Upload
shaeleigh-fuller
View
34
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Influence of File Size Distribution on Legacy LAN QoS Parameters. Nikolaus F ä rber Nov. 15, 2000. Outline. Network topology Qos parameter voice Traffic model and QoS parameter data PDF of file size Uniform Log-Normal Tradeoff QoS voice vs. data Tradeoff delay vs. loss. as before. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Influence of File Size Distributionon Legacy LAN QoS Parameters
Nikolaus FärberNov. 15, 2000
Outline
Network topology Qos parameter voice Traffic model and QoS parameter data PDF of file size
Uniform Log-Normal
Tradeoff QoS voice vs. data Tradeoff delay vs. loss
as before
Topology: N to N Communication
Voice received from WAN Each terminal sends/receives data to/from every other
terminal Balanced N to N communication N=16 W={1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64} = {0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5}
T2
S R
A1
AN
A2
QoS provided
WAN…
R0 = 10 Mbps
100 KByte/port, drop tail
QoS Parameter Voice
Average Voice Jitter
Reasonable quantity to predict performance of adaptive playout scheduling
More complete (but less compact) description of voice quality is possible by plotting tradeoff delay vs. loss
= | di – di+1|i=1
N1N
delay
loss
Traffic Model and QoS Par. Data Random file size Bi distributed according to fB(B) Waiting time in between file transfers:
Wi =Bi N-1
R0 R0 = 10 Mbps= load in [0,1]
time
time
B1
B2
B3
W1 W2
T1 T2
req
uest
serv
e
R = Bi
Ti
Qos parameter data: “Data goodput”:
?
File Size Distribution PB(B)
Assumed so far: Uniform (4-512 packets of 1480 byte) Literature [Barford 98, Paxson 95, Douceur 99, Arlitt 99]
File system: Log-Normal, Log-Normal Body/Pareto Tail
Network: Log-Normal, Pareto Pareto:
Log-Normal:
2
2
2
)(lnexp
2
1 )(
B
BBpB
kBBkBpB ; )( )1( (“heavy tailed”)
Workload of 1998 World Cup M. Arlitt, T. Jin, “Workload Characterization of the 1998 World
Cup Web Site”, HP Lab. Tech. Report, September 1999. http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/1999/HPL-1999-35R1.html Result of 1.35 billion requests during 1 month
Log-Normal
= 10.13
= 2.19
Comparison of used PDFs
file size [byte]
log2(File size)
pro
b.
pro
b.
= 3.8 105
= 2.2 105
= 3.6 103
= 1.2 104
QoS Tradeoff, PB(B) Uniform N = 16, = {0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5} x W = {1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64}
data goodput [Mbps]
avera
ge v
oic
e jit
ter
[ms]
0.3
0.1
0.2
= 0.5
14
8
16
32
W=64
2
0.4
QoS Tradeoff, PB(B) Log-Normal
N = 16, = {0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5} x W = {1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64}
data goodput [Mbps]
avera
ge v
oic
e jit
ter
[ms]
0.3
0.1
0.2
= 0.5
1
4
8
16
32
W=64
2
0.4
Uniform vs. Log-Normal PDF In general similar behavior
Average jitter decreases monotonically with window size Maximum goodput at low-medium window size (W = 4-16) High variation of goodput at low loads High variation of jitter at high loads
Longer average file size (uniform) results in reduced average voice jitter
For given scenario W=4 gives good performance at all loads Why? BxD = WxN
increase with load?
Delay vs. Loss at 10% Load
delay [ms]
loss W = {1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64}
Delay vs. Loss at 20% Load
delay [ms]
loss W = {1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64}
Delay vs. Loss at 30% Load
delay [ms]
loss W = {1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64}
Delay vs. Loss at 40% Load
delay [ms]
loss W = {1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64}
Delay vs. Loss at 50% Load
delay [ms]
loss W = {1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64}
Conclusions and Future Work Different file size distributions results in
Same general behavior Different quantitative behavior (average voice jitter)
Fixed value for window size may not be too bad
Compare Delay-Loss curves for Reduced TCP window size Adaptive playout
Further refinement of traffic model