet reordering • Hard to track if ratios change Packet-Based • Accurate • Reorders TCP packets • Easily tracks dynamic ratios Can we combine the best of the two approaches?

  11. This Talk • Show how to send a single TCP flow down multiple paths without reordering • Accurately split traffic even when desired ratios are dynamic • Easy to implement

  12. TCPflow Flowlet Switching • If the previous packet from the flow has left the merging point  Can reassign the flow to a different path 1 2

  13. Delay = D1 Delay = D2 Flowlet Switching Given > |D2-D1|

  14. Delay = D1 Delay = D2 Flowlet Switching Given > |D2-D1| Flowlets are bursts from same flow separated by at least ; they can be switched independently! Idle ≥ 

  15. Last_Seen (s) Path 3 9920.2659 Implementing Flowlet Switching is Simple • Router at the split point hashes packet header • If (Now - Last_Seen) > , flow can change path • Reassign path proportionally to the desired split ratios hash SRCip DSTip SRCPort DSTPort

  16. Does it Really Work? • Traces collected on a peering link, an edge link and two core links • Split Vectors (3 paths) • Static (.3, .3, .4) • Dynamic – sinusoidal with amplitude 60%, period 20min [Akella04,Chuah02]

  17. Is Flowlet Switching Accurate? Error

  18. Is Flowlet Switching Accurate? Error Flowlet switching is much more accurate than flow-based switching

  19. Can do Flowlet Switching without Per-Flow State Errors stabilize for small table Fig. shows Avg. and Max. of many traces 4 16 64 256 1024 2048 4096 8192 Hash Table Entries #Active Flows ~ 50,000; But… Router maintains a hash table < 1000 entries (5KB).

  20. Understanding Flowlets

  21. But Where do Flowlets come from? • Can’t be just timeouts or short flows; most of the bytes are in the elephants • Why can a large flow be broken into many small flowlets?

  22. Flowlets exist because TCP is bursty at RTT and sub-RTT scales • Well-known that TCP usually sends a window in one or a few bursts and waits for acks [Zhang91,Zhang03, Jiang04] • Some Reasons • Slow-start • Ack compression • Window is much smaller than delay-BW product

  23. Flowlets exist because TCP is Bursty Most flowlets have inter-arrivals less than an RTT  most flowlets are sub-windows

  24. Why Flowlet Switching is Accurate? • 80% of bytes are in flowlets smaller than 10KB • Assigning a flowlet to a path isn’t a long commitment

  25. Why Flowlets can Track Dynamics? Arrival Rate of both flows and flowlets (/sec) 143.16 Edge 1454.98 611.95 Peering 8661.43 3784.10 Core1 35287.04 111.33 Core2 2848.76 An order of magnitude more opportunities to rebalance!

  26. Why flowlet switching doesn’t need per-flow state?

  27. 3 # Active Flowlets 2 1 0 Time Why flowlet switching doesn’t need per-flow state? Flow 1 Flow 2 Flow 3

  28. 3 # Active Flowlets 2 1 0 Time Why flowlet switching doesn’t need per-flow state? Flow 1 Flow 2 Flow 3

  29. 3 2 1 0 Why flowlet switching doesn’t need per-flow state? Flow 1 Flow 2 Flow 3 # Active Flowlets Time

  30. #Active Flowlets 18.41 28.08 240.12 50.66 Why flowlet switching doesn’t need per-flow state? Trace Edge Peering Core1 Core2

  31. #ActiveFlows #Active Flowlets 1450.42 18.41 8477.33 28.08 47883.33 240.12 1559.33 50.66 Why flowlet switching doesn’t need per-flow state? Trace Edge Peering Core1 Core2 #Active flowlets is 2 orders of magnitude smaller than flows  Very small hash table

  32. Why Flowlet Switching is Possible? • TCP burstiness at small time scales • Small commitment; many more chances to rebalance • Few simultaneously active flowlets • Why can a large flow be broken into many small flowlets? • Why is flowlet switching accurate? • Why flowlet switching does not need per-flow state?

  33. Configuring Flowlet Switching For our traces which are a diverse collection of traffic within continental US • ~50ms is a good and safe choice! • Our procedure is a constructive way to find  Flowlet separation > delay difference But, how to find delay difference?

  34. ~50ms results in accurate splitting Flowlet Separation of 50ms is Good Any flowlet timeout in [50, 100] ms yields highly accurate splits

  35. Flowlet Separation of 50ms is Safe 1 % .8 % .6 % .4 % .2 % 0 % Even if delay difference >> 50ms, prob. of reordering is negligible compared to drop. rate in the Internet (about 1%)

  36. Conclusion • Harness TCP burstiness to split traffic at a finer resolution than a flow without reordering • Flowlet Switching: • Splitting errors are a few percents • Reordering probability is negligible compared to drop prob. in the Internet • Easy to implement • Enable ISPs to do dynamic load balancing

More Related