Date post: | 31-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | emery-burt |
View: | 36 times |
Download: | 7 times |
1
IEPM/PingERIEPM/PingER
Internet End-to-end Performance Monitoring and the PingER projectInternet End-to-end Performance Monitoring and the PingER project
IEPM/PingERIEPM/PingER
Internet End-to-end Performance Monitoring and the PingER projectInternet End-to-end Performance Monitoring and the PingER project
Warren Matthews and Les Cottrell (SLAC)
National Collaboratory Middleware and Network Research Project Review, ANL,
August 18-20, 2003.
04/19/23 20:43 2
OverviewOverviewOverviewOverview
• A little History• Evaluate the progress• Assess the Value• Interactions with other projects• Elements that should be added • Summary
3
HistoryHistoryHistoryHistory
• Ping End-to-end Reporting• Began early 1995
– Monitor network performance to sites collaborating with SLAC
• ESnet Network Monitoring Task Force (NMTF)– Extended to several DoE labs, strong support from
FNAL
• 1997 ICFA created Network Task Force– PingER spreads worldwide– Funded by DOE/MICS
4
RecentlyRecentlyRecentlyRecently
• In 2001, extended PingER to include bandwidth testing – IEPM-BW
• End-to-end user perception for high performance bulk-transfer
• Iperf, bbftp, GridFTP …• Heavy network impact compared to
lightweight PingER
5
Current StatusCurrent StatusCurrent StatusCurrent Status
• PingER funding is under Thomas Ndousse
• DoE/MICS funding runs out at end of year
• Continues to be extremely useful– Most recently began working with
ICTP/eJDS to quantify the Digital Divide• MAGGIE proposal to develop/extend
high performance monitoring (with PSC, ICIR, LBNL)
04/19/23 20:43 6
OverviewOverviewOverviewOverview
• A little History
•Evaluate the progress• Assess the Value• Interactions with other projects• Elements that should be added • Summary
7
PingERPingERPingERPingER
• Mature, Successful• Widely used in HENP• Utilization has been extended beyond
HENP– EDG, IAEA, XIWT– ICTP/eJDS– Many others
• Continues to be extended to meet new needs– Better visualization, web services access to
data …
8
PingER MethodologyPingER MethodologyPingER MethodologyPingER Methodology
• Simple ping monitoring• 1 ping to prime caches• Send, size
– Default is 10x100 Byte pkts, 10x1000 Byte pkts
• Record ping packet loss and RTT• Derive unreachability, quiescence,
unpredictability, jitter, TCP throughput• Also out-of-order packets, duplicate
packets
04/19/23 20:43 9
PingER SoftwarePingER SoftwarePingER SoftwarePingER Software
• Monitoring• Analysis• Visualization• Available from SLAC/FNAL websites• Package
04/19/23 20:43 10
Using PingERUsing PingERUsing PingERUsing PingER
• Since 1995• Trouble shooting• Identify Sites to Upgrade• Choosing a provider• Setting expectations for VoIP • Routing Choices for multihomed sites• Compare with http, ftp
– Strong correlation
11
PingER DeploymentPingER DeploymentPingER DeploymentPingER Deployment
• Currently 36 monitoring sites in 14 countries
• 473 target sites in 79 countries– 99% of the worlds on-line population
• Most extensive end-to-end active R&E network monitoring worldwide
• Special BaBar, PPDG, Digital Divide. etc groups and pages
04/19/23 20:43 12
End-to-end MonitoringEnd-to-end Monitoring
• In reality, most projects monitor end-to-end performance– End host effects are unavoidable
• Internet2 end-to-end Performance Initiative (e2epi) has recognized this– Most useful to users.
13
IEPM-BWIEPM-BW
• Throughput Monitoring– Traceroute– Iperf (+quick iperf), BBftp, BBCP (mem and
disk)– ABWE (available bandwidth)– GridFTP, UDPMON– Web100– Netflow
• Analysis
04/19/23 20:43 14
IEPM-BW DeploymentIEPM-BW Deployment
• Currently 10 monitoring sites– SLAC, FNAL, GATech (SOX)– INFN (Milan), NIKHEF, APAN (Japan)– UMich, Internet2 (Ann Arbor)– UManchester, UCL (UK)
• 50 unique target sites
15
Using IEPM-BWUsing IEPM-BWUsing IEPM-BWUsing IEPM-BW
• Usual– Baselines– Troubleshooting– Setting expectations
• Also on both testbeds and production nets– Compare measurement tools (ping vs ABwE
vs. iperf/quick iperf vs bbcp vs GridFTP vs tsunami)
– Compare advanced TCP stacks• Eliminate need for multiple streams
– Look at non TCP bulk transfer
04/19/23 20:43 16
OverviewOverviewOverviewOverview
• A little History• Evaluate the progress
•Assess the Value• Interactions with other projects• Elements that should be added • Summary
04/19/23 20:43 17
ExamplesExamplesExamplesExamples
• Long term trends • Short term glitches• Troubleshooting• Upgrades• Vacations• Peering
18Traffic on ESnet has doubled every year
2Mbps
Multiple OC12s
vacation
19
Packet Loss between DESY and FNAL in February and March 2000.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
Day of the Month
Daily Packet Loss (%)
DFN closes Perryman POP and looses direct peering with ESnet
Peering re-established via Dante at 60 Hudson
February March
20
Median Packet Loss Seen From nbi.dk
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11/1/9811/8/9811/15/9811/22/9811/29/98
12/6/9812/13/9812/20/9812/27/98
1/3/991/10/991/17/991/24/99
% 100 Byte Packet Loss During Day.
Ten-155 became Ten-155 became operational on operational on December 11.December 11.
Smurf Filtersmurf Filtersinstalled oninstalled onNORDUnet’sNORDUnet’sUS connection.US connection.
To North America
To Western Europe
21
Throughput from SLAC to RAL between May 2002 and February 2003
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
5/13/20025/27/20026/10/20026/24/20027/8/2002
7/22/20028/5/2002
8/19/20029/2/2002
9/16/20029/30/200210/14/200210/28/200211/11/200211/25/2002
12/9/200212/23/2002
1/6/20031/20/2003
2/3/20032/17/2003
iperf
bbcpmem
bbcpdisk
bbftp
22
23
TrafficTrafficTrafficTraffic
Typically, Internet traffic is 70% http
24
ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions
• Establish layer 3 connectivity exists
• Iperf vs Quick iperf
• BBftp vs BBCP => implementation
• IPERF vs BBftp => CPU, Disk
• Packet Loss < 0.1%
• TCP/IP must be tuned on high-speed long delay paths
• Web100/Net100
04/19/23 20:43 25
eJDSeJDSeJDSeJDS
• PingER continues to be useful
• Recently joined with electronic journal distribution service (eJDS)
• Distribute physics journals to member around the world
• Particularly concerned with quantifying the Digital Divide
26
LimitationsLimitationsLimitationsLimitations
• ICMP
• Do not monitor routers
• Rate limiting
• Blocking is common, especially in developing countries
• However, study indicates low impact from rate limiting
• Scheduling with cron
04/19/23 20:43 27
OverviewOverviewOverviewOverview
• A little History• Evaluate the progress• Assess the Value
• Interactions with other projects
• Elements that should be added • Summary
28
Comparison to Other Comparison to Other ProjectsProjects
Comparison to Other Comparison to Other ProjectsProjects
• Surveyor• RIPE• AMP• NIMI• SCNM• XIWT• NetPhysics
04/19/23 20:43 29
ComparisonsComparisonsComparisonsComparisons
• Typically results were closely correlated.
• Often tools complement each other and combined provide insight into network behaviour.
• Derived throughput from equation of Mathis et al (BW~MSS/(RTT*sqrt(loss)) ) shows good agreement
04/19/23 20:43 30
PublishingPublishingPublishingPublishing
• Network Performance information is critical to the Grid vision – Application steering
• Working with GGF/NMWG & PPDG• Monitoring data is available as
prototype Web Service • OGSI Grid service under
development
04/19/23 20:43 31
Internet2 PIPESInternet2 PIPESInternet2 PIPESInternet2 PIPES
• E2e pi• PIPES infrastructure• IEPM-BW Job manager• MAGGIE Analysis Engine
32
Available Bandwidth Estimator Available Bandwidth Estimator (ABwE)(ABwE)
Available Bandwidth Estimator Available Bandwidth Estimator (ABwE)(ABwE)
• Tool under development by SLAC/Rice– Part of the DoE/SCIDAC INCITE project
• Light weight– 60 packets in 1 second– Iperf 35,000 packets/s for 10-20 seconds
• No need to tune windows/streams• Replace iperf in test engine• FreeBSD version created for Abilene
Backbone Measurement Infrastructure
33
Quick IperfQuick IperfQuick IperfQuick Iperf
• Iperf is the tool of choice for many admins. – Considered accurate but intrusive.– Errors due to long slow start
• Use web100 to detect end of slow start. Modify iperf client. Web100 required on client only.
• Measurement within 10%• Save 94% time, 92% traffic
04/19/23 20:43 34
PingER-6PingER-6PingER-6PingER-6
• SLAC has native IPv6 service from ESnet
• PingER ported to IPv6• Monitoring started in November
1999 • 41 Sites in 10 countries • edu/ac.*, net/net.*, com/co.*
04/19/23 20:43 35
PingER -vs- PingER6
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 28 31
IPv6
IPv4
RTT between SLACand Purdue in Novand Dec 1999.
04/19/23 20:43 36
OverviewOverviewOverviewOverview
• A little History• Evaluate the progress• Asses the Value• Interactions with other projects
•Elements that should be added
• Summary
37
MAGGIEMAGGIEMAGGIEMAGGIE
• Need to further develop IEPM-BW– On-demand measurements,
visualization, automated trouble shooting
• Measurement and Analysis for the Global Grid and Internet End-to-end performance– A secure, scalable measurement
infrastructure providing measurement, analysis and access to data.
38
MAGGIEMAGGIEMAGGIEMAGGIE
MAGGIE
NIMISecurity and scheduling
IEPM-BWMeasurement Engine
Publishing
Fault FindingAnalysis Engine
Other tools
NMWG
AMP
RIPESLAC
SLAC
FNAL
PSCICIR
LBNL
SLAC
ANLSCIDAC
UCL
Akenti NWS
04/19/23 20:43 39
OverviewOverviewOverviewOverview
• A little History• Evaluate the progress• Assess the Value• Interactions with other projects• Elements that should be added
•Summary
40
Meeting the Objectives Meeting the Objectives (1/4)(1/4)
Evaluate the ProgressEvaluate the Progress
Meeting the Objectives Meeting the Objectives (1/4)(1/4)
Evaluate the ProgressEvaluate the Progress• The problem: The user cannot assume the network
will be there. – Even if it is, the user cannot assume it will perform to
their expectation. • The vision (realized): PingER has set expectation,
provides data for troubleshooting, provides data for research. Continues to be useful.
• A Unique contribution: Probably the largest monitoring project in the world. IEPM-BW comparing tools, leveraging other efforts.
04/19/23 20:43 41
Meeting the Objectives Meeting the Objectives (2/4)(2/4)
Assess the valueAssess the value
Meeting the Objectives Meeting the Objectives (2/4)(2/4)
Assess the valueAssess the value• PingER is widely used and
continues to be useful. • Goals get more ambitious• Challenges remain
42
Meeting the Objectives Meeting the Objectives (3/4)(3/4)
Interactions Across Interactions Across ProjectsProjects
Meeting the Objectives Meeting the Objectives (3/4)(3/4)
Interactions Across Interactions Across ProjectsProjects• Long history of involvement in
other projects– HENP, ESnet, Grid, High
Performance, ICFA-SCIC – Friends, colleagues and contacts
throughout the world (Other worlds coming soon)
• Bright future for MAGGIE.
04/19/23 20:43 43
Meeting the Objectives Meeting the Objectives (4/4)(4/4)
Assess the Integrated Assess the Integrated ImpactImpact
Meeting the Objectives Meeting the Objectives (4/4)(4/4)
Assess the Integrated Assess the Integrated ImpactImpact• The contribution to the big picture
by IEPM-PingER, IEPM-BW and especially the need for MAGGIE have been summarized by Mary-Anne and Thomas– But they may not have known it
04/19/23 20:43 44
The Big PictureThe Big PictureThe Big PictureThe Big Picture
All of the National Collaboratory and Network Research projects have specific goals and objectives, but all of you involved in those projects are also part of a much larger, longer term effort, namely creating an infrastructure that will enable geographically separated scientists to effectively work together as a team and that will facilitate remote access to both facilities and data.
-Mary-Anne and Thomas
04/19/23 20:43 45
Toward a Monitoring Toward a Monitoring InfrastructureInfrastructure
Toward a Monitoring Toward a Monitoring InfrastructureInfrastructure
• Certainly the need– DOE Science Community, SCIDAC Testbed– Grid, Large Scale Networking– Troubleshooting / E2Epi
• Many of the ingredients– Many monitoring projects– Many tools– PIPES, MAGGIE (Cross domain)
46
SummarySummary
“Unfortunately, network management research has historically been very under-funded, because it is difficult to get funding bodies to recognize this as legitimate networking research.”
Sally FloydIAB Concerns & Recommendations Regarding
Internet Research & Evolution.http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-research-funding-00.txt
04/19/23 20:43 47
LinksLinksLinksLinks
• Accompanying paper
• IEPM-BW Home
• 7 papers and 35 talks in the last 12 months
• ABwE
• RIPE-TT
• E2E PI
• GGF NMWG
• AMP TroubleShooting
• Quick Iperf
48
CreditsCreditsCreditsCredits
• Connie Logg, Jerrod Williams (SLAC), Jiri Navratil (CESnet/SLAC), David Martin, Frank Nagy, Al Thomas, Maxim Grigoriev (FNAL), Fabrizio Coccetti (INFN/SLAC).
• Brian Tierney, Eric Boyd, Jeff Boote, Matt Zekauskas, Matt Mathis, Russ Hobby, Vern Paxson, Andy Adams, kc Claffy, Iosif Legrand, Ajay Tirumala, Tom Dunigan.
• Local admins and other volunteers• DoE/MICS