DataTAG%20project%20Status%20 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

DataTAG%20project%20Status%20

Description:

... to an average rate of 2.38 Gbps (using large windows and 9kB 'jumbo frames' ... The only encouraging sign is that this is now widely recognized ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:37
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 29
Provided by: Omar45
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: DataTAG%20project%20Status%20


1
DataTAG project Status PerspectivesOlivier
MARTIN - CERN
  • GNEW2004 workshop
  • 15 March 2004, CERN, Geneva

2
Presentation outline
  • Project overview
  • Testbed characteristics and evolution
  • Major networking achievements
  • Where are we?
  • Lambda Grids
  • Networking testbed requirements
  • Acknowledgements
  • Conclusions

3
DataTAG Mission
TransAtlantic Grid
  • EU ? US Grid network research
  • High Performance Transport protocols
  • Inter-domain QoS
  • Advance bandwidth reservation
  • EU ? US Grid Interoperability
  • Sister project to EU DataGRID

4
Project partners
http//www.datatag.org
5
Funding agencies
Cooperating Networks

6
EU collaborators
  • Brunel University
  • CERN
  • CLRC
  • CNAF
  • DANTE
  • NIKHEF
  • PPARC
  • UvA
  • University of Manchester
  • University of Padova
  • University of Milano


7
US collaborators
  • Northwestern University
  • UIC
  • University of Chicago
  • University of Michigan
  • SLAC
  • Starlight
  • ANL
  • Caltech
  • Fermilab
  • FSU
  • Globus
  • Indiana
  • Wisconsin


8
Workplan
  • WP1
  • Establishment of a high performance
    intercontinental Grid testbed (CERN)
  • WP2
  • High performance networking (PPARC)
  • WP3
  • Bulk data transfer validations and application
    performance monitoring (UvA)
  • WP4
  • Interoperability between Grid domains (INFN)
  • WP5 WP6
  • Dissemination and project management (CERN)

9
DataTAG/WP4 framework and
relationships
HEP applications, Other experiments
Integration
HICB/HIJTB
Interoperability standardization
GLUE
10
Testbed evolution
  • The DataTAG testbed evolved from a simple 2.5
    Gb/s Layer3 testbed (Sept. 2002) into an
    extremely rich multi-vendor 10 Gb/s Layer2/Layer3
    testbed (Sept. 2003)
  • Alcatel, Chiaro, Cisco, Juniper, PRocket
  • Exclusive access to the testbed is granted
    through an advance testbed reservation
    application
  • Direct extensions to Amsterdam UvA/Surfnet (10G)
    Lyon INRIA/VTHD (2.5G)
  • Layer 2 extension to INFN/CNAF over GEANT GARR
    using Junipers CCC
  • Layer 2 extension to the OptiPuter project at
    UCSD (University of California San Diego) through
    Abilene and CENIC under way.
  • 1st L2/L3 Transatlantic testbed with native
    10Gigabit Ethernet access.

11
DataTAG testbed phase 1 (2.5Gbps)
VTHD/INRIA
Linux PCs
ONS15454
stm16 (FranceTelecom)
Linux PCs
ONS15454
STM64
SURF NET
SURFNET CESNET
r06gva Alcatel7770
stm64 (GC)
CNAF
GEANT
r06chi-Alcatel7770
Linux PCs
stm16(Colt) backupprojects
Alcatel 1670
Alcatel 1670
r05gva-JuniperM10
r05chi-JuniperM10
r04chi Cisco7609
stm16 (T-Systems)
s01chi Extreme S5i
Chicago
Geneva
1G ethernet
DataTAG testbed phase 2 (10Gbps) simplified
10G ethernet
2.5G STM16
10G STM64
Linux PCs
Linux PCs
10Gbps Optical wave (T-Systems)
ABILENE
GEANT
StarLight Force10
JuniperM10
Juniper T320
Juniper T320
Cisco7609
Cisco7606
VTHD/INRIA
StarLight Cisco6509
Alcate l7770
edoardo.martelli_at_cern.ch last update 20030909
12
(No Transcript)
13
DataTAG testbed
Alcatel Chiaro Cisco Juniper PRocket
14
Main networking achievements (1)
  • Internet landspeed records have been beaten one
    after the other by the DataTAG project partners
    and/or teams closely associated with DataTAG
  • Atlas Canada lightpath experiments during
    iGRID2002 (Gigabit Ethernet) and Telecom World
    2003 (10Gigabit Ethernet, aka WAN-PHY)
  • New Internet2 landspeed record (I2 LSR) by
    Nikhef/Caltech team (SC2002)
  • FAST, GridDT, HS-TCP, Scalable TCP experiments
    (DataTAG partners Caltech)
  • Intel 10GigE tests between CERN (Geneva) and SLAC
    (Sunnyvale) (CERN, Caltech, Los Alamos Nationa
    Laboratory, SLAC)
  • 2.38 Gbps sustained rate, single flow, 1TB in one
    hour
  • I2 LSR awarded during Internet2 Spring member
    meeting (April 2003)

15
ATLAS Canada Lightpath trialsTRIUMF Vancouver
CERN Geneva through Amsterdam
CANARIE 2xGbE circuits
NetherLight
StarLight
SURFnet 2xGbE circuits
A full Terabyte of real data was transferred at
rates equivalent to a full CD (680MB) in under 8
seconds and a DVD in under 1 minute Wade Hong et
al 09/2002
Bringing effective data transfer rates below one
second per CD!
Subsequent 10GigE WAN-PHY Experiments during
Telecom World 2003
16
On Feb. 27-28 2003, a terabyte of data was
transferred in 3700 seconds by S. Ravot of
Caltech between the Level3 PoP in Sunnyvale near
SLAC and CERN through the TeraGrid router at
StarLight from memory to memory with a single
TCP/IPv4 stream. This achievement translates to
an average rate of 2.38 Gbps (using large windows
and 9kB jumbo frames). This beat the former
record by a factor of 2.5 and used the 2.5Gb/s
link at 99 efficiency.
10GigE Data Transfer Trial
European Commission
Huge distributed effort, 10-15 highly skilled
people monopolized for several weeks!
17
10G DataTAG testbed extension to Telecom World
2003 and Abilene/Cenic
On September 15, 2003, the DataTAG project was
the first transatlantic testbed offering direct
10GigE access using Junipers VPN layer2/10GigE
emulation.
Sponsors Cisco, HP, Intel, OPI (Genevas Office
for the Promotion of Industries Technologies),
Services Industriels de Geneve, Telehouse Europe,
T-Systems
18
Main networking achievements (2)
  • Latest IPv4 IPv6 I2LSR were awarded, live from
    the Internet2 fall member meeting in
    Indianapolis, to Caltech CERN during Telecom
    World 2003
  • May 6, 2003
  • 987 Mb/s single TCP/IP v6 stream
  • October 1, 2003
  • 5.44 Gb/s single TCP/IP v4 stream between Geneva
    and Chicago
  • 1.1TB in 26 minutes or one 680MB CD in 1 second
  • More records have been established by Caltech
    CERN since then
  • November 6, 2003
  • 5.64 Gb/s single TCP/IP v4 stream between Geneva
    and Los Angeles (CENIC PoP) across DataTAG and
    Abilene.
  • November 11, 2003,
  • 4 Gb/s single TCP/IP v6 stream between Geneva and
    Phoenix (Arizona) through Los Angeles
  • February 24, 2004
  • 6.25 Gb/s with 9 streams for 638 seconds, i.e.
    half a terabyte transferred between CERN in
    Geneva and the CENIC PoP in Los Angeles across
    DataTAG and Abilene.

19
Internet2 landspeed record history (IPv4IPv6)
Impact of a single multi-Gb/s flow on the Abilene
backbone
20
Significance of I2LSRs to the Grid?
  • Essential to establish the feasibility of
    multi-Gigabit/second single stream IPv4 IPv6
    data transfers
  • Over dedicated testbeds in a first phase
  • Then across academic research backbones
  • Last but not least across campus networks
  • Disk to disk rather than memory to memory
  • Study impact of high performance TCP over disk
    servers
  • Next steps
  • Above 6Gb/s expected soon between CERN and Los
    Angeles (Caltech/CENIC PoP) across DataTAG
    Abilene
  • Goal is to reach 10Gb/s with new PCI Express
    buses
  • Study alternatives to standard TCP (Reno)
  • Non-TCP transport (Tsunami, SABUL/VDT)
  • HS-TCP, Scalable TCP, H-TCP, FAST, Grid-DT,
    Wesley, etc

21
Main networking achievements (3)
  • QoS
  • Advance bandwidth reservation
  • GARA extensions
  • AAA extensions

22
Where are we?
  • The DataTAG project came up at exactly the right
    time
  • Back in the late 2000, 2.5 Gb/s looked futuristic
  • 10GigE, especially host interfaces, did not
    really exist
  • However, it was already very clear that the
    standard TCP stack (Reno/Newreno) was problematic
  • Much hope was placed on autotuning
    (Web100/Net100) ECN/RED like solutions
  • Actual bit error rates of transatlantic circuits
    were over-estimated
  • Much better shape than expected on
    over-provisioned RD backbones such as Abilene,
    Canarie, GEANT
  • For how long?
  • One of the strongest proof made by DataTAG is the
    extreme vulnerability of production RD backbones
    in the presence of high performance flows (i.e.
    10GigE or even less)

23
Where are we (cont)?
  • For many years the Wide Area Network has been the
    bottlemeck, this is no longer the case in many
    countries, thus making the deployment of data
    intensive Grid infrastructure, in principle,
    possible, e.g.
  • EGEE the DataGrid successor
  • Recent I2LSR records show, for the first time
    ever, that the network can be truly transparent
    and that throughput is only limited by the end
    hosts and/or campus network infrastructures.
  • Challenge shifted from getting adequate bandwidth
    to deploying adequate LANs and cybersecurity
    infrastructure as well as making effective use of
    it!
  • Non-trivial transport protocol issues still need
    to be resolved
  • The only encouraging sign is that this is now
    widely recognized
  • But we are still quite far from converging on a
    practical solution?

24
Layer1/2/3 networking (1)
  • Conventional layer 3 technology is no longer
    fashionable because of
  • High associated costs, e.g. 200/300 KUSD for a
    10G router interfaces
  • Implied use of shared backbones
  • The use of layer 1 or layer 2 technology is very
    attractive because it helps to solve a number of
    problems, e.g.
  • 1500 bytes Ethernet frame size (layer1)
  • Protocol transparency (layer1 layer2)
  • Minimum functionality hence, in theory, much
    lower costs (layer12)

25
Layer1/2/3 networking (2)
  •  Lambda Grids  are becoming very popular
  • Pros
  • circuit oriented model like the telephone
    network, hence no need for complex transport
    protocols
  • Lower equipment costs (i.e.  in theory  a
    factor 2 or 3 per layer)
  • the concept of a dedicated end to end light path
    is very elegant
  • Cons
  •  End to end  still very loosely defined, i.e.
    site to site, cluster to cluster or really host
    to host
  • Higher circuit costs, Scalability, Additional
    middleware to deal with circuit set up/tear down,
    etc
  • Extending dynamic VLAN functionality to the
    campus network is a potential nightmare!

26
 Lambda Grids What does it mean?
  • Clearly different things to different people,
    hence the  apparently easy  consensus!
  • Conservatively, on demand  site to site 
    connectivity
  • Where is the innovation?
  • What does it solve in terms of transport
    protocols?
  • Where are the savings?
  • Less interfaces needed (customer) but more
    standby/idle circuits needed (provider)
  • Economics from the service provider vs the
    customer perspective?
  • Traditionally, switched services have been very
    expensive,
  • Usage vs flat charge
  • Break even, switches vs leased, few hours/day
  • Why would this change?
  • In case there are no savings, why bother?
  • More advanced, cluster to cluster
  • Implies even more active circuits in parallel
  • Even more advanced, Host to Host
  • All optical
  • Is it realisitic?

27
Networking testbed requirements
  • Multi-vendor
  • Unless a particular research group is
    specifically interested by the behaviour of TCP
    in the presence of out of order packets, running
    high performance TCP tests across a Juniper M160
    backbone is pretty useless.
  • IPv6 achievable performance vary widely between
    different vendors
  • MPLS QoS implementations also veary widely
  • Interoperability
  • Dynamic
  • Implies manpower money
  • Partitionable
  • Reservation application
  • Reconfigurable
  • Avoid manual recabling, implies Electronic or
    Optical switch/patch panel
  • Extensible
  • Extensions to other networks
  • Implies collaboration
  • Not limited to network equipment, must also
    include high performance servers, high perf.
    Disks NICs,
  • Coordination with other testbeds

28
Acknowledments
  • The project would not have accumulated so many
    successes without the active participation of our
    North American colleagues, in particular
  • Caltech/DoE
  • University of Illinois/NSF
  • iVDGL
  • Starlight
  • Internet2/Abilene
  • Canarie
  • and our European sponsors and colleagues as well,
    in particular
  • European Unions IST program
  • Dante/GEANT
  • GARR
  • Surfnet
  • VTHD
  • The GNEW2004 workshop is yet another example of
    successful collaboration between Europe and USA
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com