end-to-end quality of service in distributed information systems

Marco AlfanoMarco Alfano

[email protected]@cselt.it

End-to-End Quality of Service in End-to-End Quality of Service in Distributed Information SystemsDistributed Information Systems

QUTE’98 Workshop

Heidelberg, 14-15 October 1998

QUTE’98 Workshop


OutlineOutline

QoS Present Issues Qos Trends Possible QoS Solutions:

The CME projectA possible new EURESCOM project on QoS

Conclusions

QUTE’98 Workshop


QoS Present IssuesQoS Present Issues Present technology makes implementation of QoS

feasible Main costs involved are not fixed costs (lines, devices)

but recurring costs (signalling, routing, policy, billing, accounting, etc.)

QoS parameters should be minimised it is complex specifying them, monitoring them, enforcing

them, etc.

Still high uncertainty on QoS cost/benefit ratio

QUTE’98 Workshop


QoS TrendsQoS Trends Performance guarantees on the edge networks (e.g.,

RSVP) Prioritisation of traffic on the backbone (e.g., IETF

differentiated services)

Backbone Network

Edge Network

Edge Network

QUTE’98 Workshop


QoS Trends (cont’d)QoS Trends (cont’d) Services/applications characterised by a few QoS

classes QoS classes mapped to network-service classes

(e.g., IETF differentiated services) Different classes must entail different prices

Charging can make QoS Charging can make QoS to become a reality! to become a reality!

QUTE’98 Workshop


Possible QoS SolutionsPossible QoS Solutions

Cooperative Multimedia Environment (CME) Project (ICSI, Berkeley, 1996)

A potential new EURESCOM project on QoS: QoS methodologies and solutions within the service framework: Measuring, managing and charging QoS (September 1998)

QUTE’98 Workshop


CME Project: MotivationsCME Project: Motivations World-wide collaboration: Universities, research institutes,

companies

Videoconferences and shared applications (e.g., Mbone

Tools)

Problems:

No common user interface

No integrated management

No QoS guarantees

QUTE’98 Workshop


CME Project: Main FeaturesCME Project: Main Features

A Cooperative Multimedia Environment (CME):

Common graphical user interface

Support of QoS requirements

Application sharing and audio/video communication

Integrated management of host and network resources

QUTE’98 Workshop


CME Project: CME ArchitectureCME Project: CME Architecture

User

COMMA

Host

User

COMMA

Host User

COMMA

Host

Network

COMMA : CooperativeMultiMedia Application

UserInterface

ResourceMonitor/Controller

QoS Mapper/Controller

ServiceManager

ConnectionManager

Media Service 1

.

.

.

Media Service 2

Media Service n

QUTE’98 Workshop


CME Project: QoS ModelCME Project: QoS Model Users must be able to express QoS requirements in familiar terms A three layers model

High or LowQuality Video

% CPU Bandwidth

VideoFrame Rate

User

Host Network

Application

QUTE’98 Workshop


CME Project: QoS ModelCME Project: QoS Model User level

User expectations should be expressed in quantitative terms Analysis on user expectations is highly subjective A five-level scale can be used for quality rating The scale is based on double stimulus methods

Rating Impairment Quality

5 Imperceptible Excellent

4 Perceptible, not annoying Good

3 Slightly annoying Fair

2 Annoying Poor

1 Very annoying Bad

QUTE’98 Workshop


CME Project: QoS ModelCME Project: QoS Model User level

One global requirement, Quality, for each media (e.g., video quality)

Quality is a repository of more specific requirements (e.g., spatial and

temporal vision quality)

User-Application Mapping

Tests must be executed to rate quality of video and audio sequences

Application-Resource Mapping

Only an estimation is possible

QUTE’98 Workshop


CME Project: QoS MappingCME Project: QoS Mapping User-Application Mapping

Quality Frame rate (fps)

Resolution (%)

5 25 - 30 65 - 100 4 15 - 24 50 - 64 3 6 - 14 35 - 49 2 3 - 5 20 - 34 1 1 - 2 1 - 19

Quality Encoding scheme 5 PCM 5 PCM2 5 PCM4 4 DVI 4 DVI2 4 DVI4 3 GSM 2 LPC4

Video (JPEG) Audio

QUTE’98 Workshop


CME Project: QoS MappingCME Project: QoS Mapping User-Application-Resource Mapping

Quality Encodingscheme

Bandwidth(Kb/s)

Used CPU(%)

5 PCM 68 < 15 PCM2 66 < 15 PCM4 64 < 14 DVI 38 ~14 DVI2 35 ~14 DVI4 34 ~13 GSM 15 ~262 LPC4 7 ~11

Quality Degree ofmovement

Frame rate(fps)

Resolution(%)

Bandwidth(Kb/s)

Used CPU(%)

5 High motion 25 65 1700 > 1005 Slow motion 25 65 1650 > 1005 Still 25 65 1600 494 High motion 15 50 840 > 1004 Slow motion 15 50 820 694 Still 15 50 800 373 High motion 6 35 270 383 Slow motion 6 35 260 343 Still 6 35 260 212 High motion 3 20 102 162 Slow motion 3 20 102 142 Still 3 20 100 71 High motion 1 1 17 61 Slow motion 1 1 16 61 Still 1 1 16 5

AudioVideo (JPEG)

QUTE’98 Workshop


CME Project: CME PrototypeCME Project: CME Prototype Distributed Platform

Sun Solaris and TCP/IP

COMMA DatabaseMini SQL

Media ServicesMBone Tools (vic, vat, wb)

User InterfaceTcl/Tk

Connection ManagerUnix Sockets

Resource Monitoring Iostat for CPU loadRTP for network

bandwidth

QUTE’98 Workshop


CME Project: CME PrototypeCME Project: CME Prototype User Interface for connection mangement

QUTE’98 Workshop


CME Project: CME PrototypeCME Project: CME Prototype User interface for session control

QUTE’98 Workshop


Open IssuesOpen Issues Better understanding of user requirements

QoS specification by the user in terms of QoS

Classes?

Mapping of user requirements into application

parameters and system resources

How network (and hosts) guarantee the QoS levels

(classes)?

QoS charging

QUTE’98 Workshop


A possible new EURESCOM A possible new EURESCOM project on QoSproject on QoS

QoS methodologies and solutions within the service framework: Measuring, managing and charging QoS

The title should become: QUASIMODO (QUAlity of ServIce MethODOlogies

and solutions): Measuring, managing and charging QoS

QUTE’98 Workshop


Project Proposal: ObjectivesProject Proposal: Objectives QoS model definition

User

Host Network

Application

QoS Classes

Application Measurements

Resource Measurements

Different QoS Classes for different applications, users

QUTE’98 Workshop


Project Proposal: ObjectivesProject Proposal: Objectives Parameters correlation for some meaningful

applications Methodologies and tools for QoS measurement and

management Charging methodologies and policies for QoS charging Experimental evaluation and validation of QoS solutions

Integrated QoS measurement, management and charging

QUTE’98 Workshop


PPD Supporting ShareholdersPPD Supporting Shareholders

•CSELT (IT)

•Deutsche Telekom AG (DT)

•Telecom Ireland (TI)

•Finnet Group (AF)

•Portugal Telecom (PT)

•MATAV Hungarian Telecom (HT)

•British Telecom (BT)

QUTE’98 Workshop


ConclusionsConclusions QoS present issues

QoS trends

A Cooperative Multimedia Environment (CME)

QoS specifications by the user

A potential new EURESCOM project on QoS

A three layers QoS model

Integrated QoS measurement, management and charging

QUTE’98 Workshop


For Further InformationFor Further Information CME Project

Web Site: http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~alfano/cme/cme.htmlPaper:

Design and Implementation of a Cooperative Multimedia Environment with QoS Control, Computer Communications, Vol. 21, pp 350-361

PP9212 (PPD)QoS methodologies and solutions within the service

framework: Measuring, managing and charging QoS

end-to-end quality of service in distributed information systems

Documents