overqos: less bandwidth for more reliable service ?? --a criticism hongyu gao gregory peaker

13
OverQos: Less Bandwidth for More Reliable Service ?? --A Criticism Hongyu Gao Gregory Peaker

Upload: tamsin-eaton

Post on 19-Jan-2016

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: OverQos: Less Bandwidth for More Reliable Service ?? --A Criticism Hongyu Gao Gregory Peaker

OverQos: Less Bandwidth for More Reliable Service ??

--A CriticismHongyu Gao

Gregory Peaker

Page 2: OverQos: Less Bandwidth for More Reliable Service ?? --A Criticism Hongyu Gao Gregory Peaker

Overview

OverQos provides the following services: A) smoothing packet losses B) prioritizing packets within an aggregate C) statistical loss and bandwidth guarantee

Page 3: OverQos: Less Bandwidth for More Reliable Service ?? --A Criticism Hongyu Gao Gregory Peaker

Congestion in Routers & Computers Overlays route around congestion points

We’ve seen direct paths, normally taken by routers have improved over the past 10 years

Overlay paths longer Routers & Electrical Components are the

bottleneck to delivering better Internet Service, not the Terbits in optical fibers in backbones

Page 4: OverQos: Less Bandwidth for More Reliable Service ?? --A Criticism Hongyu Gao Gregory Peaker

Smoothing packet loss

Given: Bursty line loss rates from 0.5% to 3.3%

Outcome: Loss rate guaranteed at .1% Reality: many failures due to outages, loss

zero or high thus average is meaningless Doesn’t reduce the packet loss rate Some sample applications might benefit, but

it’s not a general solution. (e.g. file transfer application)

Page 5: OverQos: Less Bandwidth for More Reliable Service ?? --A Criticism Hongyu Gao Gregory Peaker

Prioritizing

Requires input from application programmer. Specify the priority of packets + rewrite legacy applications --Difficult for people to change the programming

habbit

Page 6: OverQos: Less Bandwidth for More Reliable Service ?? --A Criticism Hongyu Gao Gregory Peaker

Prioritizing (cont’d)

Why would application programmer honestly specify the priority of the packets?

Programmers have incentive to specify all the packets as the highest priority.

Result: Prioritizing not achievable

Page 7: OverQos: Less Bandwidth for More Reliable Service ?? --A Criticism Hongyu Gao Gregory Peaker

Statistical loss and bandwidth guarantees Sounds appealing, but not indeed We look at the one by one

Page 8: OverQos: Less Bandwidth for More Reliable Service ?? --A Criticism Hongyu Gao Gregory Peaker

Slabg (loss guarantee)

(Refer to Section 3.2) Minimizing the bandwidth overhead of r1 and

r2 to achieve the target loss constraint -> No guarantee on the bandwidth limit

Given the bandwidth limit -> manually drop traffic that exceeds the limit -> No guarantee on the loss rate

Page 9: OverQos: Less Bandwidth for More Reliable Service ?? --A Criticism Hongyu Gao Gregory Peaker

Slabg (bandwidth guarantee)

(refer to the end of the 3rd page) “Statistical bandwidth guarantees can be

provided only to a subset of the OverQos flows, potentially at the expense of other flows”

Page 10: OverQos: Less Bandwidth for More Reliable Service ?? --A Criticism Hongyu Gao Gregory Peaker

Slabg (cont’d)

A more accurate description of OverQos: OverQos can provide statistical loss guarantee,

NOT considering the extra bandwidth consumption

OverQos can provide statistical bandwidth guarantee to a subset of flows, NOT considering other concurrent flows

Page 11: OverQos: Less Bandwidth for More Reliable Service ?? --A Criticism Hongyu Gao Gregory Peaker

Slabg (cont’d)

A closer look at the loss rate guarantee: At the first time, transmit the packet as normal

TCP does. At the retransmission, add redundancy to recover

from loss, using FEC software library It’s a pure usage of existing tools. You call it

a contribution?

Page 12: OverQos: Less Bandwidth for More Reliable Service ?? --A Criticism Hongyu Gao Gregory Peaker

Actual Delay

Page 13: OverQos: Less Bandwidth for More Reliable Service ?? --A Criticism Hongyu Gao Gregory Peaker

The authors started with a nice goal. The system is poorly designed and

implemented. It doesn’t achieve any meaningful

improvement.

Conclusion