February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL1 Report to ICFA February 11, 2000 Matthias Kasemann,...
-
Upload
stella-morrison -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
4
Transcript of February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL1 Report to ICFA February 11, 2000 Matthias Kasemann,...
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
1
Report to ICFAFebruary 11, 2000
Matthias Kasemann, FNAL
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
2
ICFA SCIC meeting: Nov. 13, 1999
Invited UK representative: Richard Hughes-Jones
Topics discussed: Status reports from Canada, CERN, DESY, France, Italy,
Japan, UK. Wide Area networks end-to-end performance measurements
for video and file transfer show need for application tuning. Quality of Service for National Research Networks and
monitoring results.
Plans for Video system (VRVS project) for higher quality and extended compatibility to video clients.
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
3
Impact of loss on applications
Email fairly insensitive to quality, may be delayed
but keeps retrying for days and eventually gets through
Web usually has human but expectations are low,
performance often more limited by server, human present so can retry
Bulk file transfer unattended, if > 10-12% loss connections
can time out
Interactive telnet, voice very time & loss sensitive E.g. telnet/ssh loss of > 3% severely
impacts typing ability
Importance of loss/perform
ance
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
4
PerformanceMeasurements from28 monitors in 15 countriesOver 500 remote hosts72 countries (covers all 56 PDG booklet countries)
Over 1200 monitor-remote site pairs
Over 50% of HENP collaborator sites are explicitly monitored as remote sites by PingER project Atlas (37%), BaBar (68%), Belle (23%), CDF (73%),
CMS (31%), D0 (60%), LEP (44%), Zeus (35%), PPDG (100%), RHIC(64%)
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
5
Results: Top level view - Aug-99
Good (0-1%)Acceptable (1-2.5%)
Poor (2.5-5%)V. poor (5-12%)
Bad (> 12%)
~ 2000 pairs in 56 countries
% packet loss between regionsMonitoring region
Rem
ote region
Within region (on diagonal) good to acceptable
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
6
European performance from U.S.
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
7
E. Eur-ope Loss
Country US UK CH KR RU JP IT HU DE DK CA BR AvgAlbania 1.6 1.6Armenia 9.0 9.0Azerbaijan 5.0 5.0Bulgaria 3.6 3.6Byelorus 11.2 11.2Croatia 22.0 22.0Czech R. 3.3 1.1 0.4 11.7 12.5 3.0 0.9 4.3 1.5 1.9 5.1 7.4 4.4Estonia 8.7 8.7Finland 6.8 6.8Georgia 8.7 8.7Hungary 7.4 8.4 8.7 17.7 15.0 10.5 4.9 5.2 9.1 8.8 13.1 15.2 10.3Latvia 10.5 10.5Lithuania 9.8 9.8Macedonia14.4 14.4Moldova 9.0 9.0Poland 14.5 14.5Romania 2.3 2.3Russia 9.8 5.5 5.9 33.6 0.0 13.2 5.4 9.5 4.4 7.2 25.3 28.5 12.4Slovakia 3.1 3.1Slovenia 11.5 11.5Soviet U 11.3 2.7 2.6 17.0 0.4 11.7 11.0 5.6 2.1 3.8 10.9 14.1 7.8Turkey 7.3 7.3Ukraine 14.9 14.9Average 8.9 4.4 4.4 20.0 7.0 9.6 5.5 6.2 4.2 5.4 13.6 16.3
Good
Accept
Poor
V. poor
Bad
Slovakia
Czech R.
Czech republic & Slovakia better than most, also Bulgaria
Bulgaria
CH, DE, & UK have better connections to Russia than most, within Russia OK
Most v.poor to badBaltic States from US are v. poor
LatviaLithuania
Estonia
Romania
Albania
Albania & Romania good
Croatia
Macedonia
Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia poor to bad
Slovenia
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
8
Packet loss from N. America to Russia, Jan-Aug 1999
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Dec-98 Feb-99 Mar-99 May-99 Jul-99 Aug-99
Pac
ket
loss
Canada-ITEP Canada-NSKEdu-ITEP Edu-NSKEsnet-ITEP Esnet-NSKEsnet-Dubna Esnet-IHEPEsnet-RSSI
Russia
ESnet – NSk good, ESnet – ITEP & IHEP improved with new satelliteCanada & Edu bad all overDESY, CERN improved to acceptable to ITEP, IHEP, NSK with new satellite, Dubna still v. poor to bad, UK poor to ITEP & NSKKEK good to NSk, v. poor to ITEP
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
9
Europe seen from U.S.
650ms
200 ms
7% loss10% loss
1% loss
Monitor siteBeacon site (~10% sites)HENP countryNot HENPNot HENP & not monitored
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
10
India / Mumbai /
TIFR
ESnet acceptable, Brazil, E. Europe/Russia poor to badGot better for Japan (KEK & RIKEN), ESnet, W. Europe in Oct-99, but now worse again (5 days in Nov)Stanford vs. CMU & SLAC, possibly BBN-CW peering
Packet loss to India
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
Jul-99 Aug-99 Sep-99 Oct-99 Nov-99
slac.stanford.edu hep.net doe.govbnl.gov es.net cmu.edustanford.edu carleton.ca desy.decnaf.infn.it cern.ch itep.rukfki.hu kaist.kr.apan.net riken.go.jpkek.jp ansp.br
Just added as beacon site
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
11
E. Asia. Asia
E. Europe
N. America
S. America
W . Europe Avg
Taiwan 4 19.48 1.84 6.58 7.01 7.8Singapore 3.8 3.8Japan 0.3 4.8 1.86 6.64 1.09 2.9Hong Kong 8.7 20.63 2.87 6.24 2.87 8.3China 6.1 6.63 3.66 8.38 3.47 5.7Avg 4.59 12.89 2.56 6.96 3.61
Good (0-1%)Acceptable (1-2.5%)
Poor (2.5-5%)V. poor (5-12%)
Bad (> 12%)
Japan good to acceptable to N. America & W. EuropeS. America poor to all E. AsiaHong Kong & China similar (v. different routes)
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
12
Asia seen from U.S.
3.6% loss
10% loss
0.1% loss
640 ms
450 ms
250ms
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
13
JP KR HU RU CA US BR DE IT CH AvgArgentina 22.0% 25.0% 21.0% 38.0% 20.0% 18.0% 22.0% 19.0% 19.0% 17.0% 22.1%
Brazil 8.5% 16.0% 10.0% 28.0% 7.7% 5.0% 1.3% 8.0% 8.4% 6.9% 10.0%
Colombia 4.9% 13.0% 7.7% 32.0% 7.7% 5.0% 1.4% 6.4% 2.7% 9.0%
Average 11.8% 18.0% 12.9% 32.7% 11.8% 9.3% 8.2% 11.1% 13.7% 8.9%
S. America
Good (0-1%)Acceptable (1-2.5%)
Poor (2.5-5%)V. poor (5-12%)
Bad (> 12%)
Generally poor to badArgentina is bad with everyoneWithin Brazil & within Colombia, & Brazil to Colombia is acceptableColumbia looks like to be the best
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
14
Latin America, Africa & Australasia
4% Loss
2% Loss
350 ms
700ms
170 ms
220 ms
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
15
Middle East
SLAC-Israel big change ~Sep 5 RTT went from 250 msec (E3 via London) to 620 msec Loss went from 6% to 1% ESnet peers with Israel at Chicago STAR-TAP (T3 satellite to
Israel) 9 hops
Iran (chapar.ipm.ac.ir) RTT 1000 msec. 11% loss ESnet - ATT (NY) - Unisource (NL) - archway
13 hops
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
16
Bulk transfer - Performance Trends
Bandwidth TCP < 1460/(RTT * sqrt(loss))
Note: E. Europe NOT catching up
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
17
Problem areas - summary
Germany was bad with .ca & .edu yet good with ESnet. DESY improved to poor/acceptable in Aug with dedicated 3.5Mbps PVC to US/Canada R&E, apart from Carleton
Russia (W) bad to .ca & .edu, good to ESnet, mixed to Europe, poor to .jp. Dubna worse than others. ITEP/IHEP better since new satellite
Former E. block generally poor to bad
China/Hong Kong poor to very poor with most
S. America poor to very poor
India poor
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
18
Monitoring results: summary(1)
Performance is getting better
Within Western NRENs things are good Good enough even for VoIP in terms of RTT, jitter, loss
Internet reliability in some cases is beginning to approach that specified in phone
company frame-relay contracts, but still has a way to go to meet phone company standards of 99.999%
Improving QoS requires some combination of: Increased bandwidth, but even keeping pace with growing
requirements takes constant upgrades and investment
Managed/reserved bandwidth works today in several cases
Diff Serv has big potential but it is still a research topic
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
19
Monitoring results: summary(2)
International performance from US to sites outside W. Europe, Japan, Korea is generally poor to bad
Transoceanic, needs special care, peering is critical for
E. Europe, Russia, China, India, S. America performance is where N. America & W. Europe were 4 years ago and may not be improving as fast so the discrepancy is likely to increase.
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
20
Report on immediate problem areas:
One particular problem area is the outlying regions (outside the developed regions of the world, W. Europe, N. America and Japan) who have poor connectivity (and may be falling further behind)
and yet are delivering important contributions to HEP.
In many cases the countries need an enabler to push the Internet connectivity for the NREN.
ICFA members are closer to the level that can have an impact on the political representatives in the regions.
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
21
VRVS summary
Principal Investigator: Caltech and ESnetCollaborators: CERN, Internet2/UCAID
The Virtual Rooms Videoconferencing System namely called VRVS has been put in production since early 1997.
It provides a low cost, bandwidth-efficient, extensible tool for videoconferencing and collaborative work over networks within the High Energy and Nuclear Physics communities and to some extent within Research and Education at large.
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
22
VRVS Current & future VRVS is now a production system: As of today, more than 1937 machines from 1253 different users are registered into the
system. During year 1999, 872 Multipoint Conferences has been Conducted (Total 2325 Hours). More than 3000 point to point connection established. 7 Virtual Rooms are available for World Wide Conferences in addition to the 4 available
for each Continent (America only, Europe only, Asia only).
VRVS Future evolution/integration (R&D) Deployment and support of VRVS. High Quality video and audio (MPEG1, MPEG2,..). Shared applications, environment and workspace. Integration of H.323 I.T.U Standard into VRVS. Quality of Service (QoS) over the network. Documentation and user-configuration recommendations. Improved security, authentication and confidentiality.
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
23
ICFA-SCIC would like to point out:
How can we help to improve the network situation and spend limited amount of money?
Suggested goal: HENP members of the country should participate in R&D
project with a western Lab/experiment that requires video conferencing for all collaborators to participate in, this may help to drive the requirement.
LHC detector production+ quality control, communication to production site
fully participate in LHC meetings and working groups from home institutes, publications of schools
contribution to collaborative software development (à la VRVS) with special emphasis on low bandwidth requirements.
February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL
24
ICFA-SCIC would like to recommend:
Suggested goal (‘ctd): This proposal needs to be acceptable to the country, which
requires pre-discussion with the country.
Video conferencing rooms and tools must be more widely available (at center (CERN, FNAL, SLAC) and remote)
low entrance cost for VRVS on desktop and conference rooms
Establish a 2Mbps line to the country.