prasad calyam (presenter) - osc
TRANSCRIPT
User and Network Interplay in Internet Telemicroscopy
Prasad Calyam (Presenter)Nathan Howes, Mark Haffner, Abdul Kalash
Ohio Supercomputer Center, The Ohio State University
IMMERSCOM, October 11th 2007
2
Topics of Discussion
Telemicroscopy OverviewMotivationUse-casesSolutions
Telemicroscopy Session ModelUser and Network Interplay
Testbed for Experiments to Characterize Model ParametersPerformance AnalysisOSC’s Remote Instrumentation Collaboration Environment (RICE)
FeaturesDemo Video
Conclusion
3
Telemicroscopy OverviewAcademia and Industry use computer-controlled scientific instruments
Electron Microscopes, NMR, Raman Spectrometers, Nuclear AcceleratorFor research and training purposes
Cancer Cure, Material Science, NanotechnologyInstruments are expensive ($450K - $ 4Million) and need dedicated staff to maintain
+) Remote instrumentation benefits Access to users who cannot afford to buy instrumentsReturn on Investment (ROI) for instrument labsAvoids duplication of instrument investments for funding agencies (NSF, OBOR)Useful when physical presence of humans around sample is undesirable
-) Remote instrumentation drawbacksImproper operation can cause physical damages that are expensive to repair
Telemicroscopy is remote instrumentation of electron microscopes
4
Telemicroscopy Use-casesTele-observation versus Tele-operation
5
Telemicroscopy SolutionsHardware-based: KVM over IP (KVMoIP)
Encoder-Decoder pair for frame-differencing based video image transfersPros: High quality video and optimal response timesCons: Expensive, Special hardware and high-end bandwidth requirements
Software-based: VNC – remote desktop softwareRaw or copy-rectangle or JPEG/MPEG encoded video image transfersPros: Inexpensive, Easily deployableCons: Improper PC hardware or network congestion can degrade video quality and optimal control response times
6
Related WorkTelemicroscopy over Internet2
Gemini ObservatoryNanoManipulator
Telescience Project – National Center for Microscopy and Imaging Research, UC San DiegoUltrahigh Voltage Electron Microscope Research Center – Osaka UniversityCommon Instrument Middleware Architecture (CIMA) – Indiana UniversityTele-presence Microscopy – Argonne National Lab’s Advanced Analytical Electron Microscope facility
+) Novel applications for controlling instruments
+) All said “it works” over XYZ network paths and listed challenges they overcame
-) None have quantified performance in terms of network effects
-) None have considered user Quality of Experience (QoE)
Study Motivation: Understanding User and Network interplay can help us improve reliability and efficiency of Telemicroscopy and thus deliver optimum user QoE
7
→ user-activity (key strokes and mouse clicks) during a session involving n microscope functions
→ average video image transfer rate at the microscope end→ network connection quality→ input-output scaling factor; unique to a microscope function→ seed image transfer rate; for quick screen refresh→ average video image transfer rate at the user end→ system-state control parameter dependent on user
behavior; causes ± feedback in the control system
Telemicroscopy Session Model
(a) Session Model Parameters (b) Closed-loop Control System Representation
8
Telemicroscopy Session Model
(a) Session Model Parameters (b) Closed-loop Control System Representation
(c) Transfer Function
(d) End-user QoE relation in a Telemicroscopy session
Demand – Effort the user had to expend to perform n actionsSupply – Perceivable video image quality during the n actions
9
Telemicroscopy System States(Effects of H parameter)
(a) State Transitions
(b) System Supply-Demand Performance
10
Case Study: OSC Collaboration with OSU CAMMOSU Center for Accelerated Maturation of Materials (CAMM) has acquired high-end Electron Microscopes
Used for materials modeling studies at sub-angstrom levelOSC providing systems and networking support for Telemicroscopy
OSCnet supporting end-to-end bandwidth requirementsImage processing of samples (automation with MATLAB) for Analytics service
Telemicroscopy DemonstrationsSupercomputing, Tampa, FL (Nov 2006)Internet2 Fall Member Meeting, Chicago, IL (Dec 2006)Stark State University/Timken, Canton, OH (Mar 2007)
11
Telemicroscopy Testbed
Experiments to characterize session model parametersTest cases with different network connections – CAMM requirements
(a) 1 Gbps LAN (Direct connection to Users in neighboring room)(b) Isolated LAN (Users in the same building )(c) Public LAN (Users in different buildings on campus)(d) WAN (Users on the Internet)
Performance analysis goalsBandwidth, latency and packet loss levels for optimum user QoETraffic characterization for studying inter-play between user control (TCP traffic) and microscope response (UDP traffic)
12
WAN Testbed
(a) Setup
(b) WAN Path Performance
13
Performance Measurements CollectedEnd-user QoE Measurements (Subjective Metrics)
Mean Opinion Scores (MOS) of “Novice” and “Expert” UsersTime for completion of “basic” and “advanced” Tele-microscopy tasks by Novice and Expert Users
Network Measurements (Objective Metrics)Collected using Ethereal/TCPdump and OSC ActiveMon
Metrics: Data rate, Protocols Summary
14
Network Connection Quality (ψnet) and User QoE (qmos)
qmos notably decreases with decrease in network connection qualityUser QoE is highly sensitive to network health fluctuations
Novice more liberal than ExpertTime taken to complete a task increases with decrease in network connection quality
NOTE: qmos of 5 corresponds to “at the microscope” QoE
15
Network Connection Quality (ψnet) and User Control (bin)Mouse and Keyboard traffic is TCP trafficHigher TCP throughput on poor network connections
Increased user effort with keyboard and mouse on poor connections“Congestion begets more congestion”
Task-1 Task-2 Task-3
Task-1 Task-2 Task-3Task-1 Task-2 Task-3
1 Gbps LAN – Expert
Public 100 Mbps LAN – Expert 100 Mbps WAN – Expert
User expends minimum effort with keyboard and
mouse to complete use-caseUser expends notably more
effort with keyboard and mouse to complete use-case
User expends a “lot” of effort with keyboard and mouse to
complete use-case
1400 B/s
140 s
900 B/s
100 s
60 B/s
60 s
16
Network Connection Quality (ψnet) and Image Transfer Rate (∆bout)
“At the microscope” QoE requires ~30 Mbps between user and microscope endsOther WAN tests at SC06 (Tampa) and Internet2 FallMM (Chicago) to microscopes at CAMM (Columbus)
Usable on ~(10-25) Mbps WAN connectionsUsable if one-way network delays within ~50ms; as much as ~20% UDP packet losstolerable if adequate bandwidth provisioned
17
OSC’s Remote Instrumentation CollabrationEnvironment (RICE)
Leverages our user and network interplay studies for “reliable” and “efficient”Telemicroscopy sessions and thus delivers optimum user QoECustomizable software on custom server-side hardware for Telemicroscopy
Best of VNC and KVMoIP worldsRICE Features
Network-aware video encodingOptimizes frame rates based on available network bandwidth Manual video-quality adjustment slider
Network-status and user-action blocking Warns user of network congestion that leads to unstable session state Blocks user-actions during extreme congestion scenarios and prevents breakdown
Collaboration tools VoIP, Chat, Annotation, Command-abstraction
Multi-user support Control-lock passing, collaborators presence, colored-text chat conference
Workflow and Image management Simultaneously connects to multiple PCs, transfers images and transparently switches between them
18
RICE Demo Video
19
RICE use-cases for online learningRemote students can view instructor (also remote!) controlling different types of scientific instruments
Efficiently – with the appropriate video frames to match last mile network capabilitiesReliably – without worrying about damaging the instrumentMulti-party VoIP and Chat collaborationImage Annotation
Instructor can pass control to students - train them to operate the instrument during the classStudents can conduct lab sessions at their assigned slots on theinstrumentsStudents image files can be organized and hosted at a central server
Analytics can be supported using a web-service to analyze the image data sets
20
Future WorkShared instrumentation uses OSC’s state-wide resources
Networking, Storage, HPC, Analytics
Cyberinfrastructure for Shared Instrumentation
21
Shared Instrumentation @ OSC
Plans underway to support shared instrumentation for -Ohio State University: CAMM Electron Microscopes, Chemistry Department Spectrometers and Diffractometers, Astronomy Department TelescopesMiami University: Electron Microscopes, EPR SpectrometersOhio University: Nuclear Accelerator
22
Thank you for your attention!☺
Any Questions?