OPNET Full Presentation

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment
Session 1813 Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Networking Tutorials
Prof. Dimitri P. Bertsekas Department of Electrical Engineering M.I.T.
Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.
Objectives
Provide some basic understanding of queuing phenomena Explain the available solution approaches and associated trade-offs Give guidelines on how to match applications and solutions
Outline
Basic concepts Source models Service models (demo) Single-queue systems Priority/shared service systems Networks of queues Hybrid simulation (demo)
Outline
Basic concepts
Performance measures Solution methodologies Queuing system concepts Stability and steady-state Causes of delay and bottlenecks
Source models Service models (demo) Single-queue systems Priority/shared service systems Networks of queues Hybrid simulation (demo)
Performance Measures
Delay Delay variation (jitter) Packet loss Efficient sharing of bandwidth Relative importance depends on traffic type (audio/video, file transfer, interactive) Challenge: Provide adequate performance for (possibly) heterogeneous traffic
Solution Methodologies
Analytical results (formulas)
Pros: Quick answers, insight Cons: Often inaccurate or inapplicable
Explicit simulation
Pros: Accurate and realistic models, broad applicability Cons: Can be slow
Hybrid simulation
Intermediate solution approach Combines advantages and disadvantages of analysis and simulation
Examples of Applications
Analytical Modeling
Analysis Scenarios
M/G/./. & G/G/./. FIFO Analysis

Yes Yes Yes
M/G/./. & G/G/./. Priority Analysis

N/A N/A N/A
Decomposition with Kleinrock Independence Assumption

N/A N/A N/A
Discrete-Event Simulation Hybrid DES with Explicit DES only with and Explicit Traffic Background Traffic
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Single Link with FIFO Service Best Effort Service for Standard Data Traffic Best Effort Service for LRD/Self-Similar Behavior Traffic "Chancing It" with Best Effort Service for Voice, Video and Data Single Link with QoS-Based Queueing Using QoS to differentiate service levels for the same type of traffic Using QoS to support different requirements for different application types given as a detailed study of setting Cisco Router queueing parameters Network of Queues General network model extending the previous QoS queueing model Reduction of the general model to a representative end-to-end path
N/A
Yes (loss of accuracy) Highly approximate
N/A
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
N/A
Hop-by-hop Analysis (loss of accuacy) Hop-by-hop Analysis (loss of accuacy)
Yes (some loss of Yes (Run time a accuracy - e.g., traffic function of network shaping) complexity) N/A Yes (Run time a function of network complexity)
Yes [Fast with minimal loss of accuracy] Yes [Fast with minimal loss of accuracy]
N/A
Queuing System Concepts: Arrival Rate, Occupancy, Time in the System

Queuing system
Data network where packets arrive, wait in various queues, receive service at various points, and exit after some time
Arrival rate
Long-term number of arrivals per unit time
Occupancy
Number of packets in the system (averaged over a long time)
Time in the system (delay)

Time from packet entry to exit (averaged over many packets)
Stability and Steady-State

A single queue system is stable if
packet arrival rate < system transmission capacity
For a single queue, the ratio

packet arrival rate / system transmission capacity
is called the utilization factor

Describes the loading of a queue
In an unstable system packets accumulate in various queues and/or get dropped For unstable systems with large buffers some packet delays become very large
Flow/admission control may be used to limit the packet arrival rate Prioritization of flows keeps delays bounded for the important traffic
Stable systems with time-stationary arrival traffic approach a steady-state

Littles Law
For a given arrival rate, the time in the system is proportional to packet occupancy N=T where N: average # of packets in the system : packet arrival rate (packets per unit time) T: average delay (time in the system) per packet Examples:
On rainy days, streets and highways are more crowded Fast food restaurants need a smaller dining room than regular restaurants with the same customer arrival rate Large buffering together with large arrival rate cause large delays
10
Explanation of Littles Law

Amusement park analogy: people arrive, spend time at various sites, and leave They pay $1 per unit time in the park The rate at which the park earns is $N per unit time (N: average # of people in the park) The rate at which people pay is $ T per unit time (: traffic arrival rate, T: time per person) Over a long horizon: Rate of park earnings = Rate of peoples payment or N= T
11
Delay is Caused by Packet Interference

If arrivals are regular or sufficiently spaced apart, no queuing delay occurs
2 4 3 1 Time Times Arrival Departure
Times
Regular Traffic
2 4 3 1 Time Times Arrival Departure
Times
Irregular but Spaced Apart Traffic
12
Burstiness Causes Interference

Note that the departures are less bursty
QueuingTraffic Bursty Delays
4 3 2 1 Time
13
Burstiness Example
Different Burstiness Levels at Same Packet Rate
Source: Fei Xue and S. J. Ben Yoo, UCDavis, On the Generation and Shaping Self-similar Traffic in Optical Packet-switched Networks, OPNETWORK 2002
14
Packet Length Variation Causes Interference

Time
Queuing Delays
Regular arrivals, irregular packet lengths
15
High Utilization Exacerbates Interference

Time
Queuing Delays
As the work arrival rate: (packet arrival rate * packet length) increases, the opportunity for interference increases
16
Bottlenecks
Types of bottlenecks
At access points (flow control, prioritization, QoS enforcement needed) At points within the network core Isolated (can be analyzed in isolation) Interrelated (network or chain analysis needed)
Bottlenecks result from overloads caused by:

High load sessions, or Convergence of sufficient number of moderate load sessions at the same queue
17
Bottlenecks Cause Shaping
Time
The departure traffic from a bottleneck is more regular than the arrival traffic The inter-departure time between two packets is at least as large as the transmission time of the 2nd packet
18
Bottlenecks Cause Shaping

Incoming traffic Outgoing traffic
Exponential inter-arrivals
gap
Bottleneck 90% utilization

19
Incoming traffic
Outgoing traffic
Small
Medium
Bottleneck 90% utilization

Large
20
Packet Trains
Inter-departure times for small packets
21
Variable packet sizes

Histogram of inter-departure times for small packets
# of packets
Variable packet sizes
Peaks smeared
Constant packet sizes
sec
22
Outline
Basic concepts Source models
Poisson traffic Batch arrivals Example applications voice, video, file transfer
Service models (demo) Single-queue systems Priority/shared service systems Networks of queues Hybrid simulation (demo)
23
Poisson Process with Rate

Interarrival times are independent and exponentially distributed Models well the accumulated traffic of many independent sources The average interarrival time is 1/ (secs/packet), so is the arrival rate (packets/sec)
Time Interarrival
Times
24
Batch Arrivals
Some sources transmit in packet bursts May be better modeled by a batch arrival process (e.g., bursts of packets arriving according to a Poisson process) The case for a batch model is weaker at queues after the first, because of shaping
Time Interarrival
Times
25
Markov Modulated Rate Process (MMRP)

State 0 OFF State 1 ON
Stay in each state an exponentially distributed time, Transmit according to different model (e.g., Poisson, deterministic, etc) at each state
Extension: Models with more than two states
26
Source Types
Voice sources Video sources File transfers Web traffic Interactive traffic Different application types have different QoS requirements, e.g., delay, jitter, loss, throughput, etc.
27
Source Type Properties

Characteristics Voice
* Alternating talkspurts and silence intervals. * Talk-spurts produce constant packet-rate traffic * Highly bursty traffic (when encoded) * Long range dependencies * Poisson type * Sometimes batcharrivals, or bursty, or sometimes on-off
QoS Requirements
Delay < ~150 ms Jitter < ~30 ms Packet loss < ~1%
Model
* Two-state (on-off) Markov Modulated Rate Process (MMRP) * Exponentially distributed time at each state
Video
Delay < ~ 400 ms Jitter < ~ 30 ms Packet loss < ~1% Zero or near-sero packet loss Delay may be important
K-state (on-off) Markov Modulated Rate Process (MMRP)
Interactive
FTP telnet web
Poisson, Poisson with batch arrivals, Two-state MMRP
28
Typical Voice Source Behavior
29
MPEG1 Video Source Model

The MPEG1 MMRP model can be extremely bursty, and has long range dependency behavior due to the deterministic frame sequence
Diagram Source: Mark W. Garrett and Walter Willinger, Analysis, Modeling, and Generation of Self-Similar VBR Video Traffic, BELLCORE, 1994
30
Outline
Basic concepts Source models Service models
Single vs. multiple-servers FIFO, priority, and shared servers Demo
Single-queue systems Priority/shared service systems Networks of queues Hybrid simulation (demo)
31
Device Queuing Mechanisms

Common queue examples for IP routers
FIFO: First In First Out PQ: Priority Queuing WFQ: Weighted Fair Queuing Combinations of the above
Service types from a queuing theory standpoint

Single server (one queue - one transmission line) Multiple server (one queue - several transmission lines) Priority server (several queues with hard priorities - one transmission line) Shared server (several queues with soft priorities - one transmission line)
32
Single Server FIFO

Single transmission line serving packets on a FIFO (First-InFirst-Out) basis Each packet must wait for all packets found in the system to complete transmission, before starting transmission
Departure Time = Arrival Time + Workload Found in the System + Transmission time
Packets arriving to a full buffer are dropped

Transmission Arrivals Line
33
FIFO Queue
Packets are placed on outbound link to egress device in FIFO order
Device (router, switch) multiplexes different flows arriving on various ingress ports onto an output buffer forming a FIFO queue
34
Multiple Servers
Multiple packets are transmitted simultaneously on multiple lines/servers Head of the line service: packets wait in a FIFO queue, and when a server becomes free, the first packet goes into service
Transmission Arrivals Lines
35
Priority Servers
Packets form priority classes (each may have several flows) There is a separate FIFO queue for each priority class Packets of lower priority start transmission only if no higher priority packet is waiting Priority types:
Non-preemptive (high priority packet must wait for a lower priority packet found under transmission upon arrival) Preemptive (high priority packet does not have to wait )
Transmission Class 13Arrivals Class 2 Arrivals Class Arrivals Interm.Priority High Priority Low Priority Line
36
Priority Queuing
Packets are classified into separate queues
E.g., based on source/destination IP address, source/destination TCP port, etc.
All packets in a higher priority queue are served before a lower priority queue is served
Typically in routers, if a higher priority packet arrives while a lower priority packet is being transmitted, it waits until the lower priority packet completes
37
Shared Servers
Again we have multiple classes/queues, but they are served with a soft priority scheme Round-robin Weighted fair queuing
Transmission Class 13Arrivals Class 2 Arrivals Class Arrivals Weight 10 Weight 3 Line Weight 1
38
Round-Robin/Cyclic Service
Round-robin serves each queue in sequence
A queue that is empty is skipped Each queue when served may have limited service (at most k packets transmitted with k = 1 or k > 1)
Round-robin is fair for all queues (as long as some queues do not have longer packets than others) Round-robin cannot be used to enforce bandwidth allocation among the queues.
39
Fair Queuing
This scheduling method is inspired by the most fair of methods:
Transmit one bit from each queue in cyclic order (bit-by-bit round robin) Skip queues that are empty
To approximate the bit-by-bit processing behavior, for each packet

We calculate upon arrival its finish time under bit-by-bit round robin assuming all other queues are continuously busy, and we transmit by FIFO within each queue Transmit next the packet with the minimum finish time
Important properties:
Priority is given to short packets Equal bandwidth is allocated to all queues that are continuously busy
i-1 Departure times Arrival times i-1 Finish Time of Packet i
40
Weighted Fair Queuing

Fair queuing cannot be used to implement bandwidth allocation and soft priorities Weighted fair queuing is a variation that corrects this deficiency
Let wk be the weight of the kth queue Think of round-robin with queue k transmitting wk bits upon its turn If all queues have always something to send, the kth queue receives bandwidth equal to a fraction wk / i wi of the total bandwidth
Fair queuing corresponds to wk = 1 Priority queuing corresponds to the weights being very high as we move to higher priorities Again, to deal with the segmentation problem, we approximate as follows: For each packet:
We calculate its finish time (under the weighted bit-by-bit round robin scheme) We next transmit the packet with the minimum finish time
41
Weighted Fair Queuing Illustration

Weights: Queue 1 = 3 Queue 2 = 1 Queue 3 = 1
42
Combination of Several Queuing Schemes

Example voice (PQ), guaranteed b/w (WFQ), Best Effort (Ciscos LLQ implementation)
43
Demo: FIFO
FIFO Bottleneck 90% utilization
44
Demo: FIFO Queuing Delay

Applications have different requirements Video
delay, jitter
FTP
packet loss
Control beyond best effort needed Priority Queuing (PQ) Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ)
45
Demo: Priority Queuing (PQ)
PQ Bottleneck 90% utilization
46
Demo: PQ Queuing Delays
PQ FTP
FIFO
PQ Video
47
Demo: Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ)
WFQ Bottleneck 90% utilization
48
Demo: WFQ Queuing Delays
PQ FTP
WFQ FTP
FIFO WFQ/PQ Video
49
Queuing: Take Away Points

Choice of queuing mechanism can have a profound effect on performance To achieve desired service differentiation, appropriate queuing mechanisms can be used Complex queuing mechanisms may require simulation techniques to analyze behavior Improper configuration (e.g., queuing mechanism selection or weights) may impact performance of low priority traffic
50
Outline
Basic concepts Source models Service models (demo) Single-queue systems
M/M/1M/M/m/k M/G/1G/G/1 Demo: Analytics vs. simulation
Priority/shared service systems Networks of queues Hybrid simulation (demo)
51
M/M/1 System
Nomenclature: M stands for Memoryless (a property of the exponential distribution)
M/M/1 stands for Poisson arrival process (which is memoryless) M/M/1 stands for exponentially distributed transmission times
Assumptions:
Arrival process is Poisson with rate packets/sec Packet transmission times are exponentially distributed with mean 1/ One server Independent interarrival times and packet transmission times
Transmission time is proportional to packet length Note 1/ is secs/packet so is packets/sec (packet transmission rate of the queue) Utilization factor: = / (stable system if < 1)
52
Delay Calculation
Let Q = Average time spent waiting in queue T = Average packet delay (transmission plus queuing) Note that T = 1/ + Q Also by Littles law N = T and Nq = Q where Nq = Average number waiting in queue These quantities can be calculated with formulas derived by Markov chain analysis (see references)
53
M/M/1 Results The analysis gives the steady-state probabilities of number of packets in queue or transmission P{n packets} = n(1-) where = / From this we can get the averages:
N = /(1 - ) T = N/ = /(1 - ) = 1/( - )
l
0 1 /m 1 m T N
54
Example: How Delay Scales with Bandwidth

Occupancy and delay formulas N = /(1 - ) T = 1/( - ) Assume: Traffic arrival rate is doubled System transmission capacity is doubled Then:
Queue sizes stay at the same level ( stays the same) Packet delay is cut in half ( and are doubled)
= /
A conclusion: In high speed networks

propagation delay increases in importance relative to delay buffer size and packet loss may still be a problem
55
M/M/m, M/M/ System Same as M/M/1, but it has m (or ) servers In M/M/m, the packet at the head of the queue moves to service when a server becomes free Qualitative result
Delay increases to as = /m approaches 1
There are analytical formulas for the occupancy probabilities and average delay of these systems
56
Finite Buffer Systems: M/M/m/k The M/M/m/k system

Same as M/M/m, but there is buffer space for at most k packets. Packets arriving at a full buffer are dropped
Formulas for average delay, steady-state occupancy probabilities, and loss probability The M/M/m/m system is used widely to size telephone or circuit switching systems
57
Characteristics of M/M/. Systems Advantage: Simple analytical formulas Disadvantages:

The Poisson assumption may be violated The exponential transmission time distribution is an approximation at best Interarrival and packet transmission times may be dependent (particularly in the network core) Head-of-the-line assumption precludes heterogeneous input traffic with priorities (hard or soft)
58
M/G/1 System Same as M/M/1 but the packet transmission time distribution is general, with given mean 1/ and variance 2 Utilization factor = / Pollaczek-Kinchine formula for
Average time in queue = (2 + 1/2)/2(1- ) Average delay = 1/ + (2 + 1/2)/2(1- )
The formulas for the steady-state occupancy probabilities are more complicated Insight: As 2 increases, delay increases
59
G/G/1 System Same as M/G/1 but now the packet interarrival time distribution is also general, with mean and variance 2 We still assume FIFO and independent interarrival times and packet transmission times Heavy traffic approximation:
Average time in queue ~ (2 + 2)/2(1- )
Becomes increasingly accurate as 1
60
Demo: M/G/1
Packet inter-arrival times exponential (0.02) sec Capacity 1 Mbps
Packet size 1250 bytes (10000 bits)
Packet size distribution: exponential constant lognormal
What is the average delay and queue size ?

61
Demo: M/G/1 Analytical Results

Packet Size Distribution
Exponential mean = 10000 variance = 1.0 *108 Constant mean = 10000 variance = N/A Lognormal mean = 10000 variance = 9.0 *108 0.06 3.0 0.015 0.75 0.02 1.0
Delay T (sec)
Queue Size (packets)
62
Demo: M/G/1 Simulation Results

Average Delay (sec) Average Queue Size (packets)
63
Demo: M/G/1 Limitations

Application traffic mix not memoryless Video
constant packet inter-arrivals
Http
bursty traffic
Delay
P-K formula
Simulation
64
Outline
Basic concepts Source models Service models (demo) Single-queue systems Priority/shared service systems
Preemptive vs. non-preemptive Cyclic, WFQ, PQ systems Demo: Simulation results
Networks of queues Hybrid simulation (demo)
65
Non-preemptive Priority Systems

We distinguish between different classes of traffic (flows) Non-preemptive priority: packet under transmission is not preempted by a packet of higher priority P-K formula for delay generalizes
Transmission Class 13Arrivals Class 2 Arrivals Class Arrivals Interm.Priority High Priority Low Priority Line
66
Cyclic Service Systems

Multiple flows, each with its own queue Fair system: Each flow gets access to the transmission line in turn Several possible assumptions about how many packets each flow can transmit when it gets access Formulas for delay under M/G/1 type assumptions are available
Transmission Class 1 2 3 Arrivals Line
67
Weighted Fair Queuing

A combination of priority and cyclic service No exact analytical formulas are available
68
Outline
Basic concepts Source models Service models (demo) Single-queue systems Priority/shared service systems Networks of queues
Violation of M/M/. assumptions Effects on delays and traffic shaping Analytical approximations
Hybrid simulation (demo)
69
Two Queues in Series

First queue shapes the traffic into second queue Arrival times and packet lengths are correlated M/M/1 and M/G/1 formulas yield significant error for second queue
Time Time
Second Queue First Queue
70
Two bottlenecks in series
Exponential inter-arrivals
Bottleneck
Bottleneck
Delay
No queuing delay
71
Approximations
Kleinrock independence approximation
Perform a delay calculation in each queue independently of other queues Add the results (including propagation delay)
Note: In the preceding example, the Kleinrock independence approximation overestimates the queuing delay by 100% Tends to be more accurate in networks with lots of traffic mixing, e.g., nodes serving many relatively small flows from several different locations
72
Outline
Basic concepts Source models Service models (demo) Single-queue systems Priority/shared service systems Networks of queues Hybrid simulation
Explicit vs. aggregated traffic Conceptual Framework Demo: PQ and WFQ with aggregated traffic
73
Basic Concepts of Hybrid Simulation

Aims to combine the best of analytical results and simulation Achieve significant gain in simulation speed with little loss of accuracy Divides the traffic through a node into explicit and background
Explicit traffic is simulated accurately Background traffic is aggregated
The interaction of explicit and background is modeled either analytically or through a fast simulation (or a combination)
Background Explicit
74
Explicit Traffic
Modeled in detail, including the effects of various protocols Each packets arrival and departure times are recorded (together with other data of interest, e.g., loss, etc.) along each link that it traverses Departure times at a link are the arrival times at the next link (plus propagation delay) Objective: At each link, given the arrival times (and the packet lengths), determine the departure times
.. .
Delay times at aat the link d2 a1 Time Departure times link Arrival 4 3
75
Aggregated Traffic
Simplified modeling
We dont keep track of individual packets, only workload counts (number of packets or bytes) We generate workload counts
by probabilistic/analytical modeling, or by simplified simulation
Aggregated (or background) traffic is local (per link) Shaping effects are complex to incorporate Some dependences between explicit and background traffic along a chain of links are complicated and are ignored
76
Hybrid Simulation (FIFO Links): Conceptual Framework

Given the arrival time ak of the kth explicit packet Generate the workload wk found in queue by the kth packet From ak and wk generate the departure time of the kth packet as Departure Time dk = ak + wk + sk where sk is the transmission time of the kth packet ARRIVAL TIMES
Explicit
aK wK
Explicit
a K+1 w K+1 Time
Background
Explicit
Background
Explicit
d K = aK + wK + sK
DEPARTURE TIMES
77
Simulating the Background Traffic Effects

Use a traffic descriptor for the background traffic (e.g., carried by special packets) Traffic descriptor includes:
Traffic volume information (e.g., packets/sec, bits/sec) Probability distribution of interarrival times Probability distribution of packet lengths Time interval of validity of the descriptor
Generate wk using one of several ideas and combinations thereof

Successive sampling (for FIFO case) Steady-state queue length distribution (if we can get it) Simplified simulation (microsim - applies to complex queuing disciplines)
78
Hybrid Simulation (FIFO Case)

Critical Question: Given arrival times ak and ak+1, workload wk, and background traffic descriptor, how do we find wk+1?
Arrival times/Workload found

a1 w1 a2 w2 a3
.. . w
3
.. .
d1 = a1 + w1 + s1 d2 = a2 + w2 + s2
Time
d3 = a3 + w3 + s3
Departure times
Note: wk+1 consists of wk and two more terms:

Background arrivals in interval ak+1 - ak (Minus) transmitted workload in interval ak+1 - ak
Must calculate/simulate the two terms The first term is simulated based on the traffic descriptor of the background traffic 79 The second term is easily calculated if the queue is continuously busy in ak+1 - ak
Short Interval Case (Easy Case)

Short interval ak+1 - ak (i.e., ak+1 < dk) Queue is busy continuously in ak+1 - ak So wk+1 is quickly simulated
Sample the background traffic arrival distribution to simulate the new workload arrivals in ak+1 - ak Do the accounting (add to wk and subtract the transmitted workload in ak+1 - ak )
Short Interval w k+1 = wk + (New bkg arrivals) - (Old bkg transmissions)
ak w k a k+1 w k+1
.. .
dk
Time
d k+1
80
Long Interval Case

Long interval ak+1 - ak (i.e., ak+1 > dk) Queue may be idle during portions of the interval ak+1 - ak Need to generate/simulate
The new arrivals in ak+1 - ak The lengths of the busy periods and the idle periods
Can be done by sampling the background arrival distribution in each busy period Busy Idle dk+1 wk Periods ak Other alternatives are possible Long Interval Time Periods k+1
.. .
81
Steady-State Queue Length Distribution

If the interval between two successive explicit packets is very long, we can assume that the queue found by the second packet is in steady state So, we can obtain wk+1 by sampling the steady-state distribution Applies to cases where the steady-state distribution can be found or can be reasonably approximated
M/M/1 and other M/M/. Queues Some M/G/. systems
82
Micro Simulation: Conceptual Framework

Handles complex queuing systems
Micro-packets are generated to represent traffic load within the context of the queue only (i.e., they are not transmitted to any external links) For long intervals, where convergence to a steady-state is likely
Try to detect convergence during the microsim Estimate steady-state queue length distribution Sample the steady state distribution to estimate wk+1
Microsim speeds up the simulation without sacrificing accuracy Microsim provides a general framework
Applies to non-stationary background traffic Applies to non-FIFO service models (with proper modification)
83
Examples of Applications
Analytical Modeling
Analysis Scenarios
M/G/./. & G/G/./. FIFO Analysis

Yes Yes Yes
M/G/./. & G/G/./. Priority Analysis

N/A N/A N/A
Decomposition with Kleinrock Independence Assumption

N/A N/A N/A
Discrete-Event Simulation Hybrid DES with Explicit DES only with and Explicit Traffic Background Traffic
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Single Link with FIFO Service Best Effort Service for Standard Data Traffic Best Effort Service for LRD/Self-Similar Behavior Traffic "Chancing It" with Best Effort Service for Voice, Video and Data Single Link with QoS-Based Queueing Using QoS to differentiate service levels for the same type of traffic Using QoS to support different requirements for different application types given as a detailed study of setting Cisco Router queueing parameters Network of Queues General network model extending the previous QoS queueing model Reduction of the general model to a representative end-to-end path
N/A
Yes (loss of accuracy) Highly approximate
N/A
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
N/A
Hop-by-hop Analysis (loss of accuacy) Hop-by-hop Analysis (loss of accuacy)
Yes (some loss of Yes (Run time a accuracy - e.g., traffic function of network shaping) complexity) N/A Yes (Run time a function of network complexity)
Yes [Fast with minimal loss of accuracy] Yes [Fast with minimal loss of accuracy]
N/A
84
Demo End-to-end Delay: Baseline Network
Traffic modeled as 1) Explicit traffic 2) Background traffic

85
Target Flow: ETE delay as a function of ToS
Target flow: Seattle Houston - modeled using explicit traffic

Varying its Type of Service (ToS)
Best Effort (0) Streaming Multimedia (4)
86
Explicit Simulation Results for Target Flow
Total traffic volume

500 Mbps
Time modeled
35 minutes
Simulation duration
31 hours
87
Hybrid Simulation Results for Target Flow
Total traffic volume

500 Mbps
Time modeled
35 minutes
Simulation duration
14 minutes
88
Comparison: Hybrid vs Explicit Simulation
89
References
Networking
Bertsekas and Gallager, Data Networks, Prentice-Hall, 1992
Device Queuing Implementations

Vegesna, IP Quality of Service, Ciscopress.com, 2001 http://www.juniper.net/techcenter/techpapers/200020.pdf
Probability and Queuing Models

Bertsekas and Tsitsiklis, Introduction to Probability, Athena Scientific, 2002, http://www.athenasc.com/probbook.html Cohen, The Single Server Queue, North-Holland, 1992 Takagi, Queuing Analysis: A Foundation of Performance Evaluation. (3 Volumes), North-Holland, 1991 Gross and Harris, Fundamentals of Queuing Theory, Wiley, 1985 Cooper, Introduction to Queuing Theory, CEEPress, 1981
OPNET Hybrid Simulation and Micro Simulation

See Case Studies papers in http://secure.opnet.com/services/muc/mtdlogis_cse_stdies_81.html
90

OPNET Full Presentation

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

OPNET Full Presentation

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Session 1813 Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

M/G/./. & G/G/./. FIFO Analysis

M/G/./. & G/G/./. Priority Analysis

Decomposition with Kleinrock Independence Assumption

Yes (loss of accuracy) Highly approximate

Hop-by-hop Analysis (loss of accuacy) Hop-by-hop Analysis (loss of accuacy)

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Queuing System Concepts: Arrival Rate, Occupancy, Time in the System

Time in the system (delay)

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Stability and Steady-State

For a single queue, the ratio

is called the utilization factor

Stable systems with time-stationary arrival traffic approach a steady-state

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Explanation of Littles Law

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Delay is Caused by Packet Interference

2 4 3 1 Time Times Arrival Departure

Irregular but Spaced Apart Traffic

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Burstiness Causes Interference

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Different Burstiness Levels at Same Packet Rate

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Packet Length Variation Causes Interference

Regular arrivals, irregular packet lengths

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

High Utilization Exacerbates Interference

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Bottlenecks result from overloads caused by:

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Bottlenecks Cause Shaping

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Bottlenecks Cause Shaping

Bottleneck 90% utilization

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Bottleneck 90% utilization

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Variable packet sizes

Variable packet sizes

Constant packet sizes