Empirically Characterizing the Buffer Behaviour of Real Devices
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Empirically Characterizing the Buffer Behaviour of Real Devices

on

  • 221 views

Luis Sequeira, Julian Fernandez-Navajas, Jose Saldana, Luis Casadesus, Jose Ruiz-Mas, "Empirically Characterizing the Buffer Behaviour of Real Devices," Proc. International Symposium on Performance ...

Luis Sequeira, Julian Fernandez-Navajas, Jose Saldana, Luis Casadesus, Jose Ruiz-Mas, "Empirically Characterizing the Buffer Behaviour of Real Devices," Proc. International Symposium on Performance Evaluation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems SPECTS 2012, July 8-11, 2012, Genoa, Italy. ISBN: 978-1-4673-2235-5.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
221
Views on SlideShare
221
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Empirically Characterizing the Buffer Behaviour of Real Devices Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Empirically Characterizing the Buffer Behaviour of Real Devices Luis Sequeira Julián Fernández-Navajas Jose Saldana Luis Casadesus Communication Technologies Group (GTC) Aragón Institute of Engineering Research (I3A) University of Zaragoza, Spain
  • 2. Index I. Introduction and Related Works II. Test Methodology • Test Procedure • Methodology III. Experimental Results • Wired Scenario • Wireless Scenario IV. Conclusions
  • 3. Index I. Introduction and Related Works II. Test Methodology • Test Procedure • Methodology III. Experimental Results • Wired Scenario • Wireless Scenario IV. Conclusions
  • 4. Introduction and Related Works • Packet size varies for different Internet services and applications: • VoIP, web, FTP, video streaming, online games, etc. • Traffic behaviour has to be taken into account for the design of network devices: • Constant bit rate traffic • Bursty traffic • Different number of frames into each burst
  • 5. Introduction and Related Works • In access network capabilities are lower than the ones available in the backbone; this implies that some network points become critical bottlenecks • Bottlenecks may also appear at critical points of high-performance networks.
  • 6. Introduction and Related Works • Mid and low-end routers normally do not implement advanced traffic management techniques. • They always use buffers as a traffic regulation mechanism. • Buffer size becomes an important design parameter • Buffer can be measured in different ways: • Maximum number of packets it can store • Amount of bytes • Queuing time limit (ms)
  • 7. Introduction and Related Works • Most Internet routers use FIFO, but there exist other techniques to manage drop-tail buffers, e.g. Random Early Detection (RED). • These techniques, in conjunction with buffer size, mainly define the buffer behaviour and how traffic is affected by it.
  • 8. Introduction and Related Works • Relationship between router buffer size and link utilization: Excessive amount of memory latency increase Small amount of memory packet loss increase • Characterization of buffer behaviour is interesting when trying to improve link utilization.
  • 9. Index I. Introduction and Related Works II. Test Methodology • Test Procedure • Methodology III. Experimental Results • Wired Scenario • Wireless Scenario IV. Conclusions
  • 10. Test Procedure It may be a device or a network
  • 11. Test Procedure UDP Packets of different size are used to determine if buffer size is in bytes or in packets to produce a buffer overflow in the SUT All packets have a unique ID
  • 12. Test Procedure Traffic is captured here
  • 13. Test Procedure Input rate Buffer of the “System Under Test” Input rate > output rate Output rate
  • 14. Test Procedure Input rate Buffer of the “System Under Test” Input rate > output rate Buffer fills Output rate
  • 15. Test Procedure Filling the buffer Input rate i 2 1 Output rate
  • 16. Test Procedure Time to fill the buffer First loss Input rate i 2 1 Packet i leaves the buffer Error Time to fill and to emtpy the buffer Output rate
  • 17. Methodology • Physical Access: Counting the number of packets in the queue in the moment that a packet arrives to the buffer. Traffic may be captured here packet delay packet loss interarrival packet time input and output buffer rate filling buffer rate captures script BUFFER SIZE
  • 18. Methodology • Remote Access: If the delay of a packet in the buffer can be determined, then the variations of this delay can give us useful information for estimating buffer size. Traffic may be captured here packet delay packet loss interarrival packet time input and output buffer rate filling buffer rate captures script BUFFER SIZE
  • 19. Methodology Input rate Method 1: Physical Access Time when the packet i arrived to the buffer i 2 • Buffer size is determined for each packet as follows: for all packets in out-capture, a shell script looks for the incoming time in in-capture and counts in out-capture the number of packets between incoming time and the time stamp registered in out- capture, finally the buffer size is estimated as the average of all these values. 1 Output rate
  • 20. Methodology Input rate Method 1: Physical Access Buffer gets empty • Buffer size is determined for each packet as follows: for all packets in out-capture, a shell script looks for the incoming time in in-capture and counts in out-capture the number of packets between incoming time and the time stamp registered in out- capture, finally the buffer size is estimated as the average of all these values. i Output rate
  • 21. Methodology Input rate Method 1: Physical Access Time when the packet i leaves the buffer • Buffer size is determined for each packet as follows: for all packets in out-capture, a shell script looks for the incoming time in in-capture and counts in out-capture the number of packets between incoming time and the time stamp registered in out- capture, finally the buffer size is estimated as the average of all these values. i Output rate
  • 22. Methodology Input rate Method 1: Physical Access Queue Count packets Queue • Buffer size is determined for each packet as follows: for all packets in out-capture, a shell script looks for the incoming time in in-capture and counts in out-capture the number of packets between incoming time and the time stamp registered in out- capture, finally the buffer size is estimated as the average of all these values. i Output rate
  • 23. Methodology Method 2: Remote Access It will completly fill the buffer Input rate i 2 1 Dropped packets Output rate
  • 24. Methodology Method 2: Remote Access Input rate It will completly fill the buffer i 2 𝑅 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 1 Output rate Time to fill the buffer
  • 25. Methodology Method 2: Remote Access Input rate Time to fill and empty the buffer 𝑅 𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑅 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 i Output rate It appears in the receiver
  • 26. Methodology Estimation of the size: Time to fill the buffer Time to fill and to empty the buffer
  • 27. Index I. Introduction and Related Works II. Test Methodology • Test Procedure • Methodology III. Experimental Results • Wired Scenario • Wireless Scenario IV. Conclusions
  • 28. Wired Scenario • In this case we want to test the accuracy of our method when there is no possibility of physical access to the SUT. • We obtained the buffer size using method 1 with physical access. Next, the estimations obtained using method 2 are compared with previous results, and the relative error is obtained.
  • 29. Wired Scenario A Particular buffer behaviour: Linksys WAP54G Groups of dropped packets 3COM 4500
  • 30. Wired Scenario A Particular buffer behaviour: • It has been observed in the wired and wireless tested: • when the buffer is completely full, no more packets are accepted, it will be called upper limit. • The buffer does not accept new packets until a certain amount of memory is available, it will be called lower limit. • In this moment the filling process begins again. • Although this behaviour has some similarities with Random Early Detection (RED) but it is not the same: • There is not probability for dropping an incoming packet.
  • 31. Wired Scenario • Three different amounts of bandwidth have been used in order to flood the buffer. • We see that the accuracy of the buffer size estimation using the method 2 is high. In addition, the error diminishes as input rate grows. • The results are less accurate but they are still acceptable. • The results using smaller packets are less accurate so we have not presented them. (packet size = 1500 bytes)
  • 32. Wireless Scenario • Variations of the output rate in wireless network generate error growth. • While filling rate is relatively constant, the emptying rate shows variations for the highest bandwidths. The WiFi access point switches from higher to lower speeds depending on the status of the radio channel
  • 33. Wireless Scenario • We have compared the two methods when there is physical access to the SUT. • The presented results are the ones obtained using packets of 1500 bytes, since they are the most accurate. • Method 1 is the most accurate estimation so it has been used to compare with method 2.
  • 34. Index I. Introduction and Related Works II. Test Methodology • Test Procedure • Methodology III. Experimental Results • Wired Scenario • Wireless Scenario IV. Conclusions
  • 35. Conclusions • Two methods have been presented in order to analyze the technical and functional characteristics of commercial buffers of different devices, or even networks. • This characterization is important, taking into account that the buffer may modify traffic characteristics, and may also drop packets. • The methodology can be used if there is physical access to the “System Under Test”, but it is also useful, with certain limitations, for measuring a remote system. • Tests using commercial devices have been deployed in two different scenarios, using wired and wireless networks.
  • 36. Conclusions • A particular buffer behaviour has been observed for a device: once the buffer is full, it does not accept new packets until a certain space is again available. • The results show that accurate results of the buffer size can be obtained when there is physical access to the “System Under Test”. • In case of having no direct access to the system, an acceptable estimation can also be obtained if the input rate is more than three times the output rate. In this case, big packets have to be used for the tests. • As future work the method has to be improved in order to minimize the error, especially when measuring wireless devices.