Congestion Control & Transport protocols

Transcription

1 Congestion Control & Transport protocols from New Internet and Networking Technologies for Grids and High-Performance Computing, tutorial given at HiPC 04, Bangalore, India December 22nd, 2004 C. Pham University Lyon, France LIP (CNRS-INRIA-ENS-UCBL)

2 The congestion phenomenon 10 Mbps 1.5 Mbps 100 Mbps Too many packets sent to the same interface. Difference bandwidth from one network to another Main consequence: packet losses in routers

3 Bottlenecks in networks Flow control is for receivers Congestion control is for the network From Computer Networks, A. Tanenbaum Congestion collapse was first observed in 1986 by V. Jacobson. Congestion control was added to TCP (TCP Reno) in 1988.

4

5

6

7 λ λ λ λ

8 Congestion: A Close-up View knee point after which throughput increases very slowly delay increases fast cliff point after which throughput starts to decrease very fast to zero (congestion collapse) delay approaches infinity Note (in an M/M/1 queue) delay = 1/(1 utilization) Throughput Delay knee cliff Load Load packet loss congestion collapse

9 Congestion Control vs. Congestion Avoidance Congestion control goal stay left of cliff Congestion avoidance goal stay left of knee Right of cliff: Congestion collapse Throughput knee cliff congestion collapse Load

10 From the control theory point of view ƒ feedback Closed-loop control Feedback should be frequent, but not too much otherwise there will be oscillations Can not control the behavior with a time granularity less than the feedback period

11 Le contrôle de congestion: principes Réactif lorsque la congestion est détectée, informer les noeuds en amont et en aval, puis, marquer des paquets, rejeter des paquets, traiter les paquets prioritaires. Préventif diffusion périodique d'informations d'états (taille des buffers) contrôle continue de la source (Leacky Bucket, Token Bucket...), gestion des buffers. De bout en bout pas de retour du réseau la congestion est estimée grâce à l'observation des pertes et des délais de bout-en-bout Assisté par le réseau bit d'annonce de congestion (SNA, DECbit, TCP/ECN, FR, ATM) Active Queue Management

12 Contrôle de congestion dans TCP Le nbr de paquets envoyés par aller-retour augmente progressivement cwnd = 1 cwnd = 2 cwnd = 4 segment 1 ACK for segment 1 segment 2 segment 3 ACK for segments segment 4 segment 5 segment 6 segment 7 cwnd = 8 ACK for segments

13 TCP congestion control: the big picture Congestion window doubles every round-trip time Sequence No From Computer Networks, A. Tanenbaum packet ack Time cwnd grows exponentially (slow start), then linearly (congestion avoidance) with 1 more segment per RTT If loss, divides threshold by 2 (multiplicative decrease) and restart with cwnd=1 packet

14 The TCP saw-tooth curve TCP behavior in steady state N Isolated packet losses trigger the fast recovery procedure instead of the slow-start. N/2 The TCP steady-state behavior is referred to as the Additive Increase- Multiplicative Decrease process N/2.RTT no loss: cwnd = cwnd + 1 loss: cwnd = cwnd*0.5

15 , from (N+N/2)/2 (N/2) 2 +1/2(N/2) 2 Throughput = W RTT = 3 2 MTU RTT p

16 AIMD Phase plot User 2 s Allocation x 2 t 0 Convergence point Fairness Line x 1 =x 2 Efficiency Line x 1 +x 2 =C Multiplicative Decrease preserves the fairness because the user s allocation ratio remains the same Ex: x 2 = x.b 2 x 1 x 1.b User 1 s Allocation x 1 Assumption: decrease policy must (at minimum) reverse the load increase over-and-above efficiency line Implication: decrease factor should be conservatively set to account for any congestion detection lags etc

17 Congestion and buffer mngt Each router must implement some queuing discipline Queuing allocates bandwidth and buffer space: Bandwidth: which packet to serve next (scheduling) Buffer space: which packet to drop next (buff mgmt) Queuing also affects latency Traffic Sources Traffic Classes Class A Class B Class C Scheduling Drop Buffer Management

18 Typical Internet Queuing FIFO + drop-tail Simplest choice Used widely in the Internet FIFO (first-in-first-out) Implies single class of traffic Drop-tail Arriving packets get dropped when queue is full regardless of flow or importance Important distinction: FIFO: scheduling discipline Drop-tail: drop (buffer management) policy

19 FIFO + Drop-tail Problems FIFO Issues: In a FIFO discipline, the service seen by a flow is convoluted with the arrivals of packets from all other flows! No isolation between flows: full burden on e2e control No policing: send more packets get more service Drop-tail issues: Routers are forced to have have large queues to maintain high utilizations Larger buffers => larger steady state queues/delays Synchronization: end hosts react to same events because packets tend to be lost in bursts Lock-out: a side effect of burstiness and synchronization is that a few flows can monopolize queue space

20 Design Objectives Keep throughput high and delay low (i.e. knee) Accommodate bursts Queue size should reflect ability to accept bursts rather than steadystate queuing Improve TCP performance with minimal hardware changes

21 Queue Management Ideas Synchronization, lock-out: Random drop: drop a randomly chosen packet Drop front: drop packet from head of queue High steady-state queuing vs burstiness: Early drop: Drop packets before queue full Do not drop packets too early because queue may reflect only burstiness and not true overload Misbehaving vs Fragile flows: Drop packets proportional to queue occupancy of flow Try to protect fragile flows from packet loss (eg: color them or classify them on the fly) Drop packets vs Mark packets: Dropping packets interacts w/ reliability mechanisms Mark packets: need to trust end-systems to respond!

22 Packet Drop Dimensions Per-connection state Aggregation Single class Class-based queuing Head Drop position Tail Random location Early drop Overflow drop

23 Random Early Detection (RED) Max thresh Min thresh P(drop) Average Queue Length 1.0 max P min th max th Avg queue length

24 Random Early Detection (RED) Maintain running average of queue length Low pass filtering If avg Q < min th do nothing Low queuing, send packets through If avg Q > max th, drop packet Protection from misbehaving sources Else mark (or drop) packet in a manner proportional to queue length & bias to protect against synchronization P b = max p (avg - min th ) / (max th - min th ) Further, bias P b by history of unmarked packets P a = P b /(1 - count*p b )

25 RED Issues Issues: Breaks synchronization well Extremely sensitive to parameter settings Wild queue oscillations upon load changes Fail to prevent buffer overflow as #sources increases Does not help fragile flows (eg: small window flows or retransmitted packets) Does not adequately isolate cooperative flows from noncooperative flows Isolation: Fair queuing achieves isolation using per-flow state RED penalty box: Monitor history for packet drops, identify flows that use disproportionate bandwidth

26 RED with Multiple Thresholds Discard Probability Red Packets Yellow Packets Green Packets Red Yellow Threshold Threshold Green Threshold Average Queue Length Full source Juha Heinänen

27 REM Athuraliya & Low 2000 Main ideas Decouple congestion & performance measure Price adjusted to match rate and clear buffer Marking probability exponential in `price 1 REM RED Avg queue

28 Comparison of AQM Performance REM queue = 1.5 pkts utilization = 92% γ = 0.05, α = 0.4, φ = 1.15 DropTail queue = 94% RED min_th = 10 pkts max_th = 40 pkts max_p = 0.1