An Event-Level Abstraction for Achieving Efficiency and Fairness in Network Update

Changes of network state are a common source of instability in networks. An update event typically involves multiple flows that compete for network resources at the cost of rescheduling and migrating some existing flows. Previous network updating schemes tackle such flows independently, ratherthanas the entity of an update event. They only optimize the flow-level metrics for the flows involved in an update event. In this paper, we present an event-level abstraction of network update which groups flows of an update event and schedules them together to minimize the event completion time (ECT). We then study the scheduling problem of multiple update events for achieving high scheduling efficiency and preserving fairness. The designed least migration traffic first (LMTF) method schedules all update events in the FIFO order, but avoids head-of-line blocking by randomly fine-tuning the queue order of some events. It can considerably reduce the update cost, the average, and tail ECTs of all update events. In addition, we design a general parallelLMTF (P-LMTF) method to guarantee fairness and further improve scheduling efficiency among update events. It improves the LMTF method by opportunistically updating multiple events simultaneously. The comprehensive evaluation results indicate that the average ECT of our approach is up to 10x faster than the flow-level scheduling method for network update events, and its tail ECT is up to 6x faster. Our P-LMTF method incurs 75% reduction in the average ECT compared with FIFO when the network utilization exceeds 70%, and it achieves a 42% reduction in tail ECT.

[1]  Michael Mitzenmacher,et al.  The Power of Two Choices in Randomized Load Balancing , 2001, IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst..

[2]  Roger Wattenhofer,et al.  The Power of Two in Consistent Network Updates: Hard Loop Freedom, Easy Flow Migration , 2016, 2016 25th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN).

[3]  Xin Wu,et al.  zUpdate: updating data center networks with zero loss , 2013, SIGCOMM.

[4]  David Walker,et al.  Incremental consistent updates , 2013, HotSDN '13.

[5]  Guihai Chen,et al.  Minimizing Transient Congestion during Network Update in Data Centers , 2015, ICNP.

[6]  Hans-Georg Stork,et al.  Fifo-Optimal Placement on Pages of Independently Referenced Sectors , 1977, Information Processing Letters.

[7]  David A. Maltz,et al.  Network traffic characteristics of data centers in the wild , 2010, IMC '10.

[8]  Min Zhu,et al.  B4: experience with a globally-deployed software defined wan , 2013, SIGCOMM.

[9]  Xiaomin Zhu,et al.  Minimizing Traffic Migration During Network Update in IaaS Datacenters , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Services Computing.

[10]  Tal Mizrahi,et al.  TimeFlip: Scheduling network updates with timestamp-based TCAM ranges , 2015, 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM).

[11]  Ion Stoica,et al.  Coflow: a networking abstraction for cluster applications , 2012, HotNets-XI.

[12]  Tal Mizrahi,et al.  Timed consistent network updates , 2015, SOSR.

[13]  Matthew Caesar,et al.  Walk the line: consistent network updates with bandwidth guarantees , 2012, HotSDN '12.

[14]  Srikanth Kandula,et al.  Achieving high utilization with software-driven WAN , 2013, SIGCOMM.

[15]  Roger Wattenhofer,et al.  On consistent migration of flows in SDNs , 2016, IEEE INFOCOM 2016 - The 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[16]  Zhi-Li Zhang,et al.  A first look at inter-data center traffic characteristics via Yahoo! datasets , 2011, 2011 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM.

[17]  Yixin Chen,et al.  Cupid: Congestion-free consistent data plane update in software defined networks , 2016, IEEE INFOCOM 2016 - The 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[18]  David Walker,et al.  Abstractions for network update , 2012, SIGCOMM '12.

[19]  Charles E. Leiserson,et al.  Fat-trees: Universal networks for hardware-efficient supercomputing , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[20]  Adam Wierman,et al.  Is Tail-Optimal Scheduling Possible? , 2012, Oper. Res..