Performance-oriented Congestion Control
|
|
|
- Ernest Lynch
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Performance-oriented Congestion Control Mo Dong, Qingxi Li, Doron Zarchy*, P. Brighten Godfrey and Michael Schapira* University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign *Hebrew University of Jerusalem
2 Qingxi Li Brighten Godfrey Doron Zarchy and Michael Schapira Hebrew University of Jerusalem University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
3 TCP Est
4 TCP Est High BDP Wireless Satellite Inter-DC Intra-DC BIC H-TCP Compound CUBIC FAST TCP Westwood Vegas Veno Hybla STAR Illinois SABUL ICTCP DCTCP 3
5 TCP Est High BDP Wireless Satellite Inter-DC Intra-DC BIC H-TCP Compound CUBIC FAST TCP Westwood Vegas Veno Hybla STAR Illinois SABUL ICTCP DCTCP 3
6 TCP Est High BDP Wireless Satellite Inter-DC Intra-DC BIC H-TCP Compound CUBIC FAST TCP Westwood Vegas Veno Hybla STAR Illinois SABUL ICTCP DCTCP Who can be not happy with TCP? 3
7 TCP Est High BDP Wireless Satellite Inter-DC Intra-DC BIC H-TCP Compound CUBIC FAST TCP Westwood Vegas Veno Hybla STAR Illinois SABUL ICTCP DCTCP are Who can be not happy with TCP? 3
8 TCP Est High BDP Wireless Satellite Inter-DC Intra-DC BIC H-TCP Compound CUBIC FAST TCP Westwood Vegas Veno Hybla STAR Illinois SABUL ICTCP DCTCP 3
9 TCP Est High BDP Wireless Satellite Inter-DC Intra-DC BIC H-TCP Compound CUBIC FAST TCP Westwood Vegas Veno Hybla STAR Illinois SABUL ICTCP DCTCP Point Solutions 4
10 TCP Est High BDP Wireless Satellite Inter-DC Intra-DC BIC H-TCP Compound CUBIC FAST TCP Westwood Vegas Veno Hybla STAR Illinois SABUL ICTCP DCTCP 10X 10X 17X 4X Unstable,RTT Unfair, Bufferbloat, Crash on Changing Networks,.. Point Solutions + Performance Far from Optimal 4
11
12 TCP fails to achieve consistent high performance
13 Why is it so hard?
14 6
15 Reno 1 pkt loss cwnd/2 Scalable ACK cwnd+1 CUBIC Time pass 1ms cwnd+f(t,cwn,rtt) FAST RTT increase x% Reduce cwnd to f(x)% HTCP 100 ACK cwnd+f(cwnd)/cwnd 6
16 Event Action Reno 1 pkt loss cwnd/2 Scalable ACK cwnd+1 CUBIC Time pass 1ms cwnd+f(t,cwn,rtt) FAST RTT increase x% Reduce cwnd to f(x)% HTCP 100 ACK cwnd+f(cwnd)/cwnd 6
17 Hardwired Mapping Event Action Reno 1 pkt loss cwnd/2 Scalable ACK cwnd+1 CUBIC Time pass 1ms cwnd+f(t,cwn,rtt) FAST RTT increase x% Reduce cwnd to f(x)% HTCP 100 ACK cwnd+f(cwnd)/cwnd 6
18 Hardwired Mapping Event Action 6
19 Event Action 7
20 Event Action Action 1 Network Action 2 N 7
21 Event Action Action 3 Network Action 4 7
22 Event Action Action 3 Network Action 4 7
23 Why? Event Action Action 3 Network Action 4 7
24 Why? Event Action Assumed Network Action 3 Network Action 4 7
25 Why? Event Action Assumed Network = Action 3 Real Network Network Action 4 Performance 7
26 Why? Event Action Assumed Network = Action 3 Real Network Network Action 4 Performance 7
27 Flow f sends at R Event Action 8
28 Flow f sends at R Event Action Packet Loss 8
29 Flow f sends at R Event Action Network Packet Loss 8
30 Flow f sends at R Event Action Network f causes most congestion Packet Loss 8
31 Flow f sends at R Event Action Network Dec R a lot f causes most congestion Packet Loss 8
32 Flow f sends at R Event Action Network Dec R a lot Packet Loss shallow buffer overflow 8
33 Flow f sends at R Event Action Network Dec R a lot Packet Loss shallow buffer overflow 8
34 Flow f sends at R Event Action Network Dec R a lot Packet Loss Dec R a little shallow buffer overflow 8
35 Flow f sends at R Event Action Network Dec R a lot Dec R a little Packet Loss other high rate flow causing congestion 8
36 Flow f sends at R Event Action Network Dec R a lot Dec R a little Packet Loss other high rate flow causing congestion 8
37 Flow f sends at R Event Action Network Dec R a lot Dec R a little Packet Loss Maintain R other high rate flow causing congestion 8
38 Flow f sends at R Event Action Network Dec R a lot Packet Loss Dec R a little Maintain R loss is random 8
39 Flow f sends at R Event Action Network Dec R a lot Packet Loss Dec R a little Maintain R loss is random 8
40 Flow f sends at R Event Action Network Dec R a lot Packet Loss Dec R a little Maintain R Increase R loss is random 8
41 Flow f sends at R Event Action Network Dec R a lot Packet Loss Dec R a little Maintain R Increase R loss is random 8
42 Flow f sends at R Event Action Network Dec R a lot Packet Loss Dec R a little Maintain R Increase R 8
43 Flow f sends at R Event Action Network Dec R a lot No event-control mapping optimal Packet Loss Dec R a little for all network scenarios Maintain R Increase R 8
44 What is the right rate to send? 9
45 What is the right rate to send? 9
46 What is the right rate to send? 9
47 What is the right rate to send? 9
48 What is the right rate to send? 9
49 What is the right rate to send? 10
50 What is the right rate to send? rate result 11
51 What is the right rate to send? rate r utility u U= f(tpt, loss rate, latency, etc.) e.g. U = tpt x (1 loss rate) 12
52 What is the right rate to send? rate r1 utility u1 U= f(tpt, loss rate, latency, etc.) e.g. U = tpt x (1 loss rate) No matter how complex the network, rate r > utility u 13
53 14
54 r1 14
55 r1 u1 14
56 r1 u1 r2 14
57 r1 u1 r2 u2 14
58 r1 r2 u1 u2 u1>u2? 14
59 r1 r2 u1 u2 u1>u2? move to r1 14
60 r1 r2 u1 u2 u1>u2? move to r1 move to r2 14
61 Performance-oriented Congestion Control move r1 r2 u1 u2 u1>u2? to r1 move to r2 15
62 Performance-oriented Congestion Control move r1 r2 u1 u2 u1>u2? to r1 move to r2 Observe real performance 15
63 Performance-oriented Congestion Control move r1 r2 u1 u2 u1>u2? to r1 move to r2 Observe real performance Control based on empirical evidence 15
64 Performance-oriented Congestion Control move r1 r2 u1 u2 u1>u2? to r1 move to r2 yields Observe real performance Control based on empirical evidence Consistent high performance 15
65 98 Mbps 102 Mbps this flow causing congestion X X X X X u1 u2 u1>u2? move to 98 Mbps 98 Mbps 102 Mbps random loss X X X u1 u2 u1>u2? move to 102 Mbps 16
66 Consistent High Performance 4X 17X 10X InterDC Throughput (Mbps) PCC TCP Hybla TCP Illinois 1 TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno Satellite Networks 0.1 Throughput (Mbps) 100 PCC TCP illinois TCP CUBIC 10 Lossy Networks Relative throughput of long-rtt flow 1.2 Solves RTT Unfairness PCC TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno RTT of Long-RTT flow (ms) Throughput (Mbps) Bottleneck Buffersize (KB) 15X Shallow Network Buffer 20 PCC 10 TCP Pacing 0 TCP CUBIC Buffer Size(KB) Loss Rate Similar to ICTCP Goodput (Mbps) IntraDC Incast Number of Senders PCC data=256kb PCC data=128kb PCC data=64kb TCP data=256kb TCP data=128kb TCP data=64kb SendingRate(Mbps) Close to Optimal Time(s) Optimal PCC TCP Illinois TCP CUBIC Rapidly Changing Networks 17 5X in median Global Commercial Internet
67 Software Components Sender Performance Oriented Control Module Sending Rate Control Sending Module Data Receiver (Sending Rate, Utility) Sent Packet Log Network Utility Function Performance Metrics (tpt., loss rate, RTT) Monitor Module SACK 18
68 Software Components Sender Performance Oriented Control Module Sending Rate Control Sending Module Data Receiver (Sending Rate, Utility) Sent Packet Log Network Utility Function Performance Metrics (tpt., loss rate, RTT) Monitor Module SACK 18
69 Performance Oriented Control observed utility rate 19
70 Performance Oriented Control observed utility? r rate 19
71 Performance Oriented Control observed utility? r(1 ε) r rate 19
72 Performance Oriented Control observed utility? r(1 ε) r r(1+ ε) rate 19
73 Performance Oriented Control observed utility? randomized controlled trials r(1 ε) r r(1+ ε) rate 19
74 Performance Oriented Control observed utility? randomized controlled trials r(1 ε) r r(1+ ε) rate 19
75 Performance Oriented Control observed utility? randomized controlled trials r(1 ε) r r(1+ ε) rate 19
76 Performance Oriented Control observed? utility?? randomized controlled trials r(1 ε) r r(1+ ε) rate 19
77 Performance Oriented Control observed? utility?? randomized controlled trials ε min = 0.01 r r(1 2ε) r(1+ 2ε) rate 19
78 Elephant 20
79 Where is Congestion Control? r1 r2 u1 u2 u1>u2? move to r1 move to r2 21
80 Where is Congestion Control? r1 r2 u1 u2 u1>u2? move to r1 move to r2 Selfishly maximizing utility 21
81 Where is Congestion Control? r1 r2 u1 u2 u1>u2? move to r1 move to r2 Selfishly maximizing utility => non-cooperative game 21
82 Where is Congestion Control? r1 r2 u1 u2 u1>u2? move to r1 move to r2 Selfishly maximizing utility => non-cooperative game Do we converge to a fair Nash equilibrium? 21
83 A class of utility functions converge to a fair and efficient Nash Equilibrium 22
84 A class of utility functions converge to a fair and efficient Nash Equilibrium u i (x) = T i * sigmoid(l i 0.05) x i * L i 22
85 A class of utility functions converge to a fair and efficient Nash Equilibrium u i (x) = T i * sigmoid(l i 0.05) x i * L i throughput sending rate observed loss rate 22
86 A class of utility functions converge to a fair and efficient Nash Equilibrium u i (x) = T i * sigmoid(l i 0.05) x i * L i Cut off loss rate at 5% Loss Rate 22
87 TCP Dynamics 23
88 TCP Dynamics AIMD as a hack to asymptotic fairness 23
89 TCP Dynamics AIMD as a hack to asymptotic fairness c 23 t
90 TCP Dynamics AIMD as a hack to asymptotic fairness c 23 t
91 TCP Dynamics AIMD as a hack to asymptotic fairness c 23 t
92 TCP Dynamics AIMD as a hack to asymptotic fairness c Moving away from convergence 23 t
93 PCC Dynamics c 24 t
94 PCC Dynamics PCC does not need AIMD because it looks at real performance c 24 t
95 PCC Dynamics PCC does not need AIMD because it looks at real performance c 24 t
96 PCC Dynamics PCC does not need AIMD because it looks at real performance c High Utility 24 t
97 PCC Dynamics PCC does not need AIMD because it looks at real performance c Game Theory Force High Utility 24 t
98 Convergence 25
99 Convergence 25
100 Throughput (Mbps) Throughput (Mbps) TCP Flow1 Flow2 Flow3 Flow PCC Convergence Time (s) Flow1 Flow2 Flow3 Flow Time (s) 26
101 Deployment No hardwired support, packet header, protocol change needed Where to deploy CDN backbone, Inter-data center, dedicated scientific nw In the Wild? 27
102 TCP Friendliness 28
103 TCP Friendliness Is PCC TCP-friendly? 28
104 TCP Friendliness Is PCC TCP-friendly? Wrong Question 28
105 TCP Friendliness 29
106 TCP Friendliness PCC s default utility function is not TCP Friendly 29
107 TCP Friendliness PCC s default utility function is not TCP Friendly But not that bad 29
108 TCP Friendliness PCC s default utility function is not TCP Friendly But not that bad 29
109 TCP Friendliness PCC s default utility function is not TCP Friendly But not that bad IE11 29
110 TCP Friendliness PCC s default utility function is not TCP Friendly Different utility functions can be a solution 30
111 TCP Friendliness PCC s default utility function is not TCP Friendly Different utility functions can be a solution TCP vs TCP TCP vs PCC 30
112 TCP Friendliness PCC s default utility function is not TCP Friendly Different utility functions can be a solution TCP vs TCP TCP vs PCC 30
113 TCP Friendliness PCC s default utility function is not TCP Friendly Different utility functions can be a solution TCP vs TCP TCP vs PCC 30
114 Consistent High Performance 31
115 Consistent High Performance 100 Throughput (Mbps) 10 PCC TCP Hybla TCP Illinois 1 TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno Satellite Networks Bottleneck Buffersize (KB) 31
116 Consistent High Performance X vs Hybla 10 PCC TCP Hybla TCP Illinois 1 TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno Satellite Networks Throughput (Mbps) Bottleneck Buffersize (KB) 31
117 Consistent High Performance X vs Hybla 10 PCC TCP Hybla TCP Illinois 1 TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno Satellite Networks Throughput (Mbps) Bottleneck Buffersize (KB) Throughput (Mbps) Loss Rate PCC TCP illinois TCP CUBIC 10 Lossy Networks 31
118 Consistent High Performance X vs Hybla 10 PCC TCP Hybla TCP Illinois 1 TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno Satellite Networks Throughput (Mbps) Bottleneck Buffersize (KB) Throughput (Mbps) 100 PCC TCP illinois 10X vs Illinois TCP CUBIC 10 Lossy Networks Loss Rate 31
119 Consistent High Performance X vs Hybla 10 PCC TCP Hybla TCP Illinois 1 TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno Satellite Networks Throughput (Mbps) Bottleneck Buffersize (KB) Throughput (Mbps) 100 PCC TCP illinois 10X vs Illinois TCP CUBIC 10 Lossy Networks Loss Rate Throughput (Mbps) Shallow Network Buffer 20 PCC 10 TCP Pacing 0 TCP CUBIC Buffer Size(KB) 31
120 Consistent High Performance X vs Hybla 10 PCC TCP Hybla TCP Illinois 1 TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno Satellite Networks Throughput (Mbps) Bottleneck Buffersize (KB) Throughput (Mbps) 100 PCC TCP illinois 10X vs Illinois TCP CUBIC 10 Lossy Networks Loss Rate Throughput (Mbps) 15X less buffer Shallow Network Buffer 20 PCC 10 TCP Pacing 0 TCP CUBIC Buffer Size(KB) 31
121 Consistent High Performance X vs Hybla 10 PCC TCP Hybla TCP Illinois 1 TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno Satellite Networks Throughput (Mbps) Bottleneck Buffersize (KB) Throughput (Mbps) 100 PCC TCP illinois 10X vs Illinois TCP CUBIC 10 Lossy Networks Loss Rate Throughput (Mbps) 15X less buffer Shallow Network Buffer 20 PCC 10 TCP Pacing 0 TCP CUBIC Buffer Size(KB) 1000 Goodput (Mbps) IntraDC Incast PCC data=256kb PCC data=128kb PCC data=64kb TCP data=256kb TCP data=128kb TCP data=64kb Number of Senders 31
122 Consistent High Performance X vs Hybla 10 PCC TCP Hybla TCP Illinois 1 TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno Satellite Networks Throughput (Mbps) Bottleneck Buffersize (KB) Similar to ICTCP Goodput (Mbps) IntraDC Incast PCC data=256kb PCC data=128kb PCC data=64kb TCP data=256kb TCP data=128kb TCP data=64kb Throughput (Mbps) 100 PCC TCP illinois 10X vs Illinois TCP CUBIC 10 Lossy Networks Loss Rate Throughput (Mbps) 15X less buffer Shallow Network Buffer 20 PCC 10 TCP Pacing 0 TCP CUBIC Buffer Size(KB) Number of Senders 31
123 Consistent High Performance X vs Hybla 10 PCC TCP Hybla TCP Illinois 1 TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno Satellite Networks Throughput (Mbps) Bottleneck Buffersize (KB) Throughput (Mbps) 100 PCC TCP illinois 10X vs Illinois TCP CUBIC 10 Lossy Networks Loss Rate Throughput (Mbps) 15X less buffer Shallow Network Buffer 20 PCC 10 TCP Pacing 0 TCP CUBIC Buffer Size(KB) Similar to ICTCP Goodput (Mbps) IntraDC Incast Number of Senders PCC data=256kb PCC data=128kb PCC data=64kb TCP data=256kb TCP data=128kb TCP data=64kb SendingRate(Mbps) Optimal PCC TCP Illinois TCP CUBIC Rapidly Changing Networks Time(s) 31
124 Consistent High Performance X vs Hybla 10 PCC TCP Hybla TCP Illinois 1 TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno Satellite Networks Throughput (Mbps) Bottleneck Buffersize (KB) Throughput (Mbps) 100 PCC TCP illinois 10X vs Illinois TCP CUBIC 10 Lossy Networks Loss Rate Throughput (Mbps) 15X less buffer Shallow Network Buffer 20 PCC 10 TCP Pacing 0 TCP CUBIC Buffer Size(KB) Similar to ICTCP Goodput (Mbps) IntraDC Incast Number of Senders PCC data=256kb PCC data=128kb PCC data=64kb TCP data=256kb TCP data=128kb TCP data=64kb SendingRate(Mbps) Close to Optimal PCC TCP Illinois TCP CUBIC Rapidly Changing Networks Time(s) 31
125 Consistent High Performance X vs Hybla 10 PCC TCP Hybla TCP Illinois 1 TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno Satellite Networks Throughput (Mbps) Bottleneck Buffersize (KB) Similar to ICTCP Goodput (Mbps) IntraDC Incast Number of Senders PCC data=256kb PCC data=128kb PCC data=64kb TCP data=256kb TCP data=128kb TCP data=64kb SendingRate(Mbps) Throughput (Mbps) 100 PCC TCP illinois 10X vs Illinois TCP CUBIC 10 Lossy Networks Loss Rate Close to Optimal PCC TCP Illinois TCP CUBIC Rapidly Changing Networks Time(s) Throughput (Mbps) 15X less buffer Shallow Network Buffer 20 PCC 10 TCP Pacing 0 TCP CUBIC Relative throughput of long-rtt flow Buffer Size(KB) RTT Unfairness PCC TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno RTT of Long-RTT flow (ms) 31
126 Consistent High Performance X vs Hybla 10 PCC TCP Hybla TCP Illinois 1 TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno Satellite Networks Throughput (Mbps) Bottleneck Buffersize (KB) Similar to ICTCP Goodput (Mbps) IntraDC Incast Number of Senders PCC data=256kb PCC data=128kb PCC data=64kb TCP data=256kb TCP data=128kb TCP data=64kb SendingRate(Mbps) Throughput (Mbps) 100 PCC TCP illinois 10X vs Illinois TCP CUBIC 10 Lossy Networks Loss Rate Close to Optimal PCC TCP Illinois TCP CUBIC Rapidly Changing Networks Time(s) Throughput (Mbps) 15X less buffer Shallow Network Buffer 20 PCC 10 TCP Pacing 0 TCP CUBIC Relative throughput of long-rtt flow Buffer Size(KB) 1.2 Solves RTT Unfairness PCC TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno RTT of Long-RTT flow (ms) 31
127 Consistent High Performance X vs Hybla 10 PCC TCP Hybla TCP Illinois 1 TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno Satellite Networks Throughput (Mbps) Bottleneck Buffersize (KB) Similar to ICTCP Goodput (Mbps) IntraDC Incast Number of Senders PCC data=256kb PCC data=128kb PCC data=64kb TCP data=256kb TCP data=128kb TCP data=64kb SendingRate(Mbps) Throughput (Mbps) 100 PCC TCP illinois 10X vs Illinois TCP CUBIC 10 Lossy Networks Loss Rate Close to Optimal PCC TCP Illinois TCP CUBIC Rapidly Changing Networks Time(s) Throughput (Mbps) 15X less buffer Shallow Network Buffer 20 PCC 10 TCP Pacing 0 TCP CUBIC Relative throughput of long-rtt flow Buffer Size(KB) 1.2 Solves RTT Unfairness PCC TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno RTT of Long-RTT flow (ms) InterDC 31
128 Consistent High Performance X vs Hybla 10 PCC TCP Hybla TCP Illinois 1 TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno Satellite Networks Throughput (Mbps) Bottleneck Buffersize (KB) Similar to ICTCP Goodput (Mbps) IntraDC Incast Number of Senders PCC data=256kb PCC data=128kb PCC data=64kb TCP data=256kb TCP data=128kb TCP data=64kb SendingRate(Mbps) Throughput (Mbps) 4X vs Illinois 1.23X vs UDT InterDC 100 PCC TCP illinois 10X vs Illinois TCP CUBIC 10 Lossy Networks Loss Rate Close to Optimal PCC TCP Illinois TCP CUBIC Rapidly Changing Networks Time(s) Throughput (Mbps) 15X less buffer Shallow Network Buffer 20 PCC 10 TCP Pacing 0 TCP CUBIC Relative throughput of long-rtt flow Buffer Size(KB) 1.2 Solves RTT Unfairness PCC TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno RTT of Long-RTT flow (ms) 31
129 0.1 Consistent High Performance X vs Hybla 10 PCC TCP Hybla TCP Illinois 1 TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno Satellite Networks Throughput (Mbps) Bottleneck Buffersize (KB) Similar to ICTCP Goodput (Mbps) IntraDC Incast Number of Senders PCC data=256kb PCC data=128kb PCC data=64kb TCP data=256kb TCP data=128kb TCP data=64kb SendingRate(Mbps) Throughput (Mbps) 4X vs Illinois 1.23X vs UDT InterDC 100 PCC TCP illinois 10X vs Illinois TCP CUBIC 10 Lossy Networks Loss Rate Close to Optimal PCC TCP Illinois TCP CUBIC Rapidly Changing Networks Time(s) Throughput (Mbps) 15X less buffer Shallow Network Buffer 20 PCC 10 TCP Pacing 0 TCP CUBIC Relative throughput of long-rtt flow Buffer Size(KB) 1.2 Solves RTT Unfairness PCC TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno RTT of Long-RTT flow (ms) Global Commercial Internet 31
130 0.1 Consistent High Performance X vs Hybla 10 PCC TCP Hybla TCP Illinois 1 TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno Satellite Networks Throughput (Mbps) Bottleneck Buffersize (KB) Similar to ICTCP Goodput (Mbps) IntraDC Incast Number of Senders PCC data=256kb PCC data=128kb PCC data=64kb TCP data=256kb TCP data=128kb TCP data=64kb SendingRate(Mbps) Throughput (Mbps) 4X vs Illinois 1.23X vs UDT InterDC 100 PCC TCP illinois 10X vs Illinois TCP CUBIC 10 Lossy Networks Loss Rate Close to Optimal PCC TCP Illinois TCP CUBIC Rapidly Changing Networks Time(s) Throughput (Mbps) 15X less buffer Shallow Network Buffer 20 PCC 10 TCP Pacing 0 TCP CUBIC Solves RTT Unfairness PCC TCP CUBIC TCP New Reno X median vs CUBIC 1.48X vs UDT + 4X less loss Global Commercial Internet Relative throughput of long-rtt flow Buffer Size(KB) RTT of Long-RTT flow (ms) 31
131 Consistent High Performance Satellite Network 17X WINDS System 32
132 Consistent High Performance Rapidly Changing Networks BW: Mbps; RTT: ms; Loss Rate: 0-1% Change every 5 seconds Sending Rate (Mbps) Time(s) Optimal 33
133 Consistent High Performance Sending Rate (Mbps) Rapidly Changing Networks BW: Mbps; RTT: ms; Loss Rate: 0-1% Change every 5 seconds Time(s) Optimal TCP Illinois TCP CUBIC 34
134 Consistent High Performance Rapidly Changing Networks BW: Mbps; RTT: ms; Loss Rate: 0-1% Change every 5 seconds SendingRate(Mbps) Time(s) Optimal PCC TCP Illinois TCP CUBIC 35
135 Consistent High Performance Global Commercial Internet 36
136 Consistent High Performance Global Commercial Internet 36
137 PCC vs TCP vs Take a Flight 100G Data 37
138 PCC vs TCP vs Take a Flight Utah, U.S. > Berlin, Germany Illinois, US > Waseda, Japan Georgia, US > Stockholm, Sweden Georgia, US > Ljubljana, Slovenia Missouri, US > Rennes, France Massachusetts US > Seoul, Korea 100G Data PCC TCP CUBIC Take a Flight 0:0:00:00 1:18:27:30 3:12:55:00 5:7:22:30 7:1:50:00 37
139 PCC vs TCP vs Take a Flight Utah, U.S. > Berlin, Germany Illinois, US > Waseda, Japan Georgia, US > Stockholm, Sweden Georgia, US > Ljubljana, Slovenia Missouri, US > Rennes, France Massachusetts US > Seoul, Korea 100G Data PCC TCP CUBIC Take a Flight 0:0:00:00 1:18:27:30 3:12:55:00 5:7:22:30 7:1:50:00 37
140 PCC vs TCP vs Take a Flight Utah, U.S. > Berlin, Germany Illinois, US > Waseda, Japan Georgia, US > Stockholm, Sweden Georgia, US > Ljubljana, Slovenia Missouri, US > Rennes, France Massachusetts US > Seoul, Korea 100G Data PCC TCP CUBIC Take a Flight 0:0:00:00 1:18:27:30 3:12:55:00 5:7:22:30 7:1:50:00 37
141 PCC vs TCP vs Take a Flight Utah, U.S. > Berlin, Germany Illinois, US > Waseda, Japan Georgia, US > Stockholm, Sweden Georgia, US > Ljubljana, Slovenia Missouri, US > Rennes, France Massachusetts US > Seoul, Korea 100G Data PCC TCP CUBIC Take a Flight 0:0:00:00 1:18:27:30 3:12:55:00 5:7:22:30 7:1:50:00 37
142 Consistent High Performance 100 Global Commercial Internet Percentage of Trials Throughput Improvement Ratio 38 PCC vs TCP CUBIC
143 Consistent High Performance 100 Global Commercial Internet Percentage of Trials %, 10X Throughput Improvement Ratio 38 PCC vs TCP CUBIC
144 Consistent High Performance Percentage of Trials Global Commercial Internet Throughput Ratio over TCP CUBIC PCC_d 39
145 Consistent High Performance Percentage of Trials Global Commercial Internet Default utility function Throughput Ratio over TCP CUBIC PCC_d 39
146 Consistent High Performance Percentage of Trials Global Commercial Internet Default utility function Throughput Ratio over TCP CUBIC PCC_f PCC_d 40
147 Consistent High Performance Percentage of Trials Global Commercial Internet Friendly Utility Function Default utility function Throughput Ratio over TCP CUBIC PCC_f PCC_d 40
148 Consistent High Performance Global Commercial Internet Friendly Utility Function Default utility function 41
149 Intra-continent 2.33X median Consistent High Performance Global Commercial Internet Friendly Utility Function Default utility function Inter-continent 25X median 41
150 Consistent High Performance Global Commercial Internet 42
151 Consistent High Performance Global Commercial Internet 1.48X Median 4X less loss 42
152 Long list of things we have done but don t have time to talk about More stories about the fact that TCP is broken Proof of Nash Equilibrium and Convergence Concrete Implementation of PCC Performance monitoring Details of learning control algorithm Implementation designs and optimizations Performance Evaluation Inter data center networks small buffer networks Reactiveness and stability tradeoff Jain index fairness Benefit of Randomized Control Trials Details of TCP friendliness evaluation Emulated satellite networks Emulated datacenter networks Cure RTT unfairness Does not fundamentally harm short flow FCT Evaluation in the wild vs non-tcp protocols Flexibility by pluggable utility function 43
153 Long list of things we have done but don t have time to talk about More stories about the fact that TCP is broken Proof of Nash Equilibrium and Convergence Concrete Implementation of PCC Performance monitoring Details of learning control algorithm Implementation designs and optimizations Performance Evaluation Inter data center networks small buffer networks Reactiveness and stability tradeoff Jain index fairness Benefit of Randomized Control Trials Details of TCP friendliness evaluation Emulated satellite networks Emulated datacenter networks Cure RTT unfairness Does not fundamentally harm short flow FCT Evaluation in the wild vs non-tcp protocols Flexibility by pluggable utility function 11 more! 43
154 44
155 Same Rate Control Algorithm 44
156 Same Rate Control Algorithm + 44
157 Same Rate Control Algorithm + Different Utility Function = Flexibility 44
158 Limitation and Future Work 45
159 Limitation and Future Work Understanding of Utility Function and Convergence Better Control Algorithm Better Scalability 45
160 Limitation and Future Work Understanding of Utility Function and Convergence Better Control Algorithm Better Scalability + 45
161 Related Works 46
162 Related Works TCP Family: TCP exmachina (Remy) 46
163 Related Works TCP Family: TCP exmachina (Remy) Non-TCP protocols: PCP 46
164 Related Works TCP Family: TCP exmachina (Remy) Non-TCP protocols: PCP In-network feedback protocols: DCTCP, XCP 46
165 Rate control based on empirically observed performance yields Consistent high performance Better stability than TCP Flexible performance objectives Relatively easy and safe to deploy 47
166 48
167 speedier.net 48
168 speedier.net/pcc github.com/modong/pcc Find me to see a demo 49
Performance-oriented Congestion Control
Performance-oriented Congestion Control Mo Dong, Qingxi Li, Doron Zarchy*, P. Brighten Godfrey and Michael Schapira* University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign *Hebrew University of Jerusalem Mo Dong Qingxi
PCC: Performance-oriented Congestion Control
PCC: Performance-oriented Congestion Control Michael Schapira Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Compira Labs (co-founder and chief scientist) Performance-oriented Congestion Control PCC: Re-architecting
5 years of research on GENI: From the Future Internet Back to the Present
5 years of research on GENI: From the Future Internet Back to the Present P. Brighten Godfrey University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign GENI NICE Workshop November 10, 2015 5 years of research on GENI:
Advanced Congestion Control (Hosts)
Advanced Congestion Control (Hosts) 14-740: Fundamentals of Computer Networks Bill Nace Material from Computer Networking: A Top Down Approach, 5 th edition. J.F. Kurose and K.W. Ross Congestion Control
Tuning, Tweaking and TCP
Tuning, Tweaking and TCP (and other things happening at the Hamilton Institute) David Malone and Doug Leith 16 August 2010 The Plan Intro to TCP (Congestion Control). Standard tuning of TCP. Some more
ADVANCED TOPICS FOR CONGESTION CONTROL
ADVANCED TOPICS FOR CONGESTION CONTROL Congestion Control The Internet only functions because TCP s congestion control does an effective job of matching traffic demand to available capacity. TCP s Window
Congestion Control For Coded TCP. Doug Leith
Congestion Control For Coded TCP Doug Leith Outline Why do error-correction coding at the transport layer? Congestion control on lossy paths Implementation & performance measurements Why error-correction
15-744: Computer Networking TCP
15-744: Computer Networking TCP Congestion Control Congestion Control Assigned Reading [Jacobson and Karels] Congestion Avoidance and Control [TFRC] Equation-Based Congestion Control for Unicast Applications
Congestion Control In the Network
Congestion Control In the Network Brighten Godfrey cs598pbg September 9 2010 Slides courtesy Ion Stoica with adaptation by Brighten Today Fair queueing XCP Announcements Problem: no isolation between flows
Recap. TCP connection setup/teardown Sliding window, flow control Retransmission timeouts Fairness, max-min fairness AIMD achieves max-min fairness
Recap TCP connection setup/teardown Sliding window, flow control Retransmission timeouts Fairness, max-min fairness AIMD achieves max-min fairness 81 Feedback Signals Several possible signals, with different
SharkFest 18 Europe. To send or not to send?.. How TCP Congestion Control algorithms work. Packet Corporation. Packettrain.NET
SharkFest 18 Europe To send or not to send?.. How TCP Congestion Control algorithms work Vladimir John Gerasimov Doe Packet Corporation Packettrain.NET About me In IT since 2005 Working for Unitop (integration,
TCP Congestion Control
6.033, Spring 2014 TCP Congestion Control Dina Katabi & Sam Madden nms.csail.mit.edu/~dina Sharing the Internet How do you manage resources in a huge system like the Internet, where users with different
PCC Vivace: Online-Learning Congestion Control
PCC Vivace: Online-Learning Congestion Control Mo Dong and Tong Meng, UIUC; Doron Zarchy, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Engin Arslan, UIUC; Yossi Gilad, MIT; Brighten Godfrey, UIUC; Michael Schapira,
CUBIC. Qian HE (Steve) CS 577 Prof. Bob Kinicki
CUBIC Qian HE (Steve) CS 577 Prof. Bob Kinicki Agenda Brief Introduction of CUBIC Prehistory of CUBIC Standard TCP BIC CUBIC Conclusion 1 Brief Introduction CUBIC is a less aggressive and more systematic
CS 43: Computer Networks. 19: TCP Flow and Congestion Control October 31, Nov 2, 2018
CS 43: Computer Networks 19: TCP Flow and Congestion Control October 31, Nov 2, 2018 Five-layer Internet Model Application: the application (e.g., the Web, Email) Transport: end-to-end connections, reliability
CS268: Beyond TCP Congestion Control
TCP Problems CS68: Beyond TCP Congestion Control Ion Stoica February 9, 004 When TCP congestion control was originally designed in 1988: - Key applications: FTP, E-mail - Maximum link bandwidth: 10Mb/s
TCP Congestion Control Beyond Bandwidth-Delay Product for Mobile Cellular Networks
TCP Congestion Control Beyond Bandwidth-Delay Product for Mobile Cellular Networks Wai Kay Leong, Zixiao Wang, Ben Leong The 13th International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies
Implementation Experiments on HighSpeed and Parallel TCP
Implementation Experiments on HighSpeed and TCP Zongsheng Zhang Go Hasegawa Masayuki Murata Osaka University Outline Introduction Background of and g Why to evaluate in a test-bed network A refined algorithm
Congestion Control for High Bandwidth-delay Product Networks
Congestion Control for High Bandwidth-delay Product Networks Dina Katabi, Mark Handley, Charlie Rohrs Presented by Chi-Yao Hong Adapted from slides by Dina Katabi CS598pbg Sep. 10, 2009 Trends in the Future
Lecture 21: Congestion Control" CSE 123: Computer Networks Alex C. Snoeren
Lecture 21: Congestion Control" CSE 123: Computer Networks Alex C. Snoeren Lecture 21 Overview" How fast should a sending host transmit data? Not to fast, not to slow, just right Should not be faster than
Congestion Control for High Bandwidth-delay Product Networks. Dina Katabi, Mark Handley, Charlie Rohrs
Congestion Control for High Bandwidth-delay Product Networks Dina Katabi, Mark Handley, Charlie Rohrs Outline Introduction What s wrong with TCP? Idea of Efficiency vs. Fairness XCP, what is it? Is it
Overview. TCP congestion control Computer Networking. TCP modern loss recovery. TCP modeling. TCP Congestion Control AIMD
Overview 15-441 Computer Networking Lecture 9 More TCP & Congestion Control TCP congestion control TCP modern loss recovery TCP modeling Lecture 9: 09-25-2002 2 TCP Congestion Control Changes to TCP motivated
CS644 Advanced Networks
What we know so far CS644 Advanced Networks Lecture 6 Beyond TCP Congestion Control Andreas Terzis TCP Congestion control based on AIMD window adjustment [Jac88] Saved Internet from congestion collapse
Congestion Control End Hosts. CSE 561 Lecture 7, Spring David Wetherall. How fast should the sender transmit data?
Congestion Control End Hosts CSE 51 Lecture 7, Spring. David Wetherall Today s question How fast should the sender transmit data? Not tooslow Not toofast Just right Should not be faster than the receiver
A Bottleneck and Target Bandwidth Estimates-Based Congestion Control Algorithm for High BDP Networks
A Bottleneck and Target Bandwidth Estimates-Based Congestion Control Algorithm for High BDP Networks Tuan-Anh Le 1, Choong Seon Hong 2 Department of Computer Engineering, Kyung Hee University 1 Seocheon,
TCP Westwood: Efficient Transport for High-speed wired/wireless Networks
TCP Westwood: Efficient Transport for High-speed wired/wireless Networks Mario Gerla, Medy Sanadidi, Ren Wang and Massimo Valla UCLA Computer Science 1 Outline 1. TCP Overview 2. Bandwidth Estimation and
Congestion Control. Daniel Zappala. CS 460 Computer Networking Brigham Young University
Congestion Control Daniel Zappala CS 460 Computer Networking Brigham Young University 2/25 Congestion Control how do you send as fast as possible, without overwhelming the network? challenges the fastest
Lecture 14: Congestion Control"
Lecture 14: Congestion Control" CSE 222A: Computer Communication Networks George Porter Thanks: Amin Vahdat, Dina Katabi and Alex C. Snoeren Lecture 14 Overview" TCP congestion control review Dukkipati
An experimental study of the learnability of congestion control
An experimental study of the learnability of congestion control Anirudh Sivaraman, Keith Winstein, Pratiksha Thaker, Hari Balakrishnan MIT CSAIL http://web.mit.edu/remy/learnability August 31, 2014 1 /
WHY WE STILL NEED STANDARDIZED INTERNET SPEED MEASUREMENT MECHANISMS FOR END USERS
ITU Kaleidoscope 2015 Trust in the Information Society WHY WE STILL NEED STANDARDIZED INTERNET SPEED MEASUREMENT MECHANISMS FOR END USERS Eneko Atxutegi, Fidel Liberal, Eduardo Saiz and Eva Ibarrola University
TCP EX MACHINA: COMPUTER-GENERATED CONGESTION CONTROL KEITH WINSTEIN AND HARI BALAKRISHNAN. Presented by: Angela Jiang
TCP EX MACHINA: COMPUTER-GENERATED CONGESTION CONTROL KEITH WINSTEIN AND HARI BALAKRISHNAN Presented by: Angela Jiang Network congestion Cause: Sources trying to send data faster than the network can process
Investigating the Use of Synchronized Clocks in TCP Congestion Control
Investigating the Use of Synchronized Clocks in TCP Congestion Control Michele Weigle Dissertation Defense May 14, 2003 Advisor: Kevin Jeffay Research Question Can the use of exact timing information improve
Lecture 15: Datacenter TCP"
Lecture 15: Datacenter TCP" CSE 222A: Computer Communication Networks Alex C. Snoeren Thanks: Mohammad Alizadeh Lecture 15 Overview" Datacenter workload discussion DC-TCP Overview 2 Datacenter Review"
TCP so far Computer Networking Outline. How Was TCP Able to Evolve
TCP so far 15-441 15-441 Computer Networking 15-641 Lecture 14: TCP Performance & Future Peter Steenkiste Fall 2016 www.cs.cmu.edu/~prs/15-441-f16 Reliable byte stream protocol Connection establishments
RESTRUCTURING ENDPOINT CONGESTION CONTROL
RESTRUCTURING ENDPOINT CONGESTION CONTROL Akshay Narayan, Frank Cangialosi, Deep5 Raghavan, Prateesh Goyal, Srinivas Narayana, Radhika Mi>al, Mohammad Alizadeh, Hari Balakrishnan CONGESTION CONTROL APPLICATION
Data Center TCP (DCTCP)
Data Center TCP (DCTCP) Mohammad Alizadeh, Albert Greenberg, David A. Maltz, Jitendra Padhye Parveen Patel, Balaji Prabhakar, Sudipta Sengupta, Murari Sridharan Microsoft Research Stanford University 1
TCP Veno: Solution to TCP over Wireless
TCP Veno: Solution to TCP over Wireless Franklin FU Presented by Franklin Fu Asst Professor School of Computer Engineering Nanyang Technological University Singapore January 31, 2004, 5:00am Singapore
Reasons not to Parallelize TCP Connections for Fast Long-Distance Networks
Reasons not to Parallelize TCP Connections for Fast Long-Distance Networks Zongsheng Zhang Go Hasegawa Masayuki Murata Osaka University Contents Introduction Analysis of parallel TCP mechanism Numerical
Congestion Control for High Bandwidth-Delay Product Networks
Congestion Control for High Bandwidth-Delay Product Networks Presented by: Emad Shihab Overview Introduce the problem of XCP (what the protocol achieves) (how the protocol achieves this) The problem! TCP
BBR Congestion Control: IETF 100 Update: BBR in shallow buffers
BBR Congestion Control: IETF 100 Update: BBR in shallow buffers Neal Cardwell, Yuchung Cheng, C. Stephen Gunn, Soheil Hassas Yeganeh Ian Swett, Jana Iyengar, Victor Vasiliev Van Jacobson https://groups.google.com/d/forum/bbr-dev
One More Bit Is Enough
One More Bit Is Enough Yong Xia, RPI Lakshmi Subramanian, UCB Ion Stoica, UCB Shiv Kalyanaraman, RPI SIGCOMM 05, Philadelphia, PA 08 / 23 / 2005 Motivation #1: TCP doesn t work well in high b/w or delay
Transport Layer (Congestion Control)
Transport Layer (Congestion Control) Where we are in the Course Moving on up to the Transport Layer! Application Transport Network Link Physical CSE 461 University of Washington 2 TCP to date: We can set
Computer Networks. Course Reference Model. Topic. Congestion What s the hold up? Nature of Congestion. Nature of Congestion 1/5/2015.
Course Reference Model Computer Networks 7 Application Provides functions needed by users Zhang, Xinyu Fall 204 4 Transport Provides end-to-end delivery 3 Network Sends packets over multiple links School
Principles of congestion control
Principles of congestion control Congestion: Informally: too many sources sending too much data too fast for network to handle Different from flow control! Manifestations: Lost packets (buffer overflow
6.033 Spring 2015 Lecture #11: Transport Layer Congestion Control Hari Balakrishnan Scribed by Qian Long
6.033 Spring 2015 Lecture #11: Transport Layer Congestion Control Hari Balakrishnan Scribed by Qian Long Please read Chapter 19 of the 6.02 book for background, especially on acknowledgments (ACKs), timers,
RESTRUCTURING ENDPOINT CONGESTION CONTROL
RESTRUCTURING ENDPOINT CONGESTION CONTROL Akshay Narayan, Frank Cangialosi, Deep5 Raghavan, Prateesh Goyal, Srinivas Narayana, Radhika Mi>al*, Mohammad Alizadeh, Hari Balakrishnan MIT CSAIL, *UC Berkeley
Outline Computer Networking. TCP slow start. TCP modeling. TCP details AIMD. Congestion Avoidance. Lecture 18 TCP Performance Peter Steenkiste
Outline 15-441 Computer Networking Lecture 18 TCP Performance Peter Steenkiste Fall 2010 www.cs.cmu.edu/~prs/15-441-f10 TCP congestion avoidance TCP slow start TCP modeling TCP details 2 AIMD Distributed,
CS4700/CS5700 Fundamentals of Computer Networks
CS4700/CS5700 Fundamentals of Computer Networks Lecture 15: Congestion Control Slides used with permissions from Edward W. Knightly, T. S. Eugene Ng, Ion Stoica, Hui Zhang Alan Mislove amislove at ccs.neu.edu
Lecture 14: Congestion Control
Lectre 14: Congestion Control CSE 222A: Compter Commnication Networks George Porter Thanks: Amin Vahdat, Dina Katabi Lectre 14 Overview TCP congestion control review XCP Overview CSE 222A Lectre 14: Congestion
cs/ee 143 Communication Networks
cs/ee 143 Communication Networks Chapter 4 Transport Text: Walrand & Parakh, 2010 Steven Low CMS, EE, Caltech Recap: Internet overview Some basic mechanisms n Packet switching n Addressing n Routing o
Evaluation of Advanced TCP Stacks on Fast Long-Distance Production Networks p. 1
Evaluation of Advanced TCP Stacks on Fast Long-Distance Production Networks Hadrien Bullot & R. Les Cottrell {hadrien,cottrell}@slac.stanford.edu Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Menlo Park Evaluation
Understanding TCP Parallelization. Qiang Fu. TCP Performance Issues TCP Enhancements TCP Parallelization (research areas of interest)
Understanding TCP Parallelization Qiang Fu qfu@swin.edu.au Outline TCP Performance Issues TCP Enhancements TCP Parallelization (research areas of interest) Related Approaches TCP Parallelization vs. Single
TCP on High-Speed Networks
TCP on High-Speed Networks 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,
Performance Analysis of TCP Variants
102 Performance Analysis of TCP Variants Abhishek Sawarkar Northeastern University, MA 02115 Himanshu Saraswat PES MCOE,Pune-411005 Abstract The widely used TCP protocol was developed to provide reliable
CS Networks and Distributed Systems. Lecture 10: Congestion Control
CS 3700 Networks and Distributed Systems Lecture 10: Congestion Control Revised 2/9/2014 Transport Layer 2 Application Presentation Session Transport Network Data Link Physical Function:! Demultiplexing
CSE 123A Computer Networks
CSE 123A Computer Networks Winter 2005 Lecture 14 Congestion Control Some images courtesy David Wetherall Animations by Nick McKeown and Guido Appenzeller The bad news and the good news The bad news: new
XCP: explicit Control Protocol
XCP: explicit Control Protocol Dina Katabi MIT Lab for Computer Science dk@mit.edu www.ana.lcs.mit.edu/dina Sharing the Internet Infrastructure Is fundamental Much research in Congestion Control, QoS,
CS 268: Lecture 7 (Beyond TCP Congestion Control)
Outline CS 68: Lecture 7 (Beyond TCP Congestion Control) TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC) explicit Control Protocol Ion Stoica Computer Science Division Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer
QUIC evaluation. HTTP Workshop. 28 July 2015 Münster - Germany. G. Carlucci, L. De Cicco, S. Mascolo. Politecnico di Bari, Italy
QUIC evaluation HTTP Workshop 28 July 2015 Münster - Germany G. Carlucci, L. De Cicco, S. Mascolo Politecnico di Bari, Italy Goal FOCUS OF THE TALK We want to answer to these questions: Can QUIC be safely
ATL : An Adaptive Transport Layer Protocol Suite for Next Generation Wireless Internet
ATL : An Adaptive Transport Layer Protocol Suite for Next Generation Wireless Internet O. B. Akan and F. Akyildiz IEEE Trans. On Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 22, no. 5, 2004 First paper deals
TCP Westwood and Easy Red to Improve Fairness in High-speed Networks. PfHsn 2002 Berlin, 22 April 2002
TCP Westwood and Easy Red to Improve Fairness in High-speed Networks L. A. Grieco, S. Mascolo Dipartimento di Elettrotecnica ed Elettronica Politecnico di Bari, Italy PfHsn 2002 Berlin, 22 April 2002 Outline
Lecture 14: Congestion Control"
Lecture 14: Congestion Control" CSE 222A: Computer Communication Networks Alex C. Snoeren Thanks: Amin Vahdat, Dina Katabi Lecture 14 Overview" TCP congestion control review XCP Overview 2 Congestion Control
Operating Systems and Networks. Network Lecture 10: Congestion Control. Adrian Perrig Network Security Group ETH Zürich
Operating Systems and Networks Network Lecture 10: Congestion Control Adrian Perrig Network Security Group ETH Zürich Where we are in the Course More fun in the Transport Layer! The mystery of congestion
Where we are in the Course. Topic. Nature of Congestion. Nature of Congestion (3) Nature of Congestion (2) Operating Systems and Networks
Operating Systems and Networks Network Lecture 0: Congestion Control Adrian Perrig Network Security Group ETH Zürich Where we are in the Course More fun in the Transport Layer! The mystery of congestion
TCP and BBR. Geoff Huston APNIC
TCP and BBR Geoff Huston APNIC Computer Networking is all about moving data The way in which data movement is controlled is a key characteristic of the network architecture The Internet protocol passed
CUBIC: A New TCP-Friendly High-Speed TCP Variant
CUBIC: A New TCP-Friendly High-Speed TCP Variant Sangtae Ha, Injong Rhee and Lisong Xu Presented by Shams Feyzabadi Introduction As Internet evolves the number of Long distance and High speed networks
COMPARISON OF HIGH SPEED CONGESTION CONTROL PROTOCOLS
COMPARISON OF HIGH SPEED CONGESTION CONTROL PROTOCOLS Jawhar Ben Abed 1, Lâarif Sinda 2, Mohamed Ali Mani 3 and Rachid Mbarek 2 1 Polytech Sousse, 2 ISITCOM Hammam Sousse and 3 ISTLS Sousse, Tunisia ba.jawhar@gmail.com
Comparative Study of TCP Protocols: A Survey
International Journal of Computer Science and Telecommunications [Volume 8, Issue 1, January 2017] 19 Comparative Study of TCP Protocols: A Survey ISSN 2047-3338 Tabinda Ashraf 1, Noor-ul-Sabah 2 and M.
Flow and Congestion Control Marcos Vieira
Flow and Congestion Control 2014 Marcos Vieira Flow Control Part of TCP specification (even before 1988) Goal: not send more data than the receiver can handle Sliding window protocol Receiver uses window
CSCI Topics: Internet Programming Fall 2008
CSCI 491-01 Topics: Internet Programming Fall 2008 Transport Layer Derek Leonard Hendrix College October 22, 2008 Original slides copyright 1996-2007 J.F Kurose and K.W. Ross 1 Chapter 3: Roadmap 3.1 Transport-layer
Congestion Control. Brighten Godfrey CS 538 January Based in part on slides by Ion Stoica
Congestion Control Brighten Godfrey CS 538 January 31 2018 Based in part on slides by Ion Stoica Announcements A starting point: the sliding window protocol TCP flow control Make sure receiving end can
TCP and BBR. Geoff Huston APNIC
TCP and BBR Geoff Huston APNIC Computer Networking is all about moving data The way in which data movement is controlled is a key characteristic of the network architecture The Internet protocol passed
Bandwidth Allocation & TCP
Bandwidth Allocation & TCP The Transport Layer Focus Application Presentation How do we share bandwidth? Session Topics Transport Network Congestion control & fairness Data Link TCP Additive Increase/Multiplicative
Chapter III: Transport Layer
Chapter III: Transport Layer UG3 Computer Communications & Networks (COMN) Mahesh Marina mahesh@ed.ac.uk Slides thanks to Myungjin Lee and copyright of Kurose and Ross Principles of congestion control
Fair TCP: A Novel TCP Congestion Control Algorithm to Tackle TCP s Challenges
Fair TCP: A Novel TCP Congestion Control Algorithm to Tackle TCP s Challenges Guodong Wang, Yongmao Ren, Jun Li Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing, China Email: wangguodong@cstnet.cn
MPTCP: Design and Deployment. Day 11
MPTCP: Design and Deployment Day 11 Use of Multipath TCP in ios 7 Multipath TCP in ios 7 Primary TCP connection over WiFi Backup TCP connection over cellular data Enables fail-over Improves performance
LISA: A Linked Slow-Start Algorithm for MPTCP draft-barik-mptcp-lisa-01
LISA: A Linked Slow-Start Algorithm for draft-barik-mptcp-lisa-1 Runa Barik (UiO), Simone Ferlin (SRL), Michael Welzl (UiO) Multipath TCP @96th IETF Meeting Berlin, Germany th July 16 IETF96 LISA: A Linked
The Present and Future of Congestion Control. Mark Handley
The Present and Future of Congestion Control Mark Handley Outline Purpose of congestion control The Present: TCP s congestion control algorithm (AIMD) TCP-friendly congestion control for multimedia Datagram
Lecture 15: Transport Layer Congestion Control
Lecture 15: Transport Layer Congestion Control COMP 332, Spring 2018 Victoria Manfredi Acknowledgements: materials adapted from Computer Networking: A Top Down Approach 7 th edition: 1996-2016, J.F Kurose
End-to-End Congestion Control for High Performance Data Transfer
Manuscript submitted to IEEE/ACM Transaction on Networking 1 End-to-End Congestion Control for High Performance Data Transfer Yunhong Gu, Student Member, IEEE and Robert L. Grossman, Member, IEEE Abstract
Page 1. Review: Internet Protocol Stack. Transport Layer Services. Design Issue EEC173B/ECS152C. Review: TCP
EEC7B/ECS5C Review: Internet Protocol Stack Review: TCP Application Telnet FTP HTTP Transport Network Link Physical bits on wire TCP LAN IP UDP Packet radio Transport Layer Services Design Issue Underlying
CS3600 SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS
CS3600 SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY Lecture 24: Congestion Control Prof. Alan Mislove (amislove@ccs.neu.edu) Slides used with permissions from Edward W. Knightly, T. S. Eugene Ng, Ion Stoica,
Understanding TCP. The concept and ideas behind it. No header bit definitions No DoS protection stuff. Understanding TCP
The concept and ideas behind it No header bit definitions No DoS protection stuff André Oppermann Page 1 WhatisTCP Transmission Control Protocol Definedin RFC793 (in 1981!) Basedon
Congestion Control In The Internet Part 2: How it is implemented in TCP. JY Le Boudec 2018
1 Congestion Control In The Internet Part 2: How it is implemented in TCP JY Le Boudec 2018 Contents 6. TCP Reno 7. TCP Cubic 8. ECN and RED 9. Other Cool Stuff 2 6. Congestion Control in the Internet
TCP Incast problem Existing proposals
TCP Incast problem & Existing proposals Outline The TCP Incast problem Existing proposals to TCP Incast deadline-agnostic Deadline-Aware Datacenter TCP deadline-aware Picasso Art is TLA 1. Deadline = 250ms
Copa: Practical Delay-Based Congestion Control for the Internet
: Practical Delay-Based Congestion Control for the Internet Venkat Arun and Hari Balakrishnan M.I.T. Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Email: {venkatar,hari}@mit.edu Abstract This
TCP LoLa Toward Low Latency and High Throughput Congestion Control
TCP LoLa Toward Low Latency and High Throughput Congestion Control Mario Hock, Felix Neumeister, Martina Zitterbart, Roland Bless KIT The Research University in the Helmholtz Association www.kit.edu Motivation
Comparing TCP Congestion Control Algorithms Based on Passively Collected Packet Traces
Comparing TCP Congestion Control Algorithms Based on Passively Collected Packet Traces Toshihiko Kato, Atsushi Oda, Celimuge Wu, and Satoshi Ohzahata Graduate School of Information Systems University of
Flow-start: Faster and Less Overshoot with Paced Chirping
Flow-start: Faster and Less Overshoot with Paced Chirping Joakim Misund, Simula and Uni Oslo Bob Briscoe, Independent IRTF ICCRG, Jul 2018 The Slow-Start
Computer Networking
15-441 Computer Networking Lecture 17 TCP Performance & Future Eric Anderson Fall 2013 www.cs.cmu.edu/~prs/15-441-f13 Outline TCP modeling TCP details 2 TCP Performance Can TCP saturate a link? Congestion
SharkFest'17 US. Understanding Throughput & TCP Windows. A Walk-Through of the Factors that can limit TCP Throughput Performance
SharkFest'17 US Understanding Throughput & TCP Windows A Walk-Through of the Factors that can limit TCP Throughput Performance Kary Rogers Director, Staff Engineering Riverbed Technology Agenda TCP ownership
Internet Networking recitation #10 TCP New Reno Vs. Reno
recitation #0 TCP New Reno Vs. Reno Spring Semester 200, Dept. of Computer Science, Technion 2 Introduction Packet Loss Management TCP Reno (RFC 258) can manage a loss of at most one packet from a single
Congestion Control In The Internet Part 2: How it is implemented in TCP. JY Le Boudec 2017
1 Congestion Control In The Internet Part 2: How it is implemented in TCP JY Le Boudec 2017 Contents 6. TCP Reno 7. TCP Cubic 8. ECN and RED 9. Other Cool Stuff 2 6. Congestion Control in the Internet
TCP Congestion Control : Computer Networking. Introduction to TCP. Key Things You Should Know Already. Congestion Control RED
TCP Congestion Control 15-744: Computer Networking L-4 TCP Congestion Control RED Assigned Reading [FJ93] Random Early Detection Gateways for Congestion Avoidance [TFRC] Equation-Based Congestion Control
Adaptive Logarithmic Increase Congestion Control Algorithm for Satellite Networks
KSII TRANSACTIONS ON INTERNET AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS VOL. 8, NO. 8, Aug. 2014 2796 Copyright c 2014 KSII Adaptive Logarithmic Increase Congestion Control Algorithm for Satellite Networks Minsu Shin 1,
6.033 Computer System Engineering
MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 6.033 Computer System Engineering Spring 2009 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms. L13: Sharing in network
TCP Protocol Optimization for HTTP Adaptive Streaming
TCP Protocol Optimization for HTTP Adaptive Streaming Soutenance de thèse Chiheb Ben Ameur Salle Aurigny, IRISA, Rennes 17 décembre 2015 Institut de Recherche en Informatique et Systèmes Aléatoires HTTP
Congestion Control In The Internet Part 2: How it is implemented in TCP. JY Le Boudec 2017
1 Congestion Control In The Internet Part 2: How it is implemented in TCP JY Le Boudec 2017 Contents 6. TCP Reno 7. TCP Cubic 8. ECN and RED 9. Other Cool Stuff 2 6. Congestion Control in the Internet
WB-RTO: A Window-Based Retransmission Timeout. Ioannis Psaras, Vassilis Tsaoussidis Demokritos University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece
WB-RTO: A Window-Based Retransmission Timeout Ioannis Psaras, Vassilis Tsaoussidis Demokritos University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece Motivation and Contribution We observe that retransmission scheduling
Tuning RED for Web Traffic
Tuning RED for Web Traffic Mikkel Christiansen, Kevin Jeffay, David Ott, Donelson Smith UNC, Chapel Hill SIGCOMM 2000, Stockholm subsequently IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking Vol. 9, No. 3 (June 2001)