Download - Circuit Emulation for Bulk Transfers in Distributed Storage and Clouds

.

Setting the Mood

• "It's time to get rid of TCP/UDP protocols in DCs"

• DCs/Clouds are closed worlds, brand new technologies are OK

• with bulk transfers (BigData, ...), the business value of a TCP/UDP alternative is high

• circuits are an alternative to packets

M.Zhanikeev -- [email protected] -- Circuit Emulation for Bulk Transfers in Dist. Storage and Clouds -- http://bit.do/marat140903 2/32...

2/32

.

Ethernet is the Best

.Ethernet.....

.

... is the cheapest and most available technology with e2esupport

• Fiber Channel (FC), SATA, etc. require expensive hardware, lowcompatibility, no e2e support

• FCoE = Ethernet, same problems, expensive hardware, no e2e support

• network virtualization is best fit for Ethernet

• disclaimer: one of proposed models will work with optical networks aswell


3/32

.

Ethernet is the Worst

.Ethernet.....

.... is the worst technology in terms of throughput• CSMA/CD is the biggest throughput limitation

◦ not in modern switches, but still major problem in wireless

• contention problem cannot be easily resolved

• same applies to OBS/OPS optical technologies


4/32

.

Ethernet Contention


5/32

.

Ethernet and Contention

• whaterver you do, Ethernet L2 domains cannot avoid contention

Switch Switch

Qualitatively Identical


6/32

.

Parallel vs Sequential (2 flows)

20 24 28 32 36 40Transfer time in contention (s)

20

24

28

32

36

40Tr

ansf

er ti

me

by e

xclu

sive

circ

uits

(s)


7/32

.

Ethernet Switches : Basic Facts

• cut-through versus store-and-forward• cut-through is 10..15x better

• Cisco has advanced cut-through : +bytes versus routing decision tradeoff

• store-and-forward is subjected to QoS classes◦ L3 DSCP versus L2 CoS, AF, EF, BE, SBE models


8/32

.

Switchess : Modeling

C: Cut Through

Check, etc. Q: Queue

D: Drop QoS classes


9/32

.

Proposal


10/32

.

Proposal : Circuits

.Circuits..

.

... are emulations which allow for exclusive access to L2 domain byindividual parties

• circuits-over-packets emulation

• cut-through mode for each circuit is guaranteed

• highest possible throughput

• NOTE: will work with cheepest switches

• NOTE2: applies to optical networks as well (L2=lightpaths)


11/32

.

Implementation : 2 cases• left: book-then-send, right: separate control layer

SWITCH

NOC

Storage Node A

Storage Node B

Step 1: Book

session

Step 2: Transfer bulk

SWITCH

Storage Node A

Storage Node B

SWITCH

Bookingsegment

BulkSegment


12/32

.

Impl.: Centralized Case

SWITCH

NOC

Storage Node A

Storage Node B

Step 1: Book

session


• same network for booking andcircuits

• inefficient but still valid/practical

• legacy-compatible,partial implementation, etc.


13/32

.

Impl.: Distributed Case

SWITCH

Storage Node A

Storage Node B

SWITCH

Bookingsegment

BulkSegment

• book on one network, send on another

• legacy-incompatible• contention-sensing possible →fully distributed models

• can also use sensing andcontention control


14/32

.

Optimization


15/32

.

Optimization : Basics

• same for distributed and centralized models◦ does not matter, optimization shows the overall utility of a heuristic

• practical optimization = formulation + heuristic• given: demand matrix

• expected result: a routing table mapping demand to topology


16/32

.

Optimization : Basics


17/32

.

Optim. : OSPF → tuple notation

• OSPF is traditional in such optimizations, but too rigid for many practical cases◦ too complex for lightpaths in optical networks◦ no good heuristics for complex topologies

• OSPF notation is not very convinient1. capacity constraints2. flow preservation3. contention/congestion metrics

• alternative: tuples ... for example ⟨s, d, v, t⟩ defines demand of traffic

volume v at time t from source s to destionation d◦ this notation ismuch more flexible for several coming formulations


18/32

.

Optim. : Basic Tuple Notation

• nodes: source s, destination: d and others a, b, c• individual demand tupleTi = ⟨s, d, v, t⟩• lightpathλ for optical networks

• time t, can be start time, start and end of a period, etc.

• we do not care about utility so far, just the notation, but utility is obvious inmost cases

• → means results in... or leads to...


19/32

.

tOSPF : Traditional OSPF

Ti = ⟨s, d, v, t⟩ → ⟨s, a, b, ..., d⟩.Externals..

.

Using demand matrix, creates a set of per-linkweights, which define a unique route for eachdemand item.

.Internals..

.

Per-link capacity constraint, in/out flowconservation constraint, unstable for largetopologies and demand matrices

• s source

• d destination

• a, b, c, ... intermediatenodes on e2e paths/routes


20/32

.

oOSPF : Optical OSPF w/out Switching

Ti = ⟨s, d, v, t⟩ → ⟨s, λ⟩.Externals..

.

Using demand matrix, maps each demand item onisolated lightpath

.Internals..

.

Simple but inefficient because the number ofe2e lightpaths is small

• s source

• d destination

• λ a wavelength for a fixed e2elightpath from s to destination

d


21/32

.

oOSPFs : Optical OSPF with Switching

Ti = ⟨s, d, v, t⟩ → ⟨s, λs, λa, λb, ...⟩.Externals..

.

Using demand matrix, maps each demand item on aroute of wavelengths

.Internals..

.

Efficient, but suffers from the same problemsas traditional OSPF

• s source

• d destination

• λx an exit wavelength at agiven node x


22/32

.

Proposal : Sensing Formulation

Ti = ⟨s, d, v, t1, t2⟩ → ⟨s, λ, t⟩.Externals..

.

Using a matrix of loosely scheduled demand, createa schedule of sequential sessions withexlusive access to paths

.Internals..

.

Same approach for Ethernet (one wavelength) andoptical networks

• s source

• d destination

• t1 and t2 areuser-preferred range forthe start of a session, a valuet is picked between them


23/32

.

Heuristics


24/32

.

Centralized Case

SWITCH

NOC

Storage Node A

Storage Node B

Step 1: Book

session


• all optimization formulations exceptsensing

• very close to traditional OSPF• same problems as in OSPF

• the biggest problem is to knowdemand matrix in advance


25/32

.

Distributed Case

SWITCH

Storage Node A

Storage Node B

SWITCH

Bookingsegment

BulkSegment

• can be used for all formulations

• pefectly suited for the Sensingformulation


26/32

.

The Sensing Model• contention methods in wireless and OBS will work

◦ in practice: sensing can beSNMP-like feedback on gate's status◦ no sync among users is necessary

• same model for Ethernet (+virtual nets) and optical networks

• main advantage: the offload, no need to implement funny OSPFheuristics


27/32

.

Realistic Gate/Sensing Model

• an approximate view of JGNtopology

• two way = one way + ring• Gates are created at optical/ethernet border

• NOTE: already working for Ethernet


28/32

.

Wrapup

• circuit emulation is necessary for effective bulk transfers◦ up to 40% faster in our lab tests

• intra-DC, DC-DC, federations, etc. -- all can benefit from circuits

• circuits formulated as OSPF are bad -- a Gate/Sensing model is better• validity: worst case is the existing technology, but upper performancebound is very high


29/32

.

That’s all, thank you ...


30/32

.

[01] myself (2014)High Availability Cloud Storage...NS研

[02] Cisco (2014)LAN Switching and Wireless, CCNA Exploration Companion GuideCisco Press

[03] Cisco (2014)Cut-Through and Store-and-Forward Ethernet Switching for Low-Latency....Cisco Press

[04] NetOptics (2014)Cut-Through Ethernet Switching: A Versatile Resource for Low Latency...White Paper

[05] Cisco (2006)QoS: DSCP Classification GuidelinesRFC4594


30/32

.

[06] Cisco (2010)A Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP)...RFC5865

[07] open source (current)PICA8 Project for Low Latency Virtual Networkinghttp://www.pica8.com/


31/32

.

Wait-n-Send Model

Bulk size per transmission

Goodput

2 potential distributions in practice

Response curve(s)


31/32

.

Utility of Waiting (curve)

• I called it Wait-n-SeeCurve

• source waits for some time forexclusive access --sensing and accumulating bulk

• on timeout, the current bulkis released at best effort(fallback)


32/32

Download - Circuit Emulation for Bulk Transfers in Distributed Storage and Clouds

Top Related