skip to main content
research-article

On the validity of flow-level tcp network models for grid and cloud simulations

Published:16 December 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Researchers in the area of grid/cloud computing perform many of their experiments using simulations that must capture network behavior. In this context, packet-level simulations, which are widely used to study network protocols, are too costly given the typical large scales of simulated systems and applications. An alternative is to implement network simulations with less costly flow-level models. Several flow-level models have been proposed and implemented in grid/cloud simulators. Surprisingly, published validations of these models, if any, consist of verifications for only a few simple cases. Consequently, even when they have been used to obtain published results, the ability of these simulators to produce scientifically meaningful results is in doubt. This work evaluates these state-of-the-art flow-level network models of TCP communication via comparison to packet-level simulation. While it is straightforward to show cases in which previously proposed models lead to good results, instead we follow the critical method, which places model refutation at the center of the scientific activity, and we systematically seek cases that lead to invalid results. Careful analysis of these cases reveals fundamental flaws and also suggests improvements. One contribution of this work is that these improvements lead to a new model that, while far from being perfect, improves upon all previously proposed models in the context of simulation of grids or clouds. A more important contribution, perhaps, is provided by the pitfalls and unexpected behaviors encountered in this work, leading to a number of enlightening lessons. In particular, this work shows that model validation cannot be achieved solely by exhibiting (possibly many) “good cases.” Confidence in the quality of a model can only be strengthened through an invalidation approach that attempts to prove the model wrong.

References

  1. Alexandrov, A., Ionescu, M., Schauser, K., and Scheiman, C. 1995. LogGP: Incorporating long messages into the LogP Model—One step closer towards a realistic model for parallel computation. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA'95). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Barabási, A. and Albert, R. 1999. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 59, 509--512.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Baumgart, I., Heep, B., and Krause, S. 2009. OverSim: A scalable and flexible overlay framework for simulation and real network applications. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, W. H., Cameron, D. G., Millar, A. P., Capozza, L., Stockinger, K., and Zini, F. 2003. OptorSim: A grid simulator for studying dynamic data replication strategies. Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl. 17, 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bertsekas, D. P. and Gallager, R. 1992. Data Networks. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Blythe, J., Jain, S., Deelman, E., Gil, Y., Vahi, K., et al. 2005. Task scheduling strategies for workflow-based applications in grids. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud, and Grid Computing (IN CCGRID'05). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 759--767. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Braun, T. D., Siegel, H. J., Beck, N., Bölöni, L. L., Maheswaran, M., Reuther, A. I., Robertson, J. P., Theys, M. D., Yao, B., Hensgen, D., and Freund, R. F. 2001. A comparison of eleven static heuristics for mapping a class of independent tasks onto heterogeneous distributed computing systems. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 61, 6, 810--837. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Buyya, R. and Murshed, M. 2002. GridSim: A toolkit for the modeling and simulation of distributed resource management and scheduling for grid computing. J. Concurrency Comput. Pract. Experience (CCPE) 14, 13, 1175--1120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Calheiros, R. N., Ranjan, R., Beloglazov, A., De Rose, C. A. F., and Buyya, R. 2011. CloudSim: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of cloud computing environments and evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms. Software Pract. Experience 41, 1, 23--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Casanova, H. 2001. SimGrid: A toolkit for the simulation of application scheduling. In 1st IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid (CCGrid'01). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Casanova, H., Legrand, A., and Marchal, L. 2003. Scheduling distributed applications: The SimGrid simulation framework. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid (CCGrid'03). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Casanova, H., Legrand, A., and Quinson, M. 2008. SimGrid: A generic framework for large-scale distributed experiments. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Computer Modeling and Simulation (EuroSim'08). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Casanova, H. and Marchal, L. 2002. A network model for simulation of grid application. Tech. Rep. 2002-40, LIP. Oct.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, Q., Chang, H., Govindan, R., and Jamin, S. 2002. The origin of power laws in Internet topologies revisited. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM'02). 608--617.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen, W. and Deelman, E. 2012. Workflowsim: A toolkit for simulating scientific workflows in distributed environments. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on eScience. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Chiu, D. N. 1999. Some observations on fairness of bandwidth sharing. Tech. Rep., Sun Microsystems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Clauss, P.-N., Stillwell, M., Genaud, S., Suter, F., Casanova, H., and Quinson, M. 2011. Single node on-line simulation of MPI applications with SMPI. In Proceedings of the 25th IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS'11). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Culler, D., Karp, R., Patterson, D., Sahay, A., Schauser, K., Santos, E., Subramonian, R., and von Eicken, T. 1993. LogP: Towards a realistic model of parallel computation. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Dabek, F., Cox, R., Kaashoek, F., and Morris, R. 2004. Vivaldi: A decentralized network coordinate system. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference of the Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMM'04). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. de Cnodder, S., Elloumi, O., and Pauwels, K. 2000. Red behavior with different packet sizes. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC'00). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Doar, M. B. 1996. A better model for generating test networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM'96). 86--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Faloutsos, M., Faloutsos, P., and Faloutsos, C. 1999. On power-law relationships of the internet topology. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference of the Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMM'99). 251--262. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Floyd, S. and Fall, K. 1999. Promoting the use of end-to-end congestion control in the Internet. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking 7, 4, 458--472. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Floyd, S. and Jacobson, V. 1992. On traffic phase effects in packet-switched gateways. Internetworking: Res. Experience 3, 115--156.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Floyd, S. and Jacobson, V. 1993. Random early detection gateways for congestion avoidance. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking 1, 4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Fujiwara, K. and Casanova, H. 2007. Speed and accuracy of network simulation in the SimGrid framework. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Performance Evaluation Methodologies and Tools. 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Gil, T. M., Kaashoek, F., Li, J., Morris, R., and Stribling, J. 2005. P2PSim: A simulator for peer-to-peer protocols. http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/p2psim/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Giuli, T. and Baker, M. 2002. Narses: A scalable flow-based network simulator. Tech. Rep. cs.PF/0211024, Stanford University. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.PF/0211024.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Heusse, M., Merritt, S. A., Brown, T. X., and Duda, A. 2011. Two-way TCP connections: Old problem, new insight. ACM SIGGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 41, 2, 5--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Hoefler, T., Schneider, T., and Lumsdaine, A. 2010. LogGOPSim—Simulating large-scale applications in the LogGOPS Model. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Large-Scale System and Application Performance. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Ino, F., Fujimoto, N., and Hagihara, K. 2001. LogGPS: A parallel computational model for synchronization analysis. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practices of Parallel Programming. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Issariyakul, T. and Hossain, E. 2008. Introduction to Network Simulator NS2. Springe, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Jacobsson, K., Andrew, L., Tang, A., Johansson, K., Hjalmarsson, H., and Low, S. 2008. Ack-clocking dynamics: Modelling the interaction between windows and the network. In Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM'08).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Jain, M., Prasad, R. S., and Dovrolis, C. 2003. The TCP bandwidth-delay product revisited: Network buffering, cross traffic, and socket buffer auto-sizing. Tech. Rep. GIT-CERCS-03-02, Georgia Institute of Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Jansen, S. and McGregor, A. 2007. Validation of simulated real world TCP stacks. In Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Jung, J. and Kim, H. 2012. MR-CloudSim: Designing and implementing MapReduce computing model on CloudSim. In Proceedings of the International Conference on ICT Convergence (ICTC'12). 504--509.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Kelly, F., Maulloo, A., and Tan, D. 1998. Rate control for communication networks: Shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 49, 3.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Kielmann, T., Bal, H., and Verstoep, K. 2000. Fast measurement of LogP parameters for message passing platforms. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Run-Time Systems for Parallel Programming. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Lakhina, A., Byers, J., Crovella, M., and Xie, P. 2003. Sampling biases in ip topology measurements. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Joint conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM'03).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Ledlie, J., Gardner, P., and Seltzer, M. 2007. Network coordinates in the wild. In Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI'07). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Low, S. H. 2003. A duality model of TCP and queue management algorithms. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking 11, 4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Low, S. H., Peterson, L. L., and Wang, L. 2002. Understanding vegas: A duality model. J. ACM 49, 2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Low, S. H. and Srikant, R. 2004. A mathematical framework for designing a low-loss, low-delay internet. Network Spatial Econ. 4, 75--102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Marfia, G., Palazzi, C., Pau, G., Gerla, M., Sanadidi, M., and Roccetti, M. 2007. Tcp libra: Exploring rtt-fairness for tcp. In NETWORKING 2007. Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks, Wireless Networks, Next Generation Internet, I. F. Akyildiz, R. Sivakumar, E. Ekici, J. C. d. Oliveira, and J. McNair, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Series, vol. 4479. Springer, Berlin, 1005--1013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Mathis, M., Semke, J., and Mahdavi, J. 1997. The macroscopic behavior of the TCP congestion avoidance algorithm. Comput. Commun. Rev. 27, 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Medina, A., Lakhina, A., Matta, I., and Byers, J. 2001. BRITE: An approach to universal topology generation. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunications Systems (MASCOTS'01). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Mo, J., La, R., Anantharam, V., and Walrand, J. 1999. Analysis and comparison of TCP Reno and TCP Vegas. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communication Societies (INFOCOM'99).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Mo, J. and Walrand, J. 2000. Fair end-to-end window-based congestion control. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking 8, 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Montresor, A. and Jelasity, M. 2009. PeerSim: A scalable P2P simulator. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. NS3. 2011. The Network Simulator 3. http://www.nsnam.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Núñez, A., Vázquez-Poletti, J., Caminero, A., Carretero, J., and Llorente, I. M. 2011. Design of a new cloud computing simulation platform. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Ostermann, S., Prodan, R., and Fahringer, T. 2010. Dynamic cloud provisioning for scientific grid workflows. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Grid Computing (Grid'10).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Pentikousis, K. 2001. Connector: Active queue management. Crossroads 7, 5, 2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Popper, K. 1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford University Press, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Ramaswamy, S. and Banerjee, P. 1993. Processor allocation and scheduling of macro dataflow graphs on distributed memory multicomputers by the paradigm compiler. In Proceedings of the 1993 International Conference on Parallel Processing, volume II-Software. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 134--138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Riley, G. F. 2003. The Georgia Tech network simulator. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Models, Methods and Tools for Reproducible Network Research. 5--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Schnorr, L., Legrand, A., and Vincent, J.-M. 2012. Detection and analysis of resource usage anomalies in large distributed systems through multi-scale visualization. Concurrency Comput. Pract. Experience. 24, 15, 1792--1816. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Schnorr, L. M., Huard, G., and Navaux, P. O. A. 2010. Triva: Interactive 3D visualization for performance analysis of parallel applications. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 26, 3, 348--358. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Shi, Y., Jiang, X., and Ye, K. 2011. An energy-efficient scheme for cloud resource provisioning based on cloudsim. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing (CLUSTER'11). 595--599. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Tang, A., Andrew, L., Jacobsson, K., Johansson, K., Hjalmarsson, H., and Low, S. 2010. Queue dynamics with window flow control. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking 18, 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Tang, A., Andrew, L., Jacobsson, K., Johansson, K., Low, S., and Hjalmarsson, H. 2008. Window flow control: Macroscopic properties from microscopic factors. In Proceedins of the 27th Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM'08).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Tangmunarunkit, H., Govindan, R., Jamin, S., Shenker, S., and Willinger, W. 2002. Network topology generators: Degree-based vs structural. In Proceedings of the ACM 2002 Annual Conferenc of the Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMM'02). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Teng, F., Yu, L., and Magoulès, F. 2011. SimMapReduce: A simulator for modeling MapReduce framework. In Proceedings of the 5th FTRA International Conference on Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering (MUE'11). 277--282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Topcuoglu, H., Hariri, S., and Wu, M.-Y. 1999. Task scheduling algorithms for heterogeneous processors. In Proceedings of the 8th Heterogeneous Computing Workshop. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, DC. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Triva. 2011. Triva Visualization Tool. http://triva.gforge.inria.fr.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Varga, A. and Hornig, R. 2008. An overview of the OMNeT++ simulation environment. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques for Communications, Networks and Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Velho, P. and Legrand, A. 2009. Accuracy study and improvement of network simulation in the SimGrid framework. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Waxman, B. M. 1988. Routing of multipoint connections. IEEE J. Selected Areas Commun. 6, 9, 1617--1622. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Yaïche, H., Mazumdar, R. R., and Rosenberg, C. 2010. A game theoretic framework for bandwidth allocation and pricing in broadband networks. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking 8, 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Zhang, L., Shenker, S., and Clark, D. D. 1991. Observations on the dynamics of a congestion control algorithm: The effects of two-way traffic. ACM Comput. Commun. Rev. 21, 4, 133--147. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Zheng, G., Kakulapati, G., and Kalé, L. V. 2004a. BigSim: A parallel simulator for performance prediction of extremely large parallel machines. In Proceedings of the 18th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS'04).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Zheng, G., Wilmarth, T., Lawlor, O. S., Kalé, L. V., Adve, S., and Padua, D. 2004b. Performance modeling and programming environments for petaflops computers and the Blue Gene machine. In Proceedings of the 18th International on Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. On the validity of flow-level tcp network models for grid and cloud simulations

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation
        ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation  Volume 23, Issue 4
        October 2013
        113 pages
        ISSN:1049-3301
        EISSN:1558-1195
        DOI:10.1145/2556945
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2013 ACM

        © 2013 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 16 December 2013
        • Accepted: 1 July 2013
        • Revised: 1 April 2013
        • Received: 1 September 2012
        Published in tomacs Volume 23, Issue 4

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader