Talk given for Advanced Networking Protocols course. Selected 2 papers in the area of DataCenter TCP issues.

1. TCP Issues in Virtualized Datacenter
Networks
Hemanth Kumar Mantri
Department of Computer Science 1 of 27

2. Selected Papers
• The TCP Outcast Problem: Exposing
Unfairness in Data Center Networks.
– NSDI’12
• vSnoop: Improving TCP Throughput in
VirtualizedEnvironments via Ack Offload.
– ACM/IEEE SC, 2010
2 of 27

3. Background and Motivation
• Data center is a shared environment
– Multi Tenancy
• Virtualization: A key enabler of cloud
computing
– Amazon EC2
• Resource sharing
– CPU/Memory are strictly shared
– Network sharing largely laissez-faire
3 of 27

4. Data Center Networks
• Flows compete via TCP
• Ideally, TCP should achieve true fairness
– All flows get equal share of link capacity
• In practice, TCP exhibits RTT-bias
– Throughput is inversely proportional to RTT
• 2 Major Issues
– Unfairness (in general)
– Low Throughput (in virtualized environments)
4 of 27

5. Datacenter Topology (Hierarchical)
5 of 27

6. Traffic Pattern: Many to One
6 of 27

7. Key Find: Unfairness
Inverse RTT Bias?
Low RTT = Low Throughput
7 of 27

8. Further Investigation
Instantaneous Average
2-hop flow is consistently starved!!
TCP Outcast Problem
• Some Flows are ‘Outcast’ed and receive very low
throughput compared to others
• Almost an order of magnitude reduction in some
cases
8 of 27

9. Experiments
• Same RTTs
• Same Hop Length
• Unsynchronized Flows
• Introduce Background Traffic
• Vary Switch Buffer Size
• Vary TCP
– RENO, MP-TCP, BIC, Cubic + SACK
• Unfairness Persists! 9 of 27

10. Observation
Flow differential at input ports is the culprit! 10 of 27

11. Vary #flows at competing bottle neck
switch
11 of 27

12. Reason: Port Blackout
1. Packets are roughly same size
2. Similar inter-arrival rates (Predictable Timing) 12 of 27

13. Port Blackout
• Can occur on any input port
• Happens for small intervals of time
• Has more catastrophic effect on
throughput of fewer flows!!
– Experiments showed that “same number” of
packet drops affect the throughput of fewer
flows much more than if there were several
concurrent flows.
13 of 27

14. Conditions for TCP Outcast
14 of 27

15. Solutions?
• Stochastic Fair Queuing (SFQ)
– Explicitly enforce fairness among flows
– Expensive for commodity switches
• Equal Length Routing
– All flows are forced to go through Core
– Better interleaving of packets, alleviate PB
15 of 27

16. • Multiple VMs hosted by one physical host
• Multiple VMs sharing the same core
– Flexibility, scalability, and economy
VM Consolidation
Hardware
Virtualization Layer
VM 1 VM 3 VM 4VM 2
Observation:
VM consolidation negatively
impacts network performance!
16 of 27

17. Sender
Hardware
Virtualization Layer
Investigating the Problem
Server
VM 1 VM 2 VM 3
Client
17 of 27

18. 40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
5432
RTT(ms)
Number of VMs
RTT increases in
proportion to VM
scheduling slice
(30ms)
Effect of CPU Sharing
18 of 27

19. Exact Culprit
Sender
Hardware
Driver Domain
(dom0)
VM 1
Device
Driver
VM 3
bufbuf
VM 2
buf
19 of 27

20. Connection to the VM is much
slower than dom0!
Impact on TCP Throughput
+ dom0
x VM
20 of 27

21. Solution: vSnoop
• Alleviates the negative effect of VM scheduling on
TCP throughput
• Implemented within the driver domain to
accelerate TCP connections
• Does not require any modifications to the VM
• Does not violate end-to-end TCP semantics
• Applicable across a wide range of VMMs
– Xen, VMware, KVM, etc.
21 of 27

22. Sender VM1 BufferDriver Domain
Time
SYN
SYN,ACK
SYN
SYN,ACK
VM1 buffer
TCP Connection to a VM
Scheduled VM
VM1
VM2
VM3
VM1
VM2
VM3
SYN,ACK
SYN
VM Scheduling
Latency
RTT
RTT
VM Scheduling
Latency
Sender establishes a TCP
connection to VM1
22 of 27

23. Sender VM Shared BufferDriver Domain
Time
SYN
SYN,ACK
SYN
SYN,ACK
VM1 buffer
Key Idea: Acknowledgement Offload
Scheduled VM
VM1
VM2
VM3
VM1
VM2
VM3
SYN,ACK
w/ vSnoop
Faster progress during
TCP slowstart
23 of 27

24. • Challenge 1: Out-of-order/special packets (SYN, FIN packets)
• Solution: Let the VM handle these packets
• Challenge 2: Packet loss after vSnoop
• Solution: Let vSnoop acknowledge only if room in buffer
• Challenge 3: ACKs generated by the VM
• Solution: Suppress/rewrite ACKs already generated by vSnoop
Challenges
24 of 27

25. vSnoop Implementation in Xen
Driver Domain (dom0)
Bridge
Netfront
Netback
vSnoop
VM1
Netfront
Netback
VM3
Netfront
Netback
VM2
buf bufbuf
Tuning
Netfront
25 of 27

26. Median
0.192MB/s
0.778MB/s
6.003MB/s
TCP Throughput Improvement
• 3 VMs consolidated, 1000 transfers of a 100KB file
• Vanilla Xen, Xen+tuning, Xen+tuning+vSnoop
30x Improvement
+ Vanilla Xen
x Xen+tuning
* Xen+tuning+vSnoop
26 of 27

27. Thank You!
• References
– http://friends.cs.purdue.edu/dokuwiki/doku.php
– https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi12/tech-
schedule/technical-sessions
• Most animations and pictures are taken from
the authors’ original slides and NSDI’12
conference talk.
27 of 27

28. BACKUP SLIDES
28

29. Conditions for Outcast
• Switches use the tail-drop queue
management discipline
• A large set of flows and a small set of
flows arriving at two different input ports
compete for a bottleneck output port at a
switch
29

30. Why does Unfairness Matter?
• Multi Tenant Clouds
– Some tenants get better performance than
others
• Map Reduce Apps
– Straggler problems
– One delayed flow affects overall job
completion
30

31. State Machine Maintained Per-
FlowStart
Unexpected
Sequence
Active
(online)
No buffer
(offline)
Out-of-order
packet
In-order pkt
Buffer space available
Out-of-order
packet
In-order pkt
No buffer
In-order pkt
Buffer space available
No buffer
Packet recv
Early acknowledgements
for in-order packets
Don’t
acknowledge
Pass out-of-order
pkts to VM
31

32. vSnoop’s Impact on TCP Flows
• Slow Start
– Early acknowledgements help progress
connections faster
– Most significant benefit for short transfers that are
more prevalent in data centers
• Congestion Avoidance and Fast Retransmit
– Large flows in the steady state can also benefit
from vSnoop
– Benefit not as much as for Slow Start 32