Transcript Data Center Traffic Engineering

Data Center
Traffic Engineering
Jennifer Rexford
Fall 2010 (TTh 1:30-2:50 in COS 302)
COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall10/cos561/
Cloud Computing
2
Cloud Computing
• Elastic resources
– Expand and contract resources
– Pay-per-use
– Infrastructure on demand
• Multi-tenancy
– Multiple independent users
– Security and resource isolation
– Amortize the cost of the (shared) infrastructure
• Flexibility service management
– Resiliency: isolate failure of servers and storage
– Workload movement: move work to other locations
3
Cloud Service Models
• Software as a Service
– Provider licenses applications to users as a service
– E.g., customer relationship management, e-mail, ..
– Avoid costs of installation, maintenance, patches, …
• Platform as a Service
– Provider offers software platform for building applications
– E.g., Google’s App-Engine
– Avoid worrying about scalability of platform
• Infrastructure as a Service
– Provider offers raw computing, storage, and network
– E.g., Amazon’s Elastic Computing Cloud (EC2)
– Avoid buying servers and estimating resource needs
4
Multi-Tier Applications
• Applications consist of tasks
– Many separate components
– Running on different machines
• Commodity computers
Front end
Server
– Many general-purpose computers
– Not one big mainframe
Aggregator
– Easier scaling
Aggregator
Aggregator
……
Aggregator
…
Worker
Worker
…
Worker
Worker
Worker
5
Enabling Technology: Virtualization
• Multiple virtual machines on one physical machine
• Applications run unmodified as on real machine
• VM can migrate from one computer to another
6
Data Center Network
7
Status Quo: Virtual Switch in Server
8
Top-of-Rack Architecture
• Rack of servers
– Commodity servers
– And top-of-rack switch
• Modular design
– Preconfigured racks
– Power, network, and
storage cabling
• Aggregate to the next level
9
Modularity, Modularity, Modularity
• Containers
• Many containers
10
Data Center Network Topology
Internet
CR
AR
AR
S
S
S
S
S
…
CR
...
S
…
~ 1,000 servers/pod
AR
AR
...
•
•
•
•
Key
CR = Core Router
AR = Access Router
S = Ethernet Switch
A = Rack of app. servers
11
Capacity Mismatch
CR
CR
~ 200:1
AR
AR
AR
AR
S
S
S
S
S
S
~ 40:1
S
~ S5:1
…
S
S
…
...
S
…
S
…
12
Data-Center Routing
Internet
CR
DC-Layer 3
AR
AR
S
S
S
S
S
SS
CR
...
AR
AR
DC-Layer 2
S
…
S
S
…
~ 1,000 servers/pod == IP subnet
...
•
•
•
•
Key
CR = Core Router (L3)
AR = Access Router (L3)
S = Ethernet Switch (L2)
A = Rack of app. servers
13
Reminder: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3
• Ethernet switching (layer 2)
– Cheaper switch equipment
– Fixed addresses and auto-configuration
– Seamless mobility, migration, and failover
• IP routing (layer 3)
– Scalability through hierarchical addressing
– Efficiency through shortest-path routing
– Multipath routing through equal-cost multipath
• So, like in enterprises…
– Data centers often connect layer-2 islands by IP routers
14
Load Balancers
• Spread load over server replicas
– Present a single public address (VIP) for a service
– Direct each request to a server replica
10.10.10.1
Virtual IP (VIP)
192.121.10.1
10.10.10.2
10.10.10.3
15
Data Center Costs (Monthly Costs)
• Servers: 45%
– CPU, memory, disk
• Infrastructure: 25%
– UPS, cooling, power distribution
• Power draw: 15%
– Electrical utility costs
• Network: 15%
– Switches, links, transit
http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2008/11/28/CostOfPowerInLargeScaleDataCenters.aspx
16
Wide-Area Network
...
Servers
Router
DNS
Server
DNS-based
site selection
Data
Centers
...
Servers
Router
Internet
Clients
17
Wide-Area Network: Ingress Proxies
...
...
Data
Centers
Servers
Router
Proxy
Servers
Router
Proxy
Clients
18
Data Center Traffic Engineering
Challenges and Opportunities
19
Traffic Engineering Challenges
• Scale
– Many switches, hosts, and virtual machines
• Churn
– Large number of component failures
– Virtual Machine (VM) migration
• Traffic characteristics
– High traffic volume and dense traffic matrix
– Volatile, unpredictable traffic patterns
• Performance requirements
– Delay-sensitive applications
– Resource isolation between tenants
20
Traffic Engineering Opportunities
• Efficient network
– Low propagation delay and high capacity
• Specialized topology
– Fat tree, Clos network, etc.
– Opportunities for hierarchical addressing
• Control over both network and hosts
– Joint optimization of routing and server placement
– Can move network functionality into the end host
• Flexible movement of workload
– Services replicated at multiple servers and data centers
– Virtual Machine (VM) migration
21
VL2 Paper
Slides from Changhoon Kim (now at Microsoft)
22
Virtual Layer 2 Switch
CR
AR
1. L2 semantics
...
AR
2. Uniform high
S
S
capacity
S
S
…
S
S
…
CR
AR
AR
3. Performance
S
S
isolation
...
S
S
…
S
S
…
23
VL2 Goals and Solutions
Approach
Solution
1. Layer-2
semantics
Employ flat
addressing
Name-location
separation &
resolution service
2. Uniform
high capacity
between servers
Guarantee
bandwidth for
hose-model traffic
Flow-based random
traffic indirection
(Valiant LB)
Enforce hose model
using existing
mechanisms only
TCP
Objective
3. Performance
Isolation
“Hose”: each node has ingress/egress bandwidth constraints
24
Name/Location Separation
Cope with host churns with very little overhead
Switches run link-state routing and
maintain only switch-level topology
Directory
Service
• Allows to use low-cost switches
…
 ToR2
• Protects network and hosts from host-statexy churn
 ToR3
• Obviates host and switch reconfiguration
z  ToR34
ToR1 . . . ToR2
…
. . . ToR3 . . . ToR4
ToR3 y payload
ToR34 z payload
x
y,yz
Servers use flat names
z
Lookup &
Response
25
Clos Network Topology
Offer huge aggr capacity & multi paths at modest cost
Int
D
(# of 10G ports)
48
Aggr
96
144
. . . TOR
...
20
Servers
...
Max DC size
(# of Servers)
11,520
...
46,080
K aggr switches with D ports
103,680
......
........
20*(DK/4) Servers
26
Valiant Load Balancing: Indirection
Cope with arbitrary TMs with very little overhead
IANY
IANY
IANY
Links used
for up paths
[ ECMP + IP Anycast ]
Links used
for down paths
• Harness huge bisection bandwidth
• Obviate esoteric traffic engineering or optimization
• Ensure robustness to failures
• Work with switch mechanisms available today
T1
IANY T35
T2
T3
x
Must
spread
Equal 1.
Cost
Multi
Pathtraffic
Forwarding
y Must ensure dst
z independence
2.
yz payload
T4
T5
T6
27
VL2 vs. Seattle
• Similar “virtual layer 2” abstraction
– Flat end-point addresses
– Indirection through intermediate node
• Enterprise networks (Seattle)
– Hard to change hosts  directory on the switches
– Sparse traffic patterns  effectiveness of caching
– Predictable traffic patterns  no emphasis on TE
• Data center networks (VL2)
– Easy to change hosts  move functionality to hosts
– Dense traffic matrix  reduce dependency on caching
– Unpredictable traffic patterns  ECMP and VLB for TE
28
Ongoing Research
29
Research Questions
• What topology to use in data centers?
– Reducing wiring complexity
– Achieving high bisection bandwidth
– Exploiting capabilities of optics and wireless
• Routing architecture?
– Flat layer-2 network vs. hybrid switch/router
– Flat vs. hierarchical addressing
• How to perform traffic engineering?
– Over-engineering vs. adapting to load
– Server selection, VM placement, or optimizing routing
• Virtualization of NICs, servers, switches, …
30
Research Questions
• Rethinking TCP congestion control?
– Low propagation delay and high bandwidth
– “Incast” problem leading to bursty packet loss
• Division of labor for TE, access control, …
– VM, hypervisor, ToR, and core switches/routers
• Reducing energy consumption
– Better load balancing vs. selective shutting down
• Wide-area traffic engineering
– Selecting the least-loaded or closest data center
• Security
– Preventing information leakage and attacks
31
Discuss
32